↓ Skip to main content

Asynchronous vs didactic education: it’s too early to throw in the towel on tradition

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Asynchronous vs didactic education: it’s too early to throw in the towel on tradition
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-13-105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaime Jordan, Azadeh Jalali, Samuel Clarke, Pamela Dyne, Tahlia Spector, Wendy Coates

Abstract

Asynchronous, computer based instruction is cost effective, allows self-directed pacing and review, and addresses preferences of millennial learners. Current research suggests there is no significant difference in learning compared to traditional classroom instruction. Data are limited for novice learners in emergency medicine. The objective of this study was to compare asynchronous, computer-based instruction with traditional didactics for senior medical students during a week-long intensive course in acute care. We hypothesized both modalities would be equivalent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 143 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Lecturer 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Other 50 34%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 51%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Psychology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 31 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,489,722
of 24,280,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#173
of 3,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,824
of 202,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,280,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.