Effectiveness of the Standardized Patient (SP) and Case-Based Learning (CBL) in Teaching Cell Biology to College Students Majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology

 

Tianxin Sheng^1,2*, Mingxian Wang¹, Qiufang Hu¹, Hongyan Ling¹, Sihan Chen¹

¹Department of Medicine, Leshan Vocational and Technical College, Leshan, Sichuan 614013, China

 

Abstract:

Background: For improving students’ learning effect, various teaching methods were adopted in teaching various subjects in classes in medical colleges. Aim: The purpose of this study is to verify the effectiveness of the standardized patient (SP) and case-based learning (CBL) in teaching Cell Biology to college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology. Materials and methods: A total of 84 college students were divided into case and control groups which were taught in ways with and without SP and CBL, and the differences of effectiveness were evaluated. Results: The mean final score of the students in case group is higher than that in control group. Conclusion: SP and CBL are significantly beneficial in boosting the students’ performances in learning the selected subject.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Cell Biology is a subject of basic sciences for college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology, aiming at enabling students to master the basic concepts, principles, and skills in cell biology. The subject and its supporting textbooks are mainly about theories which have little connections with clinical practice. Students often find it boring and difficult to understand in the process of learning. Therefore, introducing more real clinical cases in the subject may stimulate students' interest in learning and boost their ability of applying the theoretical knowledge in cell biology to clinical practice, and further to improve the students' professional qualities.

 

In the last year of study, college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology will enter to medical institutions for their internship. The environmental transition from school to hospital will bring great pressure to the students. In hospital, those the students manly have to face are patients, whereas in school, they are teachers. While in hospital, the students are supposed to use their clinical skills, whereas in school, they are mainly taught with theoretical knowledge especially in the first year of their study. Therefore, how to boost the students' performance in the subject with any possible teaching method is a problem that the educators have to consider of.

 

This study aims to explore the effectiveness of the 2 currently popular teaching methods - standardized patient (SP) and case-based learning (CBL) - in teaching Cell Biology to college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology.

 

In order to improve the teaching efficacy of Cell Biology, scientists had made many useful attempts and achieved satisfactory results. For instance, Ping et al. believed that the combination of several teaching methods including case study, group collaboration, class discussion, and making posters and concept maps, etc. is beneficial to the teaching of Cell Biology [1]. Hong deemed that the key to improving the teaching efficacy of Cell Biology is to switch the teaching style from teacher-centered to student-centered [2]. Stith believed that the application of animation will contribute to the teaching efficacy of Cell Biology [3]. Hande et al.'s study indicated that the interactive classroom is conducive to improving students' interest in learning Cell Biology and so that to improving teaching efficacy [4].

 

This paper is focusing on the application of SP and CBL in teaching Cell Biology for college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology and their effectiveness in boosting the students' performance in the subject.

 

SP may be a real patient or a simulated patient. The advantage of using SP in teaching subjects related to medicine has been proved in many previous researches. Austin et al. found that SP played an important role in objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for pharmaceutical students [5]. Turan et al.'s research showed that SP's feedback can effectively reduce students' anxiety about tests and improve their self-efficacy [6]. Haeseler et al. took 3rd year medical students as the subjects of research and adopted SP-based incentive interview course to effectively improve students' ability of motivating patients [7]. And Smithson et al. summarized the role of SP in the teaching subjects in the major of pharmacy [8].

 

CBL has long been widely adopted by business school and law school, but in medical school it is still in the exploratory phase and had been validated by numerous studies. Curran et al. investigated 520 undergraduates majoring in health sciences and showed that students' satisfaction with CBL was higher than that of other teaching methods [9]. According to Williams, CBL is an amazing teaching method that can stimulate students' scientific research potential [10]. Based on the summary of 104 related papers, Thistlethwaite et al. concluded that students generally like the teaching method of CBL and believe that it can promote their learning [11]. According to Mclean's study of 70 related papers, CBL can be used to effectively improve students' clinical knowledge, clinical skills, practical performance, teamwork ability, and patients' satisfaction [12].

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Subjects:

A total of 84 college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology in Leshan Vocational and Technical College from class 2016 and class 2017 were selected. Among them, 37 were from class 2016 and enrolled in control group which adopts lecture-based and experiment-based teaching, while 47 were from class 2017 and enrolled in case group which adopts SP and CBL. All subjects have given their informed consents.

 

Educational Implementation:

8 cases each with a distinctive disease related to an aspect of knowledge in Cell Biology were selected and used in class teaching and discussion. Since most diseases related to Cell Biology are rare diseases and often with obvious symptoms, therefore the cases are difficult to be found in hospitals and simulated by trained staff, all the case files are derived from Internet but real. The related diseases and their corresponding knowledge in Cell Biology are shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Diseases and their corresponding knowledge in Cell Biology

Disease	Knowledge in Cell Biology
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 2 (ALS2)	Alsin and endosome
Alzheimer's disease (AD)	τ protein and cytoskeleton
Apert syndrome	Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and apoptosis
Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS)	Lamin A and nucleus
Mucolipidosis II (ML II)	N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) 1-phosphate transferase (GNPT) and Golgi apparatus
Ceroid Lipofuscinosis, Neural, 3 (CLN3)	Battenin and lysosome
Peroxisome Biogenesis Disorder 1A (PBD1A)	peroxisome biogenesis factor 1 (PEX1) and peroxisome
Treacher Collins syndrome 1 (TCS1)	Treacle and ribosome

 

Data Management and Statistics:

Data storage and management, Mean, standard deviation (SD), and t-test were calculated with Microsoft Excel 2013 and p = 0.05 was set as the statistical threshold.

Evaluation Method:

The evaluation is based on the students' final scores including ordinary performance accounted for 20%, training performance accounted for 20%, and final examination accounted for 60%. The format of the final examination is composed of all multiple choice questions combining 3 parts: 1. basic knowledge questions accounted for 60% to testing the students' understanding of basic concepts and principles, 2. material reading questions accounted for 30% to testing the students' ability of reading and understanding professional literature, 3. case analysis questions accounted for 10% to testing students' understanding and diagnostic ability of related diseases.

 

RESULTS:

Mean ± SD of the final scores of the students in the 2 groups were calculated and compared, as shown in table 2.

 

Table 2: comparison of the final scores of the students in control and case groups

Group	Mean ± SD	p value
Control group	75.4 ± 8.1	0.0159
Case group	79.3 ± 6.1

 

CONCLUSION:

The result of the objective evaluation shows that the average final score of the students in the case group is higher than that in the control group (p = 0.159). Therefore, the teaching methods of SP and CBL are more effective than the traditional teaching methods.

 

DISCUSSION:

For the college students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology, their future career will be related to human life, so among all aspects of their qualities, professional quality is especially important. For educators, we have the responsibility and obligation to help those students to master not only the knowledge in basic science but also the skills in clinical practice. Adopting SP and CBL in education can just achieve this goal. And furthermore, since the actual situation may be different for teaching different subjects to students in different majors, educators are suggested of using any teaching method as long as it is beneficial to the students.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

This study was funded by the Leshan Vocational and Technical College (JG2018011).

 

REFERENCES:

1.        Ping C. Teaching cell biology in a medical course in China: Applying appropriate methods. China Pap. 2003;48–52.

2.        Hong N. A review and recognition of teaching strategies in Cell Biology: A shift to student-centred teaching. China Pap. 2004;67–72.

3.        Stith BJ. Use of Animation in Teaching Cell Biology. Cell Biol Educ. 2004;3:181–8.

4.        Hande S, Hande M. A Handy Interactive Class For Teaching Introductory Cell Biology. J Eff Teach. 2009;9:48–53.

5.        Austin Z, Gregory P, Tabak D. Simulated Patients vs. Standardized Patients in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70:Article 119.

6.        Turan S, Üner S, Elçin M. The Impact of Standardized Patients’ Feedback on the Students’ Motivational Levels. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2009;1:9–11.

7.        Haeseler F, Fortin VI AH, Pfeiffer C, Walters C, Martino S. Assessment of a motivational interviewing curriculum for year 3 medical students using a standardized patient case. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:27–30.

8.        Smithson J, Bellingan M, Glass B, Mills J. Standardized patients in pharmacy education: An integrative literature review. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. Elsevier; 2015;7:851–63.

9.        Curran VR, Sharpe D, Forristall J, Flynn K. Student satisfaction and perceptions of small group process in case-based interprofessional learning. Med Teach. 2008;30:431–3.

10.      Williams B. Case based learning - a review of the literature: is there scope for this educational paradigm in prehospital education? Emerg Med J. 2005;22:577–81.

11.      Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34:e421–44.

12.      McLean SF. Case-Based Learning and its Application in Medical and Health-Care Fields: A Review of Worldwide Literature. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016;2016:39–49.

 

Received on 04.08.2019       Modified on 23.08.2019 Accepted on 07.09.2019      ©A&V Publications All right reserved Research J. Science and Tech. 2019; 11(4):265-267. DOI: 10.5958/2349-2988.2019.00037.8