Asynchronous vs didactic education

It's too early to throw in the towel on tradition

Jaime Jordan, Azadeh Jalali, Samuel O Clarke, Pamela Dyne, Tahlia Spector, Wendy Coates

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent. Methods. This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10 weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Results: 44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39% ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93% ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous = 18.45% with 95% CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p = 0.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores -14.94% (didactic); -17.61% (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68% ± 20.85, 95% CI [-3.66 to 9.02], p = 0.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4% of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8% enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6% of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5% were neutral; 23% preferred traditional lectures. Conclusions: Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number105
JournalBMC Medical Education
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

didactics
Students
Education
education
Medical Students
instruction
Learning
Acute Abdomen
Emergency Medicine
Wounds and Injuries
student
Pain Management
Chest Pain
trauma
medical student
pain
Curriculum
Dyspnea
flexibility
Shock

Keywords

  • Asynchronous learning
  • Computer based education
  • Emergency medicine
  • Medical student education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Asynchronous vs didactic education : It's too early to throw in the towel on tradition. / Jordan, Jaime; Jalali, Azadeh; Clarke, Samuel O; Dyne, Pamela; Spector, Tahlia; Coates, Wendy.

In: BMC Medical Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, 105, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jordan, Jaime ; Jalali, Azadeh ; Clarke, Samuel O ; Dyne, Pamela ; Spector, Tahlia ; Coates, Wendy. / Asynchronous vs didactic education : It's too early to throw in the towel on tradition. In: BMC Medical Education. 2013 ; Vol. 13, No. 1.
@article{3cc2d1441aea4ddfa433fcfe56f49661,
title = "Asynchronous vs didactic education: It's too early to throw in the towel on tradition",
abstract = "Background: Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent. Methods. This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10 weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Results: 44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39{\%} ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93{\%} ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous = 18.45{\%} with 95{\%} CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p = 0.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores -14.94{\%} (didactic); -17.61{\%} (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68{\%} ± 20.85, 95{\%} CI [-3.66 to 9.02], p = 0.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4{\%} of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8{\%} enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6{\%} of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5{\%} were neutral; 23{\%} preferred traditional lectures. Conclusions: Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.",
keywords = "Asynchronous learning, Computer based education, Emergency medicine, Medical student education",
author = "Jaime Jordan and Azadeh Jalali and Clarke, {Samuel O} and Pamela Dyne and Tahlia Spector and Wendy Coates",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6920-13-105",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
journal = "BMC Medical Education",
issn = "1472-6920",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Asynchronous vs didactic education

T2 - It's too early to throw in the towel on tradition

AU - Jordan, Jaime

AU - Jalali, Azadeh

AU - Clarke, Samuel O

AU - Dyne, Pamela

AU - Spector, Tahlia

AU - Coates, Wendy

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Background: Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent. Methods. This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10 weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Results: 44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39% ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93% ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous = 18.45% with 95% CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p = 0.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores -14.94% (didactic); -17.61% (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68% ± 20.85, 95% CI [-3.66 to 9.02], p = 0.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4% of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8% enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6% of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5% were neutral; 23% preferred traditional lectures. Conclusions: Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.

AB - Background: Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent. Methods. This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10 weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Results: 44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39% ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93% ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous = 18.45% with 95% CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p = 0.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores -14.94% (didactic); -17.61% (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68% ± 20.85, 95% CI [-3.66 to 9.02], p = 0.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4% of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8% enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6% of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5% were neutral; 23% preferred traditional lectures. Conclusions: Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.

KW - Asynchronous learning

KW - Computer based education

KW - Emergency medicine

KW - Medical student education

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881140585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84881140585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6920-13-105

DO - 10.1186/1472-6920-13-105

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - BMC Medical Education

JF - BMC Medical Education

SN - 1472-6920

IS - 1

M1 - 105

ER -