C Williams1, S Aubin, P Harkin, D Cottrell. 1. Department of Psychological Medicine, Academic Centre, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow, UK. chris.williams@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Computer-based teaching may allow effective teaching of important psychiatric knowledge and skills. AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of computer-based teaching. METHOD: A single-blind, randomized, controlled study of 166 undergraduate medical students at the University of Leeds, involving aneducational intervention of either a structured lecture or a computer-based teaching package (both of equal duration). RESULTS: There was no difference in knowledge between the groups at baseline or immediately after teaching. Both groups made significant gains in knowledge after teaching. Students who attended the lecture rated their subjective knowledge and skills at a statistically significantly higher level than students who had used the computers. Students who had used the computer package scored higher on an objective measure of assessment skills. Students did not perceive the computer package to be as useful as the traditional lecture format, despite finding it easy to use and recommending its use to other students. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students rate themselves subjectively as learning less from computer-based as compared with lecture-based teaching. Objective measures suggest equivalence in knowledge acquisition and significantly greater skills acquisition for computer-based teaching.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Computer-based teaching may allow effective teaching of important psychiatric knowledge and skills. AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of computer-based teaching. METHOD: A single-blind, randomized, controlled study of 166 undergraduate medical students at the University of Leeds, involving an educational intervention of either a structured lecture or a computer-based teaching package (both of equal duration). RESULTS: There was no difference in knowledge between the groups at baseline or immediately after teaching. Both groups made significant gains in knowledge after teaching. Students who attended the lecture rated their subjective knowledge and skills at a statistically significantly higher level than students who had used the computers. Students who had used the computer package scored higher on an objective measure of assessment skills. Students did not perceive the computer package to be as useful as the traditional lecture format, despite finding it easy to use and recommending its use to other students. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students rate themselves subjectively as learning less from computer-based as compared with lecture-based teaching. Objective measures suggest equivalence in knowledge acquisition and significantly greater skills acquisition for computer-based teaching.
Authors: Safeera Y Hussainy; Jill Beattie; Roger L Nation; Michael J Dooley; Julia Fleming; Simon Wein; Maria Pisasale; William J Scott; Jennifer L Marriott Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-06-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David Gerard Healy; Fergal J Fleming; David Gilhooley; Patrick Felle; Alfred Edward Wood; Thomas Gorey; Enda W McDermott; John M Fitzpatrick; Niall J O'Higgins; Arnold D K Hill Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2005-06-29 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: James Davis; Evi Chryssafidou; Javier Zamora; David Davies; Khalid Khan; Arri Coomarasamy Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Kristine Rasmussen; José Marcano Belisario; Petra A Wark; Joseph Antonio Molina; Stewart Lee Loong; Ziva Cotic; Nikos Papachristou; Eva Riboli-Sasco; Lorainne Tudor Car; Eve Marie Musulanov; Holger Kunz; Yanfeng Zhang; Pradeep Paul George; Bee Hoon Heng; Erica Lynette Wheeler; Najeeb Al Shorbaji; Igor Svab; Rifat Atun; Azeem Majeed; Josip Car Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.413