Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Rationale And Objectives: The need for social distancing has resulted in rapid restructuring of medical student education in radiology. While students traditionally spend time learning in the reading room, remote clinical learning requires material shared without direct teaching at the radiology workstation. Can remote clinical learning meet or exceed the educational value of the traditional in-person learning experience? Can student engagement be matched or exceeded in a remote learning environment?
Materials And Methods: To replace the in-person reading room experience, a small-group learning session for medical students named Virtual Read-Out (VRO) was developed using teleconferencing software. After Institutional Review Board approval, two student groups were anonymously surveyed to assess differences in student engagement and perceived value between learning environments: "Conventional" students participating in the reading room (before the pandemic) and "Remote" students participating in VRO sessions. Students reported perceived frequency of a series of five-point Likert statements. Based on number of respondents, an independent t-test was performed to determine the significance of results between two groups.
Results: Twenty-seven conventional and 41 remote students responded. Remote students reported modest but significantly higher frequency of active participation in reviewing radiology exams (p < 0.05). There was significantly lower frequency of reported boredom among Remote students (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in perceived educational value between the two groups.
Conclusion: Students report a high degree of teaching quality, clinical relevance, and educational value regardless of remote or in-person learning format. Remote clinical radiology education can be achieved with equal or greater student interaction and perceived value in fewer contact hours than conventional learning in the reading room.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.09.011 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!