Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Abstract BACKGROUND: The COVID‑19 pandemic has affected face‑to‑face teaching across the globe.
The sudden shift in learning methods has impacted learning experiences significantly. Students’
perception about online compared to blended learning might affect learning. The objective of this
study was to evaluate physiotherapy students’ perception of blended compared to online learning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed‑method study documents physiotherapy students’ perception
about the courses delivered through blended learning (BL) mode during the COVID‑19 pandemic.
Physiotherapy graduates and postgraduate students who completed their evidence‑based physiotherapy
practice courses at Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai (N = 68)
participated in this study. The participants’ perceived experience about synchronous online mode and
BL during the pandemic was assessed using a questionnaire and focus group discussion.
RESULTS: All the participants felt that the course outcomes were met and that they gained knowledge
and skills in evidence‑based practice. Most of the students (93%) recommended a blended mode of
learning compared to online learning alone. Thematic analysis of the focus group discussion (FGD)
identified enhanced learning experience, collaborative learning as enablers to BL, and availability
of gadgets and quality of online contents as barriers.
CONCLUSION: Participants showed par preference for blended learning over online learning as it
provided flexibility and facilitated active learning compared to online learning alone.

Abstract Blended learning (BL) refers to a systematic teaching method, which combines the aspects of
face‑to‑face and online interactions using appropriate Information and Communication Technologies.
This mixed‑method systematic review (SR) protocol is developed with the objective to determine the
effectiveness and appropriateness of BL in the health‑care professional education. Mixed‑method
SR protocol: For the purpose of this SR, PICO is defined as P‑entry level graduate students of health
sciences program; I‑BL; C‑traditional face‑to‑face training; and O‑achievement of learning outcomes,
learner’s and teacher’s perception (primary). The search will be done through possible database
using predetermined search strategy. Eligible studies will be appraised independently by authors.
Joanna Briggs Institute’s mixed‑method protocol will be used to assess and synthesis the data. This
protocol is registered with the International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the
registration number CRD42018082699.