A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic

Chi-Chung Foo, Billy Cheung, Kent-Man Chu, Chi-Chung Foo, Billy Cheung, Kent-Man Chu

Abstract

Background: Educational pedagogies were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimise interruption to teaching. One approach has been the distance learning problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial utilising the online peer-to-peer platform. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of students using distance learning PBL tutorials using with that of students utilising the conventional face-to-face approach.

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in a single academic institution. We compared two groups of fourth-year medical students from the same class: one group used distance learning (DL); the other, the face-to-face (FF) method. We used students' baseline performance at the preceding block for one-to-one propensity score matching. Students utilising the PBL tutorial were given grades by their tutors according to a standardised scoring system encompassing five key areas (score range: 0-10). The main outcome was a student's total score (i.e., the sum of the scores from the five key areas, ranging from 0 to 50).

Result: We matched 62 students in each group. With four tutorials, there were 490 observations, with 245 in each group. The mean total score for the DL group was 37.5 ± 4.6, which was significantly lower than that of the FF group (39.0 ± 4.4, p < 0.001). We noted that students in the DL group had a significantly lower scores for all five areas of proficiency: participation, communication, preparation, critical thinking and group skills.

Conclusion: Findings of this study revealed that the performance of students utilising the DL PBL tutorials was lower than that of students participating in the conventional FF approach. Further studies are needed to ascertain the underlying cause.

Keywords: Distance learning; Online education; PBL; Problem-based learning.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean PBL scores according to tutors

References

    1. Eva KW, Anderson MB. Medical education adaptations: really good stuff for educational transition during a pandemic. Med Educ. 2020;54(6):494.
    1. Chick RC, Clifton GT, Peace KM, Propper BW, Hale DF, Alseidi AA, Vreeland TJ. Using technology to maintain the education of residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(4):729–32.
    1. Liang ZC, Ooi SBS, Wang W. Pandemics and their impact on medical training: lessons from Singapore. Acad Med. 2020;95(9):1359–61.
    1. Kim S. The future of E-learning in medical education: current trend and future opportunity. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2006;3:3. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2006.3.3.
    1. Tsang ACO, Lee PP, Chen JY, Leung GKK. From bedside to Webside: a neurological clinical teaching experience. Med Educ. 2020;54(7):660.
    1. Co M, Chu KM. Distant surgical teaching during COVID-19 - a pilot study on final year medical students. Surg Pract. 2020. 10.1111/1744-1633.
    1. Shah D. Online education: should we take it seriously? Climacteric. 2016;19(1):3–6. doi: 10.3109/13697137.2015.1115314.
    1. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):207–212. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002.
    1. Wilcha RJ. Effectiveness of virtual medical teaching during the COVID-19 crisis: systematic review. JMIR Med Educ. 2020;6(2):e20963. doi: 10.2196/20963.
    1. Neufeld VR, Barrows HS. The "McMaster philosophy": an approach to medical education. J Med Educ. 1974;49(11):1040–1050.
    1. Neville AJ, Norman GR. PBL in the undergraduate MD program at McMaster University: three iterations in three decades. Acad Med. 2007;82(4):370–374. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318033385d.
    1. Kamin CSDR, Wilson B, Armacost M, Breedon T. The development of a collaborative distance learning program to facilitate pediatric problem-based learning. Med Educ Online. 1999;4:2. doi: 10.3402/meo.v4i.4303.
    1. Distlehorst LH, Dawson E, Robbs RS, Barrows HS. Problem-based learning outcomes: the glass half-full. Acad Med. 2005;80(3):294–299. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200503000-00020.
    1. Grange ES, Neil EJ, Stoffel M, Singh AP, Tseng E, Resco-Summers K, Fellner BJ, Lynch JB, Mathias PC, Mauritz-Miller K, et al. Responding to COVID-19: the UW medicine information technology services experience. Appl Clin Inform. 2020;11(2):265–275. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1709715.
    1. Lamba P. Teleconferencing in medical education: a useful tool. Australas Med J. 2011;4(8):442–447. doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2011.823.
    1. Norman ETH, Huegel D. The distance between us: using construal level theory to understand interpersonal distance in a digital age. Front Digit Humanit. 2016;3:5. doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2016.00005.
    1. Lee ICJ, Koh H, Lai SH, Hwang NC. Academic coaching of medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Educ. 2020;54(12):1184–1185. doi: 10.1111/medu.14272.
    1. Longhurst GJ, Stone DM, Dulohery K, Scully D, Campbell T, Smith CF. Strength, weakness, opportunity, threat (SWOT) analysis of the adaptations to anatomical education in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(3):301–311. doi: 10.1002/ase.1967.
    1. Kaup S, Jain R, Shivalli S, Pandey S, Kaup S. Sustaining academics during COVID-19 pandemic: the role of online teaching-learning. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(6):1220–1221. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1241_20.
    1. Loneliness: The other side of working from home . Accessed 1 June 2020.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren