نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی،گروه بیوشیمی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

2 عضو هیات علمی، گروه یادگیری الکترونیکی در علوم پزشکی، دانشکده مجازی، ،دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

3 عضو هیات علمی، گروه یادگیری الکترونیکی در علوم پزشکی، دانشکده مجازی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

10.22118/edc.2022.332735.2037

چکیده

مقدمه: بیوشیمی از دروس علوم پایه مشکل، با محتوای پرحجم است و غالبا مدرسین در ارائه دروس با کمبود زمان مواجه اند. با ظهورفناوری های نوین، امکان یادگیری ترکیبی وجود دارد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی نگرش دانشجویان دندانپزشکی به یادگیری الکترونیکی و ابزارهای تعاملی یادگیری ترکیبی انجام شده است.
روش: این مطالعه نیمه­تجربی پیش­آزمون- پس­آزمون بر روی60 دانشجوی دندانپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز که به شیوه سرشماری انتخاب شدند انجام شد. پرسشنامه محقق ساخته شامل 19 سوال نگرش به یادگیری الکترونیکی و 9 سوال سنجش اثربخشی ابزارهای تعاملی در مقیاس لیکرت شش­گزینه­ای با خط برش 5/3 استفاده شد. روایی پرسشنامه­ها با نظر10 متخصص تاییدشد. پایایی ابزارنگرش­سنجی، 957/0 وبرای ابزارهای­تعاملی با 91/0 آلفای­کرونباخ تاییدشد. داده­ها با نرم افزار SPSS22 وآزمون­های تی زوجی، تی تک نمونه ای، تی مستقل و ANOVA تحلیل شد.
یافته ها: نمره پس­آزمون نگرش بعد از مداخله، در مقایسه با نمره پیش­آزمون تفاوت معنادارداشت (P=0.004). این تفاوت در زیرمولفه پنداشت به مفهوم (P<0.001)، و کاربرد آموزش­مجازی(P=0.004) معنادار بود. در بررسی ابزارهای تعاملی، دانشجویان مطلوب ترین شیوه تعاملی را به ترتیب استفاده از پادکست  (M=4.14+1.36)، ارائه خلاصه درس توسط استاد (M=4.14+1.52)، پرسش و پاسخ با استاد (M=3.94+1.51) و استفاده از چندرسانه ای (M=3.78+1.55) گزارش کردند. در بررسی نتایج به تفکیک متغیر های جنسیت، معدل و دسترسی به کامپیوتر تفاوت معناداری مشاهده نشد (P>0.05).
نتیجه گیری: به نظر می­رسد شیوه­های ترکیبی با بهره گیری از نقاط قوت روش­های حضوری و الکترونیکی می تواند شیوه بهتری در ارائه دروس باشد. در کنار ابزارها و روش های مجازی، برقراری تعاملات بی واسطه استاد- دانشجو موقعیت­کامل­تری از یک آموزش مطلوب فراهم می­آورد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Dental Students' Perception of E-Learning and the Effectiveness of Interactive Learning tools; A Single-group Study of Clinical Biochemistry

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pooneh Mokaram 1
  • Zahra Karimian 2
  • Nahid Zarifsanaiey 3

1 Faculty member, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Faculty member, Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

3 Faculty member, Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Purpose: Biochemistry is one of the basic and difficult courses that teachers have to spend a lot of time on. With the emergence of new technologies, blended learning is possible. The aim of the study was to investigate the attitude of dental students towards e-Learning and blended learning interactive tools.
Method: This quasi-experimental pre-test post-test study was performed on 60 dental students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences who were selected by census method. A researcher-made questionnaire including 19 questions on attitudes toward e-Learning (Attitude about the nature, application, and consequences) and 9 questions measuring interactive tools on a six-point Likert scale with a cut-off line of 3.5 were used. The validity of two questionnaires was confirmed by 10 experts’ views. The reliability of the attitude questionnaire was 0.957 and for interactive tools was 0.91 Cronbach's alpha. Data were analyzed with SPSS-22 software and paired t-tests, one-sample t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA.
Findings: The total score of attitude after the intervention was significantly different compared to the pre-test (P=0.004). In subcomponents; for concept of e-Learning (P<0.001), and its application (P=0.004) showed a significant improvement. The most desirable interactive tools of blended learning are podcasts (M=4.14+1.36), presentation of short lectures (M=4.14+1.52), questions-answers in the classroom (M=3.94+1.51), and multimedia (M=3.78+1.55) to be significantly more effective. There is no significant difference was observed in results by gender, grade, and computer access (P>0.05).
Conclusion: It seems that blended learning using the strengths of face-to-face and online learning can be a better way of education. In addition, live teacher-student interactions provide more opportunities for good instruction.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biochemistry
  • E-learning
  • Blended learning
  • Dentistry
  • Interactio
  • Student
  • Attitude
Ahern K (2016) Teaching biochemistry online at Oregon State University. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 45(1). Wiley-Blackwell: 25–30.
Barrot JS, Llenares II and Del Rosario LS (2021) Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies 26(6). Springer Science+Business Media: 7321–7338. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x. Epub 2021 May 28. PMID: 34075300; PMCID: PMC8162157.0
Bhatti I, Jones K, Richardson L, et al. (2011) E-learning vs lecture: which is the best approach to surgical teaching? Colorectal Disease 13(4). Wiley-Blackwell: 459–462.
Birgili B, Seggie FN and Oğuz E (2021) The trends and outcomes of flipped learning research between 2012 and 2018: A descriptive content analysis. Journal of Computers in Education 8(3). Springer Science+Business Media: 365–394. doi: 10.1007/s40692-021-00183-y. Epub ahead of print. PMCID: PMC7871954.
Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, et al. (2010) Instructional Design Variations in Internet-Based Learning for Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Academic Medicine 85(5). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 909–922.
Dastghaib S, Shahsavar Z, Karimian Z, et al. (2020) Rapid and Cost-Effective RNA extraction of rat pancreatic tissue. Journal of Visualized Experiments (163). MyJOVE. Epub ahead of print September 19, 2020. DOI: 10.3791/61255-v.
Derntl M and Motschnig-Pitrik R (2005) The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. Internet and Higher Education 8(2). Elsevier BV: 111–130.
Doval-Avendaño, M., Domínguez Quintas, S., & Dans Álvarez de Sotomayor, I. (2018). El uso ritual de las pantallas entre jóvenes universitarios/as. Una experiencia de dieta digital. Revista Prisma Social, (21), 480–499.
Franchi T (2020) The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on current anatomy education and future careers: A Student’s perspective. Anatomical Sciences Education 13(3). Wiley-Blackwell: 312–315. doi: 10.1002/ase.1966.
Greaves RF (2017) E-Learning: a model to support ongoing education. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5655633/.
Hatlevik OE, Throndsen I, Loi M, et al. (2018) Students’ ICT self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education 118. Elsevier BV: 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011
He T and Zhu C (2017a) Digital informal learning among Chinese university students: the effects of digital competence and personal factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14(1). Open University of Catalonia.
Herbert C, Velan GM, Pryor W, et al. (2017) A model for the use of blended learning in large group teaching sessions. BMC Medical Education 17(1). BioMed Central. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1057-2. PMID: 29121908; PMCID: PMC5680783.
Horn M B, Staker H (2014) Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools: Sanfrancisco: Jossey-Bass Christensen, Clayton M.: 9781118955154: Amazon.com: Books.
Iivari N, Sharma S and Ventä-Olkkonen L (2020) Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International Journal of Information Management 55. Elsevier BV: 102183. PMID: 32836640; PMCID: PMC7320701.
Jafari M (2012). Comparison of Lecture and Blended Teaching Methods on Learning and Satisfaction of Medical Students in Biochemistry Course . Iranian Journal of Medical Education; 12 (7) :488-497  URL: http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-2083-fa.html     
Jensen JL, Kummer TA and Godoy PDDM (2015) Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE- Life Sciences Education 14(1). American Society for Cell Biology: ar5. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129. PMID: 25699543; PMCID: PMC4353080.
Kapasia N, Paul P, Roy A, et al. (2020) Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review 116. Elsevier BV: 105194.
Kennedy G, Gray K and Tse J (2008) ‘Net Generation’ medical students: technological experiences of pre-clinical and clinical students. Medical Teacher 30(1). Informa: 10–16. doi: 10.1080/01421590701798737. PMID: 18278643
Khojasteh L, Karimian Z, Farahmandi AY, et al. (2022) E-content development of English language courses during COVID-19: a comprehensive analysis of students’ satisfaction. Journal of Computers in Education 10(1). Springer Science+Business Media: 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00224-0
Lancaster JW, Wong A and Roberts SJ (2012) ‘Tech’ versus ‘Talk’: A comparison study of two different lecture styles within a Master of Science nurse practitioner course. Nurse Education Today 32(5). Elsevier BV: e14–e18. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.09.018. Epub 2011 Nov 8. PMID: 22071277.
Lomer S and Palmer E (2021) ‘I didn’t know this was actually stuff that could help us, with actually learning’: student perceptions of Active Blended Learning. Teaching in Higher Education. Taylor & Francis: 1–20.
Malekigorji M and Hatahet T (2020) Classroom Response System in a Super-Blended Learning and Teaching model: Individual or Team-Based Learning? Pharmacy 8(4). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 197. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy8040197. PMID: 33114396; PMCID: PMC7711766.
Mali D and Lim H (2021) How do students perceive face-to-face/blended learning as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic? The International Journal of Management Education 19(3). Elsevier BV: 100552. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100552. Epub 2021 Aug 30. PMCID: PMC8417584.
McLaughlin JE, Gharkholonarehe N, Khanova J, et al. (2015) The impact of blended learning on student performance in a cardiovascular pharmacotherapy course. The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 79(2). Elsevier BV: 24. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79224. PMID: 25861105; PMCID: PMC4386745.
Mehrdad N, Zolfaghari M, Bahrani N, et al. (2011) Learning Outcomes in Two Different Teaching Approach in Nursing Education in Iran: E-Learning versus Lecture. Acta Medica Iranica 49(5). Tehran University of Medical Sciences: 296–301.
Mirzaei M, Ahmadipour F, Azizian F (2012). Viewpoints of students of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences towards e-Learning in teaching clinical biochemistry. Journal of Medical Education and Development., 7 (2) :67-74 URL: http://jmed.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-132-fa.html
Mortera-Gutiérrez F (2006) Faculty best practices using blended learning in E-Learning and Face-to-Face instruction. International Journal on E-learning 5(3): 313–337.
Münch-Harrach D, Kothe C and Hampe W (2013) Audio podcasts in practical courses in biochemistry - cost-efficient e-learning in a well-proven format from radio broadcasting. PubMed. National Institutes of Health. Epub ahead of print January 1, 2013.
Peroz I, Beuche A and Peroz N (2009) Randomized controlled trial comparing lecture versus self studying by an online tool. Medical Teacher 31(6). Informa: 508–512.
Porat E, Blau I and Barak A (2018) Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students’ perceived competencies versus actual performance. Computers & Education 126. Elsevier BV: 23–36.
Rashidi B, Avizhgan M. Design (2012). Implementation and Evaluation of Electronic Teaching of Practical and Theoretical Histology Courses: a New Experience at Isfahan University of Medical Science. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 11 (9) :1214-1222 URL:
Siau K, Sheng H and Nah FF (2006) Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education 49(3). IEEE Education Society: 398–403.
Sinouvassane D and Nalini A (2016a) Perception of Flipped Classroom Model among Year One and Year Three Health Science Students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6(3). International Journal of Information and Education Technology: 215–218.
Sinouvassane D and Nalini A (2016b) Perception of Flipped Classroom Model among Year One and Year Three Health Science Students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.687.
Vadakedath S and Kandi V (2019) Modified Conventional Teaching: An Assessment of Clinical Biochemistry Learning Process Among Medical Undergraduate Students Using the Traditional Teaching in Combination with Group Discussion. Cureus. Cureus, Inc. Epub ahead of print August 16, 2019. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5396.
Van Horn ER, Hyde YM, Tesh AS, et al. (2014) Teaching pathophysiology. Nurse Educator 39(1). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 34–37. doi:10.1097/01.NNE.0000437364.19090.be. PMID: 24300257.
Varghese J, Faith M and Jacob MV (2012) Impact of e-resources on learning in biochemistry: first-year medical students’ perceptions. BMC Medical Education 12(1). BioMed Central. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-21
Vella F (1992) Medical Education: Capitalizing on the lecture method. The FASEB Journal 6(3). Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology: 811–812.
Waltz CF, Bausell RB (1981). Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. Illustrated ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.
Yu Z, Xu W and Sukjairungwattana P (2022) Meta-analyses of differences in blended and traditional learning outcomes and students’ attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology 13. Frontiers Media. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.926947. PMID: 36186290; PMCID: PMC9524290.
Zhang J, Cai Z, Zhao Z, et al. (2017) Cell phone-based online biochemistry and molecular biology medical education curriculum. Medical Education Online 22(1). Taylor & Francis: 1374135. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2017.1374135. PMID: 28901222; PMCID: PMC5653940