RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compared the educational effectiveness of an interactive tutorial with that of interactive computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and determined the effects of personal preference, learning style, and level of training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four medical students and four radiology residents were prospectively, randomly assigned to receive instruction from different sections of an interactive tutorial and an interactive CAI module. Participants took tests of factual knowledge at the beginning and end of the instruction and a test of visual diagnosis at the end. They completed questionnaires to evaluate their preferred learning styles objectively and to elicit their subjective attitudes toward the two formats. Mean test scores of the tutorial and CAI groups were compared by means of analysis of covariance and two-tailed repeated-measures F test. RESULTS: Both the tutorial and CAI groups demonstrated significant improvement in posttest scores (P < .01 and P < .01, respectively) with the tutorial group's mean posttest score marginally but significantly higher (32.84 vs 28.13, P < .001). There were no significant interaction effects with participants' year of training (P = .845), objectively evaluated preferred learning style (P = .312), subjectively elicited attitude toward learning with CAI (P = .703), or visual diagnosis score (tutorial, 7.61; CD-ROM, 7.75; P = .79). CONCLUSION: Interactive tutorial and optimal CAI are both effective instructional formats. The tutorial was marginally but significantly more effective at teaching factual knowledge, an effect unrelated to students' year of training, learning style, or stated enjoyment of CAI. The superiority of the tutorial is expected to increase when it is compared with commercially expedient CAI modules.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compared the educational effectiveness of an interactive tutorial with that of interactive computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and determined the effects of personal preference, learning style, and level of training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four medical students and four radiology residents were prospectively, randomly assigned to receive instruction from different sections of an interactive tutorial and an interactive CAI module. Participants took tests of factual knowledge at the beginning and end of the instruction and a test of visual diagnosis at the end. They completed questionnaires to evaluate their preferred learning styles objectively and to elicit their subjective attitudes toward the two formats. Mean test scores of the tutorial and CAI groups were compared by means of analysis of covariance and two-tailed repeated-measures F test. RESULTS: Both the tutorial and CAI groups demonstrated significant improvement in posttest scores (P < .01 and P < .01, respectively) with the tutorial group's mean posttest score marginally but significantly higher (32.84 vs 28.13, P < .001). There were no significant interaction effects with participants' year of training (P = .845), objectively evaluated preferred learning style (P = .312), subjectively elicited attitude toward learning with CAI (P = .703), or visual diagnosis score (tutorial, 7.61; CD-ROM, 7.75; P = .79). CONCLUSION: Interactive tutorial and optimal CAI are both effective instructional formats. The tutorial was marginally but significantly more effective at teaching factual knowledge, an effect unrelated to students' year of training, learning style, or stated enjoyment of CAI. The superiority of the tutorial is expected to increase when it is compared with commercially expedient CAI modules.
Authors: Kenneth C Wang; Aditya R Salunkhe; James J Morrison; Pearlene P Lee; José L V Mejino; Landon T Detwiler; James F Brinkley; Eliot L Siegel; Daniel L Rubin; John A Carrino Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
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