Trial reportBMC medical education2024
The effect of promoting factors on learning by four different delivery modes.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the digital era, developing effective teaching methods is crucial due to the challenges of maintaining students' concentration amidst distractions. This study assessed the effects of learning-promoting factors both across group boundaries and within RCT learning groups examined in our previous study on the effectiveness of online versus live teaching.
methodsThe participants' experiences in the domains of Concentration, Anticipation, Liking and Desire to reuse were evaluated online immediately after a lesson on diagnosing pediatric respiratory issues implemented either in a Live, Live-stream, Vodcast or Podcast setting. The students rated their experiences on a scale of 1-10 with scores above a median of 8 indicating high experience levels in each factor. Learning was evaluated using a Webropol e-Test immediately and five weeks after the teaching session. The 15-minute test, comprised of 10 multiple-choice questions and real-life video scenarios, measured both theoretical and diagnostic skills. The test score scale ranged from - 26 to 28 points.
resultsHigh concentration was experienced by 70/72 (97.2%) students in the Live, 41/75 (54.7%) students in the Live-stream, 53/72 (73.6%) students in the Vodcast and 36/79 (45.6%) students in the Podcast teaching groups (P < 0.01). High concentration promoted learning the most, resulting in a 1.93 score improvement in the short-term test and a 1.65 score improvement in the long-term test. Among those with high concentration, the average test scores ranged from 21.9 to 23.4, while the range for low concentration was 18.3-20.0.
conclusionIn our study, good concentration promoted higher test scores in comparison with low concentration across all the learning modalities, both in digital and live settings. However, the live teaching modality resulted in the highest levels of concentration. Our results suggest that teachers should use various teaching modalities and utilize related special features to engage learners and maintain their concentration.
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.