Hybrid versus distance learning environment for a paediatric dentistry course and its influence on students' satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

Yasmin Mohamed Yousry, Maha Moussa Azab, Yasmin Mohamed Yousry, Maha Moussa Azab

Abstract

Background: During the novel COVID-19 pandemic, many universities adopted distance and hybrid learning as a modification to their teaching methods to ensure continuity of education, abiding by the worldwide recommendations of social distancing.

Aim: To compare learning environments created through hybrid learning versus distance learning, to deliver paediatric dentistry course, and to assess the correlation between the created learning environment and students' satisfaction.

Method: In this cross-sectional study, students enrolled in a hybrid paediatric dentistry course were asked to participate in an electronic survey. The learning environment was assessed using Distance Educational Learning Environment Survey (DELES), students' satisfaction was assessed using Satisfaction Scale (SS). Retrospective data for distance learning course was used for comparison. Ordinal data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient was used to correlate students' satisfaction with DELES. Multiple regression analysis was used to predict satisfaction.

Results: A total of 376 students' data were considered in the study. Hybrid learning had significantly higher scores than distance learning in 3 DELES scales. There was a statistically significant weak positive correlation between satisfaction and DELES. Multiple regression analysis model was statistically significant and accounted for (22.8%) of the variance in students' satisfaction. Only "Instructor support" (p = 0.001) and "Student autonomy" (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on satisfaction.

Conclusion: This study supports the superiority of a hybrid learning environment over a complete distance learning environment, it also shows that satisfaction is correlated and can be predicted by the created learning environment.

Trial registration: This study has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 21 May 2020 with an identifier: NCT04401371 .

Keywords: Dental education; Distance learning; Paediatric dentistry; Satisfaction.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bar chart showing average distance and hybrid education learning environment score

References

    1. OSHA. Guidance on preparing workplaces for COVID-19: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2020.
    1. Elken M, Wollscheid S. Academic environment and quality of education. A literature review. Oslo: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education; 2019. p. 25.
    1. Conrad . E-Learning and social change: an apparent contradiction. In: Beaudoin M, editor. Perspectives on higher education in the digital age. New York: Nova; 2006. pp. 21–33.
    1. Moore MG, Kearsley G. Distance education: a systems view. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing; 1996.
    1. Miyazoe T, Anderson T. Erratum to learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System. 2010;38(3):185–199. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006.
    1. Burnett K. Interaction and student retention. Success and satisfaction in web-based learning. In: Libraries and Librarians. Boston: 67th IFLA Council and General Conference Learning; 2001.
    1. Fredericksen E, Pickett A, Shea P, Pelz W, Swan K. Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. J Asynchronous Learn Netw. 2000;4(2):7–41.
    1. Ramlogan S, Raman V, Sweet J. A comparison of two forms of teaching instruction: video vs. live lecture for education in clinical periodontology. Eur J Dent Educ. 2014;18(1):31–38. doi: 10.1111/eje.12053.
    1. Asiry MA. Dental students’ perceptions of an online learning. Saudi Dental J. 2017;29(4):167–170. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.03.005.
    1. Shannon DM, Bradshaw CC. A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. J Exper Ed. 2002;70:179–192. doi: 10.1080/00220970209599505.
    1. Walker SL, Fraser BJ. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: the distance education learning environments survey (DELES) Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2005;4(3):289–308.
    1. Short JA, Williams E, Christie B. The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley; 1976.
    1. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to design and evaluate research in education. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2012.
    1. Messick S. Validity. In: Linn R, editor. Educational measurement. 3. New York: American Council on Education: Macmillan; 1989. pp. 13–104.
    1. Palmgren PJ, Brodin U, Nilsson GH, Watson R, Stenfors T. Investigating psychometric properties and dimensional structure of an educational environment measure (DREEM) using Mokken scale analysis - a pragmatic approach. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:235. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1334-8.
    1. Cook AJ, et al. Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain. 2004;110(1-2):310–317. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012.
    1. Rayhan RU, et al. Administer and collect medical questionnaires with Google documents: a simple, safe, and free system. Appl Med Inform. 2013;33(3):12–21.
    1. McCutcheon K, O’Halloran P, Lohan M. Online learning versus blended learning of clinical supervisee skills with pre-registration nursing students: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;82:30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.005.
    1. Moon H, Hyun HS. Nursing students’ knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy in blended learning of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1848-8.
    1. Lodge JM, Panadero E, Broadbent J, de Barba PG. Supporting self-regulated learning with learning analytics. Learn Anal Class. 2019;chapter 4:45–55.
    1. Furnborough C. Making the most of others: autonomous interdependence in adult beginner distance language learners. Dist Educ. 2012;33(1):99–116. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.667962.
    1. Kartoğlu Ü, Siagian RC, Reeves TC. Creating a “good clinical practices inspection” authentic online learning environment through educational design. Res Tech Trends. 2020;64:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11528-019-00472-5.
    1. Tu C-H, McIsaac M. The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Am J Dist Educ. 2002;16(3):131–150. doi: 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2.
    1. Qutieshat AS, Abusamak MO, Maragha TN. Impact of blended learning on dental students’ performance and satisfaction in clinical education. J Dent Educ. 2020;84:135–142. doi: 10.21815/JDE.019.167.
    1. Venkatesh S, Rao YK, Nagaraja H, Woolley T, Alele FO, Malau-Aduli BS. Factors influencing medical students’ experiences and satisfaction with blended integrated E-learning. Med Princ Pract. 2020;29(4):396–402. doi: 10.1159/000505210.
    1. Gunawardena CN, Zittle FJ. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am J Dist Educ. 1997;11(3):8–26. doi: 10.1080/08923649709526970.
    1. Vermote B, Aelterman N, Beyers W, Aper L, Buysschaert F, Vansteenkiste M. The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach. Motiv Emot. 2020;44(2):270–294. doi: 10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5.
    1. Dziuban C, Graham CR, Moskal PD, Norberg A, Sicilia N. Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2018;15(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다