1365-2923/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=e715a50d377e50b608e31c49e637019f8b599113)
1365-2923/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=d2da59fbe457d83389d3660b9f2a547e047567e1)
Optimal sequencing of bedside teaching and computer-based learning: a randomised trial
Article first published online: 20 JAN 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03261.x
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009
Additional Information
How to Cite
Hull, P., Chaudry, A., Prasthofer, A. and Pattison, G. (2009), Optimal sequencing of bedside teaching and computer-based learning: a randomised trial. Medical Education, 43: 108–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03261.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 20 JAN 2009
- Article first published online: 20 JAN 2009
- Received 15 December 2007; editorial comments to authors 27 June 2008; accepted for publication 2 September 2008
Keywords:
- randomised controlled trial [publication type];
- computer-assisted instruction/*methods;
- education, medical, undergraduate/*methods;
- *point of care systems;
- physical examination;
- personal satisfaction;
- students, medical/*psychology
Objectives We aimed to establish the most effective order in which to deliver teaching to medical students when using both bedside teaching (BT) and computer-based learning (CBL) and to ascertain the students’ preferred method and order of delivery.
Methods A sample of 28 medical students were randomly divided into two equal groups during their orthopaedic knee examination teaching session. Group 1 received standard BT and group 2 undertook a CBL package. Each group then undertook an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The groups then received the other method of teaching followed by another OSCE. A questionnaire was administered to all students to assess their views on, and preferences for, the various teaching methods.
Results Mean scores on the first OSCE were 12.19 for group 1 (BT then CBL) and 11.96 for group 2 (CBL then BT) (P = 0.692). Mean scores on the second OSCE were 11.81 for group 1 compared with 12.79 for group 2 (P = 0.038). Statistical analysis showed a significantly better score improvement for group 2 (CBL then BT) over group 1 (BT then CBL). Of the 26 students who returned questionnaires, 24 (92%) expressed their preference for traditional BT over CBL only, and 23 (88%) were in favour of undertaking CBL prior to traditional BT.
Conclusions The CBL package is a useful tool and is most effective if used before BT. Students prefer BT alone over CBL alone, but, if offered both, prefer to undertake CBL first.