Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 272, Issue 3, pp 759–763 | Cite as

Comparison of traditional face-to-face teaching with synchronous e-learning in otolaryngology emergencies teaching to medical undergraduates: a randomised controlled trial

  • Talal Alnabelsi
  • Ali Al-Hussaini
  • David Owens
Miscellaneous

Abstract

Undergraduate otolaryngology teaching in the UK is generally limited primarily due to curriculum time constraints with traditional face-to-face (FtF) teaching being restrained by the limitations of time and location. Advances in network technology have opened up new doors for the delivery of teaching in the form of online learning. This study compares a traditional instructor-led lecture with synchronous e-learning (SeL) using otolaryngological emergencies teaching as an educational intervention. A randomised controlled trial was designed involving two groups of medical students attending an otolaryngology emergencies management lecture: one present FtF and the other viewing the streamed lecture online. The primary outcome measure was improvement between pre-and post-lecture test scores. Secondary outcomes comprised the students’ ratings of the lecture on a Likert-type scale. Students in both groups had improved test scores following the lecture (p < 0.001 for both groups) and there was no difference in magnitude of improvement in test scores between the two groups (p = 0.168). There was no difference in student ratings between the two groups for the usefulness of the lecture (p = 0.484), interactivity (p = 0.834) and meeting educational needs (p = 0.968). The FtF group, however, was more satisfied overall (p = 0.034). This study demonstrates that SeL may be as effective as FtF teaching in improving students’ knowledge on the management of otolaryngological emergencies, and that it is generally positively perceived by medical undergraduates. This highlights the potential utility of e-learning technology in undergraduate otolaryngology training.

Keywords

Otolaryngology education E-learning Face-to-face teaching Undergraduate 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Neil JF (1979) Otolaryngology in the curriculum. J R Soc Med 72(8):551–552PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khan MM, Saeed SR (2012) Provision of undergraduate otorhinolaryngology teaching within general medical council approved UK medical schools: what is current practice? J Laryngol Otol 126(4):340–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Health & Social Care Information Centre (2013) NHS Staff 2000–2010 Overview. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=2186&q=nhs+staff+overview+2000-2010&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1#top. Accessed 19 April 2014
  4. 4.
    Griffiths E (1979) Incidence of ENT problems in general practice. J R Soc Med 72(10):740–742PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donnelly MJ, Quraishi MS, McShane DP (1995) ENT and general practice: a study of paediatric ENT problems seen in general practice and recommendations for general practitioner training in ENT in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 164(3):209–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharpe D, Farboud A, Trinidade A (2009) ’Is that the ENT SHO?’: concerns over training and experience of juniors expected to cross-cover ENT at night. Clin Otolaryngol 34(3):275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis SJ, McDonald S (2006) Covering ENT out of hours: how confident are senior house officers? J Laryngol Otol 120(7):587–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clamp PJ, Gunasekaran S, Pothier DD, Sunders MW (2007) ENT in general practice: training, experience and referral rates. J Laryngol Otol 121(6):580–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM (2006) The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med 81(3):207–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hrastinski S (2008) Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educ Q 31(4):51–55Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Lou Y, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Wozney L et al (2004) How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Rev Educ Res 74(3):379–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen NS, Ko HC, Kinshuk, Lin T (2005) A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innov Educ Teach Int 42(2):181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hannum W (2001) Web-based training: advantages and limitations. In: Khan BH (ed) Web-based training. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 13–20Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Worm BS (2013) Learning from simple e-books, online cases or classroom teaching when acquiring complex knowledge. A randomized controlled trial in respiratory physiology and pulmonology. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73336. http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0073336&representation=PDF. Accessed 27 Oct 2013
  15. 15.
    Urbaniak GC, Plous S (2013) Research Randomizer (Version 4.0). http://www.randomizer.org. Accessed 14 April 2013
  16. 16.
    Hortos K, Sefcik D, Wilson SG, McDaniel JT, Zemper E (2013) Synchronous videoconferencing: impact on achievement of medical students. Teach Learn Med 25(3):211–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garland KV (2010) E-learning vs. classroom instruction in infection control in a dental hygiene program. J Dent Educ 74(6):637–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Jong N, Verstegen DML, Tan FES, O’Connor SJ (2013) A comparison of classroom and online asynchronous problem-based learning for students undertaking statistics training as part of a Public Health Masters degree. Adv Health Sci Educ 18(2):245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations