A mixed methods, longitudinal study: characterizing the differences in engagement and perceived learning of medical students in online and in-person team-based learning classes

I. Lee, P. Wong
{"title":"A mixed methods, longitudinal study: characterizing the differences in engagement and perceived learning of medical students in online and in-person team-based learning classes","authors":"I. Lee, P. Wong","doi":"10.12688/mep.19535.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The rapid transition to online delivery of medical curriculum has facilitated the continuation of medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst active learning approaches, including Team-Based Learning (TBL), are generally more supportive of the learner’s needs during such transition, it remains elusive how different learning environments affect a learner’s motivation, engagement, and perceived learning over a prolonged period. We leveraged on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and key learners’ characteristics to explore the levels of student’s engagement and perceived learning in two TBL learning environments, online and in-person, over an extended period. We hypothesize that students’ self-reported perceptions of engagement and learning will be lower in online compared to in-person TBL classes. Methods: This is a mixed methods study with 49 preclinical graduate medical students completing the same questionnaire twice for each learning environment, online TBL and in-person TBL, over an eight-month period. Quantitative data were collected on learners’ characteristics, basic psychological needs satisfaction, motivation, student’s engagement and perceived learning. The final questionnaire also explored participants’ perception on which learning environment better supported their learning. Results: We found that autonomy support, perceived competence and needs satisfaction, and perceived learning were higher in-person than online. Additionally, most learners felt that in-person TBL was better for learning, as the concepts of learning space and the community of practice were mediated by being in-person. Conclusions: TBL, being an active instructional method, can maintain students’ engagement because it supports many aspects of SDT constructs and perceived learning. However, online TBL is unable to fully support the students’ needs and perceived learning. Hence, we strongly advocate for any in-person opportunities to be included in a course, as in-person classes best supports students’ engagement and perceived learning.","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19535.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The rapid transition to online delivery of medical curriculum has facilitated the continuation of medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst active learning approaches, including Team-Based Learning (TBL), are generally more supportive of the learner’s needs during such transition, it remains elusive how different learning environments affect a learner’s motivation, engagement, and perceived learning over a prolonged period. We leveraged on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and key learners’ characteristics to explore the levels of student’s engagement and perceived learning in two TBL learning environments, online and in-person, over an extended period. We hypothesize that students’ self-reported perceptions of engagement and learning will be lower in online compared to in-person TBL classes. Methods: This is a mixed methods study with 49 preclinical graduate medical students completing the same questionnaire twice for each learning environment, online TBL and in-person TBL, over an eight-month period. Quantitative data were collected on learners’ characteristics, basic psychological needs satisfaction, motivation, student’s engagement and perceived learning. The final questionnaire also explored participants’ perception on which learning environment better supported their learning. Results: We found that autonomy support, perceived competence and needs satisfaction, and perceived learning were higher in-person than online. Additionally, most learners felt that in-person TBL was better for learning, as the concepts of learning space and the community of practice were mediated by being in-person. Conclusions: TBL, being an active instructional method, can maintain students’ engagement because it supports many aspects of SDT constructs and perceived learning. However, online TBL is unable to fully support the students’ needs and perceived learning. Hence, we strongly advocate for any in-person opportunities to be included in a course, as in-person classes best supports students’ engagement and perceived learning.
一项混合方法的纵向研究:表征医学生在在线和面对面团队学习课堂上的参与和感知学习的差异
背景:医学课程快速向在线交付过渡,为COVID-19大流行期间医学教育的继续提供了便利。虽然主动学习方法,包括基于团队的学习(TBL),在这种过渡过程中通常更支持学习者的需求,但不同的学习环境如何影响学习者的动机、参与和长时间的感知学习仍然是难以捉摸的。我们利用自我决定理论(SDT)和主要学习者的特征,在一段较长的时间内,探索两种TBL学习环境(在线和面对面)中学生的参与度和感知学习水平。我们假设,与面对面的TBL课程相比,在线课程中学生自我报告的参与和学习的感知会更低。方法:这是一项混合方法研究,49名临床前医学研究生在8个月的时间里,对每种学习环境(在线TBL和面对面TBL)完成两次相同的问卷调查。本研究收集了学习者特征、基本心理需求满足、动机、学生投入和感知学习等方面的定量数据。最后的问卷还探讨了参与者对哪种学习环境更有利于他们学习的看法。结果:学生的自主支持、感知能力和需求满意度、感知学习能力均高于在线学习。此外,大多数学习者认为面对面的TBL更有利于学习,因为学习空间和实践社区的概念是通过面对面来中介的。结论:TBL作为一种主动的教学方法,可以维持学生的参与,因为它支持SDT结构和感知学习的许多方面。然而,在线TBL不能完全支持学生的需求和感知学习。因此,我们强烈提倡在课程中加入任何面对面的机会,因为面对面的课程最能支持学生的参与和感知学习。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
×
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