The impact of interactive, computerized educational modules on preclinical medical education

Abstract

Interactive computerized modules have been linked to improved retention of material in clinical medicine. This study examined the effects of a new series of interactive learning modules for preclinical medical education, specifically in the areas of quiz performance, perceived difficulty of concepts, study time, and perceived stress level. We randomly allocated 102 medical student volunteers into control and experimental groups. All participants studied selected anatomical and physiologic concepts using existing material (lecture notes, textbooks, etc.), while those in the experimental groups used the new interactive modules as well. All participants completed a quiz to test their knowledge of the assigned concepts and a survey to assess their subjective experiences in studying with the modules. We found a trend toward higher quiz scores in the experimental group relative to the control group, though it did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.31). Perceived concept difficulty was significantly reduced among those who studied with the modules (P < 0.001), and the number of hours spent studying the concepts was significantly increased (P = 0.028). Of those who used the modules, 83% rated them as "very helpful" or "extremely helpful." No significant differences existed between participants' reported stress levels during the course of the study (P = 0.44). Our data suggest that medical students may learn more effectively and feel less intimidated by difficult concepts when interactive modules supplement traditional instruction.

Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education

“…Kembera et al 2010) that the quality of communication in an online environment may be more important than access to information alone however. The discrepancy with other studies which found no differences between the blended learning and face-to-face approaches in terms of their impact on students' achievement (Kennedy & McCallister, 2000;O'Leary, 2008;Banks, 2004;Alshwiah, 2009;Bryner et al, 2008;Utts et al, 2003) needs to be explained or indicates areas for further research. This small-scale study has, of course, limited inference and some systematic variation may result from the limited randomisation at class level.…”

“…Moreover, further recent studies (Utts Sommer, Acredolo, Maher & Matthews, 2003;Taradi, Taradi, Radic & Pokrajac , 2005;Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2006;Scida & Saury, 2006, Pereira et al, 2007Bryner, Saddawi-Konefka & Gest 2008), McFarlin, 2008O'Leary, 2008;Alshwiah, 2009;and Gurpinar, Zayim, Ozenci, & Alimoglu, 2009) have compared blended learning (which combines elements of e-learning and face-toface instruction) with face-to-face classroom learning. A comprehensive analysis of the variation in impact is described by Bernard et al (2009).…”

The gross anatomy course: An analysis of its importance

“…Multiple reports compare problem-based learning (Azer and Eizenberg, 2007), peer teaching (Krych et al, 2005;Evans and Cuffe, 2009), team-based learning (Nieder et al, 2005), computer or web-based teaching materials (Bryner et al, 2008;Petersson et al, 2009), and clinical skills (Dusseau et al, 2008) with traditional dissection methodology. Winkelmann (2007) reviewed several novel teaching methods and found that they were mostly judged to be ''not disadvantageous'' while at the same time not achieving significantly better results than traditional teaching methods on comparable examinations.…”

Evaluation of computer‐aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six‐year study

“…Computer technology has become an increasingly important educational resource, which has dramatically changed teaching and learning in the medical curriculum (Chodorow, 1996;Clark, 2002;Ruiz et al, 2006;Bryner et al, 2008). This adoption of technology into the classroom was accelerated with expansion of the Web, which elevated the level of innovation and collaboration in the development of educational applications by making it easier for faculty to author, distribute and update courseware (Candler and Blair, 1998;McNulty et al, 2000;Levine, 2002;Nieder and Nagy, 2002).…”