A comparison of student performance and satisfaction between a traditional and integrative approach to teaching an introductory radiology course on the extremities

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare student performance and student satisfaction ratings for an introductory extremities radiology course taught using 2 different educational methods. Methods: One group of students was taught using a traditional face-to-face instruction method, and the other group received an integrative blended-learning approach. A multivariate analysis of scores on lecture and laboratory examinations was performed to detect differences in student performance between the 2 methods. An independent t test was performed to compare the final course averages between the 2 methods. χ2 Analysis was used to compare the distribution of letter grades and levels of satisfaction between the 2 groups. Results: Test scores were higher for the integrative approach than for the traditional face-to-face method (p < .05). However, the differences were not meaningful, as the greatest improvement in correct responses was only for 2 questions. Students appeared to be more satisfied with the integrative approach when compared to the traditional method (p < .05). Conclusion: Student satisfaction with the educational delivery methods in an introductory extremities radiology course using an integrative approach was greater than for the traditional face-to-face instruction method. Student performance was similar between the 2 cohorts.

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

“…Of the 56 studies, 47 were conducted in high-income countries: 14 were from the United States [ 9 , 10 , 29 , 31 , 36 , 38 , 43 , 50 , 53 - 55 , 59 , 61 , 73 ], 2 from Canada [ 47 , 58 ], 5 from Germany [ 39 , 41 , 46 , 57 , 76 ], 3 from the United Kingdom [ 42 , 56 , 75 ], 3 from Spain [ 30 , 45 , 48 ], 1 from France [ 74 ], 1 from Greece [ 34 ], 1 from Sweden [ 67 ], 1 from the Netherlands [ 37 ], 1 from Korea [ 40 ], 1 from Poland [ 79 ], 1 from Serbia [ 70 ], 1 from Croatia [ 64 ], 1 from Turkey [ 32 ], 2 from Taiwan [ 28 , 51 ], 1 from Japan [ 69 ], and 7 from Australia [ 44 , 49 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 78 ]. Of the 56 studies, 9 studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries: 2 from Thailand [ 52 , 62 ], 1 from China [ 77 ], 1 from Malaysia [ 72 ], 2 from Iran [ 27 , 71 ], 1 from Jordan [ 35 ], 1 from South Africa [ 11 ], and 1 from Uruguay [ 60 ].…”

“…Of the studies focusing on computer-assisted instruction blended learning, 5 [ 10 , 11 , 48 , 49 , 73 ] of the 8 studies [ 9 - 11 , 38 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 73 ] showed significantly higher scores than those of traditional learning. Only 1 study [ 38 ] showed a significant negative effect compared to traditional learning (standard mean difference –0.68, 95% CI –1.32 to –0.04).…”

“…Additional interest was observed for digital blended learning compared to traditional learning in medicine (standard mean difference 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.45, z= 2.71, I 2 =95.6%, n=417) [ 31 - 33 , 76 ], in virtual patient (standard mean difference 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.28, z= 2.45, I 2 =85.8%, n=416) [ 65 - 67 , 79 ], in online (standard mean difference 1.26, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.71, z= 5.49, I 2 =96.1%, n=1879) [ 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 53 , 64 , 69 - 72 , 74 , 78 ], and in computer-aided-instruction (standard mean difference 2.1, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.44, z= 2.91, I 2 =97.9%, n=706) [ 11 , 38 , 48 , 49 , 73 ] suggesting more positive effects of blended learning over traditional learning alone for learning in medicine.…”

Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

“…Of the studies focusing on computer-assisted instruction blended learning, 5 [10,11,48,49,73] of the 8 studies [9][10][11]38,48,49,52,73] showed significantly higher scores than those of traditional learning. Only 1 study [38] showed a significant negative effect compared to traditional learning (standard mean difference -0.68, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.04).…”

“…Dentistry studies included 3 online blended learning studies (standard mean difference 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.64, z=2. 63 [34,36,38,39,41,43,44,46,47,50,53,64,[69][70][71][72]74,78], and in computer-aided-instruction (standard mean difference 2.1, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.44, z=2.91, I 2 =97.9%, n=706) [11,38,48,49,73] suggesting more positive effects of blended learning over traditional learning alone for learning in medicine.…”