Dataset Information

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Blended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of blended learning in health education in MEDLINE from January 1990 to July 2019. We independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and compared overall blended learning versus traditional learning, offline blended learning versus traditional learning, online blended learning versus traditional learning, digital blended learning versus traditional learning, computer-aided instruction blended learning versus traditional learning, and virtual patient blended learning versus traditional learning. All pooled analyses were based on random-effect models, and the I2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:A total of 56 studies (N=9943 participants) assessing several types of learning support in blended learning met our inclusion criteria; 3 studies investigated offline support, 7 studies investigated digital support, 34 studies investigated online support, 8 studies investigated computer-assisted instruction support, and 5 studies used virtual patient support for blended learning. The pooled analysis comparing all blended learning to traditional learning showed significantly better knowledge outcomes for blended learning (standardized mean difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28, I2=94.3%). Similar results were observed for online (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86, I2=94.9%), computer-assisted instruction (standardized mean difference 1.13, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79, I2=78.0%), and virtual patient (standardized mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.06, I2=78.4%) learning support, but results for offline learning support (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.79, I2=87.9%) and digital learning support (standardized mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.52, I2=93.4%) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS:From this review, blended learning demonstrated consistently better effects on knowledge outcomes when compared with traditional learning in health education. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the utility of different design variants of blended learning.

SUBMITTER: Vallee A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7445617 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vallée Alexandre A Blacher Jacques J Cariou Alain A Sorbets Emmanuel E

Journal of medical Internet research 20200810 8

<h4>Background</h4>Blended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a system ...[more]

PMID: 32773378

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning, has grown rapidly and is now widely used in education. Concerns about the effectiveness of blended learning have led to an increasing number of studies on this topic. However, there has yet to be a quantitative synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge acquisition in health professions.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of blended learning for health professional learners compared with no intervention and with nonblended learning. We also aimed to explore factors that could explain differences in learning effects across study designs, participants, country socioeconomic status, intervention durations, randomization, and quality score for each of these questions.MethodsWe conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment).ResultsWe identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I(2) ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes.ConclusionsBlended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership. METHODS:A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative. RESULTS:We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p?<?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

Project description:BackgroundDigital learning designs have the potential to support teaching and learning within higher education. However, the research on digital learning designs within physiotherapy education is limited. This study aims to identify and investigate the effectiveness of digital learning designs in physiotherapy education.MethodsThe study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials. A search of eight databases on digital learning designs and technology was conducted. Study selection, methodology and quality assessment were performed independently by three reviewers. The included studies were mapped according to the types of digital interventions and studies. For similar interventions, the learning effects were calculated using meta-analyses.ResultsAltogether, 22 studies were included in the review (17 randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies). A blended learning design was used in 21 studies, a flipped classroom model in five and a distance learning design in one. Altogether, 10 of the 22 articles were included in meta-analyses, which showed statistically significant effects for flipped classrooms on knowledge acquisition (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20, 0.62), for interactive websites or applications (apps) on practical skills (SMD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.71,1.43) and for students self-produced videos on a practical skill in a cervical spine scenario (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.93). Overall, the effects indicated that blended learning designs are equally as or more effective than traditional classroom teaching to achieve learning outcomes. Distance learning showed no significant differences compared to traditional classroom teaching.ConclusionsThe current findings from physiotherapy education indicate that digital learning designs in the form of blended learning and distance learning were equally or more effective compared to traditional teaching. The meta-analyses revealed significant effects on student learning in favour of the interventions using flipped classrooms, interactive websites/apps and students self-produced videos. However, these results must be confirmed in larger controlled trials. Further, research should investigate how digital learning designs can facilitate students' learning of practical skills and behaviour, learning retention and approaches to studying as well as references for teaching and learning in digital learning environments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medical schools in low- and middle-income countries are facing a shortage of staff, limited infrastructure, and restricted access to fast and reliable internet. Offline digital education may be an alternative solution for these issues, allowing medical students to learn at their own time and pace, without the need for a network connection. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of offline digital education compared with traditional learning or a different form of offline digital education such as CD-ROM or PowerPoint presentations in improving knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction of medical students. The secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of offline digital education, changes in its accessibility or availability, and its unintended/adverse effects on students. METHODS:We carried out a systematic review of the literature by following the Cochrane methodology. We searched seven major electronic databases from January 1990 to August 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS:We included 36 studies with 3325 medical students, of which 33 were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The interventions consisted of software programs, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint presentations, computer-based videos, and other computer-based interventions. The pooled estimate of 19 studies (1717 participants) showed no significant difference between offline digital education and traditional learning groups in terms of students' postintervention knowledge scores (standardized mean difference=0.11, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.32; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies found that, compared with traditional learning, offline digital education improved medical students' postintervention skills (standardized mean difference=1.05, 95% CI 0.15-1.95; large effect size; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of offline digital education on students' attitudes and satisfaction due to missing or incomplete outcome data. Only four studies estimated the costs of offline digital education, and none reported changes in accessibility or availability of such education or in the adverse effects. The risk of bias was predominantly high in more than half of the included studies. The overall quality of the evidence was low (for knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction) due to the study limitations and inconsistency across the studies. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that offline digital education is as effective as traditional learning in terms of medical students' knowledge and may be more effective than traditional learning in terms of medical students' skills. However, there is a need to further investigate students' attitudes and satisfaction with offline digital education as well as its cost-effectiveness, changes in its accessibility or availability, and any resulting unintended/adverse effects.

Dataset Information

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets