BACKGROUND: The rapid and dramatic incursion of the Internet and social networks in everyday life has revolutionised the methods of exchanging data. Web 2.0 represents the evolution of the Internet as we know it. Internet users are no longer passive receivers, and actively participate in the delivery of information. Medical education cannot evade this process. Increasingly, students are using tablets and smartphones to instantly retrieve medical information on the web or are exchanging materials on their Facebook pages. Medical educators cannot ignore this continuing revolution, and therefore the traditional academic schedules and didactic schemes should be questioned. Analysing opinions collected from medical students regarding old and new teaching methods and tools has become mandatory, with a view towards renovating the process of medical education. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was created with Google® docs and administrated to all students of our medical school. Students were asked to express their opinion on their favourite teaching methods, learning tools, Internet websites and Internet delivery devices. Data analysis was performed using spss. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 368 students. Although textbooks remain a cornerstone for training, students also identified Internet websites, multimedia non-online material, such as the Encyclopaedia on CD-ROM, and other non-online computer resources as being useful. DISCUSSION: The Internet represented an important aid to support students' learning needs, but textbooks are still their resource of choice. Among the websites noted, Google and Wikipedia significantly surpassed the peer-reviewed medical databases, and access to the Internet was primarily through personal computers in preference to other Internet access devices, such as mobile phones and tablet computers. Increasingly, students are using tablets and smartphones to instantly retrieve medical information.
BACKGROUND: The rapid and dramatic incursion of the Internet and social networks in everyday life has revolutionised the methods of exchanging data. Web 2.0 represents the evolution of the Internet as we know it. Internet users are no longer passive receivers, and actively participate in the delivery of information. Medical education cannot evade this process. Increasingly, students are using tablets and smartphones to instantly retrieve medical information on the web or are exchanging materials on their Facebook pages. Medical educators cannot ignore this continuing revolution, and therefore the traditional academic schedules and didactic schemes should be questioned. Analysing opinions collected from medical students regarding old and new teaching methods and tools has become mandatory, with a view towards renovating the process of medical education. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was created with Google® docs and administrated to all students of our medical school. Students were asked to express their opinion on their favourite teaching methods, learning tools, Internet websites and Internet delivery devices. Data analysis was performed using spss. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 368 students. Although textbooks remain a cornerstone for training, students also identified Internet websites, multimedia non-online material, such as the Encyclopaedia on CD-ROM, and other non-online computer resources as being useful. DISCUSSION: The Internet represented an important aid to support students' learning needs, but textbooks are still their resource of choice. Among the websites noted, Google and Wikipedia significantly surpassed the peer-reviewed medical databases, and access to the Internet was primarily through personal computers in preference to other Internet access devices, such as mobile phones and tablet computers. Increasingly, students are using tablets and smartphones to instantly retrieve medical information.
Authors: N Oker; Naif H Alotaibi; A C Reichelt; P Herman; M Bernal-Sprekelsen; Andreas E Albers Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Duncan Cole; Emma Rengasamy; Shafqat Batchelor; Charles Pope; Stephen Riley; Anne Marie Cunningham Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: G V Souza; A C V Hespanha; B F Paz; M A R Sá; R K Carneiro; S A M Guaita; T V Magalhães; B W Minto; L G G G Dias Journal: Vet Anim Sci Date: 2020-12-14