ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2013
Comparison of chiropractic student scores before and after utilizing active learning techniques in a classroom setting.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Active Learning Techniques: Audience Response Questions Versus Small Group Discussion on Immediate- and Long-term Knowledge Gain.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Conference Didactic Planning and Structure: An Evidence-based Guide to Best Practices from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2020Review
- Analysis of immediate student outcomes following a change in gross anatomy laboratory teaching methodology.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2018Article
- How undergraduate medical students reflect on instructional practices and class attendance: a case study from the Shifa College of Medicine, Pakistan.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective : We report the differences in final examination scores achieved by students at the culmination of two different teaching strategies in an introductory skills course. Methods : Multiple choice examination scores from six consecutive academic calendar sessions over 18 months (n = 503) were compared. Two groups were used: Cohort A (n = 290) represented students who were enrolled in the course 3 consecutive academic sessions before an instructional change and Cohort B (n = 213) included students who were enrolled in 3 consecutive academic sessions following the instructional change, which included a more active learning format. Statistical analyses used were 2-tailed independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD), and effect size. Results : The 2-tailed independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t = -3.71, p < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-4.20). Significant difference was found in the highest performing subgroup compared to the lowest performing subgroup in Cohort A (F = 3.343, p = .037). For Cohort A subgroups 1 and 2, Tukey's HSD was p < .028. In Cohort B, no difference was found among subgroups (F = 1.912, p = .150, HSD p > .105). Conclusion : Compared to previous versions of the same course taught by the same instructor, the students in the new course design performed better, suggesting that using active learning techniques helps improve student achievement.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.