Student Preferences for Microbiology Laboratory Teaching Approaches in a Problem-Based Learning Curriculum
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background Microbiology is a mandatory component in all medical schools. The microbiology lab sessions at Arabian Gulf University focus on students' ability to demonstrate pre-identified laboratory competencies and relate laboratory data with clinical scenarios. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey among undergraduates to know the preferences with respect to delivery methods for optimally facilitating learning for each laboratory sessions. Methods The participants were year 3 and 4 medical students who were engaged in microbiology laboratory instruction as part of their undergraduate medical education. All the participants were asked to complete the structured and validated survey (Google form). Descriptive statistics were used to examine the demographic characteristics of the participants and their responses to the scale items. Results Among 168 student responses, the majority preferred a blended mode of learning of lab sessions across all the three years. The preferences were based on the lab objectives where the students preferred theoretical aspects, case discussions may be conducted online while the skill development sessions may be conducted face to face. Conclusion The overall trend indicated that students valued the flexibility of blended learning while recognizing the importance of in-person sessions for achieving laboratory competencies and clinical application skills. These findings will support future research in evaluating various delivery methods and contribute to the advancement of high-quality microbiology education.
Article activity feed
-
-
I am pleased to tell you that your article has now been accepted for publication in Access Microbiology.
-
-
Thank you for submitting your paper to Access Microbiology. It has now been reviewed and I would like you to revise the paper in line with the reviewers' reports
-
Comments to Author
The study was detailed in that specific questions were asked for each lab session over three years of study. The specific results are probably most relevant to the faculty at AGU, as they have a more thorough understanding of the specific labs, but in the wake of the COVID pandemic, general student preferences for online or blended learning should appeal to a larger audience. Additionally, similar studies could be replicated at home institutions using institutional-specific labs. Specific comments/suggestions are provided below. Please include specific and constructive comments on each of the following criteria: 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data Line 38: "Descriptive statistics were used to examine the demographic characteristics of the participants and …
Comments to Author
The study was detailed in that specific questions were asked for each lab session over three years of study. The specific results are probably most relevant to the faculty at AGU, as they have a more thorough understanding of the specific labs, but in the wake of the COVID pandemic, general student preferences for online or blended learning should appeal to a larger audience. Additionally, similar studies could be replicated at home institutions using institutional-specific labs. Specific comments/suggestions are provided below. Please include specific and constructive comments on each of the following criteria: 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data Line 38: "Descriptive statistics were used to examine the demographic characteristics of the participants and their responses to the scale items" It is not clear to me how this was done and where it was discussed in the manuscript. I suggest adding more detail to the text on this aspect or deleting the line from the abstract. Line 327: The raw survey data is included in an Excel file. It would also be helpful to include a table in the SM that shows the numerical percentages that gave the heat maps in Figures 1-3. The heat maps are great for seeing overall trends, but some readers may wish to see the actual numbers. 2. Presentation of results Line 136: The use of the word "equal" is confusing here. In line 134, there are n=32 year 4 students and in line 136 there are n=41 year 4 students (which are not equal). I would suggest rewording to avoid confusion. Tables 1-3: Is "justified" the preferred alignment for tables? I found it hard to read. Line 154: The use of "A similar trend" is confusing. While the Year 4 results were similar (n=36 vs n=37 for blended), the Year 3 results are not (n=33 for online vs n=33 for face-to-face) 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings Line 41: "The preferences were…conducted face to face." This sentence was hard to follow…I suggest editing or breaking it into two sentences. Line 95: "According to Boelens et al…" this sentence seems out of place. I suggest adding more of a transition or moving it somewhere else Line 214: The use of n=7/9 in parenthesis after "Students" is confusing because n refers to the number of labs, not the number of students. I suggest editing for clarity. Perhaps: "Students preferred most of the Year 3 labs (n=7/9 for year 3 students and n=9/9 for year 4 students) to be taught in a blended format." Lines 276, 277, 279: I suggest removing contractions for a more formal tone. 4. Literature analysis or discussion Medical education does not universally begin at the undergraduate level. To make the article more accessible for an international audience, the authors could add a short section describing the typical medical student educational pathway at AGU. Is there additional training after the 4 undergraduate years? Line 55: replace "technique" with "instructional technique" Line 56: While reference 2 was on the topic of PBL, it was unclear in that reference where it established that that PBL was first used to teach medicine in the 1950s. Double-check that this is the best reference to use for this statement. Also, part of the middle author's name is missing from reference 2. Line 57: I suggest adding the year of AGU's founding to this sentence. Line 83: To what extent have the students in the survey experienced each educational modality? The students are giving their preferences, but how often have they experienced a "blended" lab, for instance? Line 287 states that the students "had exposure to all the delivery methods", but some general figures would be helpful for context. Are 90% of the labs that they experienced face-to-face or 50%? Are the rough percentages the same for both the 3rd and 4th year students? You could consider adding a table that lists each lab activity with the modality/modalities used for the cohort of students in the survey. Line 195: "Various research has predominantly concentrated on evaluating the effectiveness…" I suggest adding some references at the end of this sentence. You reference studies later in the discussion, but several of those could also be referenced here. Line 223: I would add a reference to article 15 to this sentence, earlier in the discussion from where it is currently (line 230). Line 225: You could state: "Students in that study…" for clarity Line 271-273: Reference 7 is used at the end of this paragraph, which seems to be focused on online aspects. The Jeopardy-like activity in reference 7 appears to be face-to-face, given statements such as "teams competed for the chance to answer questions based on whose hand was raised first" from that reference. As currently placed, lines 271-273 seem to offer support for the effectiveness of online sessions, which could be misleading. I suggest clarifying that reference 7 was face-to-face or moving these lines to the "face-to-face" paragraph below (starting line 274) and/or finding a different reference. 5. Any other relevant comments Line 34: should "sessions" be singular here? Line 49: Should "lab" and "preferences" be combined into one term? Why are there accent marks on preferences? Line 66: comma after "discussions" Line 167: capitalize "table 3" Line 205: Since "gram stain" references a technique named for Hans Christian Gram, I suggest capitalizing "Gram" Line 237: Whereas, [insert comma] Line 238: et al. [insert period] Line 241: Add space before "appropriate" Line 247: insert "for" before "the face-to-face…" Line 279: Add a comma after "therefore" Line 280: You could add "blended" before "course" for clarity Line 282: Remove the word "with"
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
General comments: This paper addresses an issue that many universities are struggling with - namely the lack of resources (either physical or in terms of instructor capacity) to teach entirely face-to-face. I think it is very reasonable to be looking at alternatives, and especially to gauge the student's opinions before making any major changes. The research objectives were clearly stated and were met to a satisfactory level using the questionnaire to gather student opinion efficiently. It would have been nice to include open questions to allow students to expand on their opinions. To address the issues raised at the end of the discussion, it would be interesting to look back at these results when comparing student grades before and after introducing a new 'blended' approach, to see if there is a …
Comments to Author
General comments: This paper addresses an issue that many universities are struggling with - namely the lack of resources (either physical or in terms of instructor capacity) to teach entirely face-to-face. I think it is very reasonable to be looking at alternatives, and especially to gauge the student's opinions before making any major changes. The research objectives were clearly stated and were met to a satisfactory level using the questionnaire to gather student opinion efficiently. It would have been nice to include open questions to allow students to expand on their opinions. To address the issues raised at the end of the discussion, it would be interesting to look back at these results when comparing student grades before and after introducing a new 'blended' approach, to see if there is a difference in student learning. The methods are well explained in enough detail, and the supplementary information is comprehensive. There are sufficient figures (although I have included a comment below on a suggested edit to make them easier to interpret) that support the paper. While the paper states that it has a small sample size, it is still impressive to get 168 responses on any kind of survey, and it seems that there is quite an agreement among students, supporting the paper's conclusions. Overall, the content of this paper is of interest to a specific audience - while the results will be the most useful to the faculty in AGU, I believe that others will benefit from this glimpse into student mindset around approaches to teaching. Significant changes or comments to address: Line 203: How much are physical lab skills required for this degree? Are the students aware of what they might be missing out on by opting for online learning? How can you guarantee that student learning will not be negatively impacted by reducing face-to-face laboratory sessions? I agree that it is important to know how the students feel about this style of teaching, but it is also important, as the instructors, to identify which skills you feel can only be learned face-to-face, or else are required to be learned to a particular standard. I would like to see this commented on if possible. It would be sensible to acknowledge the difficulties of ensuring that students are engaging with the online content if you plan to bring in blended learning approaches The discussion is a very extensive review of the literature, but I think it goes back and forth a lot - it could be a lot more concise (and use more paragraphs). The same points are made several times using different papers, which could be synthesised more efficiently. In general the conclusion focusses strongly on the literature and whether blended is the best type, which is fair, but I would also like to see some comments on how specifically the teaching at AGU is going to adapt in response to this questionnaire - what methods would the authors recommend to try, based off the results and the previous literature? Otherwise, the discussion is a little vague. Minor Issues: Line 54: I take slight issue with the language choice of 'Most innovative' when talking about PBL - where is the proof for this being the most innovative? Line 56: Some issues with language - 'introduced since the inception'? Line 76: Unsure what a vignette is, could this be described/explained? Line 83: I am a little confused as to the link to reference 7 at this point is - the previous sentences are referring to changes made by the specific university (AGU) to meet issues with space, but the reference of Blewett and Kisamore is about OSU-CHS. Figures: It would be helpful if you could include a column in the tables to indicate what the students concluded from each session, so that we don't have to keep scrolling up and down Lines 175-178: Sentences are repetitive, kind of saying the same thing Line 186: Was chi-square the only statistical test done? Lines 230-232: Sentences are repetitive - kind of saying the same thing Line 247: sentence is missing word Line 253: Could do with better explanation for what the two lab delivery designs were Line 269 - 271: This reads more like content for the introduction as it is setting up the need for this change Line 279: I would delete 'so' or replace with something like 'very' I think it would be useful to define what is meant by 'virtual laboratories' across this paper - are the authors referring to online videos or fully VR labs? Does this also include Lab Sims?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes