A COMPARISON OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL-EDUCATION SOFTWARE WITH A MORE TRADITIONAL TEACHING FORMAT

Citation
Csc. Lee et al., A COMPARISON OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL-EDUCATION SOFTWARE WITH A MORE TRADITIONAL TEACHING FORMAT, Teaching and learning in medicine, 9(2), 1997, pp. 111-115
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Medicine, General & Internal
ISSN journal
10401334
Volume
9
Issue
2
Year of publication
1997
Pages
111 - 115
Database
ISI
SICI code
1040-1334(1997)9:2<111:ACOICM>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
Background: Computer-assisted instruction in medicine appears rofacili tare learning, but it has not been compared prospectively to more trad itional reaching methods. Purpose: To compare the efficacy of computer -assisted instruction to a more traditional format in medical students ' acquisition of clinical acid-base problem-solving skills. Methods: 2 nd-year medical students at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (N = 82) were randomized into 2 groups. Thirty-seven received computer-assisted instruction in acid-base problem-solving skills, an d 45 were enrolled in a teacher-supervised workshop. Preinstruction an d postinstruction questionnaires, as well as a 25-question test, were administered to all students. Results: Analysis of the preinstruction questionnaire demonstrated that the students' preferred method of lear ning was the teacher supervised workshop (50%) followed by reading (39 .5%). Fifty-eight percent of the students did not use computers at all . Of the remaining 42%, average computer use was 5.9 days per month. A t the end of the course, both groups felt equally prepared for the tes t. When asked, ''If you had a choice to team the material again, which would you choose: workshop, reading, or computer-assisted instruction ?'' 93% of the supervised-workshop group chose the workshop, whereas 5 3% of the computer-assisted instruction group chose computer-assisted instruction (p < .001). No significant difference between the groups w as demonstrated in performance on postinstruction recall questions. We did, however, find a significant difference favoring the workshop gro up in postinstruction problem-solving skills (p = .04). Conclusions: C omputer-assisted instruction can be as effective as a teacher-supervis ed workshop in transmitting clinical acid-base knowledge skills to med ical students. The students, however, do not appear inclined to rely s olely on computer programs for learning and seem to benefit from teach er-student interaction in learning problem-solving skills.