Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Shakti Kumar Yadav
- . Shikha Para
- . Garima Singh 1
- . Ruchika Gupta 2
- . Namrata Sarin 1
- . Sompal Singh 1
1 Department of Pathology, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Medical College and Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, India,
2 Division of Cytopathology, ICMR‑National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic, the closure of educational institutions
has imposed a situation of potential gap in learning. Since training of medical and paramedical
students is vital in creation of our army of these frontline health‑care workers, this study was aimed
at comparing the asynchronous and synchronous methods of online teaching for imparting training
to students of medical laboratory technology (MLT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross‑sectional study included 33 students of the 1st‑year batch
of MLT course at a tertiary level hospital. Ten lectures each from the subject of biomedical statistics
were delivered through asynchronous (lecture shared on WhatsApp group) and synchronous (online
live lecture) methods followed by a brief examination for each topic. A short survey was designed to
assess the students’ perception of clarity of concepts, confidence of solving the examination, and
their preference for one of these methods. Appropriate statistical tests were applied to the data.
RESULTS: Synchronous method of online teaching was preferred by majority of the
students (P < 0.001). Students’ clarity in understanding of the concepts (P < 0.001) and confidence
of the ability to solve examination questions (P < 0.05) was higher after synchronous teaching. The
examination scores after synchronous online teaching were significantly higher (P = 0.0156) than
those for topics covered through asynchronous method.
CONCLUSION: Online teaching, especially the synchronous method, offers an opportunity of
continuum of training during crisis situations such as the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. The
wide availability of internet services and the ever‑changing global situation mandates readiness for
this modality of teaching, both for the teachers and the students.
Keywords
blended‑learning course taught to different groups of learners
in a dental school. J Dent Educ 2007;71:269‑78.
2. Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering Its
transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ
2004;7:95‑105.
3. Regmi K, Jones L. A systematic review of the factors‑enablers and
barriers‑affecting e‑learning in health sciences education. BMC
Med Educ 2020;20:91.
4. Khan BH. Flexible Learning in an Information Society.
Philadelphia (PA): Information Science Publishing; 2006.
5. Khan BH. Managing e‑learning: Design, delivery, implementation
and evaluation. Philadelphia (PA): Information Science
Publishing; 2005.
6. Abdollahi A, Salarvand S, Saffar H. Comparing the efficacy of
virtual and conventional methods in teaching practical pathology
to medical students. Iran J Pathol 2018;13:108‑12.
7. Moazami F, Bahrampour E, Azar MR, Jahedi F, Moattari M.
Comparing two methods of education (virtual versus traditional)
on learning of Iranian dental students: A post‑test only design
study. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:45.
8. Kunin M, Julliard KN, Rodriguez TE. Comparing face‑to‑face,
synchronous, and asynchronous learning: Postgraduate dental
resident preferences. J Dent Educ 2014;78:856‑66.
9. Molnar AL, Kearney RC. A comparison of cognitive presence in
asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental
hygiene course. J Dent Hyg 2017;91:14‑21.
10. World Health Organization HIV/AIDS Program. Task Shifting
to Tackle Health Worker Shortages, 2007. Available from:
https://www.who.int/healthsystems/task_shifting/TTR_tackle.
pdf?ua=1. [Last accessed on 2020 May 13]
11. Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India. Guidelines on the
measures to be taken by Ministries/Departments of Government
of India, State/Union Territory Governments and State/Union
Territory Authorities for containment of COVID‑19 Epidemic in
the Country. 2020. Available from: https://www.mha.gov.in/
sites/default/files/Guidelines.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Sep 16]
12. Zhao F, Fu Y, Zhang QJ, Zhou Y, Ge PF, Huang HX, et al.
The comparison of teaching efficiency between massive open
online courses and traditional courses in medicine education:
A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Ann Transl Med
2018;6:458.
13. Knopf‑Amelung S, Gotham H, Kuofie A, Young P,
Manney Stinson R, Lynn J, et al. Comparison of Instructional
Methods for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to
Treatment for Substance Use in Nursing Education. Nurse Educ
2018;43:123‑7.
14. Ebner C, Gegenfurtner A. learning and satisfaction in webinar,
online, and face‑to‑face instruction: A meta‑analysis. Front Educ
2019;4:92.
)