The effects of a newly established online learning management system: the perspectives of Thai medical students in a public medical school.
Educational activity
Medical students
Online education
Online learning
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
28
06
2021
revised:
02
08
2021
accepted:
11
10
2021
entrez:
8
11
2021
pubmed:
9
11
2021
medline:
9
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are obstacles for medical schools in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to implement an online learning management system (LMS) during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. Our medical school has developed and implemented tailored LMS for medical students and examine the acceptance and effects of this LMS on the medical students' learning outcomes and identify factors influencing their adoption of online learning. This was a mixed-methods study using an online questionnaire and online semi-structured interviews with first-year medical students at one medical school in Thailand. The platform's monitoring system and questionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. The response rate was 55.5% (157/283). Most of the respondents agreed on the advantages and were very satisfied with their learning experience. The logistic regression showed that content quality (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.11-5.31) and perceived usefulness (AOR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.02-7.39) were significantly associated with the acceptance of online learning among medical students. There was no association between the test scores and time spent in the course. Despite limited evidence of LMS effectiveness in medical schools in LMIC, learning on a customised LMS appeared to be accepted, useful, user-friendly, and effective among medical students. The perceived usefulness and the content quality are associated with the acceptance of online learning. Medical schools in LMIC can develop their own LMS to ensure that it meets their learners' and faculties' needs. This study is a single-institution study, further large-scale studies are needed to ensure generalisability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are obstacles for medical schools in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to implement an online learning management system (LMS) during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. Our medical school has developed and implemented tailored LMS for medical students and examine the acceptance and effects of this LMS on the medical students' learning outcomes and identify factors influencing their adoption of online learning.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a mixed-methods study using an online questionnaire and online semi-structured interviews with first-year medical students at one medical school in Thailand. The platform's monitoring system and questionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The response rate was 55.5% (157/283). Most of the respondents agreed on the advantages and were very satisfied with their learning experience. The logistic regression showed that content quality (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.11-5.31) and perceived usefulness (AOR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.02-7.39) were significantly associated with the acceptance of online learning among medical students. There was no association between the test scores and time spent in the course.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite limited evidence of LMS effectiveness in medical schools in LMIC, learning on a customised LMS appeared to be accepted, useful, user-friendly, and effective among medical students. The perceived usefulness and the content quality are associated with the acceptance of online learning. Medical schools in LMIC can develop their own LMS to ensure that it meets their learners' and faculties' needs. This study is a single-institution study, further large-scale studies are needed to ensure generalisability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34746465
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08182
pii: S2405-8440(21)02285-4
pmc: PMC8551520
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e08182Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
J Online Learn Teach. 2015 Jun;11(2):249-261
pubmed: 27441032
Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1666538
pubmed: 31526248
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Fall;24(4):227-36
pubmed: 15709562
Nurs Health Sci. 2010 Jun;12(2):177-81
pubmed: 20602689
Med Educ. 2005 Jun;39(6):561-7
pubmed: 15910431
Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(2):83-91
pubmed: 17877870
JAMA. 2008 Sep 10;300(10):1181-96
pubmed: 18780847
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 May;36(COVID19-S4):S57-S61
pubmed: 32582315
Aust Fam Physician. 2014 Oct;43(10):717-21
pubmed: 25286431
Am J Pharm Educ. 2016 Aug 25;80(6):102
pubmed: 27667839
Trials. 2017 Mar 23;18(1):137
pubmed: 28335809
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Feb 19;100(7):e24821
pubmed: 33607848
BMJ. 1999 May 8;318(7193):1267-9
pubmed: 10231262
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Jan;(149):1-69
pubmed: 17764217
Nurse Educ Today. 2017 May;52:28-33
pubmed: 28229917
JAMA. 1995 Sep 6;274(9):700-5
pubmed: 7650822
Comput Educ. 2020 Feb;145:103726
pubmed: 32565611
JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2131-2132
pubmed: 32232420
BMC Med Educ. 2012 Mar 30;12:18
pubmed: 22463757
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Dec 09;21(1):78-84
pubmed: 31913823
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Winter;24(1):20-30
pubmed: 15069909
Med Educ. 2010 Aug;44(8):765-74
pubmed: 20633216