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

Abstract

Background Blended 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. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education. Methods We 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. Results A 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. Conclusions From 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.

Kazan State Medical University Survey after the Use of CyberPatient<sup>TM</sup> during COVID-19

“…However, this popularity was more for theoretical and basic science courses than for clinical environments where practical medical skills are required (Ruiz et al, 2006;Moberg & Whitcomb, 1999). Similar surveys and meta analysis have been completed by others in relation to this issue (Vallée et al, 2020;Kononowicz et al, 2019). Computer literacy and attitudes towards e-learning amongst first year students was studied by Link & Marz (2006).…”

A Short Intervention Followed by an Interactive E-Learning Module to Motivate Medical Students to Enlist as First Responders: Protocol for a Prospective Implementation Study

“…Once again, instructors should be senior medical students rather than senior physicians, as this will be less intimidating to junior medical students [ 26 ]. Combining e-learning with hands-on practice will result in a blended learning method which should enhance knowledge and skill acquisition [ 32 , 33 ]. Blended learning has also been shown to significantly increase motivation in undergraduate students [ 34 ].…”

Effectiveness of blended learning versus lectures alone on ECG analysis and interpretation by medical students

“…With the widespread availability of computers and the Internet, contemporary health professions’ education increasingly uses e-learning to supplement classroom-based teaching such as lectures [ 15 , 16 ]. In Electrocardiography, computer-assisted instruction (CAI) dates back to the 1960’s when analogue computers were used to teach ECGs to medical students [ 17 ].…”