ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2020
Determination and Comparison of the Factors Related to Effective Blended Learning in Medical Sciences from the Viewpoints of Instructors and Learners.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccording to rapid growth of innovation in use of technologies in education and learning, blended learning has become an effective method in the student's education. The purpose of this study was to extract the factors related to effective blended learning and compare the viewpoints of students and instructors in this regard.
methodsMixed method model was used in this study. A content analysis approach was employed in the qualitative phase of the study. Seven faculty members and eight master's students of medical sciences selected through purposive sampling participated in the qualitative phase. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted for data collection. In the quantitative phase, appropriate and relevant items were designed based on the main concepts of theoretical and practical definitions that were extracted in the qualitative phase.
resultsThe results of the qualitative phase were 5 categories and 40 subcategories, including student's capabilities, teacher merits, technological aspects, pedagogic topics and supportive environment. DISCUSSION: The results of the questionnaire analysis showed no significant difference in student capabilities and supportive environment between the viewpoints of students and faculty members while there were significant differences in other categories. Although new technologies have offered promising opportunities, they do not result in effective education. The results of the present study suggest that a major revision in student and instructor admission and provision of required technical facilities can promote the status of this type of education. On the other hand, instructor empowerment programs in this field can enhance the effectiveness of virtual education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.