Comparing active teaching to hybrid lecture-based method for learning radiology basics: A single center controlled study

Fabien de Oliveira , Jean-Paul Beregi , Hugo Potier , Thorgal Brun , Chris Serrand , Julien Frandon
{"title":"Comparing active teaching to hybrid lecture-based method for learning radiology basics: A single center controlled study","authors":"Fabien de Oliveira ,&nbsp;Jean-Paul Beregi ,&nbsp;Hugo Potier ,&nbsp;Thorgal Brun ,&nbsp;Chris Serrand ,&nbsp;Julien Frandon","doi":"10.1016/j.redii.2025.100054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>There is a lack of knowledge about radiology among medical students at the start of their curriculum. The optimal teaching method for radiological basics remains uncertain. We conducted a controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of full active learning and hybrid lecture-based teaching methods.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>All second-year medical students at Nîmes University Hospital (Nîmes, France) were invited to participate in a training session in the radiology unit. Volunteers were divided into hybrid lecture-based and full active learning groups. The hybrid lecture-based group received a lecture-based session followed by a unit visit, while the full active learning group utilized a structured form with progressive objectives during the visit. Pretests, immediate post-tests, and two-week follow-up tests were conducted. Short-term progression was the primary outcome, with secondary objectives including mid-term acquisition and associated factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>51 students participated, with 20 in the hybrid lecture-based group and 31 in the full active learning group. Both groups exhibited significant progression between the first and second tests (+8.48 and +2.52 respectively, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). The hybrid lecture-based group showed significantly greater mean progression (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). Mid-term results indicated score decrease particularly in the hybrid lecture-based group, but it still maintained significantly superior performance (15.02/20 versus 12.33/20 for full active learning group, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The hybrid pedagogical method yielded superior results in teaching second-year medical students the basics of radiology compared to the full active learning teaching method.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74676,"journal":{"name":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100054"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652525000018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

There is a lack of knowledge about radiology among medical students at the start of their curriculum. The optimal teaching method for radiological basics remains uncertain. We conducted a controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of full active learning and hybrid lecture-based teaching methods.

Methods

All second-year medical students at Nîmes University Hospital (Nîmes, France) were invited to participate in a training session in the radiology unit. Volunteers were divided into hybrid lecture-based and full active learning groups. The hybrid lecture-based group received a lecture-based session followed by a unit visit, while the full active learning group utilized a structured form with progressive objectives during the visit. Pretests, immediate post-tests, and two-week follow-up tests were conducted. Short-term progression was the primary outcome, with secondary objectives including mid-term acquisition and associated factors.

Results

51 students participated, with 20 in the hybrid lecture-based group and 31 in the full active learning group. Both groups exhibited significant progression between the first and second tests (+8.48 and +2.52 respectively, p < 0.01). The hybrid lecture-based group showed significantly greater mean progression (p < 0.01). Mid-term results indicated score decrease particularly in the hybrid lecture-based group, but it still maintained significantly superior performance (15.02/20 versus 12.33/20 for full active learning group, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The hybrid pedagogical method yielded superior results in teaching second-year medical students the basics of radiology compared to the full active learning teaching method.
放射学基础知识的主动教学与混合授课方法之比较:单中心对照研究
目的医学生在课程开始时对放射学知识缺乏了解。放射学基础知识的最佳教学方法仍不确定。我们进行了一项对照试验,以比较完全主动学习和混合授课教学方法的有效性。方法邀请法国 mes大学医院(n mes, France)所有二年级医学生参加放射科培训。志愿者被分为混合型讲座组和完全主动学习组。混合型以讲座为基础的小组接受了以讲座为基础的课程,然后进行了单元访问,而完全主动学习组在访问期间使用了具有渐进目标的结构化形式。进行了预测试、即时后测试和两周的随访测试。短期进展是主要结果,次要目标包括中期习得和相关因素。结果51名学生参与,其中20人在混合式授课组,31人在完全主动学习组。两组在第一次和第二次测试之间均表现出显著进展(分别为+8.48和+2.52,p <;0.01)。混合授课组的平均进展显著提高(p <;0.01)。中期结果显示混合型授课组得分下降尤其明显,但仍保持显著优势(15.02/20 vs 12.33/20);0.01)。结论混合教学法对二年级医学生放射学基础知识的教学效果优于全主动学习教学法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信