E-learning and near-peer teaching in electrocardiogram education: a randomised trial.

The clinical teacher Pub Date : 2016-06-01 Epub Date: 2015-07-01 DOI:10.1111/tct.12421
Andrew Davies, Rachael Macleod, Ian Bennett-Britton, Philip McElnay, Danya Bakhbakhi, Jane Sansom
{"title":"E-learning and near-peer teaching in electrocardiogram education: a randomised trial.","authors":"Andrew Davies,&nbsp;Rachael Macleod,&nbsp;Ian Bennett-Britton,&nbsp;Philip McElnay,&nbsp;Danya Bakhbakhi,&nbsp;Jane Sansom","doi":"10.1111/tct.12421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Near-peer teaching and electronic learning (e-learning) are two effective modern teaching styles. Near-peer sessions provide a supportive learning environment that benefits both the students and the tutor. E-learning resources are flexible and easily distributed. Careful construction and regular editing can ensure that students receive all of the essential material. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of e-learning and near-peer teaching during the pre-clinical medical curriculum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-nine second-year medical students were consented and randomised into two groups. Each group received teaching on electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation from a predefined syllabus. Eighteen students completed an e-learning module and 21 students attended a near-peer tutorial. Students were asked to complete a multiple-choice exam, scored out of 50. Each student rated their confidence in ECG interpretation before and after their allocated teaching session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The near-peer group (84%) demonstrated a significantly higher performance than the e-learning group (74.5%) on the final assessment (p = 0.002). Prior to the teaching, the students' mean confidence scores were 3/10 in both the near-peer and e-learning groups (0, poor; 10, excellent). These increased to 6/10 in both cases following the teaching session.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Both teaching styles were well received by students and improved their confidence in ECG interpretation. Near-peer teaching led to superior scores in our final assessment. Given the congested nature of the modern medical curriculum, direct comparison of the efficacy of these methods may aid course design. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of e-learning and near-peer teaching.</p>","PeriodicalId":74987,"journal":{"name":"The clinical teacher","volume":"13 3","pages":"227-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/tct.12421","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The clinical teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Background: Near-peer teaching and electronic learning (e-learning) are two effective modern teaching styles. Near-peer sessions provide a supportive learning environment that benefits both the students and the tutor. E-learning resources are flexible and easily distributed. Careful construction and regular editing can ensure that students receive all of the essential material. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of e-learning and near-peer teaching during the pre-clinical medical curriculum.

Methods: Thirty-nine second-year medical students were consented and randomised into two groups. Each group received teaching on electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation from a predefined syllabus. Eighteen students completed an e-learning module and 21 students attended a near-peer tutorial. Students were asked to complete a multiple-choice exam, scored out of 50. Each student rated their confidence in ECG interpretation before and after their allocated teaching session.

Results: The near-peer group (84%) demonstrated a significantly higher performance than the e-learning group (74.5%) on the final assessment (p = 0.002). Prior to the teaching, the students' mean confidence scores were 3/10 in both the near-peer and e-learning groups (0, poor; 10, excellent). These increased to 6/10 in both cases following the teaching session.

Discussion: Both teaching styles were well received by students and improved their confidence in ECG interpretation. Near-peer teaching led to superior scores in our final assessment. Given the congested nature of the modern medical curriculum, direct comparison of the efficacy of these methods may aid course design. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of e-learning and near-peer teaching.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心电图教育中的电子学习和近同伴教学:一项随机试验。
背景:近同伴教学和电子学习是两种有效的现代教学方式。近同伴会议提供了一个支持性的学习环境,对学生和导师都有利。网络学习资源灵活,易于分布。精心编写和定期编辑可以确保学生获得所有必要的材料。本研究的目的是比较电子学习和近同伴教学在临床前医学课程中的效果。方法:39名二年级医学生随机分为两组。每组接受心电图(ECG)解读教学。18名学生完成了一个电子学习模块,21名学生参加了一个近乎对等的教程。学生们被要求完成多项选择题,满分50分。每个学生在他们分配的教学课程之前和之后评估他们对心电图解释的信心。结果:近同伴组(84%)在最终评估中的表现显著高于网络学习组(74.5%)(p = 0.002)。教学前,近同伴组和网络学习组学生的平均信心得分均为3/10(0,差;10、优秀)。在教学课程结束后,这两种情况下的分数都增加到了6/10。讨论:两种教学方式均得到了学生的好评,提高了学生对心电解读的信心。在最后的评估中,同侪教学让我们取得了更好的成绩。鉴于现代医学课程的拥挤性,直接比较这些方法的效果可能有助于课程设计。本研究的目的是比较电子学习和近同伴教学的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Characterising ableism to promote inclusivity within clinical teaching. When technology fails during simulation: Time for reflection? 'Comfort Club': Student-run volunteering on the neonatal intensive care unit. The hidden pandemic: Student perspectives on domestic violence education. Learning and satisfaction in a student-led clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1