Comparison of computer‐assisted instruction (CAI) versus traditional textbook methods for training in abdominal examination (Japanese experience)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects of computer-assisted, text-based and computer-and-text learning conditions on the performances of 3 groups of medical students in the pre-clinical years of their programme, taking into account their academic achievement to date. A fourth group of students served as a control (no-study) group. METHOD: Participants were recruited from the pre-clinical years of the training programmes in 2 medical schools in Japan, Jichi Medical School near Tokyo and Kochi Medical School near Osaka. Participants were randomly assigned to 4 learning conditions and tested before and after the study on their knowledge of and skill in performing an abdominal examination, in a multiple-choice test and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), respectively. Information about performance in the programme was collected from school records and students were classified as average, good or excellent. Student and faculty evaluations of their experience in the study were explored by means of a short evaluation survey. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, all 3 study groups exhibited significant gains in performance on knowledge and performance measures. For the knowledge measure, the gains of the computer-assisted and computer-assisted plus text-based learning groups were significantly greater than the gains of the text-based learning group. The performances of the 3 groups did not differ on the OSCE measure. Analyses of gains by performance level revealed that high achieving students' learning was independent of study method. Lower achieving students performed better after using computer-based learning methods. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that computer-assisted learning methods will be of greater help to students who do not find the traditional methods effective. Explorations of the factors behind this are a matter for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".