Effects of Active Learning Techniques on Learners’ Perceptions of Engagement and Effectiveness in Pre-Clinical Courses

IF 0.9 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Chosang Tendhar, Clara Chen, Christopher Duffy, K. Metzger, Elizabeth Koltz
{"title":"Effects of Active Learning Techniques on Learners’ Perceptions of Engagement and Effectiveness in Pre-Clinical Courses","authors":"Chosang Tendhar, Clara Chen, Christopher Duffy, K. Metzger, Elizabeth Koltz","doi":"10.62694/efh.2024.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Due to COVID-19, second-year medical students (M2s) at the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine (HMSOM) completed a substantial portion of their pre-clerkship training in person, while first-year students (M1s) completed their entire pre-clerkship training online. The purposes of this study are threefold. To examine (1) the impact of various active learning techniques employed at HMSOM on learners’ perceptions of engagement and effectiveness; (2) differences in perceptions of the impact of active learning techniques on engagement and effectiveness between cohorts; and (3) the relationships between pre-work and engagement/effectiveness. Methods: The data for this study were collected from M2s and M1s using a 22-item questionnaire that the authors of this study developed after pilot testing it. SPSS v. 27 was used to compute descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and correlations. Results: The “Zoom polling tool” and “Case-based session” were ranked highest, while “Professors randomly calling on students individually” and “Making it mandatory to keep video cameras on” were ranked lowest. Significant differences were found between M2s and M1s in their perceptions of engagement and effectiveness related to some active learning techniques. Discussion: The findings of this study have numerous theoretical and practical implications. The Zoom polling tool and Case-based session were perceived to have the greatest impact on students’ engagement and effectiveness. Significant differences were observed between M2s and M1s in their perceptions of the impact of three active learning techniques. M2s, with in-person class experiences, scored higher on “Professors randomly calling on students individually”. On the other hand, M1s, who only had online experiences, scored higher on pre-work video modules. Some of the limitations of this study are discussed for potential future research.","PeriodicalId":46742,"journal":{"name":"Education for Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62694/efh.2024.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Due to COVID-19, second-year medical students (M2s) at the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine (HMSOM) completed a substantial portion of their pre-clerkship training in person, while first-year students (M1s) completed their entire pre-clerkship training online. The purposes of this study are threefold. To examine (1) the impact of various active learning techniques employed at HMSOM on learners’ perceptions of engagement and effectiveness; (2) differences in perceptions of the impact of active learning techniques on engagement and effectiveness between cohorts; and (3) the relationships between pre-work and engagement/effectiveness. Methods: The data for this study were collected from M2s and M1s using a 22-item questionnaire that the authors of this study developed after pilot testing it. SPSS v. 27 was used to compute descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and correlations. Results: The “Zoom polling tool” and “Case-based session” were ranked highest, while “Professors randomly calling on students individually” and “Making it mandatory to keep video cameras on” were ranked lowest. Significant differences were found between M2s and M1s in their perceptions of engagement and effectiveness related to some active learning techniques. Discussion: The findings of this study have numerous theoretical and practical implications. The Zoom polling tool and Case-based session were perceived to have the greatest impact on students’ engagement and effectiveness. Significant differences were observed between M2s and M1s in their perceptions of the impact of three active learning techniques. M2s, with in-person class experiences, scored higher on “Professors randomly calling on students individually”. On the other hand, M1s, who only had online experiences, scored higher on pre-work video modules. Some of the limitations of this study are discussed for potential future research.
主动学习技术对学员参与感和临床前课程有效性的影响
背景:由于 COVID-19,哈肯萨克默里迪安医学院(Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine,HMSOM)的二年级医学生(M2s)要亲自完成实习前培训的大部分内容,而一年级学生(M1s)则在网上完成实习前培训的全部内容。本研究有三个目的。研究:(1) HMSOM 采用的各种主动学习技术对学员参与度和有效性的影响;(2) 不同组群之间对主动学习技术对参与度和有效性影响的认知差异;(3) 预习工作与参与度/有效性之间的关系。研究方法:本研究的数据来自 M2 和 M1,使用的是本研究的作者在试点测试后编制的 22 个项目的调查问卷。使用 SPSS v. 27 计算描述性统计、独立 t 检验和相关性。结果Zoom投票工具 "和 "基于案例的课程 "排名最高,而 "教授单独随机点名学生 "和 "强制开启摄像机 "排名最低。M2 和 M1 对一些主动学习技术的参与度和有效性的看法存在显著差异。讨论:本研究的结果具有许多理论和实践意义。Zoom投票工具和基于案例的课程被认为对学生的参与度和有效性影响最大。在对三种主动学习技术的影响的看法上,M2 和 M1 之间存在显著差异。有亲身上课经历的 M2 在 "教授随机个别点名 "方面得分较高。另一方面,只有在线学习经历的 M1 在预习视频模块上得分更高。我们讨论了本研究的一些局限性,供今后研究参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Education for Health
Education for Health EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice (EfH) is the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal of The Network: Towards Unity for Health. Our readers are health professionals, health professions educators and learners, health care researchers, policymakers, community leaders and administrators from all over the world. We publish original studies, reviews, think pieces, works in progress and commentaries on current trends, issues, and controversies. We especially want to provide our international readers with fresh ideas and innovative models of education and health services that can enable them to be maximally responsive to the healthcare needs of the communities in which they work and learn.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信