open access

Vol 5, No 2 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-04-08
Get Citation

Good practices in asynchronous e-learning — a short guideline document for Polish medical teachers — a pilot study

Piotr Przymuszała, Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska, Beata Buraczyńska-Andrzejewska, Karolina Szczeszek, Marek Dąbrowski, Ryszard Marciniak
DOI: 10.5603/DEMJ.a2020.0014
·
Disaster Emerg Med J 2020;5(2):64-72.

open access

Vol 5, No 2 (2020)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2020-04-08

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: E-learning is gaining popularity also in medical education. It offers students unlimited access to educational materials, helps meet their individual preferences by adapting various learning styles, and is considered to be at least as effective as traditional lectures. However, this can only be true provided that e-learning is of good quality. Short guidelines may be used to familiarise medical teachers with good practices in e-learning, but they should meet the needs of their users, and some areas may require more attention. They should be identified, and medical teachers should be provided with additional resources covering them. This study aimed to develop a short guideline for Polish medical teachers and determine potentially troublesome areas.


METHODS: A detailed review of the literature was performed to create a guideline on preparing and conducting e-learning classes. The most important items from it were listed as an evaluation template and pre-tested on a sample of 10 e-learning courses in a search for areas requiring more attention.

RESULTS: Half of the courses did not provide students with a syllabus, and none of them clearly defined intended learning outcomes. Also, adult learning concepts were not introduced satisfactorily. Only seven out of 10 courses used activities at all, and they often tested simple knowledge reproduction, were limited to poorly-written test questions, and placed at the end of lessons.


CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study three potentially troublesome areas were identified: defining learning outcomes, application of adult learning theory, and choice of activities.


KEY WORDS: e-learning quality, e-learning guidelines, medical teachers

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: E-learning is gaining popularity also in medical education. It offers students unlimited access to educational materials, helps meet their individual preferences by adapting various learning styles, and is considered to be at least as effective as traditional lectures. However, this can only be true provided that e-learning is of good quality. Short guidelines may be used to familiarise medical teachers with good practices in e-learning, but they should meet the needs of their users, and some areas may require more attention. They should be identified, and medical teachers should be provided with additional resources covering them. This study aimed to develop a short guideline for Polish medical teachers and determine potentially troublesome areas.


METHODS: A detailed review of the literature was performed to create a guideline on preparing and conducting e-learning classes. The most important items from it were listed as an evaluation template and pre-tested on a sample of 10 e-learning courses in a search for areas requiring more attention.

RESULTS: Half of the courses did not provide students with a syllabus, and none of them clearly defined intended learning outcomes. Also, adult learning concepts were not introduced satisfactorily. Only seven out of 10 courses used activities at all, and they often tested simple knowledge reproduction, were limited to poorly-written test questions, and placed at the end of lessons.


CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study three potentially troublesome areas were identified: defining learning outcomes, application of adult learning theory, and choice of activities.


KEY WORDS: e-learning quality, e-learning guidelines, medical teachers

Get Citation

Keywords

e-learning quality, e-learning guidelines, medical teachers, quality of medical training

About this article
Title

Good practices in asynchronous e-learning — a short guideline document for Polish medical teachers — a pilot study

Journal

Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal

Issue

Vol 5, No 2 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

64-72

Published online

2020-04-08

DOI

10.5603/DEMJ.a2020.0014

Bibliographic record

Disaster Emerg Med J 2020;5(2):64-72.

Keywords

e-learning quality
e-learning guidelines
medical teachers
quality of medical training

Authors

Piotr Przymuszała
Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska
Beata Buraczyńska-Andrzejewska
Karolina Szczeszek
Marek Dąbrowski
Ryszard Marciniak

References (40)
  1. de Leeuw RA, Walsh K, Westerman M, et al. Consensus on Quality Indicators of Postgraduate Medical E-Learning: Delphi Study. JMIR Med Educ. 2018; 4(1): e13.
  2. Kavadella A, Kossioni AE, Tsiklakis K, et al. Recommendations for the development of e-modules for the continuing professional development of European dentists. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013; 17 Suppl 1: 45–54.
  3. Liyanagunawardena TR, Williams SA. Massive open online courses on health and medicine: review. J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16(8): e191.
  4. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006; 81(3): 207–212.
  5. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014; 4(1): 010406.
  6. Przymuszała P, Piotrowska K, Pisula P, et al. Wykorzystanie metod kształcenia na odległość w procesie edukacji na kierunkach medycznych. Polski Przegląd Nauk o Zdrowiu. 2019; 57(4): 502–506.
  7. Schmidt S, Dickerson J, Kisling E. From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Integrating Adult Learning and Technologies for Effective Education. 2010: 63–81.
  8. Tough A, Knowles M. Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning. The Journal of Higher Education. 1985; 56(6): 707.
  9. Masoumi D, Lindström B. Quality in e-learning: a framework for promoting and assuring quality in virtual institutions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2011; 28(1): 27–41.
  10. Lewis KO, Cidon MJ, Seto TL, et al. Leveraging e-learning in medical education. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2014; 44(6): 150–163.
  11. de Leeuw RA, Westerman M, Scheele F. Quality indicators for learner-centered postgraduate medical e-learning. Int J Med Educ. 2017; 8: 153–162.
  12. De Leeuw RA, Westerman M, Nelson E, et al. Quality specifications in postgraduate medical e-learning: an integrative literature review leading to a postgraduate medical e-learning model. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16: 168.
  13. Klein D, Ware M. E-learning: new opportunities in continuing professional development. Learned Publishing. 2003; 16(1): 34–46.
  14. Nikitina N. Advantages and disadvantages of Internet in language teaching. Advanced Education. 2014; 0(1): 51–58.
  15. Cook DA. The value of online learning and MRI: finding a niche for expensive technologies. Med Teach. 2014; 36(11): 965–972.
  16. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Med Teach. 2008; 30(5): 455–473.
  17. Masters K, Ellaway R. e-Learning in medical education Guide 32 Part 2: Technology, management and design. Med Teach. 2008; 30(5): 474–489.
  18. Alexander LK, Horney JA, Markiewicz M, et al. 10 Guiding principles of a comprehensive Internet-based public health preparedness training and education program. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125 Suppl 5: 51–60.
  19. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, et al. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010; 85(5): 909–922.
  20. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S. Time and learning efficiency in Internet-based learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010; 15(5): 755–770.
  21. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. 2010; 44(6): 543–549.
  22. Shortt SED, Guillemette JM, Duncan AM, et al. Defining quality criteria for online continuing medical education modules using modified nominal group technique. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010; 30(4): 246–250.
  23. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R. Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 2010; 10: 12.
  24. Davids MR, Chikte UME, Halperin ML. Development and evaluation of a multimedia e-learning resource for electrolyte and acid-base disorders. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011; 35(3): 295–306.
  25. Issa N, Schuller M, Santacaterina S, et al. Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2011; 45(8): 818–826.
  26. Bentley Y, Selassie H, Shegunshi A. Design and Evaluation of Student-Focused eLearning. 2012; 10(1): 1–12.
  27. Boling EC, Hough M, Krinsky H, et al. Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education. 2012; 15(2): 118–126.
  28. McGee P, Reis A. Blended Course Design: A Synthesis of Best Practices. Online Learning. 2012; 16(4).
  29. Gordon M, Chandratilake M, Baker P. Low fidelity, high quality: a model for e-learning. Clin Teach. 2013; 10(4): 258–263.
  30. ElMhouti A, Nasseh A, Erradi M. Development of a Tool for Quality Assessment of Digital Learning Resources. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2013; 64(14): 27–31.
  31. Davids MR, Chikte UME, Halperin ML. Effect of improving the usability of an e-learning resource: a randomized trial. Adv Physiol Educ. 2014; 38(2): 155–160.
  32. Lau KH. Computer-based teaching module design: principles derived from learning theories. Med Educ. 2014; 48(3): 247–254.
  33. Cook DA, Ellaway RH. Evaluating technology-enhanced learning: A comprehensive framework. Med Teach. 2015; 37(10): 961–970.
  34. Giovanis K. Keep It Simple: Challenges, Solutions, and Best Practices for Global eLearning Initiatives. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC). 2015; 8(2): 47.
  35. Quality Assurance Audit Checklist. Safety and Security Review for the Process Industries. 2015: 118.
  36. Reid HJ, Thomson C, McGlade KJ. Content and discontent: a qualitative exploration of obstacles to elearning engagement in medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16: 188.
  37. Baldwin S, Trespalacios J. Evaluation Instruments and Good Practices in Online Education. Online Learning. 2017; 21(2).
  38. Sinclair PM, Levett-Jones T, Morris A, et al. High engagement, high quality: A guiding framework for developing empirically informed asynchronous e-learning programs for health professional educators. Nurs Health Sci. 2017; 19(1): 126–137.
  39. Samejima F. A New Family of Models for the Multiple-Choice Item. 1979.
  40. Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 9 maja 2012 r. w sprawie standardów kształcenia dla kierunków studiów: lekarskiego, lekarsko-dentystycznego, farmacji, pielęgniarstwa i położnictwa [Internet]. Available from: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20120000631.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl