Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34879860›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2021

Application of blended teaching model based on SPOC and TBL in dermatology and venereology.

Jinrong Zeng, Liyao Liu, Xiaoliang Tong, Lihua Gao, Lu Zhou, Aiyuan Guo, Lina Tan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The two envelopes method for active learning.GMS journal for medical education · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jinrong ZengDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Liyao LiuDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Xiaoliang TongDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Lihua GaoDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Lu ZhouDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Aiyuan GuoDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. aiyuan_derm@126.com.
Lina TanDepartment of Dermatology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. tanlinawork@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study, we applied the small private online course (SPOC) and team-based learning (TBL) blended teaching model to dermatology and venereology to ensure a higher quality learning experience for clinical medical students.

methodsA total of 52 fifth-grade clinical undergraduates from Xiangya School of Medicine of Central South University were randomly divided into an experimental (n = 26) and a control group (n = 26). In March 2018, we used the SPOC and TBL blended teaching model in the experimental group and explored the effects of innovative teaching in the dermatology and venereology course, compared with the control group receiving the conventional teaching method. We analyzed the two groups' theoretical assessment scores and questionnaire results to evaluate the efficiency of the new pedagogy.

resultsStudents in the experimental group had a better understanding than the control group of the dermatology and venereology content and higher scores on the case analysis questions in the final theoretical examination. The results revealed that the majority of the experimental group students agreed that the novel teaching model blended with SPOC&TBL helped them significantly stimulate motivation and develop their ability in self-directed learning, independent thinking, literature retrieval, presentation board, teamwork, communication, and systematic clinical thinking. The teaching satisfaction survey of the two groups showed that the students' satisfaction in the experimental group was significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.05).

conclusionsThe SPOC&TBL teaching model is better than the traditional one in enriching students' professional knowledge and cultivating their comprehensive ability. It can effectively promote educational quality, improve students' learning effects, and enhance their satisfaction. This method has broad application prospects.

Indexed as

DermatologyStudents, MedicalVenereologyEducational MeasurementHumansProblem-Based LearningTeachingClinical medicineDermatologyMedical educationSmall private online courseTeam-based learningVenereology

Identifiers

PMID34879860
PMCPMC8656105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.