The digital age: is this the future of medical education? A cross-sectional study to assess medical students’ opinions about e-learning in psychiatry undergraduate medical education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were to assess medical students' opinions about e-learning in psychiatry undergraduate medical education, and to investigate a possible relationship between learning styles and preferences for learning modalities. METHOD: During the academic year 2009/2010, all 231 senior Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) medical students in their penultimate year of study were invited to answer a questionnaire that was posted online on Moodle, the RCSI virtual learning environment. RESULTS: In all, 186 students responded to the questionnaire, a response rate of 80%. Significantly more students stated a preference for live psychiatry tutorials over e-learning lectures. Students considered flexible learning, having the option of viewing material again and the ability to learn at one's own pace with e-learning lectures, to be more valuable than having faster and easier information retrieval. CONCLUSION: Students prefer traditional in-class studying, even when they are offered a rich e-learning environment. Understanding students' learning styles has been identified as an important element for e-learning development, delivery and instruction, which can lead to improved student performance.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it