Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Education and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Asynchronous vs didactic education: it’s too early to throw in the towel on tradition

Jaime Jordan12*, Azadeh Jalali2, Samuel Clarke3, Pamela Dyne24, Tahlia Spector2 and Wendy Coates125

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson St., Box 21, Torrance 90509-2910, CA, USA

2 David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

3 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 2315 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA

4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, 14445 Olive View Drive, Sylmar, CA 91342, USA

5 Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Education 2013, 13:105  doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-105

Published: 8 August 2013

Abstract

Background

Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent.

Methods

This was a prospective observational quasi-experimental study of 4th year medical students who were novice learners with minimal prior exposure to curricular elements. We assessed baseline knowledge with an objective pre-test. The curriculum was delivered in either traditional lecture format (shock, acute abdomen, dyspnea, field trauma) or via asynchronous, computer-based modules (chest pain, EKG interpretation, pain management, trauma). An interactive review covering all topics was followed by a post-test. Knowledge retention was measured after 10 weeks. Pre and post-test items were written by a panel of medical educators and validated with a reference group of learners. Mean scores were analyzed using dependent t-test and attitudes were assessed by a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

44 of 48 students completed the protocol. Students initially acquired more knowledge from didactic education as demonstrated by mean gain scores (didactic: 28.39% ± 18.06; asynchronous 9.93% ± 23.22). Mean difference between didactic and asynchronous = 18.45% with 95% CI [10.40 to 26.50]; p = 0.0001. Retention testing demonstrated similar knowledge attrition: mean gain scores −14.94% (didactic); -17.61% (asynchronous), which was not significantly different: 2.68% ± 20.85, 95% CI [−3.66 to 9.02], p = 0.399. The attitudinal survey revealed that 60.4% of students believed the asynchronous modules were educational and 95.8% enjoyed the flexibility of the method. 39.6% of students preferred asynchronous education for required didactics; 37.5% were neutral; 23% preferred traditional lectures.

Conclusions

Asynchronous, computer-based instruction was not equivalent to traditional didactics for novice learners of acute care topics. Interactive, standard didactic education was valuable. Retention rates were similar between instructional methods. Students had mixed attitudes toward asynchronous learning but enjoyed the flexibility. We urge caution in trading in traditional didactic lectures in favor of asynchronous education for novice learners in acute care.

Keywords:
Medical student education; Emergency medicine; Computer based education; Asynchronous learning