↓ Skip to main content

Self-directed learning can outperform direct instruction in the course of a modern German medical curriculum - results of a mixed methods trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Self-directed learning can outperform direct instruction in the course of a modern German medical curriculum - results of a mixed methods trial
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0679-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arne Peine, Klaus Kabino, Cord Spreckelsen

Abstract

Modernised medical curricula in Germany (so called "reformed study programs") rely increasingly on alternative self-instructed learning forms such as e-learning and curriculum-guided self-study. However, there is a lack of evidence that these methods can outperform conventional teaching methods such as lectures and seminars. This study was conducted in order to compare extant traditional teaching methods with new instruction forms in terms of learning effect and student satisfaction. In a randomised trial, 244 students of medicine in their third academic year were assigned to one of four study branches representing self-instructed learning forms (e-learning and curriculum-based self-study) and instructed learning forms (lectures and seminars). All groups participated in their respective learning module with standardised materials and instructions. Learning effect was measured with pre-test and post-test multiple-choice questionnaires. Student satisfaction and learning style were examined via self-assessment. Of 244 initial participants, 223 completed the respective module and were included in the study. In the pre-test, the groups showed relatively homogenous scores. All students showed notable improvements compared with the pre-test results. Participants in the non-self-instructed learning groups reached scores of 14.71 (seminar) and 14.37 (lecture), while the groups of self-instructed learners reached higher scores with 17.23 (e-learning) and 15.81 (self-study). All groups improved significantly (p < .001) in the post-test regarding their self-assessment, led by the e-learning group, whose self-assessment improved by 2.36. The study shows that students in modern study curricula learn better through modern self-instructed methods than through conventional methods. These methods should be used more, as they also show good levels of student acceptance and higher scores in personal self-assessment of knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Lecturer 13 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 55 27%
Unknown 65 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 31%
Psychology 17 8%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 67 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,348,622
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,652
of 4,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,007
of 354,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#54
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 354,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.