Contribution of Active Learning Methods in Large-GroupTeaching of Medical Microbiology

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 21, 2026
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v104i06.6300
Download
PDF
Vol. 104 No. 06 (2026): Tunis Med Jun 2026

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Yosra Chebbi
Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia
Siwar Frigui
Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia
Anis Raddaoui
Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia
Wafa Achour
Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Abstract

Introduction: Incorporating certain active pedagogy techniques in traditional large-group teaching enhances the quality of learning. The objective of our study was to compare large-group teaching through "modified lecture" enriched with practical illustrations to "interactive lecture" based on clinical cases and small group interactivity ("Buzz groups).
Methods: A prospective randomized study took place at the Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, including first-year students of the medical studies attending the "Bacterial Cell" course during the first semester of the academic year 2022-2023. Students were randomly assigned: two groups received a "modified lecture," and two groups received an "interactive lecture." Outcome measures included cognitive gain and satisfaction level.
Results: The overall cognitive gain (38.2% vs. 33%, p=0.058) was significant and comparable between the two methods. Overall satisfaction (75.6% vs. 73%, p=0.33) was also comparable. However, the "modified lecture" was better in terms of satisfaction for the criteria "teaching framework"
(p=0.008), "educational material" (p=0.003) and "balance between theory and practice" (p<0.0001). Conversely, the "interactive lecture" was better in terms of satisfaction for the criterion "personal involvement during the session" 65.4% vs 83.8%, p<0.0001).
Conclusion: Both teaching methods were effective in terms of cognitive gain and student satisfaction.

Keywords:

Active learning, Groups, Cognitive psychology, Information and communication technologies

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

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

Author Biographies

Yosra Chebbi, Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Service des laboratoires, Centre National de Greffe de Moelle Osseuse, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Université Tunis El Manar, Faculté de Médecine de Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Siwar Frigui, Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Service des laboratoires, Centre National de Greffe de Moelle Osseuse, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Université Tunis El Manar, Faculté de Médecine de Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Anis Raddaoui, Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Service des laboratoires, Centre National de Greffe de Moelle Osseuse, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Université Tunis El Manar, Faculté de Médecine de Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Wafa Achour, Laboratory Department, National Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Tunis, Faculty of Medicine, Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Service des laboratoires, Centre National de Greffe de Moelle Osseuse, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

Université Tunis El Manar, Faculté de Médecine de Tunis, LR18ES39, 1006, Tunis, Tunisie

References

  1. Vanpee D, Godin V, Lebrun M. Améliorer l’enseignement en grands groupes à la lumière de quelques principes de pédagogie active.
  2. Pédagog Méd. Fév 2008;9(1):32-41.
  3. Cantillon P. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Teaching large groups. BMJ. 2003 Feb;326(7386):437–40.
  4. Brown G, Manogue M. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 22: Refreshing lecturing: a guide for lecturers. Med Teach. 2001
  5. Jan;23(3):231–44.
  6. Bentata Y, Delfosse C. Peut-on améliorer la motivation des étudiants en médecine pour un cours fondamental de physiologie
  7. en intégrant à l’exposé magistral quelques méthodes pédagogiques actives ? Pan Afr Med J. Déc 2017;28:315.
  8. Baxter GP, Elder AD, Glaser R. Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educ Psychol.
  9. Apr;31(2):133–40.
  10. Kaufman DM. L’éducation centrée sur l’enseignant ou centrée sur l’apprenant : une fausse dichotomie. Pédagog Méd. Août
  11. ;3(3):145–7.
  12. Bligh DA. What’s the Use of Lectures? San Francisco: Intellect; 1998.
  13. Rysberg JA. Effects of Modifying Instruction in a College Classroom. Psychol Rep. 1986 Jun;58(3):965–6.
  14. Bernard J louis, Reyes P. Apprendre, en médecine (1re partie). Pédagog Méd. Août 2001;2(3):163–9.
  15. Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth. Manuel de pédagogie universitaire [En ligne]. 2020 [cité le 17 Nov 2023]. Consultable
  16. à l’URL: https://www.usj.edu.lb/mpu/manuel/ressources/pdf/ manuel_de_pedagogie_universitaire_2020.pdf
  17. Chaiyo Y, Nokham R. The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student’s perception in the classrooms response
  18. system. 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT) [En ligne]. 2017 Mar [cité le 29 Nov
  19. :178–82p. Consultable à l’URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7904957
  20. Mahler S, Neumann L, Tamir P. The class-size effect upon activity and cognitive dimensions of lessons in higher education. Assess
  21. Eval High Educ. 1986 Mar;11(1):43–59.
  22. Russell IJ, Hendricson WD, Herbert RJ. Effects of lecture information density on medical student achievement. J Med Educ. 1984
  23. Nov;59(11):881–9.