External users outside the target cohorts rated the RLOs as excellent or good, with no difference between Nottingham and non-Nottingham respondents¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 485 visits to the online feedback forms, 43 (16%) and 49 (22%) completed feedback for the two RLOs; 62 respondents were Nottingham based and 27 non-Nottingham, and all respondents rated the RLOs as excellent or good with no significant differences between Nottingham and non-Nottingham respondents (Wilcoxon paired p > 0.05). → Bath-Hextall Fiona 2011

Evidence¶

Bath-Hextall Fiona 2011¶

Bath-Hextall Fiona, Wharrad Heather, Leonardi-Bee Jo. (2011). Teaching tools in Evidence Based Practice: evaluation of reusable learning objects (RLOs) for learning about Meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123313/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Analysis of online feedback forms submitted by learners outside the target cohorts, providing evidence of reuse; respondents came from the US, Australia, India, New Zealand, Thailand and Brazil among others. No effect size printed.

"All respondents rated the RLOs as excellent or good and there were no significant differences between ratings of University of Nottingham and non-Nottingham respondents (Wilcoxon paired p > 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A minority of students stated they needed lecturer support alongside the RLOs — related