Undergraduate medical students' perceptions of an interactive and collaborative cloud-based learning strategy: survey at a single institution.

backgroundIn most health professions education programs, didactic lectures remain the most common teaching modality. There is a need for synchronous interactive instructional methods that require little student preparation, promote directed-independent learning and high-order cognition, while increasing feedback and teamwork. We have recently created a Cloud-based learning (CL) educational tool that uses the conceptual Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework, together with generative learning theory. Using student surveys, the aim of this study is to determine students’ perception of CL instruction compared to other common practices in medical education, including Team-Based Learning (TBL), Flipped Classroom (FC), and Didactic Lectures (DL).

methodsStudent perception surveys were used to contrast responses regarding these instruction methods in terms of satisfaction, student preparation time, teamwork, collaboration, and formative feedback received. The survey was administered to preclinical medical students from a single undergraduate medical education institution in the United States over the four years of instruction and participants consented to participate in the survey. Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to assess whether there are statistically significant differences in the medians of student experiences across these instructional methods. Dunn’s pairwise test was used to determine statistical significance between group medians.

resultsOver the four years of instruction (N = 496), 115 participants consented to participate. Compared to other teaching methods, students expressed a preference for TBL and DL over CL and FC. CL and DL were perceived to require the least preparation time (less than 30 min), compared to FC and TBL. Regarding engagement, participants were equally engaged with TBL, DL and CL, and less engaged with FC. TBL and CL were rated significantly higher in terms of collaboration and teamwork, in which CL provided significantly higher instructor feedback than TBL, DL and FC, while TBL provided significantly higher peer feedback than CL.

conclusionsDespite the benefits of CL—such as improved student preparedness, increased feedback, and a collaborative learning environment—students from our single institution expressed a stronger preference for TBL and DL. Compared with existing teaching methods, CL incorporates unique characteristics that allow students to create their own study tools with reduced preparation time, strong feedback, and opportunities for collaboration; therefore, CL may be considered a viable alternative educational strategy. However, these findings arise from a student-satisfaction survey conducted at a single site, with a very small sample size and only in reference to one course. As such, the results should be interpreted with caution and may not be generalizable to other settings or disciplines.