Comparison of Practicing Second Year Courses in the Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation in terms of Satisfaction and Perceived Learning Outcomes: Face-to-face Education Before COVID-19 and Online Education During COVID-19

Abstract

Aim: It is aimed to compare the effect of online teaching of applied courses given to the second-year students of Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department with synchronous and applied demonstrations on the perceived learning outcomes compared to the face-to-face education given before COVID-19. Method: Students aged between 18 to 25, studying in the second year, participated in the study (n=101). The Perceived Learning Outcomes Evaluation Form (0-10, likert scales) and the Online Education Satisfaction Questionnaire (0-10, likert scales) for the four courses with a high application weight were filled out by the students. Questionnaires were used in the fall semester of 2019-2020, where face-to-face training was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the fall semester of 2020-2021, during which online training was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, were retrospectively scanned. Results: There was no significant difference between courses in terms of perceived learning outcomes (p>0.05). A higher perceived learning outcome score was found in face-to-face education in only two teaching-learning outcomes that make up 50% of the Measurement and Evaluation Methods in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation I course (p<0.05). It was determined that general satisfaction with online education was low (<7) and negative comments were higher than face-to-face education. In addition, in online education, the satisfaction of the instructor with the lectures and course materials was high (>7), and the satisfaction scores of the infrastructure, exams, and homework were low (<7). Conclusion: In, it has been seen that face-to-face education and practical courses or the creation of online synchronous education meet the perceived learning outcomes in a similar way (except Measurement and Evaluation Methods in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation I). Furthermore the satisfaction with the instructor's course management is high in online courses, it has been observed that the satisfaction with the problems experienced in the infrastructure and the measurement-evaluation methods used in the online system is low. This situation can show us that the applied teaching system made by the department is a system that can be applied when necessary. However, since it has been determined that the general satisfaction level from online education is low, it is predicted that it would be better to give the courses that include practice face-to-face.

Keywords

• COVID-19; face to face education; online training; perceived learning outcome; satisfaction

Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümünde Uygulama İçeren İkinci Sınıf Derslerinin Memnuniyet ve Algılanan Öğrenim Çıktıları Açısından Karşılaştırılması: COVID-19 Öncesindeki Yüz Yüze Eğitim ile COVID-19 Sırasındaki Çevrimiçi Eğitim

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü (ACU-FTR) ikinci sınıf müfredatında bulunan uygulama saati ağırlıklı derslerin algılanan öğrenim çıktıları ve memnuniyetlerinin COVID-19 pandemi dönemindeki çevrimiçi ders ve öncesindeki yüz yüze eğitimle karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: COVID-19 pandemisi öncesinde yüz yüze eğitimin yapıldığı 2019-2020 güz döneminde ve COVID-19 pandemisi sırasında online eğitimin yapıldığı 2020-2021 güz döneminde kullanılan anketler retrospektif olarak tarandı. Çalışmaya, ACU-FTR ikinci sınıfta öğrenim gören 18-25 yaş arası öğrenciler katılım sağladı. Uygulama ağırlığı yüksek olan dört derse ait Algılanan Öğrenim Çıktıları Değerlendirme Anketi (0-10) ve Çevrimiçi Eğitimden Memnuniyet Anketi (0-10) öğrencilere doldurtuldu. Bulgular: Algılanan öğrenim çıktıları açısından dersler arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p>0,05). Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyonda Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Yöntemleri I dersinin %50'sini oluşturan sadece iki öğrenme kazanımında yüz yüze eğitimde daha yüksek algılanan öğrenim çıktısı puanı bulunmuştur. (p<0,05). Çevrimiçi eğitimden genel memnuniyetin düşük (<7) ve olumsuz yorumların yüz yüze eğitime göre daha fazla olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin çevrimiçi eğitim esnasında öğretim elemanının ders anlatımı ve ders materyallerinden memnuniyetleri yüksek (>7), altyapı, sınavlar ve ödevlerden memnuniyet puanları ise düşük bulunmuştur (<7). Sonuç: Sonuç olarak mevcut çalışmada, ACU-FTR’de uygulamaya yönelik derslerin yüz yüze eğitimle veya çevrimiçi senkron eğitimle verilmesinin algılanan öğrenim çıktılarını benzer şekilde karşıladığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca çevrimiçi derslerde, öğretim elemanı ve ders materyallerinden memnuniyetin yüksek olduğu, altyapı, sınav ve ödevlerden memnuniyetin ise düşük olduğu belirlendi. Bu durum, bize ACU-FTR bölümünün yaptığı uygulamalı öğretim sisteminin mecbur kalındığında uygulanabilir bir sistem olduğunu bize gösterebilir. Fakat genel memnuniyet düzeyinin düşük olmasından dolayı derslerin yüz yüze verilmesinin daha iyi olabileceği öngörülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Algılanan öğrenim çıktısı
• COVID-19
• çevrimiçi eğitim
• memnuniyet
• yüz yüze eğitim

Kaynakça

1. 1. World Health Organization (WHO). Q&As on COVİD-19 and related health topics, Retrieved May 12, 2020. https://www.who. int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-andanswers-hub. Erişim tarihi:16.12.2021
2. 2. Wheeler CC, Erhart LM, Jehn ML. Effect of school closure on the incidence of influenza among school-age children in Arizona. Public Health Reports 2010; 125(6), 851-859.
3. 3. Kawano S, Kakehashi M. Substantial impact of school closure on the transmission dynamics during the pandemic flu H1N1-2009 in Oita, Japan. PloS One 2015; 10(12), 1-15.
4. 4. De Luca G, Van Kerckhove K, Coletti P, Poletto C, Bossuyt N, Hens N, & Colizza V. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: a data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infectious Diseases 2018; 18(1), 1-16.
5. 5. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) (2020a). Basın açıklaması, https://www.yok. gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/. Erişim tarihi: 10.03.2021
6. 6. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) (2020b). Basın açıklaması, https://www.yok. gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/. Erişim tarihi: 10.03.2021
7. 7. Sułkowski Ł. Covid‐19 pandemic; recession, virtual revolution leading to de‐globalization? Journal of Intercultural Management 2020; 12(1), 1– 11.
8. 8. Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review 2020; 27, 1-12.

9. 9. Tian F, Zheng Q, Chao K. Current and future of technologies and services in smart e‐learning. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 2020; 14, 1– 3.
10. 10. Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID‐19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 2020; 49(1), 5– 22.
11. 11. Leonardi P. You're going digital‐now what? MIT Sloan Management Review 2020; 61(2), 28– 35.
12. 12. Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi. Duyurular. https://www.acibadem.edu.tr/duyurular. Erişim tarihi: 10.03.2021
13. 13. Roh YS, Kim MK, Tangkawanich T. Survey of outcomes in a faculty development program on simulation pedagogy. Nursing & Health Sciences 2016;18(2), 210-5.
14. 14. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1988. ISBN 0-8058-0283-5
15. 15. Bates AW. Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer; 2005.
16. 16. McIsaac MS, Gunawardena CN. Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan; 2006, 403-437.
17. 17. Aragon S, Johnson E. Factors influencing completion and non-completion of community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education 2008; 22(3), 146-158
18. 18. Baber H. Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID-19. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research 2020; 7(3), 285-292.
19. 19. Basak S, Wotto M, Belanger P. E‐learning, M‐learning and D‐learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E‐Learning and Digital Media 2018; 15(4), 191-216.
20. 20. Sangra A, Vlachopoulos D, Cabrera N. Building an inclusive definition of E‐learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 2012; 13(2), 145– 159.
21. 21. Kulikowski K, Przytuła S, Sułkowski Ł. E‐learning? Never again! On the unintended consequences of COVID‐19 forced e‐learning on academic teacher motivational job characteristics. Higher Education Quarterly, 2021, 1-16
22. 22. Tejedor S, Cervi L, Pérez-Escoda A, Tusa F. Parola A. Higher Education Response in the Time of Coronavirus: Perceptions of Teachers and Students, and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2021; 7(1), 43.
23. 23. Keskin M, Kaya Özer D. COVID-19 sürecinde öğrencilerin web tabanlı uzaktan eğitime yönelik geri bildirimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 2020; 5(2), 59-67.
24. 24. Mącznik AK, Ribeiro DC, Baxter GD. Online technology use in physiotherapy teaching and learning: a systematic review of effectiveness and users' perceptions. BMC medical education 2015; 15, 160.
25. 25. Kaba H, Alaca N. Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü Mezunlarının Memnuniyet Düzeyleri ve Program Çıktıları Sonuçları. Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Journal. I. Uluslararası Sağlık Bilimleri Eğitim Programları Değerlendirme ve Akreditasyon (SABAK) Kongre Kitabı 2019; 136-148.
26. 26. Ratner B. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between+ 1/− 1, or do they?. Journal of targeting, measurement and analysis for marketing 2009; 17(2), 139-142.
27. 27. Celen, F. K., Celik, A., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2018). Yükseköğretimde çevrim-içi öğrenme: Sistemde yaşanan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Journal of European Education, 1(1), 25-34.
28. 28. McIsaac MS, Gunawardena CN. Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, New York: Macmillan; 2006, 403-437.
29. 29. Aragon S, Johnson E. Factors influencing completion and non-completion of community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education 2008; 22(3), 146-158.
30. 30. González-Gómez D, Jeong JS, Rodríguez DA. 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 2016; 25(3), 450-459.
31. 31. Lockman AS, Schirmer BR. Online instruction in higher education: Promising, research-based, and evidence-based practices. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research 2020; 7(2), 130-152.
32. 32. Ryan S, Kaufman J, Greenhouse J, She R, Shi J. The effectiveness of blended online learning courses at the community college level. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 2016; 40(4), 285-298.
33. 33. Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Schmid RF, Tamim RM, Abrami PC. A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2014; 26(1), 87-122.
34. 34. Adams A, Randall S, Traustadóttir T. 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 2015; 14(1), ar6.
35. 35. Powers KL, Brooks PJ, Galazyn M, Donnelly S. Testing the efficacy of MyPsychLab to replace traditional instruction in a hybrid course. Psychology Learning & Teaching 2016; 15(1), 6-30.
36. 36. Lee J. 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 Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2014; 15(1), 111-132.
37. 37. Bao W. COVİD-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2020; 2(2), 113-115.
38. 38. Halim MSAA, Hashim H, Yunus MM. Pupils’ motivation and perceptions on ESL lessons through online quiz-games. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research 2020; 7(3), 229-234.
39. 39. Yee RCS. Perceptions of online learning in an Australian University: Malaysian students’ perspectives usability of the online learning tools. International Journal of Asian Social Science 2013; 3(9), 1973-1981. 40. Zhu X, Chen B, Avadhanam RM, Shui H, Zhang RZ. Reading and connecting: Using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences 2020; 121(5/6), 261-271.
40. 41. Duque LC. A framework for analysing higher education performance: Students' satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management & Business Excell ence 2014; 25(1-2), 1-21.
41. 42. Ikhsan RB, Saraswati LA, Muchardie BG, Susilo A. 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 2019; 68-73.
42. 43. Van Duijn AJ, Swanick K, Donald EK. Student learning of cervical psychomotor skills via online video instruction versus traditional face-to-face instruction. Journal of Physical Therapy Education 2014; 28(1), 94-102.
43. 44. Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Wade CA, Tamim RM, Surkes MA, Bethel EC. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research 2009; 79(3), 1243-1289.
44. 45. Forehand M. Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology 2010; 41(4), 47-56.
45. 46. Jang KS, Hwang SY, Park SJ, Kim YM, Kim MJ. Effects of a Web-based teaching method on undergraduate nursing students’ learning of electrocardiography. Journal of Nursing Education 2005; 44(1), 35-39.
46. 47. Gega L, Norman IJ, Marks IM. Computer-aided vs. tutor delivered teaching of exposure therapy for phobia/panic: randomized controlled trial with pre-registration nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2007; 44(3), 397-405.
47. 48. Kawano S, Kakehashi M. Substantial impact of school closure on the transmission dynamics during the pandemic flu H1N1-2009 in Oita, Japan. PloS one 2015; 10(12).
48. 49. Gerdprasert S, Pruksacheva T, Panijpan B, Ruenwongsa P. Development of a web-based learning medium on mechanism of labour for nursing students. Nurse Education Today 2010; 30(5), 464-469.
49. 50. McMullan M, Jones R, Lea S. The effect of an interactive e-drug calculations package on nursing students’ drug calculation ability and self-efficacy. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2011; 80(6), 421-430.
50. 51. Park SW, Jang HW, Choe YH, Lee KS, Ahn YC, Chung MJ, Han T. Avoiding student infection during a Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak: a single medical school experience. Korean journal of medical education 2016; 28(2), 209.
51. 52. Prati C, Pelliccioni GA, Sambri V, Chersoni S, Gandolfi MG. COVID‐19: its impact on dental schools in Italy, clinical problems in endodontic therapy and general considerations. International endodontic journal 2020; 53(5), 723.
52. 53. Cain J, Scott DR, Akers P. Pharmacy students’ Facebook activity and opinions regarding accountability and e-professionalism. American journal of pharmaceutical education 2009; 73(6).