Blended learning approach improves teaching in a problem-based learning environment in orthopedics - a pilot study

BMC Medical Education

Eike Hoff¹  Gerhard Schmidmaier²  Kai Sostmann³  Andrea Antolic⁴  Nicole Haberstroh⁵  David A Back¹ 

[1] Julius Wolff Institute and Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany;Department for Orthopedics, Traumatology and Paraplegiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;Dieter Scheffner Center for Medical Teaching and Educational Research, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany;Reformed Medical Track Program, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany;Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

关键词: Blended learning;    Problem-based learning;    Traumatology;    Orthopedics;    E-learning;   

Others  :  1135660
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-17

 received in 2012-12-16, accepted in 2013-12-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

While e-learning is enjoying increasing popularity as adjunct in modern teaching, studies on this topic should shift from mere evaluation of students’ satisfaction towards assessing its benefits on enhancement of knowledge and skills. This pilot study aimed to detect the teaching effects of a blended learning program on students of orthopedics and traumatology in the context of a problem-based learning environment.

Methods

The project NESTOR (network for students in traumatology and orthopedics) was offered to students in a problem-based learning course. Participants completed written tests before and directly after the course, followed by a final written test and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) as well as an evaluation questionnaire at the end of the semester. Results were compared within the group of NESTOR users and non-users and between these two groups.

Results

Participants (n = 53) rated their experiences very positively. An enhancement in knowledge was found directly after the course and at the final written test for both groups (p < 0.001). NESTOR users scored higher than non-users in the post-tests, while the OSCE revealed no differences between the groups.

Conclusions

This pilot study showed a positive effect of the blended learning approach on knowledge enhancement and satisfaction of participating students. However, it will be an aim for the future to further explore the chances of this approach and internet-based technologies for possibilities to improve also practical examination skills.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Back et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM: The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006, 81(3):207-212.
• [2]Gray K, Tobin J: Introducing an online community into a clinical education setting: a pilot study of student and staff engagement and outcomes using blended learning. BMC Med Educ 2010, 10:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Hull P, Chaudry A, Prasthofer A, Pattison G: Optimal sequencing of bedside teaching and computer-based learning: a randomised trial. Med Educ 2009, 43(2):108-112.
• [4]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 Theory Pract 2009, 14(5):725-738.
• [5]Devitt P, Palmer E: Computer-aided learning: an overvalued educational resource? Med Educ 1999, 33(2):136-139.
• [6]Romanov K, Nevgi A: Do medical students watch video clips in eLearning and do these facilitate learning? Med Teach 2007, 29(5):484-488.
• [7]Shantikumar S: From lecture theatre to portable media: students’ perceptions of an enhanced podcast for revision. Med Teach 2009, 31(6):535-538.
• [8]Heye T, Kurz P, Eiers M, Kauffmann GW, Schipp A: A radiological case collection with interactive character as a new element in the education of medical students. Rofo 2008, 180(4):337-344.
• [9]Gormley GJ, Collins K, Boohan M, Bickle IC, Stevenson M: Is there a place for e-learning in clinical skills? A survey of undergraduate medical students’ experiences and attitudes. Med Teach 2009, 31(1):e6-e12.
• [10]Rajendran PR: MSJAMA. The Internet: ushering in a new era in of medicine. JAMA 2001, 285(6):804.
• [11]Garrison DR, Kanuka H: Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ 2004, 7(2):95-105.
• [12]Rowe M, Frantz J, Bozalek V: The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: a systematic review. Med Teach 2012, 34(4):e216-e221.
• [13]Citak M, Calafi A, Kendoff D, Kupka T, Haasper C, Behrends M, Krettek C, Matthies HK, Hufner T: An internet based learning tool in orthopaedic surgery: preliminary experiences and results. Technol Health Care 2009, 17(2):141-148.
• [14]Gesundheit N, Brutlag P, Youngblood P, Gunning WT, Zary N, Fors U: The use of virtual patients to assess the clinical skills and reasoning of medical students: initial insights on student acceptance. Med Teach 2009, 31(8):739-742.
• [15]Diessl S, Verburg FA, Hoernlein A, Schumann M, Luster M, Reiners C: Evaluation of an internet-based e-learning module to introduce nuclear medicine to medical students: a feasibility study. Nucl Med Commun 2010, 31:1063-1067.
• [16]Ackermann O, Siemann H, Schwarting T, Ruchholtz S: Effective skill training by means of E-learning in orthopaedic surgery. Z Orthop Unfall 2010, 148(3):348-352.
• [17]Ziegler R, Knopp W, Hohenberg G, Wendorf A, Redies M, Pohlemann T: MEC.O – Medical education online: a key to the knowledge extension in the student training in traumatology in the context of the “Neue Approbationsordnung für Ärzte”. GMS Med Inform Biom Epidemiol 2009, 5(1):Doc04.
• [18]Wunschel M, Wulker N, Kluba T: A virtual orthopaedic hospital: feedback on student acceptance. Med Educ 2009, 43(11):1113.
• [19]Dreinhofer KE: The bone and joint decade--chances for orthopedics and traumatic surgery. Z Orthop Unfall 2007, 145(4):399-402.
• [20]Clawson DK, Jackson DW, Ostergaard DJ: It’s past time to reform the musculoskeletal curriculum. Acad Med 2001, 76(7):709-710.
• [21]Perkins GD, Fullerton JN, Davis-Gomez N, Davies RP, Baldock C, Stevens H, Bullock I, Lockey AS: The effect of pre-course e-learning prior to advanced life support training: a randomised controlled trial. Resuscitation 2010, 81(7):877-881.
• [22]Armstrong P, Elliott T, Ronald J, Paterson B: Comparison of traditional and interactive teaching methods in a UK emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2009, 16(6):327-329.
• [23]Wunschel M, Leichtle U, Wulker N, Kluba T: Using a web-based orthopaedic clinic in the curricular teaching of a German university hospital: analysis of learning effect, student usage and reception. Int J Med Inform 2010, 79(10):716-721.
• [24]Lewin LO, Singh M, Bateman BL, Glover PB: Improving education in primary care: development of an online curriculum using the blended learning model. BMC Med Educ 2009, 9:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Hartmann AC, Cruz PD Jr: Interactive mechanisms for teaching dermatology to medical students. Arch Dermatol 1998, 134(6):725-728.
• [26]Ridgway PF, Sheikh A, Sweeney KJ, Evoy D, McDermott E, Felle P, Hill AD, O’Higgins NJ: Surgical e-learning: validation of multimedia web-based lectures. Med Educ 2007, 41(2):168-172.