Medical Student and Tutor Perceptions of Video Versus Text in an Interactive Online Virtual Patient for Problem-Based Learning: A Pilot Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The impact of the use of video resources in primarily paper-based problem-based learning (PBL) settings has been widely explored. Although it can provide many benefits, the use of video can also hamper the critical thinking of learners in contexts where learners are developing clinical reasoning. However, the use of video has not been explored in the context of interactive virtual patients for PBL. OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was conducted to explore how undergraduate medical students interpreted and evaluated information from video- and text-based materials presented in the context of a branched interactive online virtual patient designed for PBL. The goal was to inform the development and use of virtual patients for PBL and to inform future research in this area. METHODS: An existing virtual patient for PBL was adapted for use in video and provided as an intervention to students in the transition year of the undergraduate medicine course at St George's, University of London. Survey instruments were used to capture student and PBL tutor experiences and perceptions of the intervention, and a formative review meeting was run with PBL tutors. Descriptive statistics were generated for the structured responses and a thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes in the unstructured responses. RESULTS: Analysis of student responses (n=119) and tutor comments (n=18) yielded 8 distinct themes relating to the perceived educational efficacy of information presented in video and text formats in a PBL context. Although some students found some characteristics of the videos beneficial, when asked to express a preference for video or text the majority of those that responded to the question (65%, 65/100) expressed a preference for text. Student responses indicated that the use of video slowed the pace of PBL and impeded students' ability to review and critically appraise the presented information. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that text was perceived to be a better source of information than video in virtual patients for PBL. More specifically, the use of video was perceived as beneficial for providing details, visual information, and context where text was unable to do so. However, learner acceptance of text was higher in the context of PBL, particularly when targeting clinical reasoning skills. This pilot study has provided the foundation for further research into the effectiveness of different virtual patient designs for PBL.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle