Uvod: Metodologija učenja u medicinskoj nauci se brzo razvija, sa naglaskom na aktivno učešće studenata, korišćenjem inovativnih alata, kao što su Metakognitivni Problem–Bazirani (MCPB) moduli.
Cilj: studije bio je procjena stavova i iskustava studenata prema hibridnom modelu nastave i procjena njihove metakognitivne svjesnosti.
Metod: Studija je sprovedena na Katedri za higijenu Medicinskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Banjoj Luci, tokom nastave iz predmeta higijena u akademskoj 2024/25. godini. Studenti šeste godine medicine, učestvovali su u hibridnom modelu nastave (online predavanja, tradicionalna predavanja i MCPB moduli). Nakon završetka nastave, studenti su popunili upitnik koji je obuhvatao socio-demografske podatke i evaluaciju kursa i upitnik za procjenu metakognitivne svjesnosti (MAI). Na pitanja za evaluaciju i MAI odgovaralo se pomoću petostepene Likertove skale (1 = malo, 5 = odlično). Rezultati: Ukupno 43 studenta je pratilo predmet higijena, od kojih je 93,02% pratilo hibridni model učenja. Nakon završetka kursa, 55% studenata koji su pratili hibridni model su popunili upitnike. Većina studenata ocijenila je hibridni model nastave kao visoko zadovoljavajući (prosječna ocjena 4,05), dok su MCPB moduli ocijenjeni kao zadovoljavajući (prosječna ocjena 3,95). Analiza MAI pokazala je izraženo proceduralno (4,14), uslovno (3,90) i deklarativno (3,84) znanje o kogniciji. U oblasti regulacije kognicije, najviša ocjena zabilježena je za ispravljanje grešaka (4,13), a najniža za evaluaciju (3,73).
Zaključak: Rezultati su pokazali su pozitivan stav studenata prema primjeni hibridnog modela nastave. Studenti su pokazali visok nivo metakognitivne svjesnosti, posebno u proceduralnom znanju i regulaciji kognicije. Istraživanje ukazuje na potencijal hibridnog učenja za unaprjeđenje nastave iz oblasti preventivne medicine.
Ključne riječi: Hibridno učenje, MCPB moduli, MAI, Medicinsko obrazovanje, Evaluacija.
Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Irshad M, Abdulghani HM. Students’ perception towards the problem based learning tutorial session in a system-based hybrid curriculum. Saudi Medical Journal. 2015;36(3):341–8.
Bukumirić Z, Stanisavljević D, Milić N, Ćirković A, Milin-Lazović J, Savić M, et al. Assessing psychometric properties of the Serbian version of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Srpski medicinski casopis Lekarske komore. 2024;5(4):543–54.
4.
Abed SS, Al-Mansour M, Ahmed SN, Khan MA, Martin PN, Shah SW, et al. Evaluation of Problem-Based Learning in College of Medicine: An Indicator of Quality Education in a Hybrid Curriculum. Education Research International. 2023;2023:1–9.
5.
Qu M, Hou Q, Yu C, Li X, Xia J, Dong Z. Application and evaluation of the hybrid “Problem-Based Learning” model based on “Rain Classroom” in experimental courses of medical molecular biology. Frontiers in Medicine. 11.
6.
Bukumiric Z, Ilic A, Pajcin M, Srebro D, Milicevic S, Spaic D, et al. Effects of problem-based learning modules within blended learning courses in medical statistics – A randomized controlled pilot study. PLOS ONE. 17(1):e0263015.
7.
Tong DH, Uyen BP, Ngan LK. The effectiveness of blended learning on students’ academic achievement, self-study skills and learning attitudes: A quasi-experiment study in teaching the conventions for coordinates in the plane. Heliyon. 2022;8(12):e12657.
8.
Kazu İY, Kurtoğlu Yalçın C. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Hybrid Learning on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2022;18(1):249–65.
9.
Ragni A, Ippolito D, Masci C. Assessing the impact of hybrid teaching on students’ academic performance via multilevel propensity score-based techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 2024;92:101824.
10.
Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorbets E. Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 22(8):e16504.
11.
Almulhem MA, Almulhem JA. Evaluation of Problem-Based Learning implementation in a College of Medicine, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a cross sectional comparative study. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1).
12.
Kallio H, Virta K, Kallio M. Modelling the Components of Metacognitive Awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 7(2):94.
13.
Li KC, Wong BTM, Kwan R, Chan HT, Wu MMF, Cheung SKS. Evaluation of Hybrid Learning and Teaching Practices: The Perspective of Academics. Sustainability. 15(8):6780.
14.
Albarrak AI, Zakaria N, Almulhem J, Khan SA, Karim NA. Modified team-based and blended learning perception: a cohort study among medical students at King Saud University. BMC Medical Education. 2021;21(1).
15.
Gross S, Wunderlich K, Arpagaus A, Becker C, Gössi F, Bissmann B, et al. Effectiveness of blended learning to improve medical students’ communication skills: a randomized, controlled trial. BMC Medical Education. 25(1).
16.
Tuononen T, Hyytinen H, Räisänen M, Hailikari T, Parpala A. Metacognitive awareness in relation to university students’ learning profiles. Metacognition and Learning. 2023;18(1):37–54.
17.
Chan CWH, Tang FWK, Chow KM, Wong CL. Enhancing generic capabilities and metacognitive awareness of first-year nursing students using active learning strategy. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1).
18.
Zavadskiy SP, Materenchuk MYu, Sologova SS, Bazanova GYu, Kashapov MM, Korol LA, et al. Metacognitive awareness of pharmacists at different stages of the educational continuum: a comparative study. Frontiers in Education. 10.
19.
MacKewn A, Depriest T, Donavant B. Metacognitive Knowledge, Regulation, and Study Habits. Psychology. 2022;13(12):1811–21.
20.
Dolintling PP, Pang V. The mediation effect of knowledge cognition and regulation cognition on mathematics classroom climate and students achievement. IJEAP. 2022(4).
21.
Putri A, Eriyanti RW, Roefiq A, Hudha AM. Students’ metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI) of English language education study program. JCP. 2024;10(1):31–49.
22.
Young ME, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Gordon D, Gruppen LD, Rencic J, et al. Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20(1).
23.
Stambuk‐Castellano M, Carrera A, Tubbs RS, Alario‐Hoyos C, Verdú E, Iwanaga J, et al. Personalized strategies for academic success in learning anatomy: Exploring metacognitive and technological adaptation in medical students. Clinical Anatomy. 2024;37(4):472–83.
24.
Xuan Nguyen K, Viet Tran T, Duc Nghiem T, Ngoc Tran T, Ba Ta T, Van Nguyen B, et al. Relationship Between Metacognitive Awareness of Undergraduate Students and Students’ Academic Performance at Vietnam Military Medical University. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. Volume 14:791–801.
25.
Versteeg M, Bressers G, Wijnen-Meijer M, Ommering BWC, de Beaufort AJ, Steendijk P. What Were You Thinking? Medical Students’ Metacognition and Perceptions of Self-Regulated Learning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2021;33(5):473–82.
26.
Merkebu J, Veen M, Hosseini S, Varpio L. The case for metacognitive reflection: a theory integrative review with implications for medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2024;29(4):1481–500.
27.
Siqueira MAM, Gonçalves JP, Mendonça VS, Kobayasi R, Arantes-Costa FM, Tempski PZ, et al. Relationship between metacognitive awareness and motivation to learn in medical students. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20(1).
28.
Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM. Strategies for Improving Learner Metacognition in Health Professional Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2017;81(4):78.
29.
Chan CWH, Tang FWK, Chow KM, Wong CL. Enhancing generic capabilities and metacognitive awareness of first-year nursing students using active learning strategy. BMC Nursing. 2021;20(1).
30.
Royce CS, Hayes MM, Schwartzstein RM. Teaching Critical Thinking: A Case for Instruction in Cognitive Biases to Reduce Diagnostic Errors and Improve Patient Safety. Academic Medicine. 2019;94(2):187–94.
31.
Misbah S, Mashhadi SF, Urooj M, Parveen M, Aslam MS, Bilal MH, et al. Metacognitive Skills and Academic Performance among Medical Students-An Analytical Cross Sectional Survey. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal. 72(SUPPL-4):S713-18.
32.
Thamrin T, Hutasuhut S, Aditia R, Putri FR. The effectiveness of the hybrid learning materials with the application of problem based learning model (Hybryd-PBL) to improve learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. IJORER. 2022;3(1):124–34.
33.
Tweed M, Wilkinson T. Student progress decision-making in programmatic assessment: can we extrapolate from clinical decision-making and jury decision-making? BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1).
34.
Ford JK, Weissbein DA, Smith EM, Gully SM, Salas E. Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83:218–33.
35.
Cho KK, Marjadi B, Langendyk V, Hu W. Medical student changes in self-regulated learning during the transition to the clinical environment. BMC Medical Education. 2017;17(1).
36.
Cornford IR. Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. Int J Lifelong Educ. 2002;21:357–68.
37.
Dunphy BC, Cantwell R, Bourke S, Fleming M, Smith B, Joseph KS, et al. Cognitive elements in clinical decision-making. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2010;15(2):229–50.
38.
Fedorets VM, Klochko OV, Klochko VI, Berezhna TI, Ivanytsia HA. Methodological aspects of revealing the metacognitive potential of a teacher in the context of the development of his health-preserving competence. SHS Web of Conferences. 2022;142:03007.
39.
D’Ambrosio LM. A modular activity to support knowledge retention, application, and metacognition in undergraduate immunology. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 2024;25(3).
40.
Perry J, Lundie D, Golder G. Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review. 2019;71(4):483–500.
41.
Hui X. A Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Metacognitive Intervention in Physical Education Teaching. Advances in Intelligent Systems Research. 2024. p. 888–94.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
