Dataset Information

A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Educational pedagogies were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimise interruption to teaching. One approach has been the distance learning problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial utilising the online peer-to-peer platform. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of students using distance learning PBL tutorials using with that of students utilising the conventional face-to-face approach.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in a single academic institution. We compared two groups of fourth-year medical students from the same class: one group used distance learning (DL); the other, the face-to-face (FF) method. We used students' baseline performance at the preceding block for one-to-one propensity score matching. Students utilising the PBL tutorial were given grades by their tutors according to a standardised scoring system encompassing five key areas (score range: 0-10). The main outcome was a student's total score (i.e., the sum of the scores from the five key areas, ranging from 0 to 50).

Result

We matched 62 students in each group. With four tutorials, there were 490 observations, with 245 in each group. The mean total score for the DL group was 37.5 ± 4.6, which was significantly lower than that of the FF group (39.0 ± 4.4, p < 0.001). We noted that students in the DL group had a significantly lower scores for all five areas of proficiency: participation, communication, preparation, critical thinking and group skills.

Conclusion

Findings of this study revealed that the performance of students utilising the DL PBL tutorials was lower than that of students participating in the conventional FF approach. Further studies are needed to ascertain the underlying cause.

SUBMITTER: Foo CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7928185 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused serious public health problems and compromised the health of individuals and communities. This study aimed to evaluate a Distance e-Learning from the perspective of medical students in the Gynecology ward during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Material and methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at the Iran University of Medical from the September 2020 to September 2021. The study sample included 130 medical students who participated in distance training courses in the gynecology ward during the COVID-19 pandemic. All medical students were included for the study. Medical students (externs and interns), who received Distance eLearning in the gynecology ward during the study, were included. The self-administered questionnaire was used in this study. Questionnaires was developed through literature review and consultation with gynecology and eLearning experts. Face and content validity was established by eight experts. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha.ResultsThe questionnaire was sent to 170 medical students. Of the 130 respondents 65% were female and 35% were male. There were 57 (43.8%) externs and 73 (56.2) interns. Most students agreed that mobile devices increase their learning and home is the preferred place for participation in DE. Most students (66.9%) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that Distance e-Learning was an appropriate method for learning basic clinical skills.72.3% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed that Distance e-Learning provided them an opportunity to practice clinical skills effectively. Most medical students (69.3%) strongly agreed or agreed that Distance e-Learning created more opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge directly to medical practice.DiscussionThe results of the online survey suggest that medical students have found both positive and negative aspects of clinical learning by DEL format in Gynecology ward.

Project description:BackgroundFeedback is a crucial part of medical education and with on-going digitalisation, video feedback has been increasingly in use. Potentially shameful physician-patient-interactions might particularly benefit from it, allowing a meta-perspective view of ones own performance from a distance. We thus wanted to explore different approaches on how to deliver specifically video feedback by investigating the following hypotheses: 1. Is the physical presence of a person delivering the feedback more desired, and associated with improved learning outcomes compared to using a checklist? 2. Are different approaches of video feedback associated with different levels of shame in students with a simple checklist likely to be perceived as least and receiving feedback in front of a group of fellow students being perceived as most embarrassing?MethodsSecond-year medical students had to manage a consultation with a simulated patient. Students received structured video feedback according to one randomly assigned approach: checklist (CL), group (G), student tutor (ST), or teacher (T). Shame (ESS, TOSCA, subjective rating) and effectiveness (subjective ratings, remembered feedback points) were measured. T-tests for dependent samples and ANOVAs were used for statistical analysis.Resultsn = 64 students could be included. Video feedback was in hindsight rated significantly less shameful than before. Subjectively, there was no significant difference between the four approaches regarding effectiveness or the potential to arise shame. Objective learning success showed CL to be significantly less effective than the other approaches; additionally, T showed a trend towards being more effective than G or ST.ConclusionsThere was no superior approach as such. But CL could be shown to be less effective than G, ST and T. Feelings of shame were higher before watching one's video feedback than in hindsight. There was no significant difference regarding the different approaches. It does not seem to make any differences as to who is delivering the video feedback as long as it is a real person. This opens possibilities to adapt curricula to local standards, preferences, and resource limitations. Further studies should investigate, whether the present results can be reproduced when also assessing external evaluation and long-term effects.