Comparison of online to face-to-face instruction for anatomy review in a third-year clinical course.

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Chiropractic Education Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.7899/JCE-23-10

Jocelyn Faydenko, Thomas Grieve, Dana Madigan, Judith D Pocius, Christopher Olsen, Gregory D Cramer

{"title":"Comparison of online to face-to-face instruction for anatomy review in a third-year clinical course.","authors":"Jocelyn Faydenko, Thomas Grieve, Dana Madigan, Judith D Pocius, Christopher Olsen, Gregory D Cramer","doi":"10.7899/JCE-23-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This project compared student learning and satisfaction of an anatomy review delivered by a face-to-face lecture (F2FL) and an online learning module (OLM) for third-year doctor of chiropractic students.Methods: This cohort study compared student learning and satisfaction of a pediatric spinal anatomy review delivered via F2FL (cohort 1, n = 23) and OLM (cohort 2, n = 18) in 2 successive 2019 (pre-COVID) course offerings. Previously validated pre- and post-tests were given. Students completed a survey assessing delivery, comfort with online learning and online learning technology, and preference of F2FL vs OLM of review material. Pre- and post-test results were assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.Results: Testing results showed an improvement with both groups (F2FL 53.7%, p < .001 vs OLM 51.8%, p < .001), with no significant difference between the F2FL and OLM groups (p = .53; p = .82). The survey showed: 83.3% of OLM students felt the online method was effective, and 88.9% of the OLM students would prefer online reviews or have no preference between online or face-to-face; meanwhile, 80% of the F2FL group thought the lecture engaging/effective, whereas 60% of the F2FL group would have preferred to have the material presented online.Conclusion: The OLM was found to be as effective as the F2FL for the content assessed. The majority of students would prefer the online method for future anatomy review content presented in the course. This strategy could be applied to provide review materials in other clinical courses, allowing material to be developed and given by content experts while freeing valuable in-class time.","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11097218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This project compared student learning and satisfaction of an anatomy review delivered by a face-to-face lecture (F2FL) and an online learning module (OLM) for third-year doctor of chiropractic students.

Methods: This cohort study compared student learning and satisfaction of a pediatric spinal anatomy review delivered via F2FL (cohort 1, n = 23) and OLM (cohort 2, n = 18) in 2 successive 2019 (pre-COVID) course offerings. Previously validated pre- and post-tests were given. Students completed a survey assessing delivery, comfort with online learning and online learning technology, and preference of F2FL vs OLM of review material. Pre- and post-test results were assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Results: Testing results showed an improvement with both groups (F2FL 53.7%, p < .001 vs OLM 51.8%, p < .001), with no significant difference between the F2FL and OLM groups (p = .53; p = .82). The survey showed: 83.3% of OLM students felt the online method was effective, and 88.9% of the OLM students would prefer online reviews or have no preference between online or face-to-face; meanwhile, 80% of the F2FL group thought the lecture engaging/effective, whereas 60% of the F2FL group would have preferred to have the material presented online.

Conclusion: The OLM was found to be as effective as the F2FL for the content assessed. The majority of students would prefer the online method for future anatomy review content presented in the course. This strategy could be applied to provide review materials in other clinical courses, allowing material to be developed and given by content experts while freeing valuable in-class time.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

在三年级临床课程的解剖复习中，在线教学与面对面教学的比较。

目的：该项目比较了三年级脊骨神经科医生学生通过面授（F2FL）和在线学习模块（OLM）进行解剖复习的学习效果和满意度：本项目比较了脊骨神经科医生三年级学生通过面对面授课（F2FL）和在线学习模块（OLM）进行解剖复习的学习效果和满意度：这项队列研究比较了在连续两次 2019 年（COVID 前）课程中通过 F2FL（队列 1，n = 23）和 OLM（队列 2，n = 18）进行的小儿脊柱解剖复习的学生学习情况和满意度。进行了之前经过验证的前测和后测。学生们填写了一份调查问卷，对授课方式、在线学习和在线学习技术的舒适度以及复习资料的 F2FL 与 OLM 偏好进行了评估。采用重复测量方差分析对前后测试结果进行了评估：测试结果显示，两组学生的成绩都有所提高（F2FL 53.7%, p < .001 vs OLM 51.8%, p < .001），F2FL 组和 OLM 组之间没有显著差异（p = .53; p = .82）。调查显示83.3%的开放式教学法学生认为在线教学法有效，88.9%的开放式教学法学生更喜欢在线复习，或对在线或面对面教学没有偏好；同时，80%的F2FL组学生认为讲座吸引人/有效，而60%的F2FL组学生更喜欢在线展示材料：结论：就评估内容而言，OLM 与 F2FL 同样有效。大多数学生希望今后在课程中使用在线方法复习解剖学内容。这种策略可用于在其他临床课程中提供复习资料，让内容专家开发和提供资料，同时腾出宝贵的课堂时间。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

37.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.