ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2024
Comparisons of the Academic Performance of Medical and Health-Sciences Students Related to Three Learning Methods: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The learning methods employed in medical education have substantially transformed from traditional face-to-face (FTF) instruction to online learning modalities. This study sought to quantitatively compare the impact of three learning methods on the academic performance of first-year medical and health sciences students enrolled in a Medical Terminology (MT) course. The learning methods examined include the FTF method, the online-synchronized method, and a blended learning method that combines elements of both. The scope of the analysis encompasses the academic years 2019, 2020, and 2023. Methods: Academic performance was measured using overall scores and scores derived from the letter grades of 2446 first-year students assigned to the three learning methods that were compared. Results: A significant improvement in 2023 was observed in the blended learning method, which consisted of 30% FTF and 70% online synchronized lectures for overall scores (p < 0.0) and the scores based on the A grades (p < 0.0) of students in the MT course, compared to the FTF learning method in 2019 or the online synchronized learning method in 2020. Conclusion: The blended learning method, which combines FTF with online synchronized learning, appears to be a more effective method for enhancing the academic performance of first-year students compared to either the traditional FTF method or the solely online synchronized method.
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.