ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Zeraati   M. (*)
Zakipour   M. (1)
Aghabararian   N. (2)






(*) Educational Sciences Department, Management Faculty, Aeronautical University of Shahid Sattari, Tehran, Iran
(1) Educational Sciences Department, Management Faculty, Aeronautical University of Shahid Sattari, Tehran, Iran
(2) Educational Sciences Department, Human Sciences Faculty, Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

Correspondence

Article History

Received:  August  21, 2015
Accepted:  September 9, 2015
ePublished:  September 25, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-9] The supply and demand system of higher education still does not have a thorough understanding of virtual educational environments and is not familiar very well with its capabilities, functions and basic skills of information technology [10].

The level of students` and professors` satisfaction in designing and applying combinational electronic training systems [11] and effectiveness of online presence teaching methods, as well as integrated training practices [12], have been studied. No study was found at the non-complementary levels similar to method of the current study on the students of health department. … [13]

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two methods including virtual learning (electronic) and traditional (lecture) on the level of students` learning.

This is a semi-experimental research.

Bachelor and associate students of Health and Management Department of School of Health and Medical Records of School of Paramedical Sciences of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (Iran), all of them studying in the courses of principles of epidemiology, epidemiology of common diseases, maternal and child health and reproductive health courses at the second semester of the academic year 2012-2013, were studied in 2013.

The total population was 202 and in order to increase the generalizability of the results of the study, Census Sampling method was used.

All students were taught using a combinational virtual method. Topics of the courses were divided every other session. Half of the topics were presented in the lecture form and the other half was presented in the virtual method by computer. At the end of the semester, the results of both methods were examined. For each four virtual training sessions (8hours), a troubleshooting meeting was held. A researcher-made two-part questionnaire consisted of demographic characteristics of age, gender, semester, marital status, and employment of students. And 30 multiple choice survey questions were designed in Likert scale. The validity of the questionnaire (content validity) was approved by investigating and considering the views of experienced professors in the domain of education. Cronbach`s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire and its value was equal to 0.82. In order to compare the test scores of two methods, Student T-test and to compare the scores of test for computer-presented topics with the results of the survey, ANOVA were conducted using SPSS 20 software.

202 students with the mean age 22.40 ± 2.90years between 21 and 30 years were participated in the study. 120 (59.4%) were female and others were male. 141 (69.8%) were in associate level and 61 (%30.2) were in Bachelor level (Table 1). In the conducted survey, 80% of students had personal computer at least a year before the study which caused a considerable difference in improving the scores of computer-presented topics, but only 28% of students had internet access at home which did not have any effect on the score of computer exam. Regarding the place of using computers to work with virtual system, 70.8% of participants mentioned the university, 20.8% mention home and others mentioned the work place. The level of achievement of educational goal by computers was noted as very high by 66.7% of cases, low and medium by 12.5% of cases, and high by 20.8% of the cases. The adequacy of the content of educational materials was very high in the view of 94.5% of cases, medium in the view of 31.7% and high in the view of 6.3% of participants (Table 2). In 93.3% of the cases, the method of their interaction with the professors was presence form and in other cases was email, while other methods such as chatting were not helpful. Students` mean score of the questions on topics presented by computer was 16.20 ± 0.56 and of the questions on topics presented on lecture form was 16.55 ± 0.71that was not significantly different (table 3). Field of study and level of education did not have a significant effect on the number of incorrect answers though with increasing years of education the mean of computer test scores increased. Ability and skills of students in working with computers had a significant correlation with success in working with virtual education systems and computer-based tests.

Lecture and virtual methods had rather the same success in the learning of content that these results are consistent with the results of the most previous studies [14-16]. … [17-21] In the present study, the rate of teaching success in virtual method increased in line with the increase in the number of semesters and years spent in school. The usefulness of virtual learning method has been noted only for the graduate level [22]. Access to a personal computer and computer skills also facilitate the student`s performance in distance learning. The positive effects of computer skills have been emphasized [29]. Test mean scores of female students was more than those of male students in the test of virtual topics that in respect to the repetition of the same pattern in the test of lecture topics, it seems that gender does not play a role in the success of such teaching method. The success of females in virtual teaching method has been reported compared to males [30]. The adequacy of the content in teaching by the computer was high in the view of 50% of participants; it was medium in the view of 41.7% of participants and it was low in the view of 8% who had problems in the investigation of headlines and their details in comprehension of contents, as well as issues required interaction with the instructor which were the main focus of the questions in troubleshooting classes. This finding agrees with the results of some studies [19, 20] which have suggested the use of this teaching method based on the headlines and courses. Interaction with the professor through computer system is only in the form of computer communication tools. The need for interaction between the instructor and student via computer facilities has been emphasized as facilitators [24].

Teacher training courses should be conducted in the field of distance learning, methods in troubleshooting classes, evaluation of academic achievement, and providing familiarity with computers.

Lack of familiarity of most students with the requirement of network –based programs and its interaction, as well as lack of access to network outside of the office hours, were the limitations of this study.

Two education methods, including virtual teaching (electronic) and conventional (lecture) methods, have the same impact on students 'learning.

Officials and students of School of Health and Management of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences are appreciated.

Non-declared

Non-declared

All financial resource required for the research was provided by the researchers.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Jalili A, Abasi M. Information and communication technology in education in other countries. Tehran: Proceedings of the Conference of ICT; 2004.
[2]Zandi S, Abedi D, Changiz T, Yousefi AR, Yamani N, Kabiri P. Electronic learning as a new educational technology and its integration in medical education curricula. Iran J Med Educ. 2004;4(1):61-70. [Persian]
[3]Thurmond VA. Defining interaction and strategies to enhance interactions in Web-based courses. Nurse Educ. 2003;28(5):237-41.
[4]Choi H. A problem-based learning trial on the Internet involving undergraduate nursing students. J Nurse Educ. 2003;42(8):359-63.
[5]Peydaie M. Analysis of the effectiveness of e-learning. Tehran: Allame Tabatabaie University; 2003. [Persian]
[6]Frith KH, Kee CC. The effect of communication on nursing student outcomes in a Web-based course. J Nurs Educ. 2003;42(8):350-8.
[7]Shea P, Pickett A, Sauli C. Increasing sccess to higher education: a study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn. 2005;6(2):1-27.
[8]Hewitt-Taylor J. Facilitating distance learning in nurse education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2003;3(1):23-9.
[9]Maleki H. Curriculum (action). 5th edition. Tehran: School Publishing, printing; 2000. p. 296.
[10]Buckley KM. Evaluation of classroom-based, Web-enhanced, and Web-based distance learning nutrition courses for undergraduate nursing. J Nurse Educ. 2003;42(8):367-70.
[11]Olfaghari M, Sarmadi M, Negarandeh R, Zandi B, Ahmadi F. Satisfaction of student and faculty members with implementing Blended-E-Learning. Iran J Nurs Res. 2009;3(11):99-109. [Persian]
[12]Bahadorani M, Yousefy A, Changiz T. The effectiveness of three methods of teaching medline to medical students: Online, face to face and combined educational methods. Iran J Med Educ. 2006;6(2):35-43. [Persian]
[13]Keshavarz L. The role of media in teaching physical education soccer distance learning system. J Harakat. 2003;16(16):25-37. [Persian]
[14]Liaw ST, Gray K. Clinical health informatics education for a 21st Century World. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2010;151:479-91.
[15]Einarson E, Moen A, Kolberg R, Flingtorp G, Linnerud E. Interactive eLearning - a safe place to practice. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;146: 841.
[16]Casimiro L, MacDonald CJ, Thompson TL, Stodel EJ. Grounding theories of W(e)Learn: A framework for online interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(4):390-400.
[17]Gerkin KL, Taylor TH, Weatherby FM. The perception of learning and satisfaction of nurses in the online environment. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2009;25(1):E8-13.
[18]Choules AP. The use of e-learning in medical education: a review of the current situation. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(978):212-26.
[19]Jossif A, Pattichis CS, Kyriakides M, Pitsillides A, Kyriacou E, Dikaiakos M. Selected eHealth applications in Cyprus from the training perspective. Methods Inf Med. 2007;46(1): 84-9.
[20]Zajaczek JE, Götz F, Kupka T, Behrends M, Haubitz B, Donnerstag F, et al. eLearning in education and advanced training in neuroradiology: introduction of a web-based teaching and learning application. Neuroradiology. 2006;48(9): 640-6.
[21]Caporale V, Alessandrini B, Dalla Villa P, Del Papa S. Global perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Rev Sci Tech. 2005;24(2): 567-77.
[22]Docherty C, Hoy D, Topp H, Trinder K. eLearning techniques supporting problem based learning in clinical simulation. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(7-8):527-33.
[23]Leed C. Preparing for a software transition: How the VNA of Central Jersey cured its training ailments in record time. Home Healthc Nurse. 2005;23(1):50-2.
[24]Wutoh R, Boren SA, Balas EA. eLearning: a review of Internet-based continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(1):20-30.
[25]Wright KE, Stewart J, Wright VH, Barker S. eLearning: Is there a place in athletic training education? J Athl Train. 2002;37(4 Suppl):S-208-S-212.
[26]Stausberg J, Bilir H, Waydhas C, Ruchholtz S. Guideline validation in multiple trauma care through business process modeling. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;90:548-52.
[27]Levesque DR, Kelly G. Meeting the challenge of continuing education with eLearning. Radiol Manage. 2002;24(2):40-3.
[28]Romanov K, Kuusi T. Freeware eLearning Flash-ECG for learning electrocardiography. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):550-2.
[29]Kldiashvili E, Schrader T. Implementation of telepathology in the republic of georgia. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15(5):479-83.
[30]Wright CR. 5 Key barriers to educational technology adoption in the developing world. Educ Technol Debate; April 2014. Available from: http://goo.gl/lJ6Nsx