Self-directed learning can outperform direct instruction in the course of a modern German medical curriculum - Results of a mixed methods trial

BMC Medical Education

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Peine, Arne ^a   Kabino, Klaus ^a   Spreckelsen, Cord ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Curriculum development; E Learning; Germany; Learning style; Medical school; Medical student; Self instructed learning

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; GERMANY; HUMAN; LEARNING STYLE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STUDENT; MEDICINE; PRETEST POSTTEST DESIGN; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF EVALUATION; SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING; STUDENT SATISFACTION; TEACHING; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EVALUATION STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; LONG TERM MEMORY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RANDOMIZATION; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GERMANY; HUMANS; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SELF-ASSESSMENT; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TEACHING MATERIALS;

EID: 84975795660     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726920     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0679-0     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Woltering V, Herrler A, Spitzer K, Spreckelsen C. Blended learning positively affects students' satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;14(5):725-38.
2. Jenkins S, Goel R, Morrell DS. Computer-assisted instruction versus traditional lecture for medical student teaching of dermatology morphology: a randomized control trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59:255-9.
3. Pusic MV, LeBlanc VR, Miller SZ. Linear versus web-style layout of computer tutorials for medical student learning of radiograph interpretation. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:877-89.
4. Stetzik L, Deeter A, Parker J, Yukech C. Puzzle-based versus traditional lecture: comparing the effects of pedagogy on academic performance in an undergraduate human anatomy and physiology II lab. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:107.
5. Hale LD, Mirakian EA, Day DB. Online vs. classroom instruction: student satisfaction and learning outcomes in an undergraduate Allied Health pharmacology course. J Allied Health. 2009;38:36E-42.
6. McDonough M, Marks IM. Teaching medical students exposure therapy for phobia/panic - randomized, controlled comparison of face-to-face tutorial in small groups vs. solo computer instruction. Med Educ. 2002;36:412-7.
7. Hubble MW, Richards ME. Paramedic student performance: comparison of online with on-campus lecture delivery methods. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006;21:261-7.
8. De Lorenzo RA, Abbott CA. Effectiveness of an adult-learning, self-directed model compared with traditional lecture-based teaching methods in out-of-hospital training. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:33-7.
9. Tofovic SP, Branch RA, Jackson EK, Cressman MD, Kost CK. Teaching clinical pharmacology and therapeutics: selective for fourth-year medical students. J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;38:670-9.
10. Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL. Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2002;77:S86-93.
11. Zollner B, Sucha M, Berg C, Muß N, Amann P, Amann-Neher B, et al. Pharmacases.de - a student-centered e-learning project of clinical pharmacology. Med Teach. 2013;35:251-3.
12. Rektor der RWTH Aachen. Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für den Modellstudiengang Medizin [German] Aachen. 2013. http://www.medizin.rwth-aachen.de/global/show-document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaagdhjq. Accessed 13 May 2015.
13. Canfield A. Canfield learning styles inventory manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1992.
14. Hawk TF, Shah AJ. Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2007;5:1-19.
15. James WB, Blank WE. Review and critique of available learning-style instruments for adults. New Dir Adult Contin Educ. 1993;1993:47-57.
16. Romanelli F, Bird E, Ryan M. Learning styles: a review of theory, application, and best practices. Am J Pharm Educ. 200973. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2690881/. Accessed 13 May 2015.
17. Stout DE, Ruble TL. A reassessment of the role of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985) in accounting education research. J Account Educ. 1994;12:89-104.
18. Matthaei S, Bierwirth R, Fritsche A, Gallwitz B, Häring H-U, Joost H-G, et al. Medical antihyperglycaemic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exp Clin Endocrinol Amp Diabetes. 2009;117:522-57.
19. Augustin M. How to learn effectively in medical school: test yourself, learn actively, and repeat in intervals. Yale J Biol Med. 2014;87:207-12.
20. Diabetes Lernen: E-learning system used within the study. http://www.diabeteslernen.de. Accessed 20 May 2016.