Mon, Sep 16, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 53 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(53): 72-81 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: No 6/ 673/2020/E1/ GMC/ 3089 dated 05/08/2020
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
De Souza F M, Karapurkar N M, Clarista Meleena Q, Alvares J J. Integrated virtual teaching, learning and testing in histology: A student’s perspective. JMED 2024; 17 (53) :72-81
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1895-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1895-en.html
Fatima Maria De Souza 
, Nandini Milind Karapurkar , Quadros Clarista Meleena , Jyothi Judith Alvares *
, Nandini Milind Karapurkar , Quadros Clarista Meleena , Jyothi Judith Alvares *
Goa University
Abstract: (1212 Views)
Background & Objective: The Epidemic Act invoked during COVID-19 pandemic restricted the use of traditional methods of face-to-face teaching and learning and entailed a drastic transition of teaching histology by the time-tested traditional mode in the laboratory to that on a virtual platform. Implementation of this virtual platform as the teaching methodology in histology which evolved as a result of the pandemic can now be continued as an important new teaching-learning modality even after COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted. Hence, this article explores the effect of the use of appropriate technology on students for teaching and learning.
Materials & Methods: The study undertaken at Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College employed a non-interventional (cross-sectional) design. First year medical students participating in the online histology sessions were subjects in this study (n=144). The data collected comprised of perceptions regarding the new teaching-learning study tool which were recorded as a self-administered questionnaire imparted to them through a Google form. The responses were analyzed using chi-square test and p-values were obtained using SPSS.
Results: Results indicated that virtual teaching provided the students with accessibility, flexibility, additional data and better retention of concepts. But the students ultimately were of the opinion that virtual teaching followed by laboratory teaching was the most preferred approach to learning. This preference of the integrated approach used in this study as compared to traditional classroom teaching was confirmed and found to be statistically significant as the p-value = 0.001< 0.05.
Conclusion: While the study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the newly implemented integrated method as a preferred tool in current day teaching-learning versus the traditional teaching method, it also highlights the potential grey areas faced by the students using this virtual learning environment.
Materials & Methods: The study undertaken at Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College employed a non-interventional (cross-sectional) design. First year medical students participating in the online histology sessions were subjects in this study (n=144). The data collected comprised of perceptions regarding the new teaching-learning study tool which were recorded as a self-administered questionnaire imparted to them through a Google form. The responses were analyzed using chi-square test and p-values were obtained using SPSS.
Results: Results indicated that virtual teaching provided the students with accessibility, flexibility, additional data and better retention of concepts. But the students ultimately were of the opinion that virtual teaching followed by laboratory teaching was the most preferred approach to learning. This preference of the integrated approach used in this study as compared to traditional classroom teaching was confirmed and found to be statistically significant as the p-value = 0.001< 0.05.
Conclusion: While the study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the newly implemented integrated method as a preferred tool in current day teaching-learning versus the traditional teaching method, it also highlights the potential grey areas faced by the students using this virtual learning environment.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Sciences
Received: 2023/03/24 | Accepted: 2023/08/16 | Published: 2024/04/16
Received: 2023/03/24 | Accepted: 2023/08/16 | Published: 2024/04/16
References
1. Koskela M, Kilti P, Vilpola I, et al. Suitability of a virtual learning environment for higher education. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning. 2005; 3(1): 23-32. [Article] [DOI]
2. Ariana A, Amin M, Pakneshan S, et al. Integration of traditional and e-learning methods to improve learning outcomes for dental students in histopathology. Journal of Dental Education. 2016; 80(9): 1140-1148. [PubMed]
3. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine. 2006; 81(3): 207-212. [DOI]
4. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, et al. Online e-learning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health. 2014; 4(1): 10406. [DOI]
5. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Medical Teacher. 2008; 30(5): 455-473. [DOI]
6. Al-Shorbaji N, Atun R, Car J, et al. E-learning for undergraduate health professional education - a systematic review informing a radical transformation of health workforce development. World Health Organization, Geneva. [DOI]
7. Helle L, Nivala M, Kronqvist P, et al. Traditional microscopy instruction versus process-oriented virtual microscopy instruction: A naturalistic experiment with control group. Diagnostic Pathology. 2011; 6:8. [DOI]
8. Nivala M, Saljo R, Rystedt H, et al. Using virtual microscopy to scaffold learning of pathology: A naturalistic experiment on the role of visual and conceptual cues. Instructional Science. 2012; 40(5): 799-811. [DOI]
9. Eroschenko VP. DiFiore’s Atlas of Histology with functional correlations. 12th ed, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2013.
10. Sickler AZ. Study strategies for before, during, and after class. faculty focus, higher ed teaching strategies from magna publications. 2017. [Article]
11. Zhang CX. Educational psychology. (Lond) Taiwan, Taipei: Tunghua. 2001.
12. Wade C, Tavris C, Garry M. The Nine Secrets of Learning. Psychology (11th ed.). 2014. [Article]
13. Ausubel D, Novak J, Hanesian H. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. (2nd ed) Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 1978. [Article]
14. Kearsley G. The Theory into Practice Database. [Article]
15. Peper RJ, Mayer RE. Note-taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1978; 70: 514-522. [Article]
16. Ausubel DP. The influence of experience on the development of intelligence. In: Aschner MJ, Bish CE. (2eds.), Productive Thinking in Education, Washington, DC: National Education Association. 1968
17. Wittrock MC. Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist. 1974; 11: 87-95. [DOI]
18. Qiao XT, Zhao ZX. Design of the test system for experiment preparation through internet. Journal of Zhongyuan University of Technology. 2008; 19(4): 64-67.
19. Rajashree R, Parineeta P, Ravishankar MV. Effective use of E- learning in basic medical sciences. National Journal of Basic Medical Sciences. 2012; 2(4): 320- 324.
20. Yeung JC, Fung K, Wilson TD. Prospective evaluation of a web- based three-dimenttional cranial nerve stimulation. Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2012; 41: 426-436.
21. Dhir SK, Verma D, Batta M, et al. E-Learning in Medical Education in India. Journal of Indian Paediatrics. 2017; 54: 871-877. [Article]
22. Lightner S, Olson C. Offering a globally-linked international accounting course in real- time: a sharing of experiences and lessons learned. Journal of Accounting Education. 2001; 19(4): 247-263.
23. Holmström I, Larsson J. A tension between genuine care and other duties: Swedish nursing students’ views of their future work. Nurse Education Today. 2005; 25(2): 148-155. [DOI]
24. Seacomb J. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2008; 17(6): 703-716. [DOI]
25. Avis M. Freshwater D. Evidence for practice, epistemology, and critical reflection. Nursing Philosophy. 2006; 7(4): 216-224. [DOI]
26. Binding LL, Morck AC, Moules NJ. Learning to see the other: a vehicle of reflection. Nurse Education Today. 2010; 30(6): 591-594. [ [DOI]
27. Tveiten S, Severinsson E. Communication - a core concept in client supervision by public health nurses. Journal of Nursing Management. 2006; 14(3): 235-243. [DOI]
28. Welch L, Jeffries PR, Lyon BL, et al. Integrating theory and research into practice. Nurse Educator. 2001; 26(5): 240-243. [DOI]
29. Abdollahi A, Salarvand S, Saffar H. Comparing the efficacy of virtual and conventional methods in teaching practical pathology to medical students. Iranian Journal of Pathology. 2018; 13(2): 108-112. [PubMed]
30. Chakraborty S, Sharma S, Biswas S. Perceptions of 1st year MBBS students regarding utilization of e-learning tools for collaborative learning in Anatomy. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2020; 10(7): 344-351. [Article]
31. Al-Neklawy AF. Online embryology teaching using learning management systems appears to be a successful additional learning tool among Egyptian Medical Students. Annals of Anatomy. 2017; 214: 9-14. [Article]
32. Hadley J, Kulier R, Zamora J, et al. Effectiveness of an e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for foundation [internship] training. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. 2010; 103(7): 288-294.
33. Das S, Saha N, Chakraborty T, et al. Perception of students on histology learning method. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2019; 18(6): 11-18. [Article]
34. Ayman FA, Foad MD. Comparing the use of virtual and conventional light microscopy in practical sessions: Virtual reality in Tabuk University. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2017; 12(2): 183-186. [DOI]
35. Lichnovská R, Krajčí D, Erdösová B, et al. Our experience with e-learning method of teaching practical histology. Mefanet Journal. 2015; 3(2): 48-53.
36. Mahajan A. A research paper on virtual learning environment. AIMA Journal of Management and Research. 2016; 10(2/4). [Article]
37. Stanley T, Edwards P. Interactive multimedia teaching of accounting information system (AIS) cycles: students‟ perceptions and views. Journal of Accounting Education. 2005; 23(1): 21-46. [DOI]
38. Stonebreaker PW, Hazeltine JE. Virtual learning effectiveness: an examination of the process. The Learning Organization. 2004; 11(2/3): 209-225. [DOI]
39. Sawaan A. Studying the implications of hidden learning styles by tracing learners’ behaviors in an e-learning system. Published dissertation, University of Lousville. Accessed from google books. 2006
40. Maki RH, Maki WS, Patterson M, et al. Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: learning and satisfaction in online versus lecture courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2000; 32(2): 230-239. [DOI]
41. Fedynich LV. Teaching beyond the classroom walls: The pros and cons of cyber learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies. 2014; 13: 1. [Article]
42. Yilmaz AB. Distance and face-to-face students’ perceptions towards distance education: A comparative metaphorical study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2019; 20(1).
43. Henning, P and Schnur A. E- learning in continuing medical education: a comparison of knowledge gain and learning efficiency. Journal of Medical Marketing. 2009; 9(2): 156-162. [DOI]
44. Juliani CMCM, Corrente JE, Dell’ Acqua MCQ. Comparing the teaching-learning process with and without the use of computerized technological resources. Computers Informatics Nursing. 2011; 29(4): 212-220. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
