ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
Effect of choice of instruction language on anatomy learning outcomes.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The choice of instructional language in medical education continues to be debated across non-English-speaking nations. In Saudi Arabia, medical schools use English as the medium of instruction, which may challenge students who previously studied in Arabic-medium schools. This study investigated the effect of the medium of instruction on anatomy learning outcomes among medical students. An experimental post-test-only control group design was implemented among 184 third-year medical students (first preclinical year) at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Students were randomly assigned to attend three anatomy lectures, delivered either in English or in mixed English-Arabic. Learning outcomes were assessed through standardized multiple-choice post-tests. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests with a significance level of 0.05. Overall, students taught in English-only and mixed English-Arabic performed comparably across all lectures (p > 0.05). Gender-stratified analysis revealed a slight difference: female students scored significantly higher in English-only instruction for the first lecture, while male students achieved better scores in the mixed approach in the second lecture. Interestingly, more students in the mixed group reported minor comprehension challenges, though not statistically significant. Instructional language did not significantly affect anatomy learning outcomes among third-year medical students. These findings suggest that once adequate English proficiency is achieved, English-medium instruction does not hinder academic performance. However, a flexible approach that integrates Arabic, when necessary, especially in early preclinical years, may improve cognitive load and conceptual understanding. These findings contribute to the ongoing global dialogue on how language policy intersects with learning efficacy in medical education.
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.