Garrett T J, Ashford A R, Savage D G
Harlem Hospital Center, New York, New York.
J Med Educ. 1987 Nov;62(11):918-22. doi: 10.1097/00001888-198711000-00007.
In the study reported here, third-year medical students in an internal medicine clerkship were randomly assigned to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and to tutorials to compare the effectiveness of these methods in teaching hematology and oncology topics. A multiple-choice test was used to assess the students' knowledge after instruction, and the students completed a 14-item questionnaire concerning their opinions of CAI. No statistically significant difference was found between the test scores of the students using CAI and those in the tutorials for oncology; but in hematology the students in the tutorials had higher scores than those using CAI. The study design does not permit a definite explanation of the disparity in outcome for the two topics, but it is possible that the effectiveness of the presentations in the two sections was different. There was no statistically significant correlation between the time spent in the teaching setting and the score attained. The students did not consider CAI more effective than the tutorials but rather seemed to view it as a supplement to traditional teaching by lectures, textbooks, and studying from notes.
在本报告的研究中，内科实习的三年级医学生被随机分配到计算机辅助教学（CAI）组和辅导组，以比较这两种方法在血液学和肿瘤学主题教学中的效果。采用多项选择题测试来评估学生在教学后的知识掌握情况，学生们还完成了一份关于他们对CAI看法的14项问卷。在肿瘤学方面，使用CAI的学生与参加辅导的学生的测试成绩之间未发现统计学上的显著差异；但在血液学方面，参加辅导的学生成绩高于使用CAI的学生。该研究设计无法对两个主题结果的差异给出确切解释，但有可能两个部分的教学效果不同。在教学环境中花费的时间与获得的分数之间没有统计学上的显著相关性。学生们并不认为CAI比辅导更有效，而是似乎将其视为讲座、教科书和笔记学习等传统教学的补充。
