A Blended Learning System to Improve Motivation, Mood State, and Satisfaction in Undergraduate Students: Randomized Controlled Trial

Mario Lozano-Lozano, Carolina Fernández-Lao, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Ignacio Noguerol, Francisco Álvarez-Salvago, Mayra Cruz-Fernández, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Noelia Galiano-Castillo, Mario Lozano-Lozano, Carolina Fernández-Lao, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Ignacio Noguerol, Francisco Álvarez-Salvago, Mayra Cruz-Fernández, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Noelia Galiano-Castillo

Abstract

Background: Smartphone-based learning, or mobile learning (m-learning), has become a popular learning-and-teaching strategy in educational environments. Blended learning combines strategies such as m-learning with conventional learning to offer continuous training, anytime and anywhere, via innovative learning activities.

Objective: The main aim of this work was to examine the short-term (ie, 2-week) effects of a blended learning method using traditional materials plus a mobile app-the iPOT mobile learning app-on knowledge, motivation, mood state, and satisfaction among undergraduate students enrolled in a health science first-degree program.

Methods: The study was designed as a two-armed, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Subjects who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (ie, blended learning involving traditional lectures plus m-learning via the use of the iPOT app) or the control group (ie, traditional on-site learning). For both groups, the educational program involved 13 lessons on basic health science. The iPOT app is a hybrid, multiplatform (ie, iOS and Android) smartphone app with an interactive teacher-student interface. Outcomes were measured via multiple-choice questions (ie, knowledge), the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (ie, motivation), the Profile of Mood States scale (ie, mood state), and Likert-type questionnaires (ie, satisfaction and linguistic competence).

Results: A total of 99 students were enrolled, with 49 (49%) in the intervention group and 50 (51%) in the control group. No difference was seen between the two groups in terms of theoretical knowledge gain (P=.92). However, the intervention group subjects returned significantly higher scores than the control group subjects for all postintervention assessed items via the motivation questionnaire (all P<.001). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed a significant difference in the confusion and bewilderment component in favor of the intervention group (P=.01), but only a trend toward significance in anger and hostility as well as total score. The intervention group subjects were more satisfied than the members of the control group with respect to five out of the six items evaluated: general satisfaction (P<.001), clarity of the instructions (P<.01), clarity with the use of the learning method (P<.001), enough time to complete the proposed exercises (P<.01), and improvement in the capacity to learn content (P<.001). Finally, the intervention group subjects who were frequent users of the app showed stronger motivation, as well as increased perception of greater gains in their English-language competence, than did infrequent users.

Conclusions: The blended learning method led to significant improvements in motivation, mood state, and satisfaction compared to traditional teaching, and elicited statements of subjective improvement in terms of competence in English.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335397; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03335397.

Keywords: education; learning; mobile apps; students, health occupations; teaching.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Mario Lozano-Lozano, Carolina Fernández-Lao, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Ignacio Noguerol, Francisco Álvarez-Salvago, Mayra Cruz-Fernández, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Noelia Galiano-Castillo. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 22.05.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the recruitment and randomization process. OS: operation system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Top-level view of the iPOT app system.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Satisfaction among the intervention and control arms.

References

    1. GSMA . mLearning: A Platform for Educational Opportunities at the Base of the Pyramid. London, UK: GSMA Development Fund; 2010. Nov, [2020-04-29]. .
    1. Dunleavy G, Nikolaou CK, Nifakos S, Atun R, Law GC, Tudor Car L. Mobile digital education for health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Feb 12;21(2):e12937. doi: 10.2196/12937.
    1. Guo P, Watts K, Wharrad H. An integrative review of the impact of mobile technologies used by healthcare professionals to support education and practice. Nurs Open. 2016 Apr;3(2):66–78. doi: 10.1002/nop2.37.
    1. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, van Asperen M, Croiset G. Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: A review of the literature. Med Teach. 2011 Apr 25;33(5):e242–e262. doi: 10.3109/0142159x.2011.558539.
    1. Wouters A, Croiset G, Galindo-Garre F, Kusurkar RA. Motivation of medical students: Selection by motivation or motivation by selection. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jan 29;16:37. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0560-1.
    1. Kilis S. Impacts of mobile learning in motivation, engagement and achievement of learners: Review of literature. Gaziantep Univ J Soc Sci. 2013;12(2):375–383. ISSN: 1303-0094 .
    1. Orsini C, Binnie VI, Wilson SL. Determinants and outcomes of motivation in health professions education: A systematic review based on self-determination theory. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016;13:19. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.19. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.19.
    1. Attia N, Baig L, Marzouk YI, Khan A. The potential effect of technology and distractions on undergraduate students' concentration. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33(4):860–865. doi: 10.12669/pjms.334.12560.
    1. Nalliah R, Allareddy V. Students distracted by electronic devices perform at the same level as those who are focused on the lecture. PeerJ. 2014;2:e572. doi: 10.7717/peerj.572. doi: 10.7717/peerj.572.
    1. Pew Research Center . Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2010. Feb, [2020-04-29]. .
    1. Delialioglu O, Yildirim Z. Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Comput Educ. 2008 Aug;51(1):474–483. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.006.
    1. Feist M, Ciccarelli M, McFerron BA, Molleston JP. Methods and effects of a case-based pediatric gastroenterology online curriculum. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;56(2):161–165. doi: 10.1097/mpg.0b013e31825677d7.
    1. Graham CR. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In: Bonk CJ, Graham CR, editors. The Handbook Of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing; 2005. pp. 3–21.
    1. Yapici İÜ, Akbayin H. The effect of blended learning model on high school students' biology achievement and on their attitudes towards the internet. Turk Online J Educ Technol. 2012;11(2):228–237.
    1. Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang F, Hu R, Li Y, Yan W. The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jan 04;18(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4807.
    1. Alamro AS, Schofield S. Supporting traditional PBL with online discussion forums: A study from Qassim Medical School. Med Teach. 2012 Mar 12;34(sup1):S20–S24. doi: 10.3109/0142159x.2012.656751.
    1. Albrecht U, Folta-Schoofs K, Behrends M, von Jan U. Effects of mobile augmented reality learning compared to textbook learning on medical students: Randomized controlled pilot study. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 20;15(8):e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2497.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
    1. Apple App Store. [2020-05-15]. iPOT .
    1. Google Play. [2020-05-08]. iPOT .
    1. Considine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005 Jan;12(1):19–24. doi: 10.1016/s1322-7696(08)60478-3.
    1. Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Galiano-Castillo N, Caro-Morán E, Díaz-Rodríguez L, Arroyo-Morales M. The effectiveness of a mobile application for the development of palpation and ultrasound imaging skills to supplement the traditional learning of physiotherapy students. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Oct 19;16(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0775-1.
    1. Arroyo-Morales M, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Fernández-Lao C, Guirao-Piñeyro M, Castro-Martín E, Díaz-Rodríguez L. A blended learning approach to palpation and ultrasound imaging skills through supplementation of traditional classroom teaching with an e-learning package. Man Ther. 2012 Oct;17(5):474–478. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.04.002.
    1. Keller JM. Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh. 1987 Oct;26(8):1–7. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4160260802.
    1. Keller JM. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media; 2010.
    1. Di Serio Á, Ibáñez MB, Delgado Kloos C. Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Comput Educ. 2013 Oct;68:586–596. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002.
    1. Castaño-Garrido C, Maiz-Olazabalaga I, Garay-Ruiz U. Design, motivation and performance in a cooperative MOOC course. Comunicar. 2015 Jan;22(44):19–26. doi: 10.3916/c44-2015-02.
    1. Berger BG, Motl RW. Exercise and mood: A selective review and synthesis of research employing the profile of mood states. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2000 Mar;12(1):69–92. doi: 10.1080/10413200008404214.
    1. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. Manual for the Profile of Mood States. 3rd edition. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service (EdITS); 1992.
    1. Balaguer SI, Fuentes I, Meliá JL, García-Merita ML, Pérez Recio G. El perfil de los estados de ánimo (POMS): Baremo para estudiantes Valencianos y su aplicación en el contexto deportivo. Rev Psicol Deporte. 1993;4(2):39–52.
    1. Lane AM, Jackson A, Terry PC. Preferred modality influences on exercise-induced mood changes. J Sports Sci Med. 2005 Jun 01;4(2):195–200.
    1. Brewer ZE, Ogden WD, Fann JI, Burdon TA, Sheikh AY. Creation and global deployment of a mobile, application-based cognitive simulator for cardiac surgical procedures. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;28(1):1–9. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2016.02.006.
    1. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: A primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Mar;8(1):3–15. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800102.
    1. World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
    1. Spanish Government Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. 2018. Dec 06, [2020-04-29]. Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales .
    1. Council of Europe . Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001. [2020-05-08]. .
    1. Chuang Y, Lai F, Chang C, Wan H. Effects of a skill demonstration video delivered by smartphone on facilitating nursing students' skill competencies and self-confidence: A randomized controlled trial study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jul;66:63–68. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.03.027.
    1. Mayer RE. Designing multimedia instruction in anatomy: An evidence-based approach. Clin Anat. 2020 Jan;33(1):2–11. doi: 10.1002/ca.23265.
    1. Keller JM. Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J Instr Dev. 1987 Sep;10(3):2–10. doi: 10.1007/bf02905780.
    1. Hu A, Shewokis PA, Ting K, Fung K. Motivation in computer-assisted instruction. Laryngoscope. 2016 Aug;126 Suppl 6:S5–S13. doi: 10.1002/lary.26040.
    1. Bacca J, Baldiris S, Fabregat R, Kinshuk Insights into the factors influencing student motivation in augmented reality learning experiences in vocational education and training. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1486. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01486. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01486.
    1. Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psychol. 2002 Jun;37(2):91–105. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4.
    1. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers; 2008.
    1. Noll C, von Jan U, Raap U, Albrecht U. Mobile augmented reality as a feature for self-oriented, blended learning in medicine: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Sep 14;5(9):e139. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7943.
    1. Stenlund T, Sundström A, Jonsson B. Effects of repeated testing on short- and long-term memory performance across different test formats. Educ Psychol. 2014 Sep 02;36(10):1710–1727. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2014.953037.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться