A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and tutorials in hematology and oncology.
In the study reported here, third-year medical students in an internal medicine clerkship were randomly assigned to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and to tutorials to compare the effectiveness of these methods in teaching hematology and oncology topics. A multiple-choice test was used to assess the students' knowledge after instruction, and the students completed a 14-item questionnaire concerning their opinions of CAI. No statistically significant difference was found between the test scores of the students using CAI and those in the tutorials for oncology; but in hematology the students in the tutorials had higher scores than those using CAI. The study design does not permit a definite explanation of the disparity in outcome for the two topics, but it is possible that the effectiveness of the presentations in the two sections was different. There was no statistically significant correlation between the time spent in the teaching setting and the score attained. The students did not consider CAI more effective than the tutorials but rather seemed to view it as a supplement to traditional teaching by lectures, textbooks, and studying from notes.
Garrett
T J
TJ
Harlem Hospital Center, New York, New York.
Ashford
A R
AR
Savage
D G
DG
D001290:Attitude; D002982:Clinical Clerkship; D003194:Computer-Assisted Instruction; D004504:Education, Medical, Undergraduate; D004521:Educational Measurement; D006405:Hematology / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D007388:Internal Medicine / Q000193:education*; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000193:education*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods*