Table II.
Student’s engagement and learning ‘Effectiveness of FCR’.
| Agree | No Opinion | Disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Able to identify the causes shock | 40 | - | - |
| Understood pathophysiology shock | 39 | - | 1 |
| Able differentiate between Hypovolemic & Cardiogenic shock | 40 | - | - |
| Able differentiate between Reversible vs. irreversible shock | 37 | 2 | 1 |
| Relate the sign/symptoms/principles of management shock | 38 | 2 | - |
| FCR format is better | 38 | 1 | 1 |
| Format used a combination of small group discussion PBL/CBL | 38 | 1 | 1 |
| FCR will help students apply knowledge clinical practice | 36 | 3 | 1 |
| FCR will help students perform better university exams | 38 | 2 | - |
| Found FCR more engaging than traditional lectures | 39 | 1 | - |
| FCR conducted small group convenient compared large group FCR | 40 | - | - |