PURPOSE: To compare, using a prospective, randomized controlled study, three methods of teaching a medical school parasitology course: computer-based instruction, traditional lecture-based instruction, and a combination of computer-based and lecture-based instruction. METHOD:A single class of the University of Utah School of Medicine was randomized into three study groups for the second-year parasitology course. The computer group (n = 29) used a locally developed interactive parasitology computer program; the lecture group (n = 32) had traditional lectures, and the combined group (n = 33) used both the computer program and lectures. Students' knowledge was assessed using a pretest, a final examination, and a posttest administered four months after the course. Students also used logs to track the amounts of time they spent studying. Their impressions and course evaluations were collected using a standardized course-evaluation form. RESULTS: The groups' scores on the pretest, final examination, and posttest were not statistically significantly different. Students in the computer group averaged 26.8 hours of studying over the two-week course compared with 32.1 hours in the lecture group and 32.7 hours in the combined group. The difference in study times between the computer and combined groups yielded a significant p value of 0.036. Students were generally positive about the course and the computer program. CONCLUSION: Students can learn parasitology from computer-based instruction as effectively as from traditional lecture-based instruction, and they can do so in less time.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare, using a prospective, randomized controlled study, three methods of teaching a medical school parasitology course: computer-based instruction, traditional lecture-based instruction, and a combination of computer-based and lecture-based instruction. METHOD: A single class of the University of Utah School of Medicine was randomized into three study groups for the second-year parasitology course. The computer group (n = 29) used a locally developed interactive parasitology computer program; the lecture group (n = 32) had traditional lectures, and the combined group (n = 33) used both the computer program and lectures. Students' knowledge was assessed using a pretest, a final examination, and a posttest administered four months after the course. Students also used logs to track the amounts of time they spent studying. Their impressions and course evaluations were collected using a standardized course-evaluation form. RESULTS: The groups' scores on the pretest, final examination, and posttest were not statistically significantly different. Students in the computer group averaged 26.8 hours of studying over the two-week course compared with 32.1 hours in the lecture group and 32.7 hours in the combined group. The difference in study times between the computer and combined groups yielded a significant p value of 0.036. Students were generally positive about the course and the computer program. CONCLUSION: Students can learn parasitology from computer-based instruction as effectively as from traditional lecture-based instruction, and they can do so in less time.
Authors: Jane Dahlstrom; Anna Dorai-Raj; Darryl McGill; Cathy Owen; Kathleen Tymms; D Ashley R Watson Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 2.463
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: 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