Asynchronous vs didactic education: it’s too early to throw in the towel on tradition

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jaime Jordan (1) (2)
  Azadeh Jalali (2)
  Samuel Clarke (3)
  Pamela Dyne (2) (4)
  Tahlia Spector (2)
  Wendy Coates (1) (2) (5)
  
• 关键词：Medical student education ; Emergency medicine ; Computer based education ; Asynchronous learning
• 刊名：BMC Medical Education
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：December 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：13
• 期：1
• 全文大小：189KB
• 参考文献：1. Worthington T: / Synchronizing Asynchronous Learning. Collections: Australian National University Digital; 2013.
  2. Sener J: Why online education will attain full scale. / J Async Learn Network 2010,14(4):3-6.
  3. Dykman CA, Davis CK: Online education forum part 1 -the shift toward online education. / J Inf Syst Educ 2008, 19:11-6.
  4. / Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Emergency Medicine Guidelines. http://acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/292/ProgramandInstitutionalGuidelines/Hospital-BasedAccreditation/EmergencyMedicine/EmergencyMedicineGuidelines.aspx
  5. Fletcher S: Chairman’s summary on the conference. In / Continuing Education in the Health Professions: improving Healthcare through Lifelong Learning. Nov 2007; Bermuda. Edited by: Mary H, Sue R, Suzanne W, Fletcher MD. M.Sc. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation; 2008.
  6. Hadley J, Kulier R, Zamora J, Coppus SF, Weinbrenner S, Meyerrose B, / et al.: Effectiveness of an e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for foundation (internship) training. / J R Soc Med 2010, 103:288-94. CrossRef
  7. Davis J, Chryssafidou E, Zamora J, Davies D, Khan K, Coomarasamy A: Computer-based teaching is as good as face to face lecture-based teaching of evidence based medicine: a randomized controlled trial. / BMC Med Educ 2007, 7:23. CrossRef
  8. Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V: Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. / JAMA 2008,300(10):1181-196. CrossRef
  9. Garland K: E-learning vs. classroom instruction in infection control in a dental hygiene program. / J Dent Educ 2010,74(6):637-43.
  10. Lamperti A, Sodicoff M: Computer-based neuroanatomy laboratory for medical students. / Anat Rec 1997, 249:422-28. CrossRef
  11. Smith S, Roberts N, Partridge M: Comparison of a web-based package with tutor-based methods of teaching respiratory medicine: subjective and objective evaluations. / BMC Med Educ 2007, 7:41. CrossRef
  12. Ricks C, Ratnapalan S, Jain S, Tait G: Evaluating computer-assisted learning for common pediatric emergency procedures. / Pediatr Emerg Care 2008,24(5):284-86. CrossRef
  13. Chenkin J, Lee S, Huynh T, Bandiera G: Procedures can be learned on the web: a randomized study of ultrasound-guided vascular access training. / Acad Emerg Med 2008, 15:949-54. CrossRef
  14. Swan K: Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. / Dist Educ J 2001,22(2):306-31. CrossRef
  15. Rourke L, Anderson T, Garrison DR, Archer W: Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. / J Dist Educ 1999,14(2):50-1.
  16. Ashton A, Bhati R: The use of an asynchronous learning network for senior house officers in emergency medicine. / Emerg Med J 2007,24(6):427-28. CrossRef
  17. Monaco M, Martin M: The Millenial Student: A New Generation of Learners. / Athl Train Educ J 2007, 2:42-6.
  18. Napier NP, Dekhane S, Smith S: Transition to blended learning: understanding student and faculty perspectives. / J Async Learn Network 2011,15(1):20-2.
  19. Burnette K, Ramundo M, Stevenson M, Beeson MS: Evaluation of a Web-based asynchronous pediatric emergency medicine learning tool for residents and medical students. / Acad Emerg Med 2009,16(Suppl 2):46-0. CrossRef
  20. Sadosty AT, Goyal DG, Hern G, Kilian BJ, Beeson MS: Summary recommendations from the 2008 CORD academic assembly conference alternatives workgroup. / Acad Emerg Med 2009,16(Suppl 2):25-1. CrossRef
  21. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/13/105/prepub
  
• 作者单位：Jaime Jordan (1) (2)
  Azadeh Jalali (2)
  Samuel Clarke (3)
  Pamela Dyne (2) (4)
  Tahlia Spector (2)
  Wendy Coates (1) (2) (5)
  
  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson St., Box 21, Torrance, 90509-2910, CA, USA
  2. David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
  3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 2315 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA
  4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, 14445 Olive View Drive, Sylmar, CA, 91342, USA
  5. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, USA
  

文摘

Background Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent. Methods This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10?weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Results 44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39% ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93% ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous--8.45% with 95% CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p--.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores ?4.94% (didactic); -17.61% (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68% ± 20.85, 95% CI [?.66 to 9.02], p--.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4% of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8% enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6% of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5% were neutral; 23% preferred traditional lectures. Conclusions Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.