Comparison of the Effect of Face-to-Face Education Provided Before the COVID-19 Pandemic and Online Education Provided During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Perceived Learning Outcomes: Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, it was aimed to compare the effects of six lessons, which were given synchronously in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (PTR) and selected from among the lessons with high theoretical weight, on the perceived learning outcomes (PLO) of being given with face-to-face or synchronous online education. Materials and Methods: Students between the ages of 18-25 studying at Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University PTR, participated in the study (n=215, 120 female / 95 male). In the last week of the course, the students filled out the POP Evaluation Form and the Online Education Satisfaction Questionnaire for the six courses with high theoretical weight. Results: For most of the PLO of the lessons, it was observed that similar results were obtained in both lesson systems (p>0.05). While higher scores were observed in PLO in synchronous education of occupational therapy lesson online (p<0.05), physiology and exercise physiology lessons were found to have higher scores in face-to-face education (p<0.05). In addition, the online education satisfaction was moderately associated with lecture of the instructor and lesson material (r=0.320-0.534, p<0.01). Conclusion: It has been shown that similar results were obtained in most of the PLO of giving theoretical weighted lessons with face-to-face education or online synchronous education, in PTR. While it has been found that the online education satisfaction was moderately associated with lecture of the instructor and lesson material, more research is needed in the future, especially regarding compulsory online education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords

• Perceived Learning Outcome
• COVID 19
• Online Education
• Satisfaction
• Face-to-face education

Covid 19 Pandemisi Öncesi Verilen Yüz Yüze Eğitimin ve Covid-19 Pandemisi Sırasında Verilen Çevrim İçi Eğitimin Algılanan Öğrenim Çıktıları Üzerine Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması: Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü

Abstract

Amaç: Mevcut çalışmada Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon bölümünde (FTR) senkron olarak verilen ve teorik ağırlığı yüksek olan dersler arasından seçilen altı dersin yüz yüze eğitimle veya senkron çevrim içi eğitimle verilmesinin algılanan öğrenim çıktılarına (AÖÇ) olan etkisinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi FTR bölümünde okuyan 18-25 yaş arası öğrenciler (n=215, 120 kadın, 95 erkek) çalışmaya katılım sağlamıştır. Teorik ağırlığı yüksek olan altı dersin AÖÇ Değerlendirme Formu ve Çevrim içi Eğitimden Memnuniyet Anketi dersin son haftasında öğrencilere doldurtulmuştur. Bulgular: Derslerin AÖÇ’lerinin çoğunda her iki ders sisteminde de benzer sonuçlar alındığı görülmüştür (p>0,05). Üçüncü sınıf derslerinden iş ve uğraşı dersi çevrim içi senkron eğitimde, AÖÇ’de daha yüksek puanlar gözlenirken (p<0,05), fizyoloji ve egzersiz fizyolojisi derslerinin bazı AÖÇ’lerinde yüz yüze eğitiminde daha yüksek puanlar aldığı saptanmıştır (p<0,05). Çevrim içi eğitim memnuniyetinin; öğretim elemanının ders anlatımı ve ders materyali ile orta düzeyde ilişkili olduğu belirlenmiştir (r=0,320-0,534, p<0,01). Sonuç: FTR’de teorik ağırlıklı derslerin yüz yüze eğitimle veya çevrim içi senkron eğitimle verilmesinin AÖÇ’lerin çoğunda benzer sonuçlar alındığını göstermiştir. Çevrim içi eğitim memnuniyetinin; öğretim elemanının ders anlatımı ve ders materyali ile ilişkili olduğu belirlenirken, özellikle COVID-19 pandemisi sırasındaki zorunlu çevrim içi eğitimle ilgili olarak gelecekte yapılacak daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Algılanan öğrenim çıktısı
• COVID 19
• çevrim içi eğitim
• memnuniyet
• yüz yüze eğitim

References

1. Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi. Duyurular. (2020). https://www.acibadem.edu.tr/duyurular
2. Adams, A. E., Randall, S., & Traustadóttir, T. (2015). A tale of two sections: An experiment to compare the effectiveness of a hybrid versus a traditional lecture format in introductory microbiology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar6.
3. Aragon, S., & Johnson, E. (2004). Factors influencing completion and non-completion of community college online courses. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 3498-3505). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
4. Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID-19. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(3), 285-292.
5. Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education ,38(1), 3–6.
6. Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education ,38(1), 3–6.
7. Bao, W. (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115.
8. Bates, A. W., & Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Psychology Press.

9. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.
10. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323-346.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdle. De Luca, G., Van Kerckhove, K., Coletti, P., Poletto, C., Bossuyt, N., Hens, N., & Colizza, V. (2018). The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: a data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC İnfectious Diseases, 18(1), 1-16.
12. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.
13. Duque, L. C. (2014). A framework for analysing higher education performance: students' satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1-2), 1-21.
14. González-Gómez, D., Jeong, J. S., & Rodríguez, D. A. (2016). Performance and perception in the flipped learning model: an initial approach to evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching methodology in a general science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 450-459.
15. Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), n1.
16. Halim, M. S. A. A., Hashim, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2020). Pupils' Motivation and Perceptions on ESL Lessons through Online Quiz-Games. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(3), 229-234.
17. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1-12.
18. Ikhsan R.B., Saraswati L.A., Muchardie B.G., Susilo A. (2029).The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in BINUS online learning. Paper presented at the 2019 5th International Conference on New Media Studies (CONMEDIA). IEEE
19. Kawano, S., & Kakehashi, M. (2015). Substantial impact of school closure on the transmission dynamics during the pandemic flu H1N1-2009 in Oita, Japan. Plos One, 10(12), e0144839.
20. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory İnto Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
21. Kulikowski, K., Przytuła, S., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2021). E‐learning? Never again! On the unintended consequences of COVID‐19 forced e‐learning on academic teacher motivational job characteristics. Higher Education Quarterly.1-16
22. Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Belanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216.
23. Lee, J. (2014). An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate students of mathematics education associated with human and design factors of an online course. International Review of R esearch in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 111-132. Leonardi, P. (2020). You’re going digital-now what. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(2), 28-35.
24. Lockman, A. S., & Schirmer, B. R. (2020). Online Instruction in Higher Education: Promising, Research-Based, and Evidence-Based Practices. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(2), 130-152.
25. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 403-437.
26. Powers, K. L., Brooks, P. J., Galazyn, M., & Donnelly, S. (2016). Testing the efficacy of MyPsychLab to replace traditional instruction in a hybrid course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(1), 6-30.
27. Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7(1), 68-88 Roh, Y. S., Kim, M. K., & Tangkawanich, T. (2016). Survey of outcomes in a faculty development program on simulation pedagogy. Nursing & Health Sciences, 18(2), 210-215.
28. Ryan, S., Kaufman, J., Greenhouse, J., She, R., & Shi, J. (2016). The effectiveness of blended online learning courses at the community college level. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(4), 285-298.
29. Saghafi, M. R., Franz, J., & Crowther, P. (2014). An integrated blended model for the contemporary learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(4), 531-549.
30. Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145-159.
31. Sułkowski, Ł. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic; recession, virtual revolution leading to de-globalization?. Journal of Intercultural Management, 12(1), 1-11.
32. Tejedor, S., Cervi, L., Pérez-Escoda, A., Tusa, F., & Parola, A. (2021). Higher Education Response in the Time of Coronavirus: Perceptions of Teachers and Students, and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 43.
33. Tian, F., Zheng, Q., & Chao, K. M. (2020). Current and future of technologies and services in smart e-learning. Service Oriented Computing and Applications, 14, 1– 3.
34. Westermann, E. B. (2014). A half-flipped classroom or an alternative approach?: Primary sources and blended learning. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 43-57.
35. Wheeler, C. C., Erhart, L. M., & Jehn, M. L. (2010). Effect of school closure on the incidence of influenza among school-age children in Arizona. Public Health Reports, 125(6), 851-859.
36. World Health Organization. (2020). Q&As on COVID-19 and related health topics. from https://www.who. int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-andanswers-hub
37. Yee, R. C. S. (2013). Perceptıons Of Onlıne Learnıng In An Australıan Unıversıty: Malaysıan Students’perspectıves–Usabılıty Of The Onlıne Learnıng Tools. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(9), 1973-1981.
38. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) (2020a). Basın açıklaması, https://www.yok. gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/
39. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) (2020b). Basın açıklaması, https://www.yok. gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/
40. Zhu, X., Chen, B., Avadhanam, R. M., Shui, H., & Zhang, R. Z. (2020). Reading and connecting: using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences. 121(5/6), 261-271