Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: Evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention / Blended Learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernergebnissen für das interprofessionelle Arbeitsfeld Arbeitsmedizin und Prävention

Author:

Eckler Ursula1,Greisberger Andrea1,Höhne Franziska1,Putz Peter1

Affiliation:

1. Fachhochschule Campus Wien, Health Sciences , 1100 , Wien , Austria

Abstract

Abstract Blended learning is characterised as a combination of face-to-face teaching and e-learning in terms of knowledge transfer, students’ learning activities and reduced presence at the teaching facility. The present cohort study investigated long-term effects of blended learning regarding cognitive outcomes as well as self-indicated estimates of immediate learning effects on the affective domain in the inter-professional field of occupational medicine. Physiotherapy students (bachelor degree) at FH Campus Wien – University of Applied Sciences completed the course Occupational Medicine/Prevention either in a traditional teaching-learning setting entirely taught face-to-face (control-group, n=94), or with a blended learning model (intervention-group, n=93). Long-term effects (1.5 year follow-up) on the cognitive learning outcomes were assessed according to four levels of Bloom’s learning objectives. In addition, students estimated potential benefits resulting from blended learning based on four Krathwohl’s learning objectives for the affective domain by means of a six-option Likert scale (n=282). Concerning cognitive outcomes, significant results favouring both groups were found with effect sizes from small to medium. The traditional teaching-learning setting resulted in significantly better results in the upmost aspired learning objective (analysis) at the long-term (p<0,01; r=-0,33). In contrast, the intervention group resulted in significantly better long-term results on learning objective levels 1 (knowledge) and 2 (understanding) (p=0,01; r=-0,20 and, p=0,02; r=-0,17, respectively). Hence, no general recommendation favouring either the classical setting or blending learning can be drawn regarding the cognitive domain. However, students’ self-indications on the affective domain give preference to blended learning, particularly if inter-professional teamwork is a course objective.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference44 articles.

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Hrsg.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison-Wesley.

2. Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Constructing Communication in blended Learning Environments: Students’Perception of Good Practice in Hybrid Courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (4), 735–753. Zugänglich unter: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/babb_1210.pdf

3. Bloom, B. S. (Hrsg.) (1972). Taxonomie von Lernzielen im kognitiven Bereich (4. Auflage). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz-Verlag.

4. Botezatu, M., Hult, H., Tessma, M. K., & Fours, U. (2010). Virtual patient simulation: Knowledge gai or knowledge loss? Medical Teacher, 32(7), 562–568.

5. Boye, S., Moen, T., & Vik, T. (2012). An e-learning course in medical immunology: Does it improve learning outcome? Medical Teacher, 34(9), e649–e653. Zugänglich unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.675456

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3