LEARNING OBJECTIVE OF THE ANATOMY CIRCULATION SYSTEM FOR THE MEDICAL STUDENTS: A DELPHI STUDY

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.48768

Marwatunnisa Al Mubarokah(1*), Siti Munawaroh(2), Yunia Hastami(3), Nanang Wiyono(4)

(1) Program Studi Kedokteran, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta – INDONESIA
(2) Departemen Anatomi, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta – INDONESIA
(3) Departemen Anatomi, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta – INDONESIA
(4) Departemen Anatomi, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta – INDONESIA
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: Anatomy is basic science that is important for preclinical students, clinics, and specialists. The development of medical science led to a reduced allocation of learning time in Anatomy. The imbalance between the amount of learning material with time allocation makes various effective teaching methods carried out and examined. The learning objectives guide the faculty in selecting teaching methods as well as appropriate evaluation to measure the progress of student understanding. This study aims to obtain detailed anatomical learning objectives regarding the circulation system for medical students as part of the development of the medical curriculum in Indonesia.

Method: This research is qualitative research with the modified Delphi method. The research subjects were anatomy lecturers in Indonesia who. The first round of the Delphi questionnaire was filled out by selecting the Bloom cognition domain between C1-C6 and the respondent composing the sentence of learning objectives according to the core material. The second round of respondents was asked to choose an important level from each point of learning objectives on the Likert Scale 1-4. The consensus level chosen is that 60% of the panel chooses on level 3 or 4.The results of the second round are then processed to ensure the most appropriate selection of operational verbs and cognitive domains.

Results: The first Delphi round resulted in 74 learning objectives from 110 core material points with the cognitive domain between C1-C3. While the second round, Delphi generates 59 learning objectives. The third round which was not part of the Delphi method, these results were then consulted to anatomists of the circulatory system and came up with the 32 learning objectives.

Conclusion: The learning objectives of the circulation system that need to be known are 32 learning objectives, with cognitive domains varying between C1-C3, include cor, pericardium, mediastinum, arteries, veins, lymphatics system, prenatal and postnatal circulation, dan hepatic portal  system.

 

Keywords: anatomy of circulatory system, Delphi method, anatomy learning objectives, lecturer consensus

 


Keywords


anatomy of circulatory system, Delphi method, anatomy learning objectives, lecturer consensus

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Hirt B, Shiozawa T. Clinical anatomy as a modern concept for 21st century teaching, postgraduate education, and research. Kistato Medical Journal. 2013; 43: 99–103
  2. Vorstenbosch MATM, Kooloos JGM, Bolhuis SM, Laan RFJM. An investigation of anatomical competence in junior medical doctors. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2016; 9: 8-17.
  3. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Sur Engl. 2007; 89: 104–107.
  4. Alhagh EA, Sarbishegi M, Barfroshan S, Abedi A. Medical students knowledge about clinical importance and effective teaching methods of anatomy. Shiraz E-Med J.2017; 18(12):e14316.
  5. Bergman EM, Prince KJAH, Drukker J, Van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA. How much anatomy is enough ?. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2008;1: 184-188.
  6. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences :The winds of change continue to blow. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2009; 2: 253–259.
  7. Satheesha NP. Teaching human anatomy in the medical curriculum: A trend review. International Journal of Advanced Research. 2017; 5 (4): 445-448.
  8. Smith CF, et al. Anatomical Society core regional anatomy syllabus for undergraduate medicine: The Delphi process. Journal of Anatomy. 2016; 228 (1): 2-14
  9. Craig SJ, Tait N, Mcandrew DJ. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg., 2010; 80: 212–216.
  10. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clinical Anatomy. 2011; 24: 489-497
  11. Munawaroh S, Rahayu GR, Suryadi E, Mada UG. Identification of Anatomy Contents for Medical Students Using Delphi Technique. 2017; 6(2):98–107.
  12. Swamy M, Venkatachalam S, McLachlan J. A Delphi consensus study to identify current clinically most valuable orthopaedic anatomy components for teaching medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:230.
  13. Musfidasari AA, Munawaroh S, Wiyono N, Hastami Y. Anatomy lecturer's consensus concerning the learning objectives of the respiratory system for medical students. Procedings of the 2nd ICO-HELICS. 2019; 51-59.
  14. Utami TH. Indikator dan tujuan pembelajaran dalam rencana pelaksanaan pembelajaran. Prosiding seminar nasional MIPA. 2010; 1-4
  15. Bonaci CG, Mustata RV, Ienciu A. Revisiting bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. The Macrotheme Review AMultidisciplinary Journal of Global Macro Trends. 2013; 2(4): 144–160.
  16. Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice. 2002; 41 (4).
  17. Munawaroh S, Hanifa FM, Wiyono N, Hastami Y, Kartikasari MND, Hermasari BK. Delphi technique: consensus of anatomy circulatory system core syllabus for medical student. Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia, 2018; 7(2): 107-117.
  18. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies.PLoS Medicine, 2011; 8(1).
  19. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Lustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6(6).
  20. Halima I. Anatomy “Peer Teaching” in Medical School: A Literature review. MedEdPublish. 2016. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2016.000033
  21. Trevelyan GE, Robinson, N. Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it?. Europan Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2015; 7: 423-428.
  22. Shariff NJ. Utilizing the Delphi survey approach: A Review.Journal of Nursing Care. 2015; 4 (3): 1–6.
  23. Lilly LS. Pathophysiology of heart disease: a collaborative project of medical students and faculty. Baltimore, MD, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2016
  24. KKI. Standar Kompetensi Dokter Indonesia (SKDI). 2nd ed. Indonesia: Konsil Kedokteran Indonesia. 2012
  25. Drake RL, Vogl W & Mitchell AWM. Gray's Anatomy for Student. Elsevier. 2014
  26. Junior RS, Magliari MER, Lopez JMA. Mediastinal diseaseL clinical and therapeutic aspects. J.pneumolgia. 2003; 29(4). Doi:10.1590/s0102-35862003000400007
  27. Cho JK, Hyun SH, Choi N, Kim MJ, Padera TP, Choi JY& Jeong HS. Significance of lymph node metastasis in cancer dissemination of head and neck cancer. Translational oncology, 2015; 8(2), 119-25.
  28. Cross C. Lymphadenitis. Comperhensive Pediatric Hospital medicine. 2007; 201-204
  29. Guyton AC, Hall JE. Buku Ajar Fisiologi Kedokteran. Edisi 11. Penterjemah: Irawati, Ramadani D, Indriyani F. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kedokteran EGC. 2006
  30. Moore KL, Dalley AF. Clinically oriented anatomy. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 1999



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.48768

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 2640 | views : 14075

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Marwatunnisa Al Mubarokah, Siti Munawaroh, Yunia Hastami, Nanang Wiyono

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  

 JPKI Stats