Effect of Conducting Seminars as a Revision Strategy in Physiology Among First-Year MBBS Students: A Single-Group Pre-Test–Post-Test Quasi-Experimental Study.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51168/dc411g64Keywords:
Self-directed learning, MBBS, Student-led seminars, Medical Physiology, Medical education, Peer-assisted learningAbstract
Background: Student-led seminars promote active learning, peer interaction, and self-directed learning in medical education. However, evidence regarding their effectiveness as a revision strategy in undergraduate physiology education remains limited.
Methods: A single-group pre-test–post-test quasi-experimental study was conducted over 10 months among 150 first-year MBBS students in the Department of Physiology, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Student-led seminars were organized to revise previously taught physiology topics. Knowledge was assessed using pre-test and post-test questionnaires, each carrying a maximum score of 10 marks. Students’ perceptions were evaluated using a 10-item structured Yes/No questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a paired-samples t-test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Results: All 150 participants completed the assessments, yielding a 100% response rate. The mean knowledge score increased significantly from 5.24 ± 1.12 in the pre-test to 8.45 ± 0.95 in the post-test, representing a mean improvement of 3.21 marks (t = 28.64; p < 0.001). Regarding student perceptions, 98.7% recognized the teaching role of doctors, 96.7% considered the acquired skills beneficial for future learning, and 93.3% reported improved awareness of diseases associated with physiological concepts. Furthermore, 92.0% reported enhanced understanding, 90.7% indicated better conceptual clarity, and 80.0% reported reduced fear of public speaking.
Conclusion: Student-led revision seminars represent a promising supplementary educational strategy in undergraduate physiology, supporting active participation, knowledge consolidation, and the development of communication skills. The observed improvement in academic performance and favorable student perceptions suggest their potential value in medical education.
Recommendation: Incorporating structured student-led seminars into routine physiology revision activities may be beneficial. Further controlled, multicentre studies with long-term assessments are recommended to establish their independent effectiveness and impact on knowledge retention.
References
1. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(23):8410-5. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
2. Michael J. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30(4):159-67. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
3. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1057-68. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03750.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03750.x
4. Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561-72. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153 https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153
5. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):591-9. doi:10.1080/01421590701606799 https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701606799
6. Yu TC, Wilson NC, Singh PP, Lemanu DP, Hawken SJ, Hill AG. Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011;2:157-72. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S14383 https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S14383
7. Dandavino M, Snell L, Wiseman J. Why medical students should learn how to teach. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):558-65. doi:10.1080/01421590701477449
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701477449
8. Dixit SG, Singh B, Potaliya P, Ghatak S. The experiences of medical graduates to peer teaching in a large group. Ann Natl Acad Med Sci (India). 2019;55(1):28-33. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1694084 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1694084
9. Shekharappa KR, Tejaswi CN, Patil SS, Lakshmikanth BM. Microteaching revisited! A tool for improving undergraduate student seminars. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2021;64(Suppl 1):S70-5. doi:10.25259/IJPP_283_2020 https://doi.org/10.25259/IJPP_283_2020
10. Ambade R, Sagdeo M, Gade S. Medical students' perception about various methods of learning physiology in a medical college in Central India. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2019;63(1):49-53.
11. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT. Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013;14(1):4-58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
12. Evans DJR, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227-33. doi:10.1002/ase.110
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.110
13. Chase CC, Chin DB, Oppezzo MA, Schwartz DL. Teachable agents and the prot�g� effect: increasing the effort towards learning. J Sci Educ Technol. 2009;18(4):334-52. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4
14. Fiorella L, Mayer RE. The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2013;38(4):281-8. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001
15. Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:115. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-115
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-115
16. Rees EL, Quinn PJ, Davies B, Fotheringham V. How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):829-37. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112888 https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112888
17. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):107-12. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02036.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02036.x
18. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959-66. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. P. Jersey Shiny, Dr. Naveen Bhartia Porwal, Dr. B. R. Sreedevi, Dr. Y. Raghu Srinivas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
