{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014736842105263158, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00631578947368421, 'mean_word_length': 5.018987341772152, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teaching blood morphology: audiovisual method compared to microscope slides with written text and instructor.

Two methods of teaching first-year medical students peripheral blood morphology were compared. A group of 27 students learned using a self-teaching audiovisual method of 35-mm color slides accompanied by an audio tape explanation. A group of 20 students were taught using the classic method of microscope slides explained by a written text, with an instructor to point out morphology. Both methods presented the same information to the students. Both groups were evaluated by a quiz consisting of actual blood smears. Although the mean learning time per student for the color slide group was significantly shorter than that for the microscope group, there was no significant difference between the mean quiz scores of the two groups, and both were significantly greater than the mean score of a control group which had no learning session.