Virtual Microscopy Versus Optical Microscopy: Comparison of Two Teaching Methodologies for Achieving Specific Learning Outcomes in Medical Students.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 350
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Perceptions and satisfaction
研究概览
简要总结
The literature reveals ongoing debate regarding the relative effectiveness of Virtual Microscopy (VM) versus Optical Microscopy (OM) in achieving specific learning outcomes (SLOs). There remains a paucity of comprehensive, comparative research evaluating these methodologies against standardized learning outcomes in the medical undergraduate population. This instigated a comparison of VM and OM as teaching methodologies for pathology in medical education, specifically focusing on their effectiveness in achieving predetermined learning outcomes.
详细描述
It is now essential to thoroughly evaluate the pedagogical effects of these changing modalities due to the growing trend towards digital learning environments, which has been brought to light by recent global challenges to traditional classroom teaching. By methodically contrasting virtual and optical microscopy for teaching pathology to undergraduate medical students, this work can close this gap. It is anticipated that understanding the superior modality-more especially, how well it achieves predefined learning outcomes-will improve the optimization of pathology instruction in modern medical education and guide evidence-based curriculum selections.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Other
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 20 Years 至 24 Years（Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •Students of either gender
- •Aged 20-24 years
- •Studying in fourth-year MBBS
- •Willing to participate
排除标准
- •Students, absent during the interventions or assessments
- •Declined or withdrew consent at any stage
结局指标
主要结局
Perceptions and satisfaction
时间窗: 3 hours
A five-point Likert scale assessed perceptions and satisfaction with the respective teaching methodology. The likert scale responses were graded as 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 as neutral, 4 agree, and 5 strongly agree.
次要结局
未报告次要终点
研究者
Muhammad Aamir Latif
Research Consultant
RESnTEC, Institute of Research