TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimal sequencing of bedside teaching and computer-based learning
T2 - A randomised trial
AU - Hull, Peter
AU - Chaudry, Adnan
AU - Prasthofer, Anna
AU - Pattison, Giles
PY - 2009/2
Y1 - 2009/2
N2 - Objectives We aimed to establish the most effective order in which to deliver teaching to medical students when using both bedside teaching (BT) and computer-based learning (CBL) and to ascertain the students' preferred method and order of delivery. Methods A sample of 28 medical students were randomly divided into two equal groups during their orthopaedic knee examination teaching session. Group 1 received standard BT and group 2 undertook a CBL package. Each group then undertook an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The groups then received the other method of teaching followed by another OSCE. A questionnaire was administered to all students to assess their views on, and preferences for, the various teaching methods. Results Mean scores on the first OSCE were 12.19 for group 1 (BT then CBL) and 11.96 for group 2 (CBL then BT) (P = 0.692). Mean scores on the second OSCE were 11.81 for group 1 compared with 12.79 for group 2 (P = 0.038). Statistical analysis showed a significantly better score improvement for group 2 (CBL then BT) over group 1 (BT then CBL). Of the 26 students who returned questionnaires, 24 (92%) expressed their preference for traditional BT over CBL only, and 23 (88%) were in favour of undertaking CBL prior to traditional BT. Conclusions The CBL package is a useful tool and is most effective if used before BT. Students prefer BT alone over CBL alone, but, if offered both, prefer to undertake CBL first.
AB - Objectives We aimed to establish the most effective order in which to deliver teaching to medical students when using both bedside teaching (BT) and computer-based learning (CBL) and to ascertain the students' preferred method and order of delivery. Methods A sample of 28 medical students were randomly divided into two equal groups during their orthopaedic knee examination teaching session. Group 1 received standard BT and group 2 undertook a CBL package. Each group then undertook an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The groups then received the other method of teaching followed by another OSCE. A questionnaire was administered to all students to assess their views on, and preferences for, the various teaching methods. Results Mean scores on the first OSCE were 12.19 for group 1 (BT then CBL) and 11.96 for group 2 (CBL then BT) (P = 0.692). Mean scores on the second OSCE were 11.81 for group 1 compared with 12.79 for group 2 (P = 0.038). Statistical analysis showed a significantly better score improvement for group 2 (CBL then BT) over group 1 (BT then CBL). Of the 26 students who returned questionnaires, 24 (92%) expressed their preference for traditional BT over CBL only, and 23 (88%) were in favour of undertaking CBL prior to traditional BT. Conclusions The CBL package is a useful tool and is most effective if used before BT. Students prefer BT alone over CBL alone, but, if offered both, prefer to undertake CBL first.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58649092422&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58649092422&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03261.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03261.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 19161479
AN - SCOPUS:58649092422
SN - 0308-0110
VL - 43
SP - 108
EP - 112
JO - Medical Education
JF - Medical Education
IS - 2
ER -