ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Analysis of Self-Directed Learning and the Jigsaw Method in Medical Physiology Education.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Jigsaw teaching method compared to traditional teaching on anatomy and physiology knowledge in higher education - a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of a Numerical Problem-Solving Module in Enhancing Renal Physiology Comprehension.Cureus · 2026Article
- Outcome-Based Self-Directed Learning (OBSDL) in Pharmacology in the Indian Context: A Convergent Mixed-Method Study.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActive learning strategies have become increasingly prominent in medical education. Among them, self-directed learning (SDL) and the Jigsaw method aim to enhance student engagement and improve knowledge retention. However, direct comparisons of these strategies within physiology education remain limited, particularly in the Indian context.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SDL and the Jigsaw method on selected physiology topics among first-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students.
methodsWe conducted a quasi-experimental crossover study at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli, India, between February and March 2025. First-year MBBS students participated in both SDL and Jigsaw sessions covering two different topics. In Phase 1, students from Batch A engaged in SDL, while Batch B employed the Jigsaw method to learn about ascending tracts. In Phase 2, the methods were reversed: Batch A used the Jigsaw approach, and Batch B engaged in SDL to study sleep physiology. Each session lasted 150 minutes. Knowledge gain was assessed using presession and postsession multiple-choice question (MCQ) tests. Students' perceptions regarding their learning experience, engagement, autonomy, and knowledge retention were measured using a validated 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis, with a p value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 88 students underwent crossover. Both SDL and Jigsaw sessions significantly improved posttest MCQ scores compared to pretest scores. The two methods showed no significant difference in the overall pretest and posttest scores. However, students rated the Jigsaw method higher than SDL for overall experience (median 4.5 vs. 3.5; p < 0.001), engagement (4.7 vs. 4; p < 0.001), and knowledge retention (4.3 vs. 4; p < 0.001). Autonomy scores did not differ significantly (4.5 vs. 4.5; p = 0.16). A majority (69.3%) preferred the Jigsaw approach over SDL.
conclusionBoth the SDL and Jigsaw methods effectively enhance learning outcomes in selected physiology topics among first-year MBBS students. However, the Jigsaw method demonstrates superior overall experience, student engagement, and perceived knowledge acquisition and retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.