Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Assistant Professor of Neuro‑anaesthesia and Neurocritical Care, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Professor of Epidemiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Associate Professor of Nursing, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) constrained the regular teaching in
educational institutions and hampered the teaching–learning process across the globe. E‑learning
method is widely used in higher education in the current situation. the objective is to assess the beliefs
and expectations of the students on e‑learning among adult learners of a tertiary level health‑care
institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single group pre‑post design was adopted. Microsoft Go two‑in‑one
devices were used to find the effectiveness of e‑learning, including digital exam solution. Depending
on the availability of device, 25 participants were selected for the study from three different steams.
A 5‑point Likert scale was used for assessing the quality, adoptability, and acceptance of digital
education developed by the researchers. Chi‑square/Fisher’s exact or McNemar’s test was used to
test the association between independent or related categorical variables. Comparison of the average
score between different courses was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.
RESULTS: Twenty‑two participants who completed the final assessment were retained for the
analysis. Majority of the participants believed that e‑learning helps to achieve personal learning
goals or objectives and bridge skill or knowledge gaps and caters to learning preferences.
However, the overall quality score across the study groups was found to be statistically insignificant
(Kruskal–Wallis statistic: 1.26; P value: 0.533).
CONCLUSION: The findings show that the adult learners in higher education, irrespective of their
age differences, believe that intense e‑learning support with Microsoft Go two‑in‑one device has a
complementary effect on their learning outcome.
Keywords
10.20944/preprints202004.0290.v1. [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 29].
2. Kumar DN. 2020. Impact of Covid‑19 on higher education.
Higher Education Digest. Available from: https://www.
highereducationdigest.com/impact‑of‑covid‑19‑on‑higher‑
education/. [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 29].
3. Jun Xin L, Ahmad Hathim AA, Jing Yi N, Reiko A,
Noor Akmal Shareela I. Digital learning in medical education:
Comparing experiences of Malaysian and Japanese students.
BMC Med Educ 2021;21:418.
4. Scott K, Morris A, Marais B. Medical student use of digital learning
resources. Clin Teach 2018;15:29‑33.
5. Balamurugan G, Govindan R, Vijayarani M. Online learning:
Indian nurses’ perception and a feasibility study. Indian J Psy
Nsg 2021;18:138‑42.
6. Khalil R, Mansour AE, Fadda WA, Almisnid K, Aldamegh M,
Al‑Nafeesah A, et al. The sudden transition to synchronized
online learning during the COVID‑19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia:
A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives.
BMC Med Educ 2020;20:285. doi: 10.1186/s12909‑020‑02208‑z.
7. Helland HK, Tylleskär T, Kvernenes M, Reikvam H. An abrupt
transition to digital teaching‑Norwegian medical students and
their experiences of learning output during the initial phase of
the COVID‑19 lockdown. Healthcare (Basel) 2022;10:170. doi:
10.3390/healthcare10010170.
8. AlQhtani A, AlSwedan N, Almulhim A, Aladwan R, Alessa Y,
AlQhtani K, et al. Online versus classroom teaching for medical
students during COVID‑19: Measuring effectiveness and
satisfaction. BMC Med Educ 2021;21:452.
9. Prasetyo YT, Roque RA, Chuenyindee T, Young MN, Diaz JF,
Persada SF, et al. Determining factors affecting the acceptance
of medical education eLearning platforms during the
COVID‑19 pandemic in the Philippines: UTAUT2 approach.
Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9:780.
10. Ng L, Seow KC, MacDonald L, Correia C, Reubenson A,
Gardner P, et al. eLearning in physical therapy: Lessons
learned from transitioning a professional education program
to full eLearning during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Phys Ther
2021;101:pzab082. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab082.
11. Evans DJ. Using embryology screencasts: A useful addition to
the student learning experience? Anat Sci Educ 2011;4:57‑63.
12. Alnabelsi T, Al‑Hussaini A, Owens D. Comparison of
traditional face‑to‑face teaching with synchronous e‑learning in
otolaryngology emergencies teaching to medical undergraduates:
A randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2015;272:63.
13. Chapman C, White CB, Engleberg C, Fantone JC, Cinti SK.
Developing a fully online course for senior medical students.
Med Educ Online 2011;6:16. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5733.
14. DiLullo C, Coughlin P, D’Angelo M, McGuinness M, Bandle J,
Slotkin EM, et al. Anatomy in a new curriculum: Facilitating the
learning of gross anatomy using web access streaming dissection
videos. J Vis Commun Med 2006;29:99‑108.
15. Ridgway PF, Sheikh A, Sweeney KJ, Evoy D, McDermott E, Felle P,
et al. Surgical e‑learning: Validation of multimedia web‑based
lectures. Med Educ 2007;41:168‑72.
16. Khasawneh R, Simonsen K, Snowden J, Higgins J, Beck G. The
effectiveness of e‑learning in pediatric medical student education.
Med Educ Online 2016;21:29516. doi: 10.3402/meo.v21.29516.
17. Chen F, Leng Y, Ge J, Wang D, Li C, Chen B, et al. Effectiveness of
virtual reality in nursing education: Meta‑analysis. J Med Internet
Res 2020;22:e18290. doi: 10.2196/18290.
)