Abstract
We sought to determine whether computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was as effective as conventional teacher-led classroom instruction (CI) in providing review and reinforcement of previously presented information. Method: The results of CAI for arterial blood gas (ABG) interpretation, developed at our institution, were compared to the results of an equal amount of CI on the ability of students to interpret ABG values in a randomized-groups, pretest-posttest design. Both the CAI and CI groups were pretested. The CAI group then received 30 minutes of CAI instruction and the CI group received 30 minutes of a traditional teacher-led classroom review covering the same information. Both groups were then posttested. We compared the mean-change scores for both groups to see whether a significant difference existed. Results: We determined that there was no significant difference in the effect of the two modes on students' ability to interpret ABG values, as evidenced by test scores. Both CAI and CI improved students' scores, on an average, up to 32 percentage points, depending on the content area tested. Conclusion: We conclude that if the soft- and hardware capabilities are available, CAI offers an alternative to classroom instruction for review and reinforcement that is no less effective, offers greater freedom in scheduling student access, and does not consume additional instructor time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.