This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives To compare a blended learning approach with traditional face-to-face instruction in terms of their individual effectiveness in imparting neurologic examination (NE) skills in medical students.
Methods We conducted a prospective controlled study of 4th-year medical students (n = 163) who were pseudorandomly distributed into 2 groups. Group A (n = 87) was subjected to a traditional teaching method comprising 2 face-to-face sessions. Group B (n = 76) underwent blended learning, which consisted of an individual preparation period using a course handbook and videoclips, plus a single face-to-face session. NE skill acquisition was assessed by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Questionnaires were used for evaluation.
Results Comparison of mean OSCE scores in groups A vs B revealed that NE skill acquisition was better in group B (blended learning), with a moderate effect size, a smaller OSCE score variance, and fewer students performing poorly than in group A (face-to-face instruction). Student evaluation revealed that both teaching approaches were well accepted, but a higher level of satisfaction was associated with the blended learning approach. This method also provided more time for practice and feedback.
Discussion The blended learning approach is a highly efficacious and valued method for teaching NE skills. It offers instructors and faculty the advantage of successful skill acquisition in students despite the considerably reduced attendance time.
Glossary
- ANOVA=
- analysis of variance;
- NE=
- neurologic examination;
- OSCE=
- objective structured clinical examination
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received February 6, 2021.
- Accepted in final form September 13, 2021.
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
- Author Response: Teaching the Neurologic Examination
- Reader Response: Teaching the Neurologic Examination: A Prospective Controlled Study to Compare a Blended Learning Approach with Face-to-Face Instruction
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.