Premium
Learning preferences, computer attitudes, and student evaluation of computerised instruction
Author(s) -
Steele David J,
Johnson Palensky Jodi E,
Lynch Thomas G,
Lacy Naomi L,
Duffy Sean W
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01141.x
Subject(s) - clarity , preference , medical education , context (archaeology) , psychology , worry , qualitative research , qualitative property , mathematics education , computer science , medicine , anxiety , paleontology , economics , microeconomics , biochemistry , chemistry , social science , machine learning , psychiatry , sociology , biology
Objective To explore the relationship between learning preferences, attitudes towards computers, and student evaluation of a computer‐assisted instructional (CAI) program. Context A third year required clerkship in surgery at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Methods A mixed‐methods design combining attitudinal measures and qualitative interviews was employed to assess student reactions to a CAI program on angiography completed during a required surgical clerkship. Between January 1998 and July 1999, 151 students completed the program. Prior to participating, students completed the Rezler Learning Preference Inventory (LPI) and a computer attitudes survey (CAS). The LPI characterizes learning preferences as being abstract or concrete, individual or interpersonal, and student‐structured or teacher‐structured. The CAS measures attitudes towards computers and their role in education. After using the CAI program, students evaluated the module by completing an 18 item questionnaire. Based on LPI and CAS scores, 31 students were invited to participate in an in‐depth qualitative interview on their experiences and perceptions of the program. Results There was no relationship between learning preferences, computer attitudes, and evaluation of the CAI program. Students were very positive about the program's content, clarity, organization, and ease of use. They also rated it as efficient and effective. However, many still indicated a preference for lecture and text‐based learning. Qualitative interviews suggest students worry computers will supplant student–teacher contact. Conclusions Learning preferences and prior attitudes toward computers did not bias student reactions to the CAI program assessed in this study. However, students expressed concerns that CAI would interfere with the traditional student–teacher encounter and relationship.