0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

A New Blended Learning Concept for Medical Students in Otolaryngology FREE

Matthaeus C. Grasl, MD, MME(Heidelberg); Peter Pokieser, MD; Andreas Gleiss, PhD; Juergen Brandstaetter, MSc; Thorsten Sigmund, MSc; Boban M. Erovic, MD; Martin R. Fischer, MD, MME(Berne)
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery (Drs Grasl and Erovic), Department of Medical Education and Further Education, Medical Media Services (Dr Pokieser and Mr Brandstaetter), Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (Dr Gleiss), and Department of Medical Education and Further Education, IT-System & Communication (Mr Sigmund), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Dr Erovic); and Lehrstuhl für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin am Klinikum der Universität München, München, Germany (Dr Fischer).


Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(4):358-366. doi:10.1001/archoto.2012.145.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective To evaluate students' overall assessment and effectiveness of the web-based blended learning conception “Unified Patient Project” (UPP) for medical students rotating on their otolaryngology internship (ear, nose, and throat [ENT] tertiary).

Design Prospective comparison group design of the quasiexperimental type.

Setting Medical education.

Subjects The experimental group (preintervention test [pretest], intervention, and postintervention test [posttest]) comprised 117 students, and the comparison group (pretest, alternative intervention, and posttest), 119.

Interventions In the experimental group, lecturing of case studies was replaced by the blended learning concept UPP. A standardized questionnaire evaluated students' overall assessment of teaching otolaryngology. A pretest and posttest using multiple choice questions was administered to clarify whether the UPP has led to a knowledge gain.

Results The comparison group was more satisfied with their teaching; however, this was not statistically significant (P = .26) compared with the UPP. Students with higher preknowledge benefitted from the UPP, while students with lower preknowledge did not (P = .01). On average, posttest results in the experimental group exceeded those of the comparison group by 8.7 percentage points for a 75% preknowledge of the maximum attainable score, while they fell below those of the comparison group by 8.1 percentage points for a 25% preknowledge.

Conclusions Students' satisfaction with the blended learning concept UPP was lower than in the face-to-face teaching, although this was not statistically significant. The new web-based UPP leads to an improved knowledge in clinical otolaryngology for all students. Students with lower preknowledge benefitted more from face-to-face teaching than from the UPP, while students with higher preknowledge benefitted more from the UPP. This implies students with poor preknowledge need special promotion programs.

Figures in this Article

Over the past few years the concept of e-learning has become a significant part of medical education.1 Particularly, institutions like the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, which has changed its medical curriculum from traditional teacher-centered lecturing to an integrated module system, are obliged to deal with this new, very promising teaching method for a number of reasons. Basically, the advantages of e-learning are (1) the significantly increasing interactivity between teacher and students, (2) the students' immediate feedback, (3) individually adapted teaching, and (4) examinations under objective circumstances.24 Blended learning concepts allow for the combination of traditional lecturing and a web-based forum.58

In combination with lecturing, the Unified Patient Project (UPP) is a new web-based, case-oriented, blended concept that allows students to discuss topics among themselves while promoting peer-aided e-learning as well.912 The application is free and accessible on the web, offering development, searching, and viewing of medical case reports. Radiology data are accessible as well, and medical cases can be downloaded for offline use with a “Pack&Go” function. When logged in, students are able to discuss each case, ask questions, and finally answer all the teacher's questions. On the other hand, lecturing in otolaryngology includes presentation and discussion of symptom-oriented cases in addition to hands-on teaching in the form of clinical internships and seminars in otolaryngology.13,14

The aims of this study were to gain feedback on satisfaction related to the perceived utility of the UPP and to test the increase of knowledge in students using the newly installed UPP blended learning concept compared with students taught by traditional face-to-face teaching.15,16

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study, approved by the research ethics committee, was performed between August 2008 and February 2010 in a comparison group design of the quasiexperimental type with (1) preintervention test (pretest), intervention (UPP), and postintervention (posttest) (experimental group [n = 117]) and (2) pretest, alternative intervention (lecturing alone), and posttest (comparison group [n = 119]). Tests and questionnaires could not be conducted for both groups in 1 room simultaneously for organizational reasons. Therefore, 6 groups, approximately 45 students each, were formed. The authors had no influence on the formation of the groups. To avoid a cohort effect, the 6 groups were randomly selected and stratified into the experimental and comparison groups. Personal computers (PCs) and access to the Internet were guaranteed for all students participating the study at home and on campus.

STUDY PROCESS

Students participating in the study were introduced and gave their written informed consent. Each student had to complete 5 questionnaires during the study. Questionnaires were distributed in paper form and completed under the guidance of 2 persons in the classroom. Finished questionnaires were collected by a responsible person on location, thus ensuring a 100% return rate.

The pretest had to evaluate a student's basic knowledge about otolaryngology, gained in the 2 previous years, and included 24 multiple choice questions of the single best answer type. The results were calculated as the proportion of correctly answered items and were illustrated in a box plot diagram.

At the beginning of the study, a questionnaire regarding the use of PCs and attitude toward and experience with e-learning was handed out (Figure 1).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Questionnaire on the use of personal computers (PCs) at the start of the study.

The questionnaire consists of the following 6 constructs with a total of 33 items: (1) enabling technology (items 1, 3-7, and 23), (2) student's attitude toward multimedia learning (items 2 and 22), (3) effective scope of PC use (items 8-20, 25, and 26), (4) private use of PC (item 21), (5) problems in using e-learning programs (item 27-33), and (6) case studies already discussed in the UPP (item 24). The items for these constructs were merged to scales by averaging the values per person.

After that, 1 group was taught using the UPP (17 case studies), with face-to-face teaching only for the introduction and some questions at the end of a case—not more than 10 minutes per case—whereas the control group was exposed to lecturing alone (17 case studies, 45 minutes each).

On the last day of the study, posttesting was performed using 25 multiple-choice questions of the single best answer type referring to the content of the lectures. The results were calculated as the percentage of correctly answered items and were illustrated in a box plot diagram.

In addition, a questionnaire to evaluate students' satisfaction with the UPP (Figure 2) or lecture (Figure 3), with 5 constructs and 34 items regarding (1) satisfaction with the teaching activity (items 1-5), (2) UPP suitability, specifically, lecturer's competence (items 6-15), (3) workload manageability (items 16-20), (4) student's attitude to learning in the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) tertiary (items 21-29), and (5) general assessment of the ENT tertiary (items 30-34), was administered. This questionnaire used a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). The category “don't know” enabled students to encode certain circumstances that did not occur for them or were not to be answered.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Questionnaire on the e-learning program (Unified Patient Project at the end of the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) tertiary.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Questionnaire on the lecture at the end of the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) tertiary.

Three open questions at the end of the questionnaire—“What did you like in particular?” “What did you not like?” and “Suggestions for improvement”—did not enter in this study because they were not answered completely.

The questionnaires were constructed with no difference between the 2 types of teaching. Questions were only adapted when specific to the UPP or lecture. The items for these constructs were concentrated to scale by averaging the values per person.

Another questionnaire (Figure 4) was then administered, with 8 constructs and 33 items focusing particularly on judgments about general advantages and disadvantages of e-learning and targeting (1) self-dependent learning (items 1, 6, 18, 20, and 21), (2) motivation (items 16, 19, 22, and 23), (3) learning outcome (items 2 and 13), (4) communication (items 3, 11, 12, 14, and 29), (5) relation to application (items 5, 9, 10, and 24), (6) relation to practical experience (items 4, 7, 8, 25, and 30), (7) effort of time and costs (items 27, 28, and 31), and (8) general assessment (items 15, 17, 26, 32, and 33). The items for these constructs were concentrated to scales by averaging the values per person. For each construct a representative item was selected. For evaluation the categories “I don't agree” and “I partially agree” in a 3-stage Likert scale were summarized.16,17

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Questionnaire on advantages and disadvantages of the e-learning program (Unified Patient [UP] Project).

STATISTICAL METHODS

Nominal and ordinal variables were presented as absolute and relative frequencies. Continuous variables were presented as median, interquartile ranges, and minimums and maximums because of nonnormal distributions. Categorical variables were compared between groups using multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for the effect of potential confounders. For the same purpose, multivariable analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to compare continuous variables between groups (in the case of right-skewed distribution, the continuous dependent variable had been log-transformed). To adjust the comparison of posttest results between the 2 groups for pretest results and potential influences of other variables (ie, age and place of morning clinical internship [university clinic vs extramural hospitals]), an ANCOVA model was calculated incorporating an interaction between group indicator and pretest result. Data were recorded in an electronic database using the program SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc) and analyzed with the software package SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc). All P values were 2-sided, and values ≤.05 were considered statistically significant and were not corrected for multiplicity owing to the explorative character of secondary questions.

GENERAL PARAMETERS OF THE SAMPLE

At the beginning of the study, 120 medical students were included in the experimental group (UPP) and 125 in the control group (lecturing alone). Of these 245 medical students, 236 finished (dropout rate of 3.7%) the study. In particular, the dropout rate was 2.5% (n = 3) and 4.8% (n = 6) in the experimental and comparison groups, respectively.

The sex distribution of the students was balanced in the experimental group (51.3% female vs 48.7% male), while in the comparison group, the male to female ratio leaned toward female students (68.9% female vs 31.1% male). The median age was 24.6 years in the entire cohort (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8-25.6 years), with no significant difference in both groups.

STUDENTS' EVALUATION OF SATISFACTION WITH OTORLARYNGOLOGIC TEACHING (OVERALL ASSESSMENT)

The primary research question, general satisfaction with lecturing in otolaryngology, was rated using the 6-level Likert scale: 1, strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, partly agree; 4, partly disagree; 5, disagree; 6, strongly disagree; and “don't know.” In the comparison group, median general satisfaction was 1.0 (IQR, 1.0-2.0) compared with 2.0 (IQR, 1.0-2.0) in the experimental group without reaching statistical significance (P = .26). Five predefined theoretical constructs—satisfaction with teaching activity; suitability of the UPP program, specifically, teacher’s competence in face-to-face teaching; workload manageability; student's attitude to learning in the ENT tertiary; and general assessment—were rated on the same scale. For all these constructs, with the exception of “student's attitude to learning in the ENT tertiary,” the rating was better in the control group, reaching statistical significance in 3 of the 5 categories (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Results of Students' Evaluation of Case-Based Learning: UPP vs Lecturing
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF e-LEARNING

The constructs concerning advantages and disadvantages of e-learning—independent learning, motivation, learning outcome, communication, relation to application, relation to practical experience, effort of time and costs, and general assessment—were rated with a 3-stage Likert scale: “agree,” “partly agree,” “disagree,” and “don't know.”

In all of these constructs except “effort of time and costs,” the experimental group (UPP) rated with higher agreement (Table 2), mostly with statistical significance.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of e-Learning
TIME RESOURCES OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY

Analyzing the practicability of the UPP, we observed that the average time 1 student spent on one of the 17 cases was approximately 20 minutes. In addition, the short attendance time of 10 minutes per case in the classroom must be calculated, which is held immediately after a workshop with obligatory attendance. Therefore, students did not have to attend a separate lecture at the campus for the case presentations. Nearly all of their learning was conducted solely electronically. Face-to face teaching for the comparison group was performed in 17 lessons, 45 minutes each, with the same learning matter. The time of learning in the UPP group was approximately one-third less than in the lecture group.

The project manager (M.Ch.G.) had to spend approximately 35 hours on the creation of the 17 case studies, for both the UPP and the face-to-face teaching. Once the UPP was implemented it took approximately 20 minutes per case to review. He therefore spent approximately 30 minutes on each of the 17 cases including the introduction and final feedback. On the other hand, he saved 45 minutes for each of the 17 lessons by not teaching at the campus—in summary, a benefit of a third of his teaching time. The application specialist needed approximately 70 hours for the preparation of the 17 cases and approximately 6 hours for ongoing support.

INCREASE OF KNOWLEDGE (PRETEST VS POSTTEST)

The distributions of pretest and posttest results for both groups are shown in Figure 5. In spite of the aforementioned quasirandomized study design, the pretest distribution in the comparison group was generally lower than in the experimental group. For this reason, the group comparison in respect to the posttest results was adjusted for pretest results. Thereby, a fair comparison between the groups is nevertheless possible.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 5. Box plot diagram of preintervention test (pretest) and postintervention test (posttest) results. UPP indicates Unified Patient Project. Error bars indicate interquartile range, and the dots, outliers.

All students using the UPP generated an increase of their knowledge. Students with higher preknowledge profited from the UPP, while students with lower preknowledge did not (P = .01). For a 75% preknowledge, the posttest results in the experimental group exceeded those of the comparison group, on average by 8.7 percentage points (eg, 54.2% vs 45.5% for a student aged 25 years; P = .03). On the other hand, for a 25% preknowledge, the posttest results fell below those of the comparison group by 8.1 percentage points (eg, 67.2% vs 75.3% for a student aged 25 years; P = .03). At approximately 51% preknowledge, the posttest results for the 2 groups coincided on average.

This effect was also demonstrated in Figure 6, where students in both groups were classified into thirds according to their group-specific tertile in the pretest. While the increase of knowledge for the middle third was similar in the 2 groups, there was a higher increase for the upper third in the experimental group and for the lower third in the comparison group.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 6. Average increase of students' knowledge over preintervention test scores. Solid lines indicate below first group-specific tertile; dashed lines, between first and second group-specific tertile; dotted lines, above second group-specific tertile.

The aim of this study was to evaluate teaching of senior medical students in otolaryngology at the Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Vienna. We investigated the effects of the new adapted web-based blended learning concept UPP by teaching with a case series in otolaryngology and compared the students' knowledge with a comparison group that was taught with traditional lecturing.

Students in the comparison group were more satisfied with their type of teaching than those in the experimental group, as previously shown in other studies.18 A possible explanation for this observation could be that students are generally skeptical about new methods of teaching, especially those that do not have a detailed catalog of educational objectives at hand yet, and that lecturing is known to be a reliable method for acquiring knowledge.19 However, when advantages and disadvantages of e-learning on its own without reference to otolaryngological teaching were queried at the end of the study, students in the experimental group gave a more positive rating in all 8 constructs compared with those in the comparison group. In 6 of these 8 constructs a statistically significant rating was observed. Both groups were familiar with the UPP through approximately 20 cases presented in a grand forum of up to 450 students the year before.

With respect to time resources, the UPP approach saves about a third of learning time. The UPP is a more flexible, self-directed, off-campus form of learning for students and shifted time resources from teaching faculty to technical support personnel. Teachers can save about a third of teaching time compared with face-to-face teaching. An additional administrative benefit results because fewer classrooms are needed owing to the reduced attendance time.

We could demonstrate a positive effect on gaining knowledge through the blended learning approach with the UPP. Students in the experimental group surprisingly started with a higher pretest score on average and showed an increase of knowledge in the whole range of pretest items, potentially because of the influence of the UPP used in the blended learning concept.

Limitations of our study include that it was a field study comprising many uncontrolled influences with different groups concerning preknowledge. Also, other potentially important influencing factors, such as complexity of the study materials or collaboration among student participants on study materials, were not measured. While using experimental research as we did is a powerful investigative method, additional qualitative data would indeed be helpful and should be considered for subsequent studies. Moreover, the study was performed only in 1 subject matter. Although a quasirandomized study design was chosen, the pretest distribution in the comparison group was generally lower than in the experimental group. For this reason, the group comparison in respect to the posttest results was adjusted for unequal pretest results. By using this adjustment it could be shown that students with higher preknowledge benefit more from the blended learning approach using the UPP, while students with lower preknowledge do not (P = .01).20 A possible cause could be that students with a primarily better knowledge are more interested in new forms of teaching.

As documented in the literature,21,22 high-performing students with adequate prior knowledge profit more from e-learning than poorly performing ones. A determining criterion thereby is the level of prior knowledge to be acquired in the domain. This is reflected in our results using the UPP. In consequence, a diagnostic module to determine students' prior knowledge before using our UPP blended learning approach should be considered.

As possible reasons for this lower learning outcome in students with low preknowledge, it is assumed that (1) they are less able to develop independent solutions; (2) their solving organization functions (structuring, time schedule, information search, and transfer) are inferior; (3) their processing of given data are inferior; and (4) they do not have a high level of self-organization and learning motivation. These students need special promotion programs to enhance their preknowledge.

Students' satisfaction with the blended learning concept UPP was, although not statistically significant, lower than in the comparison group with face-to-face teaching.

Our study shows that the new web-based UPP leads to improved knowledge in clinical otolaryngology for all students. Students with lower preknowledge profit more from face-to-face teaching, while students with higher preknowledge profit more from the UPP. This implies that when the UPP approach is expanded to further subject domains at the Medical University of Vienna, students with poor preknowledge will need special promotion programs.

Correspondence: Matthaeus C. Grasl, MD, MME (Heidelberg), Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria (matthaeus.grasl@meduniwien.ac.at).

Submitted for Publication: July 13, 2011; final revision received November 21, 2011; accepted January 30, 2012.

Author Contributions: Drs Grasl and Gleiss had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Grasl, Pokieser, Gleiss, Erovic, and Fischer. Acquisition of data: Grasl, Brandstaetter, and Sigmund. Analysis and interpretation of data: Grasl, Gleiss, and Erovic. Drafting of the manuscript: Grasl. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Grasl, Pokieser, Gleiss, Brandstaetter, Sigmund, Erovic, and Fischer. Statistical analysis: Gleiss. Administrative, technical, and material support: Grasl, Pokieser, Brandstaetter, Sigmund, and Erovic. Study supervision: Grasl, Pokieser, Erovic, and Fischer.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education part 1: learning, teaching and assessment.  Med Teach. 2008;30(5):455-473
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fischer MRG. e-Learning in the medical education, further and continuing education.  Med Klin (Munich). 2003;98(10):594-597
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rajapakse S, Fernando D, Rubasinghe N, Gurusinghe S. e-Learning in medical education: guide supplement 32.6—practical application.  Med Teach. 2009;31(5):452-453
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harden RM. E-learning-caged bird or soaring eagle?  Med Teach. 2008;30(1):1-4
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Karsten G, Kopp V, Brüchner K, Fischer MR. A blended learning approach for the integrated and standardized teaching of clinical skills: the CliSO project.  GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2009;26(1):Doc10
Bridges SM, Botelho MG, Tsang PCS. PBL.2.0: blended learning for an interactive, problem-based pedagogy.  Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1131
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web-based learning? a systematic review of the variability of interventions.  Med Educ. 2010;44(8):765-774
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cook DA. The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice, and what we can do about it.  Med Teach. 2009;31(2):158-162
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pokieser P, Brandstätter J, Moritz T, Domanovits H, Sodeck G, Fischer MR. Unified Patient Project—field report on web-based case studies in the clinical education.   Zeitschrift für E-Learning. 2009;1:49-59
Burke J, Fayaz S, Graham K, Matthew R, Field M. Peer-assisted learning in the acquisition of clinical skills: a supplementary approach to musculoskeletal system training.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):577-582
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Durning SJ, ten Cate OT. Peer teaching in medical education.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):523-524
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):591-599
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Haddad J Jr, Shah J, Takoudes TG. A survey of US medical education in otolaryngology.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(11):1166-1169
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mohyuddin N, Langerman A, LeHew Ch, Kaste L, Pytynia K. Knowledge of head and neck cancer among medical students at 2 Chicago universities.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(12):1294-1298
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sandars J, Lafferty N. Twelve tips on usability testing to develop effective e-learning in medical education.  Med Teach. 2010;32(12):956-960
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prince NJ, Cass HD, Klaber RE. Accessing e-learning and e-resources.  Med Educ. 2010;44(5):436-437
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langedijk A, Käser L, Lüthi T. Use of the Internet and computer as well as e-learning experiences of medical students at the University of Zürich: report of an inquiry in the winter-semester 2002/2003. http:/www.vam.uzh.ch/umfrage/medstud_umfrage_ws0203.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2004
Harter C, Schellberg D, Möltner A, Kadmon M. Didactic lecture or interactive group discussion? a comparison of the learning success and the student evaluation in biochemistry.  GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2009;26(2):Doc23
Song SH, Keller JM. Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation.  Educ Res Dev. 2001;49(1):5-22
Link to Article
Dochy F, Segers M, Buehl MM. The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: the case of research on prior knowledge.  Rev Educ Res. 1999;69(2):145-186
Tergan SO. Hypertext and hypermedia: conception, learning options, learning problems and perspectives. In: Issing LJ, Klimsa P, eds. Information and Teaching With Multimedia. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz PVU; 2002:99-112
Lyon HC, Longnecker DS, Gonzalez J,  et al.  Correlation between student use of computer-based instruction and high exam scores in pathology.  J Med Educ Technol. 1998;6(4):20-26

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Questionnaire on the use of personal computers (PCs) at the start of the study.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Questionnaire on the e-learning program (Unified Patient Project at the end of the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) tertiary.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Questionnaire on the lecture at the end of the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) tertiary.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Questionnaire on advantages and disadvantages of the e-learning program (Unified Patient [UP] Project).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 5. Box plot diagram of preintervention test (pretest) and postintervention test (posttest) results. UPP indicates Unified Patient Project. Error bars indicate interquartile range, and the dots, outliers.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 6. Average increase of students' knowledge over preintervention test scores. Solid lines indicate below first group-specific tertile; dashed lines, between first and second group-specific tertile; dotted lines, above second group-specific tertile.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Results of Students' Evaluation of Case-Based Learning: UPP vs Lecturing
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of e-Learning

References

Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education part 1: learning, teaching and assessment.  Med Teach. 2008;30(5):455-473
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fischer MRG. e-Learning in the medical education, further and continuing education.  Med Klin (Munich). 2003;98(10):594-597
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rajapakse S, Fernando D, Rubasinghe N, Gurusinghe S. e-Learning in medical education: guide supplement 32.6—practical application.  Med Teach. 2009;31(5):452-453
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harden RM. E-learning-caged bird or soaring eagle?  Med Teach. 2008;30(1):1-4
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Karsten G, Kopp V, Brüchner K, Fischer MR. A blended learning approach for the integrated and standardized teaching of clinical skills: the CliSO project.  GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2009;26(1):Doc10
Bridges SM, Botelho MG, Tsang PCS. PBL.2.0: blended learning for an interactive, problem-based pedagogy.  Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1131
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web-based learning? a systematic review of the variability of interventions.  Med Educ. 2010;44(8):765-774
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cook DA. The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice, and what we can do about it.  Med Teach. 2009;31(2):158-162
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pokieser P, Brandstätter J, Moritz T, Domanovits H, Sodeck G, Fischer MR. Unified Patient Project—field report on web-based case studies in the clinical education.   Zeitschrift für E-Learning. 2009;1:49-59
Burke J, Fayaz S, Graham K, Matthew R, Field M. Peer-assisted learning in the acquisition of clinical skills: a supplementary approach to musculoskeletal system training.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):577-582
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Durning SJ, ten Cate OT. Peer teaching in medical education.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):523-524
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice.  Med Teach. 2007;29(6):591-599
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Haddad J Jr, Shah J, Takoudes TG. A survey of US medical education in otolaryngology.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(11):1166-1169
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mohyuddin N, Langerman A, LeHew Ch, Kaste L, Pytynia K. Knowledge of head and neck cancer among medical students at 2 Chicago universities.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(12):1294-1298
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sandars J, Lafferty N. Twelve tips on usability testing to develop effective e-learning in medical education.  Med Teach. 2010;32(12):956-960
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prince NJ, Cass HD, Klaber RE. Accessing e-learning and e-resources.  Med Educ. 2010;44(5):436-437
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langedijk A, Käser L, Lüthi T. Use of the Internet and computer as well as e-learning experiences of medical students at the University of Zürich: report of an inquiry in the winter-semester 2002/2003. http:/www.vam.uzh.ch/umfrage/medstud_umfrage_ws0203.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2004
Harter C, Schellberg D, Möltner A, Kadmon M. Didactic lecture or interactive group discussion? a comparison of the learning success and the student evaluation in biochemistry.  GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2009;26(2):Doc23
Song SH, Keller JM. Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation.  Educ Res Dev. 2001;49(1):5-22
Link to Article
Dochy F, Segers M, Buehl MM. The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: the case of research on prior knowledge.  Rev Educ Res. 1999;69(2):145-186
Tergan SO. Hypertext and hypermedia: conception, learning options, learning problems and perspectives. In: Issing LJ, Klimsa P, eds. Information and Teaching With Multimedia. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz PVU; 2002:99-112
Lyon HC, Longnecker DS, Gonzalez J,  et al.  Correlation between student use of computer-based instruction and high exam scores in pathology.  J Med Educ Technol. 1998;6(4):20-26

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections