Claims

Visual and auditory features of DPBL technologies are appreciated but tactile realism is limited

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Students highlighted visual and auditory aspects of DPBL technologies as helpful for comprehension, while the tactile dimension was consistently described as lacking, limiting perceived realism. → Rathleff Camilla Rams 2025

Evidence

Rathleff Camilla Rams 2025

Rathleff Camilla Rams, Vergel John, Ryberg Thomas, Kristensen Jette Kolding, Telléus Patrik Kjaersdam. (2025). Medical students’ evaluation of digital problem-based learning: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07823-2

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Thematic synthesis of 150 quotes under set design found that "Both visual and auditive aspects of the technologies were highlighted as helpful" while "the tactile dimension was consistently described as lacking."

"Both visual and auditive aspects of the technologies were highlighted as helpful in improving the comprehension of the subject matter. In contrast, the tactile dimension was consistently described as lacking, which limited the perceived realism of the digital tools"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.