A PHP Error was encountered

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

Improving student learning outcomes and perception through a blended learning strategy based on virtual microscopy for teaching a histology laboratory course. | LitMetric

While light microscopy (LM) and virtual microscopy (VM) are valuable pedagogical approaches in histology education, studies comparing their effectiveness have primarily emanated from North America. This research aimed to compare the performance, satisfaction, and perception of Chinese undergraduate dental students enrolled in a histology laboratory course using a blended learning approach (LM+VM) versus traditional LM learning. A total of 182 first-year students were divided into two groups with similar age, gender, and academic backgrounds. The LM+VM group received a blended learning curriculum combining LM and VM, while the LM-only group participated in traditional LM-based learning. The students in the blended learning group achieved a significantly higher mean score on the laboratory exam than the students in the traditional learning group (LM+VM 79.36 ± 10.11 vs. LM-only 74.76 ± 14.71; degrees of freedom (df) = 180, P = 0.01). Additionally, the LM+VM group had a lower failure rate (i.e., grade F for students scoring below 60) (3.23% [LM+VM] vs. 13.48% [LM-only], P = 0.02). The implementation of VM was well-received by students in the LM+VM group, who, while disagreeing that VM could entirely replace LM, overwhelmingly preferred the blended learning model (93.55%). Furthermore, students in the LM+VM group reported higher satisfaction levels compared to the LM-only group (t = 8.49, df = 180, P < 0.001). Overall, blended learning with LM and VM resulted in significant improvements in student performance, satisfaction, and perception compared to traditional LM learning.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00058.2024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

blended learning
24
lm+vm group
16
traditional learning
12
learning
11
virtual microscopy
8
histology laboratory
8
laboratory course
8
performance satisfaction
8
satisfaction perception
8
group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!