Students’ Performance in Face-to-Face, Online, and Hybrid Methods of Teaching and Assessment in Anatomy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Ethics Statement
2.3. Participants
2.4. Setting
2.5. Variables
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Medical Students’ Results
3.2. Biomedical Science Students’ Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. World Health Organization WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic. Available online: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Johnson, B. PM Address to the Nation on Coronavirus: 23 March 2020. [Online] GOV.UK. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-23-march-2020 (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Barletta, V.S.; Cassano, F.; Marengo, A.; Pagano, A.; Pange, J.; Piccinno, A. Switching Learning Methods during the Pandemic: A Quasi-Experimental Study on a Master Course. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salakhova, V.B.; Shukshina, L.V.; Belyakova, N.V.; Kidinov, A.V.; Morozova, N.S.; Osipova, N.V. distance learning, pandemic, COVID-19. The problems of of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Higher Education. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 803700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, D.; Bhaskar, S. Addressing the Covid-19 Burden on Medical Education and Training: The Role of Telemedicine and Tele-Education During and Beyond the Pandemic. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 589669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiquei, M.I.; Kathpal, S. Challenges of online teaching during COVID-19: An exploratory factor analysis. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2021, 5, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mynbayeva, A.; Sadvakassova, Z.; Akshalova, B. Pedagogy of the Twenty-First Century: Innovative Teaching Methods. In New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century—Contributions of Research in Education; InTech Open Book Series; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/58060 (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- O’Doherty, D.; Dromey, M.; Lougheed, J.; Hannigan, A.; Last, J.; McGrath, D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education–an integrative review. BMC. Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Franchi, T. The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Current Anatomy Education and Future Careers: A Student’s Perspective. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020, 13, 312–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Longhurst, G.J.; Stone, D.M.; Dulohery, K.; Scully, D.; Campbell, T.; Smith, C.F. Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat (SWOT) Analysis of the Adaptations to Anatomical Education in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020, 13, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dedeilia, A.; Sotiropoulos, M.G.; Hanrahan, J.G.; Janga, D.; Dedeilias, P.; Sideris, M. Medical and Surgical Education Challenges and Innovations in the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review. In Vivo 2020, 34, 1603–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.; Yang, N.; Xu, L.; Ping, F.; Li, W.; Sun, Q.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, H. Synchronous distance education vs traditional education for health science students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. Educ. 2021, 55, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgard, R.T. Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1709–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.Y.; Lu, C.; Zhu, H.; Wang, X.; Jia, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wen, H.; Wang, Y.-F. Assessment of the effectiveness of BOPPPS-based hybrid teaching model in physiology education. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, J.; Li, L.; Bu, H.; Feng, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, F.; Liu, Q.; Li, X.; Jiao, X. Effect of hybrid teaching incorporating problem-based learning on student performance in pathophysiology. J. Int. Med. Res. 2020, 48, 300060520949402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.; Risser, M.; Griffiths, R. Student choice, instructor flexibility: Moving beyond the blended instructional model. Issues Trends Educ. Technol. 2013, 1, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T.L.; Zhu, X.; Li, X.; Dou, D. Satisfaction with HyFlex Teaching and Law-abiding Leadership Education in Hong Kong University Students Under COVID-19. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2022, 17, 2833–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakeshita, T. Improved HyFlex Course Design Utilizing Live Online and On-Demand Courses. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education CSEDU, Online Streaming, 23–25 April 2021; Csapo, B., Uhomoibhi, J., Eds.; SciTePress: Setúbal, Portugal, 2021; Volume 2, pp. 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mor, Y.; Craft, B. Learning design: Reflections upon the current landscape. Res. Learn. Technol. 2012, 20. In press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellaway, R.; Dalziel, J.; Dalziel, B. Learning design in healthcare education. Med. Teach. 2008, 30, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, R.M.; Hundert, E.M. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002, 287, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elzainy, A.; El Sadik, A.; Al Abdulmonem, W. Experience of e-learning and online assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic at the College of Medicine, Qassim University. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2020, 15, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milone, A.S.; Cortese, A.M.; Balestrieri, R.L.; Pittenger, A.L. The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2017, 9, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanafy, S.M.; Jumaa, M.I.; Arafa, M.A. A comparative study of online learning in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic versus conventional learning. Saudi Med. J. 2021, 42, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Creasy, K. Classroom assessment in Web-based instructional environment: Instructors’ experience. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2004, 9, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Paechter, M.; Maier, B. Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet High. Educ. 2010, 13, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paechter, M.; Maier, B.; Macher, D. Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Nooijer, J.; Schneider, F.; Verstegen, D.M. Optimizing collaborative learning in online courses. Clin. Teach. 2021, 18, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atwa, H.; Shehata, M.H.; Al-Ansari, A.; Kumar, A.; Jardat, A.; Ahmed, J.; Deifella, A. Online, Face-to-Face, or Blended Learning? Faculty and Medical Students’ Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Study. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 791352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arias, J.J.; Swinton, J.; Anderson, K. Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. E J. Bus. Educ. Scholarsh. Teach. 2018, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, J.; Jefferson, F. A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Front. Comput. Sci. 2019, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asghar, M.Z.; Afzaal, M.N.; Iqbal, J.; Sadia, H.A. Analyzing an Appropriate Blend of Face-to-Face, Offline and Online Learning Approaches for the In-Service Vocational Teacher’s Training Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Azzam, N.; Elsalem, L.; Gombedza, F. A cross-sectional study to determine factors affecting dental and medical students’ preference for virtual learning during the COVID-19 outbreak. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Jaggars, S.S. The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2013, 37, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu-Hijleh, M.F.; Chakravarty, M.; Al-Shboul, Q.; Latif, N.A.; Osman, M.; Bandaranayake, R.; Ganguly, P.K. Structured problem-related anatomy demonstrations: Making order of random teaching events. Teach. Learn. Med. 2005, 17, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Admiraal, W.; Huisman, B.; van de Ven, M. Self- and Peer Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. Int. J. High. Educ. 2014, 3, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
- Sabzwari, S. Rethinking Assessment in Medical Education in the time of COVID-19 (version 1). MedEdPublish 2020, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sein, A.S.; Rashid, H.; Meka, J.; Amiel, J.; Pluta, W. Twelve tips for embedding assessment for and as learning practices in a programmatic assessment system. Med. Teach. 2021, 43, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inuwa, I.M.; Al Rawahy, M.; Taranikanti, V.; Habbal, O. Anatomy “steeplechase” online: Necessity sometimes is the catalyst for innovation. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2011, 4, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mogali, S.R.; Rotgans, J.I.; Rosby, L.; Ferenczi, M.A.; Beer, N.L. Summative and Formative Style Anatomy Practical Examinations: Do They Have Impact on Students’ Performance and Drive for Learning? Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020, 13, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inuwa, I.M.; Taranikanti, V.; Al-Rawahy, M.; Habbal, O. Anatomy practical examinations: How does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format? Anat. Sci. Educ. 2012, 5, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A.J.; Innes, S.I.; Stomski, N.J.; Armson, A.J. Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2016, 9, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rastgoo, A.; Namvar, Y.; Iran, A. Assessment Approach in virtual learning. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. TOJDE 2010, 11, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
- Comas-Forgas, R.; Lancaster, T.; Calvo-Sastre, A.; Sureda-Negre, J. Exam cheating and academic integrity breaches during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of internet search activity in Spain. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Ding, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhong, J.; Qiu, X.; Zou, Z.; Xu, Y.; Jin, X.; Wu, X.; Huang, J.; et al. COVID-19’s impacts on the scope, effectiveness, and interaction characteristics of online learning: A social network analysis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCutcheon, K.; Lohan, M.; Traynor, M.; Martin, D. A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. J. Adv. Nurs. 2015, 71, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ridgway, J.; McCusker, S.; Pead, D. Report 10 Literature Review of E-Assessment; NESTA Futurelab Series; NESTA Futurelab: Bristol, UK, 2006; Available online: https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190440/document (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Yasar Ozden, M.; Ismail, E.; Sanli, R. Students’ Perceptions of Online Assessment: A Case Study. J. Distance Educ. 2004, 19, 77–92. [Google Scholar]
Semester | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
---|---|---|
Spring 2019 | Face-to-face | Face-to-face, proctored, on campus |
Spring 2020 | Face-to-face (first half of the semester) Emergency remote teaching (ERT) (Second half of the semester) | Online (not proctored) |
Spring 2021 | Online | Online (proctored) and face-to-face |
Course | Semester (No. of Students) | Mean ± SD | Coefficient of Variance (%) |
---|---|---|---|
MD program basic anatomy Course | Spring 2019 (170) | 79 ± 16 | 20.3 |
Spring 2020 (166) | 89.1 ± 8.6 | 9.7 | |
Spring 2021 (129) | 81.4 ± 14.8 | 18.2 | |
Biomedical Science program basic anatomy course | Spring 2019 (33) | 84.8 ± 11 | 13 |
Spring 2020 (27) | 89.4 ± 7.6 | 8.5 | |
Spring 2021 (28) | 80 ± 14.5 | 18 |
Course | Semester (No. of Students) | Mean ± SD | Coefficient of Variance (%) |
---|---|---|---|
MD program basic anatomy course | Spring 2019 (170) | 77.4 ± 15.9 | 20.5 |
Spring 2020 (166) | 85.8 ± 10 | 11.7 | |
Spring 2021 (129) | 78.7 ± 17.1 | 21.7 | |
Biomedical Science program basic anatomy course | Spring 2019 (33) | 75.7 ± 13 | 17.2 |
Spring 2020 (27) | 87.6 ± 9.4 | 10.7 | |
Spring 2021 (28) | 80.4 ± 12.1 | 15 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Albalushi, H.; Al Mushaiqri, M.; Sirasanagandla, S.R.; Das, S. Students’ Performance in Face-to-Face, Online, and Hybrid Methods of Teaching and Assessment in Anatomy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013318
Albalushi H, Al Mushaiqri M, Sirasanagandla SR, Das S. Students’ Performance in Face-to-Face, Online, and Hybrid Methods of Teaching and Assessment in Anatomy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(20):13318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013318
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlbalushi, Halima, Mohamed Al Mushaiqri, Srinivasa Rao Sirasanagandla, and Srijit Das. 2022. "Students’ Performance in Face-to-Face, Online, and Hybrid Methods of Teaching and Assessment in Anatomy" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 20: 13318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013318