Table 4

Assessment of pedagogical tools by medical students

First author (ref)Type of participantsNb of
Participants/Nb invited (response rate)
Type of educational tool
Pedagogical tool
Main results
Singh61Medical students
Undergraduates from second to eighth semester
208/398 (52%)Lectures and virtual case reviews
Online classes with G Suite for Education using Google Classroom coupled with Google Meet for Video conferencing
  • 75% had not attended any online classes previously.

  • 92.3% stated that they were given the opportunity to ask questions.

  • Interaction with the teacher was better than (27.9%) or as good as (27.9%) that during physical classroom.

  • But 51% found physical classroom better than e-classroom.

Geha41Medical students
Internal medicine students
6/6 (100%)Lectures, podscasts and virtual case reviews
VCC for 14 days:
  • Interactive sessions with students and teachers ((n=25 videoconferences)

  • Resident-level case conferences (n=27 sessions)

  • Daily podcasts to learn about a topic (n=11 podcasts)

  • Students analysed 11 cases (from podcasts or worksheets) and submitted diagnostic schemas and assessments. They also submitted verbal presentations.

Students completed a survey with 5-point Likert responses: Drafting schemas (5.0), writing diagnostic assessments (4.83), oral presentations (4.83), podcasts (5.0) and case conferences (4.0).
  • Students cited ‘major improvements’ in their diagnostic assessments and schema construction and ‘moderate improvement’ in oral presentations.

  • 5/6 reported receiving more feedback on their diagnostic arguments during the VCC than in internal clerkship.

  • 4/6 reported better classmate colearning and collaboration during the VCC.

Mooney46Medical students
Undergraduate MS2
105/NAVirtual case reviews
Three standardised patient encounters, mapped to expected clinical competencies, were developed and administered through a telehealth format in Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California, USA).
Interview and patient communication were assessed by standardised patients and faculty member observer feedback.
Clinical reasoning and oral presentation were assessed by faculty member observers.
Students self-assessed their written presentations using exemplar notes.
Reflection on feedback was further fostered through daily self-reflection assignments and faculty member-facilitated Zoom groups (three students each).
Professionalism competencies were assessed through structured peer feedback.
  • Measurement of nearly all clinical competencies was possible

  • Few physical examination competencies were assessed.

  • Expedited training and inventory of technology access were necessary to swiftly build technological capacity and ensure effective use across participants.

  • Removing physical infrastructure barriers (suitable rooms) expanded capacity for simultaneous assessment of learners by 50%.

  • Increased standardised patients diversity and lower programmatic costs.

  • Faculty member, student and standardised patient satisfaction with the fidelity of cases and overall assessment quality were high.

Kivlehan63Paediatric rehabilitation medicine residents and fellows30/53 (57%)E-learning programme including 13 lectures, 3 journal clubs and one virtual arts initiative.
  • Most respondents reported that the virtual lectures series (79.3%), journal club (78.9%) and virtual arts initiatives (75%) were valuable to their education.

  • Common benefits: access to subject experts, networking, lecture recording, and location flexibility.

  • Common concerns: lack of protected time, virtual platform fatigue, and decreased engagement.

  • Relative to before the pandemic, 70% felt less satisfaction with clinical education and 60% felt greater satisfaction with non-clinical education.

  • 83.3% of graduating trainees felt confident to graduate.

  • NA, not available; VCC, virtual clerkship curriculum.