The Foundation Module Under the Microscope: Analyzing Student Feedback in a Pilot Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates first-year medical students’ perceptions of the foundation module within the Integrated Modular System (IMS) at Gujranwala Medical College. It aims to assess the effectiveness of teaching methodologies by analyzing quantitative scores from closed-ended questions and qualitative insights from open-ended responses. Additionally, it measures the impact of the learning environment on student engagement, and resource availability. Furthermore, key strengths and challenges of the foundation module are identified through content analysis of qualitative feedback and statistical evaluation of quantitative responses.
Methods
A quasi-experimental study was conducted over three months in 2024, involving 120 first-year MBBS students. A 61-item questionnaire, adapted from the Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire, was used to assess module content, teaching strategies, engagement, and resource availability. Both closed- and open-ended questions facilitated a comprehensive evaluation. Descriptive statistics were applied, and the reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.
Results:
Among 120 participants, 101 responses were validated through convenience sampling. The module objectives received positive feedback from 75.9% of respondents, whereas only 41.4% expressed satisfaction with the workload. Module organization received mixed ratings (47.6% positive, 52.4% neutral or dissatisfied). Student engagement was rated favorably by 54.9%, though concerns about content delivery pace (36.3%) and feedback promptness (37.2%) emerged. Practical sessions were well received (69.9%). The questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95).
Conclusion:
While students showed general warm approval of the IMS foundation module’s objectives and practical aspects, concerns regarding workload, content delivery pace, and feedback promptness indicate areas for improvement.
Article Details
Work published in JPMI is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
1. Iqbal T. A critical review of University of Health Sciences integrated modular curriculum for MBBS. Pak J Physiol. 2023;19(2):1-2. doi: 10.69656/pjp.v19i2.1563.
2. Mahsood N, Khan NA, Ahsan A, Aziz S, Ali I. Medical student’s feedback on foundation module of integrated curriculum at public sector medical college: a pilot study. J Med Sci. 2019;27:90.
3. Wajid R, Asher A, Tariq J. Perception of undergraduate medical students about integrated modular curriculum and factors affecting. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2022;16:63. doi: 10.53350/pjmhs2216763.
4. Fatima U, Naz M, Zafar H, Fatima A, Khan RR. Student’s perception about modular teaching and various instructional strategies in the subject of obstetrics and gynecology. Prof Med J. 2020;27:40-45. doi: 10.29309/TPMJ/2019.27.01.3162.
5. Abbas S, Sadiq N, Zehra T, Ullah I, Adeeb H. Comparison of performance of undergraduate medical students trained in conventional and integrated curriculums. Int J Acad Med. 2022;8(2):109-115. doi: 10.4103/ijam.ijam_112_21.
6. Ijaz A, Saleem A, Qamar H, Qureshi SH. Effect of integrated sessions of anatomy and physiology on academic performance. Med Forum Mon. 2024;35(7).
7. Rahim A, Iqbal K. Parameters assessed for quality and management of modular system by the students of first and second year MBBS. Khyber Med Univ J. 2013;5(2):86-90.
8. Ijaz M, Jamil B, Asim N, Khan Y, Riaz S. Exploring the perceptions of undergraduate medical students and faculty regarding their engagement in integrated curriculum development in Azad Jammu & Kashmir Medical College Muzaffarabad. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2024;36(1). doi: 10.55519/JAMC-01-12982.
9. Schrewe B, Hepburn CM. Educating for optimal health outcomes: training physicians to be system-level advocates. Can Med Educ J. 2025. doi: 10.36834/cmej.79844.
10. Hafeez A, Jamil B, Khan AF. Roadblocks to integration: faculty’s perspective on transition from traditional to integrated medical curriculum. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(3):788. doi: 10.12669/pjms.37.3.3217.
11. Atta IS, El-Hag MA, Shafek SI, Al-Ghamdi HS, Al-Ghamdi TH. Drawbacks in the implementation of an integrated medical curriculum at medical schools and their potential solutions. Educ Med J. 2020;12(1). doi: 10.21315/eimj2020.12.1.4.
12. Rahman S. Transition from traditional curriculum to modular curriculum: possible challenges. J Gandhara Med Dent Sci. 2022;9(3). doi: 10.37762/jgmds.9-3.328.
13. Self-directed learning module and assessment on learning of national health programme by medical undergraduates: a mixed methods evaluation. Indian J Community Med. 2023;48(3):465-470. doi: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_520_22.
14. Raosoft Inc. Sample size calculator [Internet]. Available from: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
15. Raza A, Hussain N. Problems and challenges of future medical education: current state and development prospects. Futurity Educ. 2022;2(3):37-49. doi: 10.57125/FED/2022.10.11.32.
16. Ajmal A, Manzoor I. Shift of traditional curriculum to integrated curriculum: a drastic step by University of Health Sciences Lahore. J Ayub Med Dent Coll. 2023;5(1):1-3. doi: 10.51127/JAMDCV5I1editorial.
17. Nicolaou N, Nicolaou C, Nicolaou P, Nicolaides P, Papageorgiou A. Development of a leadership and management module for the undergraduate medical curriculum. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1310. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06004-x.
18. Loomis M, Quinones-Rodriguez JI, Wackerly R, Spears KB, Loomis T. Integrating clinical reasoning into medical students' first weeks of education improves understanding of cranial nerve anatomy. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e70889. doi: 10.7759/cureus.70889.
19. Velusami D, Dongre AR, Kagne RN. Evaluation of one-month foundation course for first year undergraduate students at a medical college in Puducherry, India. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2020;8(4):165-171. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2020.86857.1272.
20. Schmidt M, Pinney B, Canby C, Vargus A, Pille M. An early-curricular team learning activity to foster integration of biochemical concepts and clinical sciences in undergraduate medical education. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2024;52(3):340-347. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21821.
21. Waqar T, Khaliq T. Integrated-modular system for undergraduate medical students: faculty’s perception. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2019;69:465-471.
22. Rehman R, Rubab Z, Usmani A, Rehan J. Steps towards implementation of modular hybrid system at Bahria University Medical & Dental College. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2014;28(1).
23. Chen P, Alexander SM, Baute Penry V. Nutrition module: addressing the nutrition education gap in undergraduate medical curricula via a novel approach. Med Sci Educ. 2024;34(6):1361-1367. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02114-9.
24. Gupta D, Shantharam L, MacDonald BK. Sustainable healthcare in medical education: survey of the student perspectives at a UK medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):689. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03737-5.