Fabien de Oliveira , Jean-Paul Beregi , Hugo Potier , Thorgal Brun , Chris Serrand , Julien Frandon
{"title":"Comparing active teaching to hybrid lecture-based method for learning radiology basics: A single center controlled study","authors":"Fabien de Oliveira , Jean-Paul Beregi , Hugo Potier , Thorgal Brun , Chris Serrand , Julien Frandon","doi":"10.1016/j.redii.2025.100054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>There is a lack of knowledge about radiology among medical students at the start of their curriculum. The optimal teaching method for radiological basics remains uncertain. We conducted a controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of full active learning and hybrid lecture-based teaching methods.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>All second-year medical students at Nîmes University Hospital (Nîmes, France) were invited to participate in a training session in the radiology unit. Volunteers were divided into hybrid lecture-based and full active learning groups. The hybrid lecture-based group received a lecture-based session followed by a unit visit, while the full active learning group utilized a structured form with progressive objectives during the visit. Pretests, immediate post-tests, and two-week follow-up tests were conducted. Short-term progression was the primary outcome, with secondary objectives including mid-term acquisition and associated factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>51 students participated, with 20 in the hybrid lecture-based group and 31 in the full active learning group. Both groups exhibited significant progression between the first and second tests (+8.48 and +2.52 respectively, <em>p</em> < 0.01). The hybrid lecture-based group showed significantly greater mean progression (<em>p</em> < 0.01). Mid-term results indicated score decrease particularly in the hybrid lecture-based group, but it still maintained significantly superior performance (15.02/20 versus 12.33/20 for full active learning group, <em>p</em> < 0.01).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The hybrid pedagogical method yielded superior results in teaching second-year medical students the basics of radiology compared to the full active learning teaching method.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74676,"journal":{"name":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100054"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652525000018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
There is a lack of knowledge about radiology among medical students at the start of their curriculum. The optimal teaching method for radiological basics remains uncertain. We conducted a controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of full active learning and hybrid lecture-based teaching methods.
Methods
All second-year medical students at Nîmes University Hospital (Nîmes, France) were invited to participate in a training session in the radiology unit. Volunteers were divided into hybrid lecture-based and full active learning groups. The hybrid lecture-based group received a lecture-based session followed by a unit visit, while the full active learning group utilized a structured form with progressive objectives during the visit. Pretests, immediate post-tests, and two-week follow-up tests were conducted. Short-term progression was the primary outcome, with secondary objectives including mid-term acquisition and associated factors.
Results
51 students participated, with 20 in the hybrid lecture-based group and 31 in the full active learning group. Both groups exhibited significant progression between the first and second tests (+8.48 and +2.52 respectively, p < 0.01). The hybrid lecture-based group showed significantly greater mean progression (p < 0.01). Mid-term results indicated score decrease particularly in the hybrid lecture-based group, but it still maintained significantly superior performance (15.02/20 versus 12.33/20 for full active learning group, p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The hybrid pedagogical method yielded superior results in teaching second-year medical students the basics of radiology compared to the full active learning teaching method.