A minority of students stated they needed lecturer support alongside the RLOs¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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? A small number of students stated they needed the support of a lecturer alongside the RLOs (7% 'Agreed' and 21% 'Neutral'). → 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 · r3
Descriptive percentages from the abstract on the Learning Support item 'I needed the help of a lecturer to understand the content'; Table 1 shows 50% disagreed and 21% strongly disagreed. No test reported.
"A small number of students stated they needed the support of a lecturer alongside the RLOs (7% 'Agreed' and 21% 'Neutral')."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Most students rated RLO media components such as animations as helping them understand concepts including Forest plots — related
- Healthcare students' self-reported understanding of five meta-analysis concepts improved significantly after RLO use in both MPH and PGD groups — related
- External users outside the target cohorts rated the RLOs as excellent or good, with no difference between Nottingham and non-Nottingham respondents — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.