Online vs Classroom Delivery of an Immunization Course
Online vs Classroom Delivery of an Immunization Course
One hundred forty students participated in the study for a participation rate of 83.3% (Figure 1). The survey instrument administered at the beginning of the spring semester included questions about demographic information, technology, and course delivery. Questions were formatted as multiple choice or statements that used a 5-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). The survey instrument included open-ended questions regarding perceived advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method. The survey instrument at the end of the spring semester included questions about demographic information and course delivery. Many of the questions were the same in both format and content as those on the first survey instrument; however, some new concepts related to course delivery were explored using the question formats described previously. Both survey instruments had 28 questions. Content ideas were based on previously published studies involving online courses or components of courses. Only survey data from students who consented to participate in the study were included in the analysis.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 1.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram. (Abbreviations: P2s=Second-year pharmacy students; P3s=Third-year pharmacy students.)
At the beginning of the spring 2013 semester, baseline demographic data ( Table 1 ) were obtained from the University of Wisconsin Registrar's Office about study participants. Demographic and survey data were combined in Excel and analyzed with Excel 2010 and SPSS, version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics were used to categorize preferences, demographic information for students, and student responses to open-ended questions. Continuous data, such as quiz scores and grades between sections, were compared using t tests. Letter grades earned at the end of the semester were converted to a 4-point scale. Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare nominal-level variable results to each other. Strongly agree and agree responses as well as strongly disagree and disagree responses were collapsed for analysis. For all statistical analyses, a probability less than 0.05 was considered significant. This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Wisconsin Education Research Institutional Review Board.
Most students had access to the Internet while off campus and most students owned a laptop computer (97% classroom vs 96% online). Only 41.4% of students had previously taken an online course. Approximately half of the students did not consider themselves technologically savvy, with 46% of students in the classroom group and 55% of students in the online group responding with neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.
Student preferences for course delivery method were assessed through questions in the student survey instrument. Preferences for course delivery strategies did not differ between sections at the beginning of the semester ( Table 2 ). The majority of students in both groups preferred taking the course in the classroom or a blended setting. At the end of the semester, the majority of students in the classroom group preferred classroom or blended delivery while the majority of students in the online group preferred blended or online delivery (p<0.01). Sixty-four students' course delivery preference changed from the beginning to the end of the course. Five students changed their preference to classroom, 27 switched their preference to online, and 31 preferred blended learning. There was no significant difference when the changes were broken down by delivery system experienced (p=0.09). Overall, students felt that they would learn more with a blended delivery method, with 51% of students selecting blended.
In response to open-ended questions, students in the classroom group felt that advantages to that delivery method were the ability to ask questions in real time (45%); the schedule, which helped students stay on track with the material (34%); and having face-to-face contact with the professor (14%). Disadvantages to this delivery method were not having access to lecture capture for a variety of reasons (63%) and inflexibility with the course related to student schedules (26%). Students in the online group felt that being able to have a flexible schedule to complete the course at their own pace (88%) and being able to pause or watch a lecture again (45%) were advantages to this delivery method. Disadvantages included getting behind in the course (39%) and not being able to ask questions right away (28%).
Regardless of the delivery method to which students were randomized, they felt that method was effective and helped them learn ( Table 3 ). Students who experienced the classroom delivery of the course felt that method did not allow for flexibility with their schedules while students in the online group felt that method did (p<0.001 for both groups). In both groups, students preferred to complete coursework at their own pace. A relatively large, but not significant increase (p=0.1) in proportion of classroom students indicated that they preferred working at their own pace at the end of the semester compared to the beginning. More students in the classroom group felt that they had an opportunity to ask questions of the instructors throughout the semester compared to the online group (p<0.001). No difference was found between groups in the anticipated amount of time they would spend or the actual amount of time they spent on the class. When the groups were combined and presurvey results were compared to postsurvey results, students thought that they would spend more time than they actually did each week. (2.4±0.86 vs1.6±0.66; p<0.001)
Most students (68%) stated they would take an online course again. Eighty-six percent of students agreed with the statement that online courses with some face-to-face interaction should be offered for some courses. Additionally, when asked to respond to the statement that all courses except for laboratories should be delivered online, most students (73%) disagreed.
Student grades were compared between sections at the end of the spring semester. Final course grades were assigned their associated GPA (eg, A=4, AB=3.5, B=3) for analysis. There was no significant difference in course grades between the 2 groups, including grades on the in-class quiz, online quiz, written vaccine information question, final examination, and the final course grade ( Table 4 ). Student attendance was not taken for the classroom course; however, an attendance count was completed at the beginning of the semester (94% of students attended) and at the end of the semester (93% of students attended the class).
For the online course, information about how often students viewed the online lectures was recorded. Students accessed an online lecture an average of 1.8 times. Students watched the lectures at the beginning of the semester more often than at the end of the semester, with the average number of times a student accessed a lecture ranging from 0.95 to 2.99.
Eleven students in the classroom group stated they watched 2 or more lectures online. All students in the classroom group did have 1 lecture that was online, and it is unclear whether students considered that lecture when answering the survey question. Only 4 students in the online group reported that they attended a classroom lecture.
Evaluation and Assessment
One hundred forty students participated in the study for a participation rate of 83.3% (Figure 1). The survey instrument administered at the beginning of the spring semester included questions about demographic information, technology, and course delivery. Questions were formatted as multiple choice or statements that used a 5-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). The survey instrument included open-ended questions regarding perceived advantages and disadvantages of each delivery method. The survey instrument at the end of the spring semester included questions about demographic information and course delivery. Many of the questions were the same in both format and content as those on the first survey instrument; however, some new concepts related to course delivery were explored using the question formats described previously. Both survey instruments had 28 questions. Content ideas were based on previously published studies involving online courses or components of courses. Only survey data from students who consented to participate in the study were included in the analysis.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 1.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram. (Abbreviations: P2s=Second-year pharmacy students; P3s=Third-year pharmacy students.)
At the beginning of the spring 2013 semester, baseline demographic data ( Table 1 ) were obtained from the University of Wisconsin Registrar's Office about study participants. Demographic and survey data were combined in Excel and analyzed with Excel 2010 and SPSS, version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics were used to categorize preferences, demographic information for students, and student responses to open-ended questions. Continuous data, such as quiz scores and grades between sections, were compared using t tests. Letter grades earned at the end of the semester were converted to a 4-point scale. Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare nominal-level variable results to each other. Strongly agree and agree responses as well as strongly disagree and disagree responses were collapsed for analysis. For all statistical analyses, a probability less than 0.05 was considered significant. This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Wisconsin Education Research Institutional Review Board.
Most students had access to the Internet while off campus and most students owned a laptop computer (97% classroom vs 96% online). Only 41.4% of students had previously taken an online course. Approximately half of the students did not consider themselves technologically savvy, with 46% of students in the classroom group and 55% of students in the online group responding with neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.
Student preferences for course delivery method were assessed through questions in the student survey instrument. Preferences for course delivery strategies did not differ between sections at the beginning of the semester ( Table 2 ). The majority of students in both groups preferred taking the course in the classroom or a blended setting. At the end of the semester, the majority of students in the classroom group preferred classroom or blended delivery while the majority of students in the online group preferred blended or online delivery (p<0.01). Sixty-four students' course delivery preference changed from the beginning to the end of the course. Five students changed their preference to classroom, 27 switched their preference to online, and 31 preferred blended learning. There was no significant difference when the changes were broken down by delivery system experienced (p=0.09). Overall, students felt that they would learn more with a blended delivery method, with 51% of students selecting blended.
In response to open-ended questions, students in the classroom group felt that advantages to that delivery method were the ability to ask questions in real time (45%); the schedule, which helped students stay on track with the material (34%); and having face-to-face contact with the professor (14%). Disadvantages to this delivery method were not having access to lecture capture for a variety of reasons (63%) and inflexibility with the course related to student schedules (26%). Students in the online group felt that being able to have a flexible schedule to complete the course at their own pace (88%) and being able to pause or watch a lecture again (45%) were advantages to this delivery method. Disadvantages included getting behind in the course (39%) and not being able to ask questions right away (28%).
Regardless of the delivery method to which students were randomized, they felt that method was effective and helped them learn ( Table 3 ). Students who experienced the classroom delivery of the course felt that method did not allow for flexibility with their schedules while students in the online group felt that method did (p<0.001 for both groups). In both groups, students preferred to complete coursework at their own pace. A relatively large, but not significant increase (p=0.1) in proportion of classroom students indicated that they preferred working at their own pace at the end of the semester compared to the beginning. More students in the classroom group felt that they had an opportunity to ask questions of the instructors throughout the semester compared to the online group (p<0.001). No difference was found between groups in the anticipated amount of time they would spend or the actual amount of time they spent on the class. When the groups were combined and presurvey results were compared to postsurvey results, students thought that they would spend more time than they actually did each week. (2.4±0.86 vs1.6±0.66; p<0.001)
Most students (68%) stated they would take an online course again. Eighty-six percent of students agreed with the statement that online courses with some face-to-face interaction should be offered for some courses. Additionally, when asked to respond to the statement that all courses except for laboratories should be delivered online, most students (73%) disagreed.
Student grades were compared between sections at the end of the spring semester. Final course grades were assigned their associated GPA (eg, A=4, AB=3.5, B=3) for analysis. There was no significant difference in course grades between the 2 groups, including grades on the in-class quiz, online quiz, written vaccine information question, final examination, and the final course grade ( Table 4 ). Student attendance was not taken for the classroom course; however, an attendance count was completed at the beginning of the semester (94% of students attended) and at the end of the semester (93% of students attended the class).
For the online course, information about how often students viewed the online lectures was recorded. Students accessed an online lecture an average of 1.8 times. Students watched the lectures at the beginning of the semester more often than at the end of the semester, with the average number of times a student accessed a lecture ranging from 0.95 to 2.99.
Eleven students in the classroom group stated they watched 2 or more lectures online. All students in the classroom group did have 1 lecture that was online, and it is unclear whether students considered that lecture when answering the survey question. Only 4 students in the online group reported that they attended a classroom lecture.
