# Comparing active teaching to hybrid lecture-based method for learning radiology basics: A single center controlled study

## TL;DR

A study found that a hybrid teaching method works better than active learning for teaching radiology basics to early medical students.

## Contribution

The study compares active learning and hybrid lecture-based methods for radiology education in a controlled trial.

## Key findings

- Hybrid lecture-based teaching showed greater short-term knowledge improvement than active learning.
- Mid-term results showed a decline in both groups, but the hybrid method still outperformed active learning.
- Both methods significantly improved radiology knowledge compared to pretests.

## Abstract

•Dedicated training improves basic radiology knowledge in early medical students.•Hybrid pedagogy model tends to yield better short- and medium-term outcomes.•Active learning may not be the most effective approach in all situations.

Dedicated training improves basic radiology knowledge in early medical students.

Hybrid pedagogy model tends to yield better short- and medium-term outcomes.

Active learning may not be the most effective approach in all situations.

There is a lack of knowledge about radiology among medical students at the start of their curriculum. The optimal teaching method for radiological basics remains uncertain. We conducted a controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of full active learning and hybrid lecture-based teaching methods.

All second-year medical students at Nîmes University Hospital (Nîmes, France) were invited to participate in a training session in the radiology unit. Volunteers were divided into hybrid lecture-based and full active learning groups. The hybrid lecture-based group received a lecture-based session followed by a unit visit, while the full active learning group utilized a structured form with progressive objectives during the visit. Pretests, immediate post-tests, and two-week follow-up tests were conducted. Short-term progression was the primary outcome, with secondary objectives including mid-term acquisition and associated factors.

51 students participated, with 20 in the hybrid lecture-based group and 31 in the full active learning group. Both groups exhibited significant progression between the first and second tests (+8.48 and +2.52 respectively, p < 0.01). The hybrid lecture-based group showed significantly greater mean progression (p < 0.01). Mid-term results indicated score decrease particularly in the hybrid lecture-based group, but it still maintained significantly superior performance (15.02/20 versus 12.33/20 for full active learning group, p < 0.01).

The hybrid pedagogical method yielded superior results in teaching second-year medical students the basics of radiology compared to the full active learning teaching method.