Examining Audiology Students' Clinical Collaboration Skills When Using Virtual Audiology Cases Aided With No Collaboration, Live Collaboration, and Virtual Collaboration
Article1 min read·Published Jan 2022Older

Examining Audiology Students' Clinical Collaboration Skills When Using Virtual Audiology Cases Aided With No Collaboration, Live Collaboration, and Virtual Collaboration

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov shows its articles on its own site.

Read the article on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗

Article · Jan 2022 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

Quasi-experimental study comparing audiology students' clinical reasoning across three learning conditions: no collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, and virtual collaboration using computer-based case simulations. Results showed students in both collaboration groups significantly outperformed those working independently, suggesting that scaffolded collaborative learning environments enhance clinical decision-making skills in audiology training.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.

Ramy Shaaban

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to examine students' ability to use effective clinical collaboration online in a designed scaffolded environment. Three groups were formed to achieve this goal: two control groups (one using no collaboration and one using live, face-to-face collaboration) and one treatment group using virtual collaboration. Method: A quasi-experimental design was conducted at two U.S. universities to examine whether there is a significant difference in clinical reasoning skills between three treatment groups using IUP Audiosim software. Two computer-based audiology case simulations were developed, and participants were randomly placed into the three groups. The clinical reasoning data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc analyses. Results: The results indicated that there was a significant difference in clinical reasoning skills between the three treatment groups. The score obtained by the no-collaboration group was significantly less than the scores obtained by the virtual and live collaboration groups. Conclusions: The results imply that lower scores were associated with students receiving more instructor-designed content and higher scores with students receiving less instructor-designed content. Students who received more scaffolds with the collaborations may have demonstrated better decision-making outside the training exercise than those who did not receive scaffolds. However, lower scores on the exercise did no

Read it at the source ↗

Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this article · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →