Tom Dreyer, Symeon Papadopoulos, Rudolf Wiesner, Yassin Karay
{"title":"Classroom teaching versus online teaching in physiology practical course - does this lead to different examination results?","authors":"Tom Dreyer, Symeon Papadopoulos, Rudolf Wiesner, Yassin Karay","doi":"10.3205/zma001732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to contact restrictions during the Corona pandemic, teaching at the Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology at the University of Cologne was temporarily offered online for some students and face-to-face for others. As there are different views on the effectiveness of online teaching, this study compared students' examination results between the teaching formats (face-to-face vs. online).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In winter 2021/22, a total of 198 students in their fourth preclinical semester took part in the physiology course. The students were randomly assigned to 15 practical courses, so that the practical course was completed either traditionally in presence (face-to-face; FtF<sub>group</sub>) or as an online practical course via Zoom<sup>®</sup> (O<sub>group</sub>). The teaching format versus the score achieved per test question were recorded for each examinee. The differences in test scores were calculated using a two-sided t-test. The effect size was determined using Cohen's d. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used as a measure of the correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison with the O<sub>group</sub> (M=7.02), the FtF<sub>group</sub> (M=7.38) achieved a significantly higher test score on average. The effect size was low (Cohen's d=0.135). The FtF<sub>group</sub> performed better than the O<sub>group</sub> in 14 subject areas. The Spearman's correlation test between the number of FtF participations and the test scores achieved reached a value of r=0.236 (p<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study shows that students who have attended traditional face-to-face classes tend to perform better in the written exam. The reasons may be multifactorial. However, online teaching also offers some advantages, such as flexibility in terms of location and time management for students. The choice between online and face-to-face teaching should be based on the specific requirements of the course. Ideally, a hybrid solution that combines the advantages of both formats would be an effective teaching format. It is therefore essential to continuously review educational practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"42 1","pages":"Doc8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12086253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Due to contact restrictions during the Corona pandemic, teaching at the Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology at the University of Cologne was temporarily offered online for some students and face-to-face for others. As there are different views on the effectiveness of online teaching, this study compared students' examination results between the teaching formats (face-to-face vs. online).
Methods: In winter 2021/22, a total of 198 students in their fourth preclinical semester took part in the physiology course. The students were randomly assigned to 15 practical courses, so that the practical course was completed either traditionally in presence (face-to-face; FtFgroup) or as an online practical course via Zoom® (Ogroup). The teaching format versus the score achieved per test question were recorded for each examinee. The differences in test scores were calculated using a two-sided t-test. The effect size was determined using Cohen's d. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used as a measure of the correlation.
Results: In comparison with the Ogroup (M=7.02), the FtFgroup (M=7.38) achieved a significantly higher test score on average. The effect size was low (Cohen's d=0.135). The FtFgroup performed better than the Ogroup in 14 subject areas. The Spearman's correlation test between the number of FtF participations and the test scores achieved reached a value of r=0.236 (p<.001).
Conclusion: Our study shows that students who have attended traditional face-to-face classes tend to perform better in the written exam. The reasons may be multifactorial. However, online teaching also offers some advantages, such as flexibility in terms of location and time management for students. The choice between online and face-to-face teaching should be based on the specific requirements of the course. Ideally, a hybrid solution that combines the advantages of both formats would be an effective teaching format. It is therefore essential to continuously review educational practices.
期刊介绍：
GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
