A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Distance learning
Online education
PBL
Problem-based learning
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Mar 2021
03 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2020
accepted:
16
02
2021
entrez:
4
3
2021
pubmed:
5
3
2021
medline:
13
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Educational pedagogies were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimise interruption to teaching. One approach has been the distance learning problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial utilising the online peer-to-peer platform. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of students using distance learning PBL tutorials using with that of students utilising the conventional face-to-face approach. This retrospective study was conducted in a single academic institution. We compared two groups of fourth-year medical students from the same class: one group used distance learning (DL); the other, the face-to-face (FF) method. We used students' baseline performance at the preceding block for one-to-one propensity score matching. Students utilising the PBL tutorial were given grades by their tutors according to a standardised scoring system encompassing five key areas (score range: 0-10). The main outcome was a student's total score (i.e., the sum of the scores from the five key areas, ranging from 0 to 50). We matched 62 students in each group. With four tutorials, there were 490 observations, with 245 in each group. The mean total score for the DL group was 37.5 ± 4.6, which was significantly lower than that of the FF group (39.0 ± 4.4, p < 0.001). We noted that students in the DL group had a significantly lower scores for all five areas of proficiency: participation, communication, preparation, critical thinking and group skills. Findings of this study revealed that the performance of students utilising the DL PBL tutorials was lower than that of students participating in the conventional FF approach. Further studies are needed to ascertain the underlying cause.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Educational pedagogies were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimise interruption to teaching. One approach has been the distance learning problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial utilising the online peer-to-peer platform. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of students using distance learning PBL tutorials using with that of students utilising the conventional face-to-face approach.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted in a single academic institution. We compared two groups of fourth-year medical students from the same class: one group used distance learning (DL); the other, the face-to-face (FF) method. We used students' baseline performance at the preceding block for one-to-one propensity score matching. Students utilising the PBL tutorial were given grades by their tutors according to a standardised scoring system encompassing five key areas (score range: 0-10). The main outcome was a student's total score (i.e., the sum of the scores from the five key areas, ranging from 0 to 50).
RESULT
RESULTS
We matched 62 students in each group. With four tutorials, there were 490 observations, with 245 in each group. The mean total score for the DL group was 37.5 ± 4.6, which was significantly lower than that of the FF group (39.0 ± 4.4, p < 0.001). We noted that students in the DL group had a significantly lower scores for all five areas of proficiency: participation, communication, preparation, critical thinking and group skills.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this study revealed that the performance of students utilising the DL PBL tutorials was lower than that of students participating in the conventional FF approach. Further studies are needed to ascertain the underlying cause.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33658015
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02575-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-021-02575-1
pmc: PMC7928185
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
141Références
J Med Educ. 1974 Nov;49(11):1040-50
pubmed: 4444006
Med Educ. 2020 Dec;54(12):1184-1185
pubmed: 32531804
Acad Med. 2006 Mar;81(3):207-12
pubmed: 16501260
Med Educ. 2020 Jul;54(7):660
pubmed: 32285492
Appl Clin Inform. 2020 Mar;11(2):265-275
pubmed: 32268390
J Surg Educ. 2020 Jul - Aug;77(4):729-732
pubmed: 32253133
Climacteric. 2016;19(1):3-6
pubmed: 26581696
Australas Med J. 2011;4(8):442-7
pubmed: 23393532
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jun;68(6):1220-1221
pubmed: 32461490
Anat Sci Educ. 2020 May;13(3):301-311
pubmed: 32306550
Acad Med. 2007 Apr;82(4):370-4
pubmed: 17414193
Med Educ. 2020 Jun;54(6):494
pubmed: 32233098
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2006;3:3
pubmed: 19223995
Acad Med. 2020 Sep;95(9):1359-1361
pubmed: 32304387
Acad Med. 2005 Mar;80(3):294-9
pubmed: 15734816
Surg Pract. 2020 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 32837531
JMIR Med Educ. 2020 Nov 18;6(2):e20963
pubmed: 33106227