ArticlePeerJ2016
Delivering a medical school elective with massive open online course (MOOC) technology.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- These may not be the courses you are seeking: a systematic review of open online courses in health professions education.BMC medical education · 2019Pooled it
- Application of a new multi-element integrated teaching mode based on bite-sized teaching, flipped classroom, and MOOC in clinical teaching of obstetrics and gynaecology.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Constructing a diversified online neurology teaching model under the COVID-19.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- How Do Blended Biochemistry Classes Influence Students' Academic Performance and Perceptions of Self-Cognition?Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Creating a 'choose your topic' massive open online course: an innovative and flexible approach to delivering injury prevention education.Medical education online · 2021Article
- Twelve tips for teaching medical students online under COVID-19.Medical education online · 2021Article
- Massive open online course (MOOC) learning builds capacity and improves competence for patient safety among global learners: A prospective cohort study.Nurse education today · 2021Article
- What knowledge is available on massive open online courses in nursing and academic healthcare sciences education? A rapid review.Nurse education today · 2021Review
- Uncovering motivation and self-regulated learning skills in integrated medical MOOC learning: a mixed methods research protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Blended learning of radiology improves medical students' performance, satisfaction, and engagement.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Equipping Learners to Evaluate Online Health Care Resources: Longitudinal Study of Learning Design Strategies in a Health Care Massive Open Online Course.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom.Advances in medical education and practice · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe educational technology of massive open online courses (MOOCs) has been successfully applied in a wide variety of disciplines and are an intense focus of educational research at this time. Educators are now looking to MOOC technology as a means to improve professional medical education, but very little is known about how medical MOOCs compare with traditional content delivery.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the course evaluations for the Medicine as a Business elective by fourth-year medical students at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine (SIU-SOM) for the 2012-2015 academic years was conducted. This course was delivered by small group flipped classroom discussions for 2012-2014 and delivered via MOOC technology in 2015. Learner ratings were compared between the two course delivery methods using routinely collected course evaluations.
resultsCourse enrollment has ranged from 6-19 students per year in the 2012-2015 academic years. Student evaluations of the course are favorable in the areas of effective teaching, accurate course objectives, meeting personal learning objectives, recommending the course to other students, and overall when rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The majority of all student ratings (76-95%) of this elective course are for the highest possible choice (Strongly agree or Excellent) for any criteria, regardless if the course was delivered via a traditional or MOOC format. Statistical analysis of these ratings suggests that the Effective Teacher and Overall Evaluations did not statistically differ between the two delivery formats. DISCUSSION: Student ratings of this elective course were highly similar when delivered in a flipped classroom format or by using MOOC technology. The primary advantage of this new course format is flexibility of time and place for learners, allowing them to complete the course objectives when convenient for them. The course evaluations suggest this is a change that is acceptable to the target audience.
conclusionsThis study suggests that learner evaluations of a fourth-year medical school elective course do not significantly differ when delivered by flipped classroom group discussions or via MOOC technology in a very small single center observational study. Further investigation is required to determine if this delivery method is an acceptable and effective means of teaching in the medical school environment.
Indexed as
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.