ArticlePloS one2020
Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a learning model based on workstation activities.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bloom's Taxonomy-integrated rotation model enhances clinical reasoning and practical skills in optometry interns during ophthalmology rotation: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- ICMC: An Interpretable Cross-domain Multi-modal Classification model for grading teaching plan.PloS one · 2025Article
- Enhancing academic performance and student engagement in health education: insights from Work Station Learning Activities (WSLA).BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Integrated laboratory classes to learn physiology in a psychology degree: impact on student learning and experience.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Work station learning activities (WSLA) through the ICAP framework: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMoving towards a horizontal and vertical integrated curriculum, Work-Station Learning Activities (WSLA) were designed and implemented as a new learning instrument. Here, we aim to evaluate whether and how this specific learning model affects academic performance. To better understand how it is received by medical students, a mixed methods research study was conducted.
methodsIn the quantitative strand, two cohorts of first year students were compared: academic year 2015-2016 n = 320 with no exposure to WSLA, and academic year 2016-2017 n = 336 with WSLA. Learning objectives at different levels of Bloom's taxonomy were identified and performance evaluated from multiple-choice questions. In the qualitative strand, a total of six students were purposely selected considering academic performance and motivation, and submitted to semistructured interviews.
resultsPerformance at both cohorts for learning objectives at lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy was similar (38.8 vs. 39.0%; p = 0.955). In contrast, students in the WSLA group outperformed significantly those not exposed for learning objectives involving upper levels (68.5 vs. 54.2%; p <0.001). A multivariate analysis confirmed that the probability of mastering the second (more complex) objective is 1.64 times higher in students with WSLA methodology (OR 95% CI, 1.15-2.34; p = 0.007) than with traditional methodology. In the interviews, students perceived the clinical scenario of WSLA as a motivator and recognized this methodology as a more constructive framework for understanding of complicated concepts.
conclusionsIn summary, our mixed methods research supports WSLA as a strategy that promotes deep learning and has a positive impact on academic performance for learning objectives involving higher order thinking skills in medical curricula.
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.