Learner Engagement, Teaching Effectiveness, and Digital Proficiency in In-Person Versus Livestream Continuing Medical Education.

IF 1.8 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Gretchen A Colbenson, David A Cook, Christopher R Stephenson
{"title":"Learner Engagement, Teaching Effectiveness, and Digital Proficiency in In-Person Versus Livestream Continuing Medical Education.","authors":"Gretchen A Colbenson, David A Cook, Christopher R Stephenson","doi":"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Internet streaming of presentations (livestream) is an increasingly common approach for online continuing medical education (CME). The authors aimed to compare in-person versus livestream CME using outcomes of learner engagement and perceived teaching effectiveness and evaluate the relationship between learner digital proficiency, learner engagement, and teaching effectiveness in livestream CME.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nonrandomized comparison study was performed at a CME course in January to February 2022. Participants self-selected in-person or livestream modality. Measurements included the Learner Engagement Inventory, CME Teaching Effectiveness instrument completed after each presentation (score range 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree [favorable]), and the Pew Digital Savviness Classifier (ie, digital proficiency) self-reported at baseline. Analyses accounted for repeated measures by participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred twenty-eight attendees consented to participate (172 in-person and 56 livestream) and submitted 6010 responses across 37 presentations. Learner engagement and teaching effectiveness were not significantly different between in-person and livestream CME (Learner Engagement Inventory mean 4.58 versus 4.63; difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.15 to 0.05, P = .33 and CME Teaching Effectiveness 4.70 versus 4.66; difference 0.04; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.14; P = .46). In the livestream group, participants with low versus high self-reported digital proficiency reported similar learner engagement (4.52 versus 4.42, difference 0.09 [95% CI: -0.24 to 0.43, P =.58) and teaching effectiveness (4.60 versus 4.53, difference 0.08 [95% CI: -0.23 to 0.38), P = .62).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Learner engagement and teaching effectiveness were not statistically different between in-person and livestream CME modalities, and digital proficiency did not influence this relationship. Livestream CME seems to be a reasonable option, regardless of learners' digital proficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":50218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"88-94"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Internet streaming of presentations (livestream) is an increasingly common approach for online continuing medical education (CME). The authors aimed to compare in-person versus livestream CME using outcomes of learner engagement and perceived teaching effectiveness and evaluate the relationship between learner digital proficiency, learner engagement, and teaching effectiveness in livestream CME.

Methods: A nonrandomized comparison study was performed at a CME course in January to February 2022. Participants self-selected in-person or livestream modality. Measurements included the Learner Engagement Inventory, CME Teaching Effectiveness instrument completed after each presentation (score range 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree [favorable]), and the Pew Digital Savviness Classifier (ie, digital proficiency) self-reported at baseline. Analyses accounted for repeated measures by participants.

Results: Two hundred twenty-eight attendees consented to participate (172 in-person and 56 livestream) and submitted 6010 responses across 37 presentations. Learner engagement and teaching effectiveness were not significantly different between in-person and livestream CME (Learner Engagement Inventory mean 4.58 versus 4.63; difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.15 to 0.05, P = .33 and CME Teaching Effectiveness 4.70 versus 4.66; difference 0.04; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.14; P = .46). In the livestream group, participants with low versus high self-reported digital proficiency reported similar learner engagement (4.52 versus 4.42, difference 0.09 [95% CI: -0.24 to 0.43, P =.58) and teaching effectiveness (4.60 versus 4.53, difference 0.08 [95% CI: -0.23 to 0.38), P = .62).

Discussion: Learner engagement and teaching effectiveness were not statistically different between in-person and livestream CME modalities, and digital proficiency did not influence this relationship. Livestream CME seems to be a reasonable option, regardless of learners' digital proficiency.

面对面与直播继续医学教育的学习者参与度、教学效率和数字熟练程度。
网络流媒体演示(livestream)是一种越来越普遍的在线继续医学教育(CME)方法。作者旨在使用学习者参与和感知教学有效性的结果来比较面对面和直播CME,并评估直播CME中学习者数字熟练程度、学习者参与和教学有效性之间的关系。方法:在2022年1月至2月的CME课程中进行非随机比较研究。参与者自行选择现场或直播方式。测量包括学习者参与量表,每次演讲后完成的CME教学有效性工具(得分范围1 =非常不同意,5 =非常同意[有利]),以及基线时自我报告的皮尤数字知识分类器(即数字熟练程度)。分析考虑了参与者的重复测量。结果:228名与会者同意参加(172人亲自参加,56人现场参加),并在37次演示中提交了6010份回复。面对面和直播继续教育的学习者投入和教学有效性无显著差异(学习者投入量表均值为4.58比4.63,差异为-0.05;95%置信区间[CI]: -0.15到0.05,P = 0.33;继续教育教学有效性为4.70比4.66,差异为0.04;95% CI: -0.06到0.14,P = 0.46)。在直播组中,自我报告数字熟练程度低与高的参与者报告了相似的学习者参与度(4.52对4.42,差异0.09 [95% CI: -0.24至0.43,P = 0.58)和教学效率(4.60对4.53,差异0.08 [95% CI: -0.23至0.38),P = 0.62)。讨论:学习者参与和教学有效性在面对面和直播CME模式之间没有统计学差异,数字熟练程度不影响这种关系。无论学习者的数字水平如何,直播CME似乎是一个合理的选择。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education is a quarterly journal publishing articles relevant to theory, practice, and policy development for continuing education in the health sciences. The journal presents original research and essays on subjects involving the lifelong learning of professionals, with a focus on continuous quality improvement, competency assessment, and knowledge translation. It provides thoughtful advice to those who develop, conduct, and evaluate continuing education programs.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书