Learning, Students
Conditions
Brief summary
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed.
Detailed description
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 students were randomly allocated to a BL group (BLG, n=48), or a FL group (FLG, n=52). The BLG received face-to-face classes plus online re-sources (online syllabus, Moodle, scientific-based videos and websites, activities, glossary, and apps). The FLG received face-to-face classes and hardcopy resources (hardcopy syl-labus, scientific-based information, activities, and glossary). Knowledge, ethical and gen-der competencies, satisfaction, and perceptions were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours were assessed post-intervention.
Interventions
OTHERBlended-learning group
The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Resources: 1) Moodle platform: it was used as a virtual communication platform. 2) Online syllabus: an online specific syllabus about cardiac physiotherapy was developed. 3) Online glossary: an online glossary performed by the teacher was available for the students. 4) Online videos: several videos of international and national scientific societies were provided. 5) Websites: several links to websites of international and national scientific societies such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association or the World Heart Federation were used. 6) Online activities: five four-question online activities were created. 7) Apps, using the app Ariadna to prevent from cardiovascular risk and look for defibrillators around; 8) Online tutorship, through an online communication platform (Blackboard Collaborate).
OTHERFace-to-face learning group
The FLG included: 1) Face-to-face classes; 2) Hardcopy syllabus; 3) Hardcopy scien-tific societies information; 4) Face-to-face activities: four questions per each theme; 5) Hardcopy glossary; and 6) Face-to-face tutorships. In all cases, the content of the infor-mation provided was the same as the information provided to the BLG, although in a face-to-face design.
Sponsors
University of Valencia
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
The assessor was blinded to the participants interventions.
Intervention model description
An assessor-blinded two-armed randomized trial
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Being a student of Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia. * Willing to participate
Exclusion criteria
* Previous cardiac physiotherapy training.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge acquisition | 5 minutes | Multiple-choice test. Score from 0 to 10 .The higher the score, the greater the knowledge. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with the program | 5 minute | 6-item Yang's Satisfaction Questionnaire. From 1 to 24. The higher the score, the greater the satisfaction with the program. |
| Perceptions and evaluation of the program | 5 minutes | 8-item Kavadella's Perceptions Questionnaire. From 1 to 40 points. The higher the score, the better the perceptions and evaluation of the program. |
| Cross-curricular ethical and gender competencies | 5 minute | Higher Education, Transversal Skills and Gender Questionnaire. From 1 to 42. The higher the score, the more ethical and gender competencies are acquired. |
| Blended-learning acceptance | 5 minutes | 4-item Blended Learning Acceptance Scale. From 1 to 28 points. The higher the score, the greater the acceptance. |
| Students' attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour | 5 minutes | Questionnaire comprising 3 items (how much Moodle helped you, willingness of using Moodle, interest in e-learning). The higher score, the greater attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour. |
| Usability of the virtual platform | 5 minutes | System Usability Scale. The total SUS score (0 to 100) can be interpreted as not acceptable (0-64), acceptable (65 to 84), or excellent (85 to 100) |
Countries
Spain
Outcome results
None listed