Evolving a conceptual framework and developing a new questionnaire for usability evaluation of blended learning programs in health professions education

Anisha Arora, Charo Rodríguez, Tamara Carver, Laura Rojas-Rozo, T. Schuster
{"title":"Evolving a conceptual framework and developing a new questionnaire for usability evaluation of blended learning programs in health professions education","authors":"Anisha Arora, Charo Rodríguez, Tamara Carver, Laura Rojas-Rozo, T. Schuster","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blended learning programs (BLPs) have been widely adopted across health professions education (HPE). To bolster their impact on learning outcomes, the usability of BLPs should be rigorously evaluated. However, there is a lack of reliable and validated tools to appraise this dimension of BLPs within HPE. The purpose of this investigation was to evolve a conceptual framework for usability evaluation in order to initially develop the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation – Questionnaire (BLUE-Q).\nMethods: After the completion of a scoping review, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study with seven purposefully selected international experts in usability and learning program evaluation. Individual interviews were conducted via videoconferencing, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through thematic analysis.\nResults: Three themes were identified: (1) Consolidation of the multifaceted ISO definition of usability in BLPs within HPE; (2) Different facets of usability can assess different aspects of BLPs; (3) Quantitative and qualitative data are needed to assess the multifaceted nature of usability. The first theme adds nuance to a previously established HPE-focused usability framework, and introduces two new dimensions: ‘pedagogical usability’ and ‘learner motivation.’ The latter two provide guidance on structuring BLP evaluations within HPE. From this followed the development of the BLUE-Q, a new questionnaire that includes 55 Likert scale items and 6 open-ended questions.\nConclusions: Usability is an important dimension of BLPs and must be examined to improve the quality of these interventions in HPE. As such, we developed a new questionnaire, solidly grounded in theory and the expertise of international scholars, currently under validation.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blended learning programs (BLPs) have been widely adopted across health professions education (HPE). To bolster their impact on learning outcomes, the usability of BLPs should be rigorously evaluated. However, there is a lack of reliable and validated tools to appraise this dimension of BLPs within HPE. The purpose of this investigation was to evolve a conceptual framework for usability evaluation in order to initially develop the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation – Questionnaire (BLUE-Q). Methods: After the completion of a scoping review, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study with seven purposefully selected international experts in usability and learning program evaluation. Individual interviews were conducted via videoconferencing, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) Consolidation of the multifaceted ISO definition of usability in BLPs within HPE; (2) Different facets of usability can assess different aspects of BLPs; (3) Quantitative and qualitative data are needed to assess the multifaceted nature of usability. The first theme adds nuance to a previously established HPE-focused usability framework, and introduces two new dimensions: ‘pedagogical usability’ and ‘learner motivation.’ The latter two provide guidance on structuring BLP evaluations within HPE. From this followed the development of the BLUE-Q, a new questionnaire that includes 55 Likert scale items and 6 open-ended questions. Conclusions: Usability is an important dimension of BLPs and must be examined to improve the quality of these interventions in HPE. As such, we developed a new questionnaire, solidly grounded in theory and the expertise of international scholars, currently under validation.
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
发展概念框架并开发新的问卷,用于评估卫生专业教育中混合学习项目的可用性
背景:混合学习计划(BLP)已在卫生专业教育(HPE)中广泛采用。为了加强它们对学习结果的影响,应该严格评估BLP的可用性。然而,在HPE中,缺乏可靠和经过验证的工具来评估BLP的这一维度。本次调查的目的是发展可用性评估的概念框架,以初步开发混合学习可用性评估-问卷(BLUE-Q)。方法:在完成范围界定审查后,我们与七位有意选择的可用性和学习计划评估国际专家进行了定性描述性研究。个别访谈通过视频会议进行,逐字逐句转录,并通过专题分析进行分析。结果:确定了三个主题:(1)在HPE中整合了ISO对BLP可用性的多方面定义;(2) 可用性的不同方面可以评估BLP的不同方面;(3) 需要定量和定性数据来评估可用性的多方面性质。第一个主题为之前建立的以HPE为重点的可用性框架增加了细微差别,并引入了两个新的维度:“教学可用性”和“学习者动机”后两者为在HPE内构建BLP评估提供了指导。在此基础上开发了BLUE-Q,这是一种新的问卷,包括55个Likert量表项目和6个开放式问题。结论:可用性是BLP的一个重要方面,必须对其进行检查,以提高HPE中这些干预措施的质量。因此,我们开发了一份新的问卷,该问卷以理论和国际学者的专业知识为基础,目前正在验证中。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Healthy Brains Healthy Lives 2024 Symposium Ontario Student Medical Education Research Conference (OSMERC) 2024 Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a call for change in reporting practices Advance Care Directives: A Herzl Clinic Quality Improvement Project on Patients' perspectives Children’s health-related experiences in India: A scoping review
×
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