混合学习与传统的教学-学习环境:职业医学和预防跨专业领域的认知和情感学习结果的评估/混合学习与传统的lehr - lennsetting:认知和情感的评估

U. Eckler, A. Greisberger, Franziska Höhne, P. Putz
{"title":"混合学习与传统的教学-学习环境:职业医学和预防跨专业领域的认知和情感学习结果的评估/混合学习与传统的lehr - lennsetting:认知和情感的评估","authors":"U. Eckler, A. Greisberger, Franziska Höhne, P. Putz","doi":"10.1515/ijhp-2017-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Blended learning is characterised as a combination of face-to-face teaching and e-learning in terms of knowledge transfer, students’ learning activities and reduced presence at the teaching facility. The present cohort study investigated long-term effects of blended learning regarding cognitive outcomes as well as self-indicated estimates of immediate learning effects on the affective domain in the inter-professional field of occupational medicine. Physiotherapy students (bachelor degree) at FH Campus Wien – University of Applied Sciences completed the course Occupational Medicine/Prevention either in a traditional teaching-learning setting entirely taught face-to-face (control-group, n=94), or with a blended learning model (intervention-group, n=93). Long-term effects (1.5 year follow-up) on the cognitive learning outcomes were assessed according to four levels of Bloom’s learning objectives. In addition, students estimated potential benefits resulting from blended learning based on four Krathwohl’s learning objectives for the affective domain by means of a six-option Likert scale (n=282). Concerning cognitive outcomes, significant results favouring both groups were found with effect sizes from small to medium. The traditional teaching-learning setting resulted in significantly better results in the upmost aspired learning objective (analysis) at the long-term (p<0,01; r=-0,33). In contrast, the intervention group resulted in significantly better long-term results on learning objective levels 1 (knowledge) and 2 (understanding) (p=0,01; r=-0,20 and, p=0,02; r=-0,17, respectively). Hence, no general recommendation favouring either the classical setting or blending learning can be drawn regarding the cognitive domain. However, students’ self-indications on the affective domain give preference to blended learning, particularly if inter-professional teamwork is a course objective.","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"96 1","pages":"109 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: Evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention / Blended Learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernerg\",\"authors\":\"U. Eckler, A. Greisberger, Franziska Höhne, P. Putz\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ijhp-2017-0025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Blended learning is characterised as a combination of face-to-face teaching and e-learning in terms of knowledge transfer, students’ learning activities and reduced presence at the teaching facility. The present cohort study investigated long-term effects of blended learning regarding cognitive outcomes as well as self-indicated estimates of immediate learning effects on the affective domain in the inter-professional field of occupational medicine. Physiotherapy students (bachelor degree) at FH Campus Wien – University of Applied Sciences completed the course Occupational Medicine/Prevention either in a traditional teaching-learning setting entirely taught face-to-face (control-group, n=94), or with a blended learning model (intervention-group, n=93). Long-term effects (1.5 year follow-up) on the cognitive learning outcomes were assessed according to four levels of Bloom’s learning objectives. In addition, students estimated potential benefits resulting from blended learning based on four Krathwohl’s learning objectives for the affective domain by means of a six-option Likert scale (n=282). Concerning cognitive outcomes, significant results favouring both groups were found with effect sizes from small to medium. The traditional teaching-learning setting resulted in significantly better results in the upmost aspired learning objective (analysis) at the long-term (p<0,01; r=-0,33). In contrast, the intervention group resulted in significantly better long-term results on learning objective levels 1 (knowledge) and 2 (understanding) (p=0,01; r=-0,20 and, p=0,02; r=-0,17, respectively). Hence, no general recommendation favouring either the classical setting or blending learning can be drawn regarding the cognitive domain. However, students’ self-indications on the affective domain give preference to blended learning, particularly if inter-professional teamwork is a course objective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"109 - 121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijhp-2017-0025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijhp-2017-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

混合式学习的特点是在知识转移、学生的学习活动和减少在教学设施的出现方面将面对面教学和电子学习结合起来。本队列研究调查了混合学习对认知结果的长期影响,以及对职业医学跨专业领域情感领域即时学习效果的自我指示估计。FH Wien -应用科学大学校区的物理治疗专业学生(学士学位)完成了职业医学/预防课程,在传统的教学环境中完全面对面授课(对照组,n=94),或采用混合学习模式(干预组,n=93)。根据布鲁姆学习目标的四个层次评估认知学习结果的长期影响(随访1.5年)。此外,学生通过六选项李克特量表(n=282)估计了基于Krathwohl情感领域的四个学习目标的混合学习所带来的潜在收益。在认知结果方面,两组均有显著结果,效应量从小到中不等。传统教学环境在长期最高期望学习目标(分析)上显著优于传统教学环境(p< 0.01;r = 0, 33)。相比之下,干预组在学习目标水平1(知识)和2(理解)的长期结果显著更好(p= 0.01;R =-0,20, p=0,02;分别为r = 0, 17)。因此,就认知领域而言,没有普遍的建议支持经典设置或混合学习。然而,学生在情感领域的自我指示倾向于混合式学习,特别是当跨专业团队合作是课程目标时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: Evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention / Blended Learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernerg
Abstract Blended learning is characterised as a combination of face-to-face teaching and e-learning in terms of knowledge transfer, students’ learning activities and reduced presence at the teaching facility. The present cohort study investigated long-term effects of blended learning regarding cognitive outcomes as well as self-indicated estimates of immediate learning effects on the affective domain in the inter-professional field of occupational medicine. Physiotherapy students (bachelor degree) at FH Campus Wien – University of Applied Sciences completed the course Occupational Medicine/Prevention either in a traditional teaching-learning setting entirely taught face-to-face (control-group, n=94), or with a blended learning model (intervention-group, n=93). Long-term effects (1.5 year follow-up) on the cognitive learning outcomes were assessed according to four levels of Bloom’s learning objectives. In addition, students estimated potential benefits resulting from blended learning based on four Krathwohl’s learning objectives for the affective domain by means of a six-option Likert scale (n=282). Concerning cognitive outcomes, significant results favouring both groups were found with effect sizes from small to medium. The traditional teaching-learning setting resulted in significantly better results in the upmost aspired learning objective (analysis) at the long-term (p<0,01; r=-0,33). In contrast, the intervention group resulted in significantly better long-term results on learning objective levels 1 (knowledge) and 2 (understanding) (p=0,01; r=-0,20 and, p=0,02; r=-0,17, respectively). Hence, no general recommendation favouring either the classical setting or blending learning can be drawn regarding the cognitive domain. However, students’ self-indications on the affective domain give preference to blended learning, particularly if inter-professional teamwork is a course objective.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Interdisciplinary cooperation in the outpatient practice: results from a focus group interview with occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists / Gestaltung der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit in der ambulanten Therapie: Resultate eines Fokusgruppeninterviews mit E The role of lecturers in interprofessional education – a survey of lecturers in Germany / Die Rolle von Dozierenden in der interprofessionellen Ausbildung – eine Befragung von Lehrverantwortlichen in Deutschland Home-based palliative care services from the perspective of family caregivers: an evaluation of the Integrated Palliative Care model in Tyrol / Häusliche Palliativversorgung aus der Sicht der pflegenden Angehörigen - eine Evaluation des Modells Integrierte Palliativversorgung in Tirol Needs-based educational support for parents in the neonatal intensive care unit - perspectives of parent counsellors / Bedarfsorientierte edukative Unterstützung für Eltern nach einer Frühgeburt aus der Perspektive von Elternberaterinnen Outpatient speech and language therapy via videoconferencing in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of therapists / Videotherapie in der ambulanten Logopädie/Sprachtherapie in Deutschland während der COVID-19 Pandemie: Erfahrungen von Therapeut/innen
×
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