Dataset Information

Comparing the effectiveness of blended learning and traditional learning in an orthopedics course.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is forcing medical schools to replace substantial parts of the traditional lecture method with online formats to maintain social distancing guidelines and reduce face-to-face contact in the classroom. To our knowledge, there have to date been few studies comparing the effectiveness of traditional teaching with blended teaching based on the students' final grades which the efficacy of online learning is still controversial, and this study aimed to compare the efficacy of blended teaching with conventional teaching in an orthopedics course.

Methods

This study was a retrospective cohort study based on data collected from fifth-year medical students between April 2019 and March 2021. The students were divided into two groups which based on years of study. The summative assessment was based on summing the MCQs plus KFs, the MEQ plus oral exam, OSCE, simulated patient chart reviews, and OPD work. All students took the same end-of-course quizzes with no differences between the groups regarding the kinds of knowledge tested. The results of these quizzes were used to compare the effectiveness of the conventional teaching in 2019 and the blended teaching in 2020. The paired t-test was used to analyze the data.

Results

A total of 252 students were enrolled in the study, of whom 128 and 124 students were in the traditional teaching group or blended teaching groups, respectively. The grade point averages of the students were 3.2 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.4 in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, respectively, without significant difference (p-value = 0.06). The scores in the blended learning group were higher than in the traditional learning group in all assessment tools (MCQ, KF, Oral, and OSCE scores) except the MEQ.

Conclusions

Blended learning was not less effective than traditional learning for teaching medical students.

SUBMITTER: Suwannaphisit S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600761 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlended 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.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsFrom 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.

Project description:BackgroundConflicts of interest (COIs), including those arising from interactions with pharmaceutical companies, may lead to bias in medical data. Although medical students are now requesting more education on COIs and bias, they are still not adequately taught during medical school, and few published courses on this topic exist. The objective of our study was therefore to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a blended-learning course for detecting and avoiding bias in medical data, with a special focus on COIs.MethodsWe developed a blended learning course on bias detection, COIs, and risk communication. It was piloted in the Fall Semester of 2019/2020 using a pre/post-test design. The primary outcome was a gain in bias detection skills, tested by a novel key feature test. Secondary outcomes were (i) skepticism (tested using an attitude questionnaire), (ii) the intention to manage COIs in a professional way so as to avoid bias (tested using a situational judgment test) and (iii) the course evaluation by the students.ResultsSeventeen students participated in the study. The key feature test showed a significant improvement in bias detection skills at post-testing, with a difference in means of 3.1 points (95%-CI: 1.7-4.4, p-value: < 0.001; highest possible score: 16 points). The mean score after the course was 6.21 (SD: 2.62). The attitude questionnaire and situational judgment test also showed an improvement in skepticism and intentions to manage COIs, respectively. Students evaluated the course as having been worthwhile (Median: 5, IQR: 0.75, Likert-Scale 1-6, 6 = fully applicable).ConclusionsThe blended learning format of the course was feasible and effective. The results suggest a relevant learning gain; however, the low mean score on the key feature test after the course reflects the difficulty of the subject matter. Although a single course has the potential to induce significant short-term improvements in bias detection skills, the complexity of this important subject necessitates its longitudinal integration into medical curricula. This concept should include specific courses such as that presented here as well as an integration of the topic into clinical courses to improve context-related understanding of COIs and medical data bias.

Project description:Online learning is becoming more and more popular than traditional learning, and the need to investigate its influence within the framework of instruction and learning domains is - in today's emerging, cutting-edge technology world - an academic trend. The current study's problem intends to explore the impact of virtual versus traditional learning on the academic achievement of EFL students, a subject that has garnered substantial attention from English Language Teaching (ELT) researchers. This study aims to clarify if EFL students' academic progress in a listening skills classroom is influenced by traditional or online learning. The present research compiled information on how EFL students performed when English language teaching took place online as opposed to in a traditional classroom environment. This study, using an experimental research design with (N = 30) pairs of students (both male and female), was held at Najran University, KSA, in the academic year 2022-2023 b y using probability (random sampling). This study used pre-and post-tests to gather data from the subjects of the study, bifurcated into controlled and experimental groups employing the two modes of teaching, viz., online and traditional. The findings of the investigation proved that the experimental group achieved better performance compared to the control group in terms of results and scores. There are no significant differences based on gender. In addition, (N = 20) teachers teaching listening skills to EFL learners participated in semi-structured interviews. The qualitative analysis enlisted flexibility, accessibility, effective communication, collaboration, monitoring of student progress, and the use of a blackboard as constructive elements, followed by maintenance costs, wastage of available resources, long-term engagement, limited face-to-face interaction, and demotivation as critical perspectives. According to the findings of this research, the author recommends further studies with more variables.

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.