ArticleBMC veterinary research2018
Mixed-method tutoring support improves learning outcomes of veterinary students in basic subjects.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Correction to: Mixed-method tutoring support improves learning outcomes of veterinary students in basic subjects.BMC veterinary research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTutoring is a useful tool in the university teaching-learning binomial, although its development is impaired in large classes. Recent improvements in information and communication technologies have made tutoring possible via the Internet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mixed-method academic tutoring in two basic subjects in Veterinary Science studies at the University of León (Spain) to optimize the usefulness of tutoring support in the college environment. This quasi-experimental study was firstly carried out as a pilot study in a small group of tutored students of "Cytology and Histology" (CH) (47/186; 25.3%) and "Veterinary Pharmacology" (VP) (33/141; 23.4%) subjects, and was implemented in a large class of CH the next academic year (150 students) while comparing the results with those obtained in a previous tutorless course (162 students). Tutored students were given access to online questionnaires with electronic feedback on each subject. In addition to traditional tutoring carried out in both tutored and tutorless students, the pilot study included three sessions of face-to-face tutoring in order to monitor the progress of students. Its efficacy was assessed by monitoring students' examination scores and attendance as well as a satisfaction survey.
resultsAlthough the examination attendance rate in the pilot study was not significantly different between tutored and tutorless groups in both subjects, an increase for numerical scores in tutored groups was observed, with a significant higher final score in VP (p = 0.001) and in the CH practice exams (first term, p = 0.009; final, p = 0.023). Good and merit scores were also better in tutored students with significant differences in VP (p = 0.005). Students felt comfortable with the tutoring service (100% in CH; 91.7% in VP). Implementation of this additional support in CH also resulted in a significant increase of attendance at the final exam in tutored courses (87.3% versus 77.2%; p = 0.026), scaled (p = 0.001) and numerical scores (final score, p = 0.001).
conclusionsOnline tutoring support, together with conventional teaching methods, may be a useful method to incorporate student-centered learning in basic subjects in Veterinary Science.
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.