Does peer learning or higher levels of e-learning improve learning abilities? A randomized controlled trial

Background and aims : The fast development of e-learning and social forums demands us to update our understanding of e-learning and peer learning. We aimed to investigate if higher, pre-defined levels of e-learning or social interaction in web forums improved students’ learning ability. Methods : One hundred and twenty Danish medical students were randomized to six groups all with 20 students (eCases level 1, eCases level 2, eCases level 2+, eTextbook level 1, eTextbook level 2, and eTextbook level 2+). All students participated in a pre-test, Group 1 participated in an interactive case-based e-learning program, while Group 2 was presented with textbook material electronically. The 2+ groups were able to discuss the material between themselves in a web forum. The subject was head injury and associated treatment and observation guidelines in the emergency room. Following the e-learning, all students completed a post-test. Pre- and post-tests both consisted of 25 questions randomly chosen from a pool of 50 different questions. Results : All students concluded the study with comparable pre-test results. Students at Level 2 (in both groups) improved statistically significant compared to students at level 1 (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between level 2 and level 2+. However, level 2+ was associated with statistically significant greater student's satisfaction than the rest of the students (p>0.05). Conclusions : This study applies a new way of comparing different types of e-learning using a pre-defined level division and the possibility of peer learning. Our findings show that higher levels of e-learning does in fact provide better results when compared with the same type of e-learning at lower levels. While social interaction in web forums increase student satisfaction, learning ability does not seem to change. Both findings are relevant when designing new e-learning materials

Correct answers in pre-tests and post-tests.

<p>Values are relative numbers of correct answers for each type of educational content in each group, with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Learning efficiency is improvement in correct questions per minute of study. N = 21 in each group.</p

Between group comparisons in average time spent on educational material by students in each group, for simple and complex problems.

<p>Time spent in minutes, with 95% confidence interval in brackets. N = 21 in each group.</p

Average times group 1a and group 1b were logged in to the web-application.

<p>Times logged in, 95% confidence interval in brackets. Mann-Whitney U-test for comparisons. N = 21 in each group.</p

Between-group comparisons in test result improvements.

<p>Results in percent, difference in correct answers. N = 21 in each group.</p

Does competition work as a motivating factor in e-learning? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Examinations today are often computerized and the primary motivation and curriculum is often based on the examinations. This study aims to test if competition widgets in e-learning quiz modules improve post-test and follow-up test results and self-evaluation. The secondary aim is to evaluate improvements during the training period comparing test-results and number of tests taken. METHODS: Two groups were randomly assigned to either a quiz-module with competition widgets or a module without. Pre-, post- and follow up test-results were recorded. Time used within the modules was measured and students reported time studying. Students were able to choose questions from former examinations in the quiz-module. RESULTS: Students from the competing group were significantly better at both post-and follow-up-test and had a significantly better overall learning efficiency than those from the non-competing group. They were also significantly better at guessing their post-test results. CONCLUSION: Quiz modules with competition widgets motivate students to become more active during the module and stimulate better total efficiency. They also generate improved self-awareness regarding post-test-results

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks--is documentation and education feasible using only text and pictures?

PurposeWith the advancement of ultrasound-guidance for peripheral nerve blocks, still pictures from representative ultrasonograms are increasingly used for clinical procedure documentation of the procedure and for educational purposes in textbook materials. However, little is actually known about the clinical and educational usefulness of these still pictures, in particular how well nerve structures can be identified compared to real-time ultrasound examination. We aimed to quantify gross visibility or ultrastructure using still picture sonograms compared to real time ultrasound for trainees and experts, for large or small nerves, and discuss the clinical or educational relevance of these findings.Materials and methodsWe undertook a clinical study to quantify the maximal gross visibility or ultrastructure of seven peripheral nerves identified by either real time ultrasound (clinical cohort, n = 635) or by still picture ultrasonograms (clinical cohort, n = 112). In addition, we undertook a study on test subjects (n = 4) to quantify interobserver variations and potential bias among expert and trainee observers.ResultsWhen comparing real time ultrasound and interpretation of still picture sonograms, gross identification of large nerves was reduced by 15% and 40% by expert and trainee observers, respectively, while gross identification of small nerves was reduced by 29% and 66%. Identification of within-nerve ultrastructure was even less. For all nerve sizes, trainees were unable to identify any anatomical structure in 24 to 34%, while experts were unable to identify anything in 9 to 10%.ConclusionExhaustive ultrasonography experience and real time ultrasound measurements seem to be keystones in obtaining optimal nerve identification. In contrast the use of still pictures appears to be insufficient for documentation as well as educational purposes. Alternatives such as video clips or enhanced picture technology are encouraged instead of still pictures extracted from basic ultrasonograms

Demographic characteristics of participating students.

<p>p values are for differences between the two randomized groups.</p

Examples from quiz module.

<p>Examples from quiz module.</p

Flow sheet.

<p>Flow sheet.</p