:: Volume 11, Issue 2 (4-2024) ::
2024, 11(2): 33-42 Back to browse issues page
Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Education on Learning and Satisfaction Levels of Medical Students in the Medical Physiology Course
Maryam Kheiry , Aliashraf Mozafari , Mohamadreza Kaffashian , Amin Kheiri , Masoumeh Shohani , Azra Kenarkoohi , Mahdi Vahabi , Maryam Maleki
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ilam University of Medical sciences, Ilam, Iran , maryammaleki777@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (324 Views)
Introduction: Effective performance in online education increasingly impacts the quality of classes and, consequently, student learning outcomes. This study aims to compare satisfaction levels and learning rates between online and face-to-face methods of teaching medical physiology.
Material & Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study involved 79 medical students divided into two groups. The first group received instruction on heart physiology (5 weeks, one session per week) online via the Navid system, while the second group received face-to-face instruction. At the study's conclusion, both groups underwent the same test to assess learning outcomes, and satisfaction with the teaching methods was evaluated through a questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 14 statistical software, employing logistic regression and linear regression models.
Results: The two groups differed in terms of the course studied, student nativeness, and satisfaction levels with the educational method. Satisfaction with online education was reported at 69%, compared to 65% for the face-to-face method. The average learning score for students in the online group was 12.93±0.12, while in the face-to-face group, it was 13.48±0.47. However, the linear regression model revealed no significant relationship between students' scores and specific educational methods (p=0.32). Significant relationships were observed between age, nativeness, and dormitory accommodation with satisfaction levels in online education. Conversely, none of the variables showed a significant relationship with satisfaction levels in face-to-face education.
Conclusion:  Both e-learning and face-to-face methods demonstrated relatively similar effects on students' learning outcomes. However, satisfaction levels with online education appear to be influenced by variables such as age, nativeness, and dormitory accommodation.
Keywords: face-to-face education, electronic learning, physiology, satisfaction, learning, students, medicine
Full-Text [PDF 716 kb]   (69 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Physiology
Received: 2024/02/3 | Accepted: 2024/04/9 | Published: 2024/04/22
1. Zarshenas L, Danaei SM, Oshagh M, Salehi P. Problem Based Learning: An Experience of a New Educational Method in Dentistry. Iran J Med educ. 2010;10(2).
2. Haghani F, Khadivzadeh T. The Effect of a Learning and Study Skills Workshop on Talented Students' Learning and Study Strategies in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med educ. 2009;9(1).
3. Antepohl W, Herzig S. Problem‐based learning versus lecture‐based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study. Med educ. 1999;33(2):106-13.
4. Mosalanezhad L, Atashpoor S, Kalani N. What do medical students want to learn in the Corona Crisis Curriculum. Expressing Students' Expectations and Strategies J Educ Ethics Nurs. 2021;10(1):4-11.
5. Al Zahrani EM, Al Naam YA, AlRabeeah SM, Aldossary DN, Al-Jamea LH, Woodman A, et al. E-Learning experience of the medical profession’s college students during COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. BMC med educ. 2021;21(1):1-11.
6. Salari F, Sepahi V. Challenges of Virtual Medical Sciences Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Educ Res Med Sci. 2021;10(1). doi: org/10.5812/erms.117948.
7. Maggio LA, Daley BJ, Pratt DD, Torre DM. Honoring thyself in the transition to online teaching. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1129-34. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002285
8. Guo B, Li H. Guidance strategies for online teaching during the COVID-19 epidemic: A case study of the teaching practice of Xinhui Shangya School in Guangdong, China. Sci Insigt Edu Front. 2020;5(2):547-51. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3565627
9. Puljak L, Civljak M, Haramina A, Malisa S, Cavic D, Klinec D, et al. Attitudes and concerns of health sciences students in Croatia regarding complete switch to e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a survey. 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-40359/v1
10. Zaeemzadeh N, Taherpour S, Behzadian N, Mard SA. Evaluation of physiology knowledge loss in medical students of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2019;10:157.
11. Shang F, Liu C-Y. Blended learning in medical physiology improves nursing students’ study efficiency. Advances in physiology education. 2018;42(4):711-7. doi: 10.1152/advan.00021.2018
12. Zohoor A, Eslaminejad T. Teacher's effective teaching criteria as viewed by the students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. J med Educ. 2004;4(2). doi: 10.22037/jme.v4i2.824.
13. Liaw ST, Gray K. Clinical Health Informatics Education for a 21 st Century World. Health Informatics: IOS Press; 2010. p. 479-91.
14. Einarson E, Moen A, Kolberg R, Flingtorp G, Linnerud E. Interactive eLearning-a safe place to practice. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;146:841-.
15. Casimiro L, MacDonald CJ, Thompson TL, Stodel EJ. Grounding theories of W (e) Learn: A framework for online interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(4):390-400.
16. Kasar AB, Reddy M, Wagh R, Deshmukh Y. Current Situation of Education field due to Corona Virus Disease 19. PAIDEUMA JOURNAL. 2021;14(2):44-51.
17. Zare H, Sarmadi M, Farajollahi M, Achak O. Studying Effect of Question Type and Questions Processing Level in Recall and Recognition Tests on Students Memory Performance. Res School Virtual Learn. 2015;2(8):89-98.
18. O’Doherty D, Dromey M, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, McGrath D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education–an integrative review. BMC med educ. 2018;18(1):1-11.
19. Jeffrey LM, Milne J, Suddaby G, Higgins A. Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. J Inform Tech Educ. 2014;13.
20. Delshad MH, Hidarnia A, Hidarnia MA, Niknami S. Quality of satisfaction of health personnel about web-based education in order to preventive intervention for hepatitis B: USP educational intervention. Med Sci J Islamic Azad Univesity-Tehran Medical Branch. 2016;26(2):99-108.
21. Azin N, Ali N, Arezoo E, Alireza A. Comparison of E-learning and traditional classroom instruction of dental public health for dental students of Shahid Beheshti dental school during 2010-2011. 2012.
22. Gholami B, Norouzi D. Virtual Training & Satisfaction of Learning: An Experience In National Iranian Oil Company. Strategic Studies in Petroleum and energy Industry. 2017;9(33):185-212.
23. Henning MA, Krägeloh CU, Hawken SJ, Doherty I, Zhao Y, Shulruf B. Motivation to learn, quality of life and estimated academic achievement: medical students studying in New Zealand. Med Sci Educ. 2011;21(2):142-50.
24. Castro MDB, Tumibay GM. A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis. Educ Inf Technol. 2021;26(2):1367-85.
25. McPartlan P, Rutherford T, Rodriguez F, Shaffer JF, Holton A. Modality motivation: Selection effects and motivational differences in students who choose to take courses online. Internet High Educ. 2021;49:100793. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100793.

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 2 (4-2024) Back to browse issues page