Using the CIPP Model to elicit perceptions of health professions faculty and students about virtual learning.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-06747-1
Sakineh Gerayllo, Mohammadali Vakili, Leila Jouybari, Zahra Moghadam, Ali Jafari, Alireza Heidari
{"title":"Using the CIPP Model to elicit perceptions of health professions faculty and students about virtual learning.","authors":"Sakineh Gerayllo, Mohammadali Vakili, Leila Jouybari, Zahra Moghadam, Ali Jafari, Alireza Heidari","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-06747-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic has caused a huge crisis initiating fundamental changes in education since this crisis has turned face-to-face education into virtual training. This questionnaire-based study employed the comprehensive CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, Product) to obtain the perspectives of both faculty members and students from six different faculties at one university in Iran concerning implementation of virtual learning in during COVID 19.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The participants in this cross-sectional study were 522 students and 38 members of the faculty in six different faculties who were selected via stratified random sampling. The research tool was a validated and reliable researcher-made questionnaire developed based on the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model. The survey included a scale for each of the four CIPP components, with scales comprised of 9 to 12 questions. The data were analyzed through SPSS 23 using descriptive and inferential (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation) methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scale items for each of the CIPP components that elicited the highest levels of agreement by both professors and students were as follows based on a five point scale where higher scores indicated higher levels of respondent agreement: Context: Topics presented in the virtual training are determined according to the course plan (3.63), and virtual education reduces the teacher's control over class (3.56); Input: Designated hours are suitable for virtual learning classes (3.29); Process: Professors have less commitment and responsibility in providing virtual courses (3.48); and Product: Student participation in virtual classes is low (3.78), and virtual learning saves time (3.67).\" For both students and faculty, the mean scores for the context, input, process, and product scales all averaged near the mid-point of the scale, 3.00. No significant difference was observed between professors and students except for the input construct. Students responded significantly differently according to their age and educational level on the product construct, and significantly differently according to their faculty and marital status on each of the CIPP constructs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has highlighted various issues related to virtual education, and the opinions of professors and students regarding changes to the online educational program should be strategically considered. The present findings can facilitate decision-making and policy-making at the macro level, enabling officials to plan appropriately, take professional measures, and decide whether to continue, cease, or revise educational goals, inputs, processes, and products.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"166"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06747-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic has caused a huge crisis initiating fundamental changes in education since this crisis has turned face-to-face education into virtual training. This questionnaire-based study employed the comprehensive CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, Product) to obtain the perspectives of both faculty members and students from six different faculties at one university in Iran concerning implementation of virtual learning in during COVID 19.

Methodology: The participants in this cross-sectional study were 522 students and 38 members of the faculty in six different faculties who were selected via stratified random sampling. The research tool was a validated and reliable researcher-made questionnaire developed based on the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model. The survey included a scale for each of the four CIPP components, with scales comprised of 9 to 12 questions. The data were analyzed through SPSS 23 using descriptive and inferential (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation) methods.

Results: The scale items for each of the CIPP components that elicited the highest levels of agreement by both professors and students were as follows based on a five point scale where higher scores indicated higher levels of respondent agreement: Context: Topics presented in the virtual training are determined according to the course plan (3.63), and virtual education reduces the teacher's control over class (3.56); Input: Designated hours are suitable for virtual learning classes (3.29); Process: Professors have less commitment and responsibility in providing virtual courses (3.48); and Product: Student participation in virtual classes is low (3.78), and virtual learning saves time (3.67)." For both students and faculty, the mean scores for the context, input, process, and product scales all averaged near the mid-point of the scale, 3.00. No significant difference was observed between professors and students except for the input construct. Students responded significantly differently according to their age and educational level on the product construct, and significantly differently according to their faculty and marital status on each of the CIPP constructs.

Conclusion: This study has highlighted various issues related to virtual education, and the opinions of professors and students regarding changes to the online educational program should be strategically considered. The present findings can facilitate decision-making and policy-making at the macro level, enabling officials to plan appropriately, take professional measures, and decide whether to continue, cease, or revise educational goals, inputs, processes, and products.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
The construction of a psychometric instrument for the educational role enactment of attending physicians in teaching hospitals. AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination. Assessment of students' ability to represent determinants of health and health systems science content on concept maps in a pre-clerkship curriculum. Enhancing collaborative clinical reasoning among multidisciplinary healthcare teams in a neurosurgery ICU: insights from video-reflexive ethnography. Exploring medical students' intention to use of ChatGPT from a programming course: a grounded theory study in China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1