Literature DB >> 11520384

The computer-based lecture.

M M Wofford1, A W Spickard, J L Wofford.   

Abstract

Advancing computer technology, cost-containment pressures, and desire to make innovative improvements in medical education argue for moving learning resources to the computer. A reasonable target for such a strategy is the traditional clinical lecture. The purpose of the lecture, the advantages and disadvantages of "live" versus computer-based lectures, and the technical options in computerizing the lecture deserve attention in developing a cost-effective, complementary learning strategy that preserves the teacher-learner relationship. Based on a literature review of the traditional clinical lecture, we build on the strengths of the lecture format and discuss strategies for converting the lecture to a computer-based learning presentation.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11520384      PMCID: PMC1495235          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007464.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  27 in total

1.  Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education.

Authors:  D O Nutter; J S Bond; B S Coller; R M D'Alessandri; B L Gewertz; L M Nora; J P Perkins; T S Shomaker; R T Watson
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-06

3.  Quantifying the literature of computer-aided instruction in medical education.

Authors:  M D Adler; K B Johnson
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  A comparison of educational interventions. Multimedia textbook, standard lecture, and printed textbook.

Authors:  D M Santer; V E Michaelsen; W E Erkonen; R J Winter; J C Woodhead; J S Gilmer; M P D'Alessandro; J R Galvin
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  1995-03

5.  Preparing and organizing for a lecture.

Authors:  M H Gelula
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1997-01

6.  Effective lecture presentation skills.

Authors:  M H Gelula
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1997-02

7.  Top ten reasons the World Wide Web may fail to change medical education.

Authors:  R B Friedman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  The effect of timing of distribution of 'handouts' on improvement of student performance.

Authors:  I R McDougall; H W Gray; G P McNicol
Journal:  Br J Med Educ       Date:  1972-06

9.  Independent learning packages (audio tape/pamphlet) for a course in cell excitation: evidence that they can be at least as effective as conventional lectures.

Authors:  D R Tomlinson
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 6.251

10.  The research we should be doing.

Authors:  C P Friedman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 6.893

View more
  7 in total

1.  Students' perceptions of 'technology-based' lecture handouts.

Authors:  Mohammed Nazrul Islam; Md Anwarul Azim Majumder; Rogayah Ja'afar; Sayeeda Rahman
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2005-01

2.  Transfer of take-home messages in graduate ICU education.

Authors:  Alexandre Lautrette; Carole Schwebel; Didier Gruson; R W Talbot; Jean-François Timsit; Bertrand Souweine
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Effect of a school-based nutrition education program on adolescents' nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in rural areas of China.

Authors:  Dongxu Wang; Donald Stewart; Chun Chang; Yuhui Shi
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 3.674

4.  Learning about screening using an online or live lecture: does it matter?

Authors:  Anderson Spickard; Nabil Alrajeh; David Cordray; Joseph Gigante
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Towards case-based medical learning in radiological decision making using content-based image retrieval.

Authors:  Petra Welter; Thomas M Deserno; Benedikt Fischer; Rolf W Günther; Cord Spreckelsen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  A randomized trial comparing digital and live lecture formats [ISRCTN40455708.

Authors:  David J Solomon; Gary S Ferenchick; Heather S Laird-Fick; Kevin Kavanaugh
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  A Randomized Crossover Design to Assess Learning Impact and Student Preference for Active and Passive Online Learning Modules.

Authors:  Amy J Prunuske; Lisa Henn; Ann M Brearley; Jacob Prunuske
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2015-12-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.