Mobile Technology in E-Learning for Undergraduate Medical Education on Emergent Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Disorders: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of mobile technology in e-learning (M-TEL) can add new levels of experience and significantly increase the attractiveness of e-learning in medical education. Whether an innovative interactive e-learning multimedia (IM) module or a conventional PowerPoint show (PPS) module using M-TEL to teach emergent otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS) disorders is feasible and efficient in undergraduate medical students is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of a novel IM module with a conventional PPS module using M-TEL for emergent ORL-HNS disorders with regard to learning outcomes, satisfaction, and learning experience. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted at an academic teaching hospital and included 24 undergraduate medical students who were novices in ORL-HNS. The cognitive style was determined using the Group Embedded Figures Test. The participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of the two groups matched by age, sex, and cognitive style: the IM group and the PPS group. During the 100-min learning period, the participants were unblinded to use the IM or PPS courseware on a 7-inch tablet. Pretests and posttests using multiple-choice questions to evaluate knowledge and multimedia situational tests to evaluate competence were administered. Participants evaluated their satisfaction and learning experience by the AttrakDiff2 questionnaire, and provided feedback about the modules. RESULTS: Overall, the participants had significant gains in knowledge (median of percentage change 71, 95% CI 1-100, P<.001) and competence (median of percentage change 25, 95% CI 0-33, P=.007) after 100 min of learning. Although there was no significant difference in knowledge gain between the two groups (median of difference of percentage change 24, 95% CI -75 to 36; P=.55), competence gain was significantly lower in the IM group compared with the PPS group (median of difference of percentage change -41, 95% CI -67 to -20; P=.008). However, the IM group had significantly higher scores of satisfaction (difference 2, 95% CI 2-4; P=.01), pragmatic quality (difference 1.7, 95% CI 0.1-2.7; P=.03), and hedonic stimulation (difference 1.9, 95% CI 0.3-3.1; P=.01) compared with the PPS group. Qualitative feedback indicated that the various games in the IM module attracted the participants' attention but that the nonlinearly arranged materials affected their learning. CONCLUSIONS: Using M-TEL for undergraduate medical education on emergent ORL-HNS disorders, an IM module seems to be useful for gaining knowledge, but competency may need to occur elsewhere. While the small sample size reduces the statistical power of our results, its design seems to be appropriate to determine the effects of M-TEL using a larger group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02971735; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02971735 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6waoOpCEV).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".