Study Background
This paper aims to summarize the article “A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Blended Learning Education Intervention for Teaching Evidence-based Medicine” by Ilic et al. (2015). The research was published in 2015 with the help of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The study’s rationale was the lack of studies examining the most effective teaching methods for medical staff in evidence-based medicine (Ilic et al., 2015).
The article aims to compare two approaches: blended and didactic learning. Apart from this purpose, another goal of the study was to explore the influence of the blended learning approach on the students’ self-efficacy, perceptions, and attitudes. One of the authors had competing interests as they were coordinators of the EBM program at Monash University.
Study Methodology and Sampling
The study’s design is based on a mixed method that includes randomized controlled trials and a qualitative study. Quantitative analysis is used to assess students’ competency and self-efficacy. The use of the qualitative method assists in critically analyzing the quantitative data. The participants were undergraduate and graduate students of Monash University, randomly appointed to groups placed in Australian and Malaysian hospitals. Only homogeneous groups were presented in the research (Ilic et al., 2015).
The total number of the study’s participants reached 497 students. All participants were educated about the same concepts but with the help of two different approaches. The research was implemented in 14 hospitals located in Australia and Malaysia. The teaching approaches were compared with the help of the Berlin questionnaire and the Assessing Competency tool. The questionnaire contained a self-report about students’ competencies, skills, and attitudes.
Study Results
Study results showed that blended learning was more efficient than didactic learning when changing students’ attitudes toward evidence-based medicine. Students who experience the blended learning approach demonstrate self-efficacy, behavior, and attitude toward evidence-based medicine on a higher level. The same parameters are lower for students receiving a didactic approach.
As for influencing students’ skills or level of knowledge, both methods are equally effective. As for students’ preferences, most participants expressed an opinion in favor of an integrated teaching method that includes various learning styles. This opinion was formed because while both learning approaches, examined by the analysts, have advantages, the blended approach creates a better environment for learning. For example, the didactic approach presents information more fundamentally, while the blended approach provides better engagement for students. One of the advantages of the blended method highlighted by participants is variability in presenting teaching materials.
Study Limitations
The limitation of the study is the high number of students who did not complete a self-report questionnaire. It accounts for 70% of all the study participants, meaning that only 30% of 497 participants did the outcome assessment (Ilic et al., 2015, p.4). This influences the objectivity of the research, increasing the risk of bias because students with more positive opinions about evidence-based medicine are more likely to complete the assessment.
Recommendations for Further Research
Further research and practice are needed to develop a strategy for educators to make the blended learning approach more effective. Evidence of the cost and value of these interventions (Ilic et al., 2015) is needed to implement these strategies. This data will help educators estimate the resources needed for strategy development. Further research should be conducted to obtain these data.
Reference
Ilic, D., Nordin, R.B., Glasziou, P., Tilson, J.K., & Villanueva, E. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching evidence-based medicine. BMC Medical Education, 15(39), 1-10. Web.