| Title |
Effects of Mobile Learning in Medical Education: A Counterfactual Evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-016-0487-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Briz-Ponce, Juan Antonio Juanes-Méndez, Francisco José García-Peñalvo, Anabela Pereira |
| Abstract |
The aim of this research is to contribute to the general system education providing new insights and resources. This study performs a quasi-experimental study at University of Salamanca with 30 students to compare results between using an anatomic app for learning and the formal traditional method conducted by a teacher. The findings of the investigation suggest that the performance of learners using mobile apps is statistical better than the students using the traditional method. However, mobile devices should be considered as an additional tool to complement the teachers' explanation and it is necessary to overcome different barriers and challenges to adopt these pedagogical methods at University. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 200 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 12% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 25% |
| Unknown | 46 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 26 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 12% |
| Engineering | 11 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 17% |
| Unknown | 57 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,258,962
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#554
of 1,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,001
of 299,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,150 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.