Ten best practices for taking experiential learning online

Cridland, Caitlin; Drape, Tiffany; Marine, Sasha C.; Gillaspy, Glenda E.

doi:10.1002/bmb.21477

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the online environment, the facilitator has an even greater role in keeping students engaged and focused [ 32 ]. It is also likely that facilitators benefit from specific training on how to best teach in this environment, as there are issues to manage that do not arise in the f2f environment, such as the online etiquette, building physically-distanced community for collaborative learning, and the use of specific online tools [ 14 , 33 , 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s what you do, not the way you do it – online versus face-to-face small group teaching in first year medical school

Torda

Shulruf

2021

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Major disruptions imposed on medical education by the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid shift to online teaching in medical programs, necessitated need for evaluation of this format. In this study we directly compared knowledge outcomes, social outcomes, and wellbeing of first year student small group teaching in either face to face (f2f) or online format. Methods At the end of the first course of our medical program, students were invited to participate in an online questionnaire with 10 quantitative items and 1 qualitative item. These were analysed using Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix and linear regression to group items and assess relatedness. Qualitative responses were thematized using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Summative assessment results were compared, both between current cohorts to historical cohorts. Results From a cohort of 298 students there was a 77% response rate. Overall, there were no differences in knowledge gains, either between groups or when compared to historical cohorts. Questionnaire items fell reliably into groups that related to either learning outcomes, social outcomes, or wellbeing. Independent T tests showed that format for teaching (online versus f2f) had an impact on social outcomes but no direct impact on learning outcomes. Linear regression revealed that the social outcomes have a direct impact on wellbeing and almost the double the impact on learning outcomes than mode of learning i.e.. F2f or online (β = .448 and β = .232 respectively). Conclusion In this study, we were able to show with statistical strength that social outcomes for students such as engaging with peers and facilitator, contributing to the group, and making friends have a direct impact on wellbeing and indirectly impact learning outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, integration of knowledge). In a rapidly changing educational landscape, in our opinion, it is vital that these aspects are a focus of design and delivery of medical education. The data from this study supports the notion that activity design and the expertise of the teacher in facilitating the small group activities, has greater impact than the mode of educational delivery itself on students’ learning processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s what you do, not the way you do it – online versus face-to-face small group teaching in first year medical school

Torda

Shulruf

2021

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address the experiences of educators in the field of chemistry during the early transitions to remote learning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a special issue on insights gained while teaching chemistry during this time was published in this Journal in Summer 2020. The simplest of emergency remote transitions utilized by instructors was the exchange of in-person instruction with synchronous remote alternatives. − In general, the synchronous environment was thought to best maintain the face-to-face experience of a variety of teaching styles utilized within the initial portion of the term, prior to shutdowns. Added benefits that came with the use of online synchronous platforms included the addition of chat functions for students to interact with their instructor and each other as well as breakout rooms for the facilitation of small group peer-learning and discussion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Perceptions of Remote Chemistry Lecture Delivery Methods

Accettone

2021

J. Chem. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in March 2020, instructors and students in educational institutions across the world have had to adapt to new virtual methods of teaching and learning. This study focused on obtaining the student perspective of remote chemistry lecture delivery methods across 13 Fall 2020 courses with students in varied majors of study and stages of degree completion. For students who experienced a mixture of asynchronous and synchronous content delivery within the same course, a majority of students preferred the asynchronous model. When all student participants were asked which content delivery model they would prefer, should remote learning continue, the majority of students indicated that a hybrid mixture of both asynchronous and synchronous opportunities would best support their learning. This was followed by a fully asynchronous model with fully synchronous being least preferred. While students in all years of study showed a preference for the hybrid model with even preferences for fully asynchronous and synchronous models, second-year students were more likely to select asynchronous learning over synchronous. For courses providing recorded synchronous content, the majority of students attended the live class, while a significant portion also made further use of the provided recordings, suggesting recorded content may be worth pursuing for future remote or in-person courses.

show abstract

“…In the online environment, the facilitator has an even greater role in keeping students engaged and focused (31). It is also likely that they bene t from speci c training on how to best teach in this environment, as there are issues to manage that do not arise in the f2f environment, such as the online etiquette, building physically-distanced community for collaborative learning, and the use of speci c online tools (14,32,33).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As medical educators re ect on and evaluate the rapid changes that occurred out of necessity during 2020 (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17), it will be important to evaluate what changes can and should remain, what the impact of various changes is on student learning and how these changes affect other parts of the student experience, such as wellbeing and engagement. This is particularly relevant to the teaching in the early campus-based years of medical programs, where there can be many bene ts of shifting educational activities to an online format.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s what you do, Not the way that you do it – Online Versus Face to Face Small Group Teaching in First Year Medicine.

Torda

Shulruf

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMajor disruptions imposed on medical education by the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid shift to online teaching in medical programs, necessitated need for evaluation of this format. In this study we directly compared knowledge outcomes, social outcomes, and wellbeing of first year student small group teaching in either face to face (f2f) or online format.MethodsAt the end of the first course of our medical program, students were invited to participate in an online questionnaire with 10 quantitative items and 1 qualitative item. These were analysed using Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix and linear regression to group items and assess relatedness. Qualitative responses were thematized using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Summative assessment results were compared, both between current cohorts to historical cohorts.ResultsFrom a cohort of 298 students there was a 77% response rate. Overall, there were no differences in knowledge gains, either between groups or when compared to historical cohorts. Questionnaire items fell reliably into groups that related to either learning outcomes, social outcomes, or wellbeing. Independent T tests showed that format for teaching (online versus f2f) had an impact on social outcomes but no direct impact on learning outcomes. Linear regression revealed that the social outcomes have a direct impact on wellbeing and almost the double the impact on learning outcomes than mode of learning ie. F2f or online (β=.448 and β=.232 respectively). ConclusionIn this study, we were able to show with statistical strength that social outcomes for students such as engaging with peers and facilitator, contributing to the group, and making friends have a direct impact on wellbeing and indirectly impact learning outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, integration of knowledge). In a rapidly changing educational landscape, it is vital that these aspects are a focus of design and delivery of medical education. The data from this study supports the notion that activity design and the expertise of the teacher in facilitating the small group activities, is more important than the mode of educational delivery itself.

show abstract

Ten best practices for taking experiential learning online

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

It’s what you do, not the way you do it – online versus face-to-face small group teaching in first year medical school

It’s what you do, not the way you do it – online versus face-to-face small group teaching in first year medical school

Student Perceptions of Remote Chemistry Lecture Delivery Methods

It’s what you do, Not the way that you do it – Online Versus Face to Face Small Group Teaching in First Year Medicine.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About