Majid Moridani1. 1. School of Pharmacy, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA. majid.moridani@ttuhsc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare students' performance and course evaluations for a pharmacogenetic pharmacotherapy course taught by synchronous videoconferencing method via the Internet and for the same course taught via asynchronous video streaming via the Internet. METHODS: In spring 2005, a pharmacogenetic therapy course was taught to 73 students located on Amarillo, Lubbock, and Dallas campuses using synchronous videoconferencing, and in spring 2006, to 78 students located on the same 3 campuses using asynchronous video streaming. A course evaluation was administered to each group at the end of the courses. RESULTS: Students in the asynchronous setting had final course grades of 89% +/- 7% compared to the mean final course grade of 87% +/- 7% in the synchronous group (p = 0.05). Regardless of which technology was used, average course grades did not differ significantly among the 3 campus sites. Significantly more of the students in the asynchronous setting agreed (57%) with the statement that they could read the lecture notes and absorb the content on their own without attending the class than students in the synchronous class (23%; chi-square test; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Students in both asynchronous and synchronous settings performed well. However, students taught using asynchronous videotaped lectures had lower satisfaction with the method of content delivery, and preferred live interactive sessions or a mix of interactive sessions and asynchronous videos over delivery of content using the synchronous or asynchronous method alone.
OBJECTIVES: To compare students' performance and course evaluations for a pharmacogenetic pharmacotherapy course taught by synchronous videoconferencing method via the Internet and for the same course taught via asynchronous video streaming via the Internet. METHODS: In spring 2005, a pharmacogenetic therapy course was taught to 73 students located on Amarillo, Lubbock, and Dallas campuses using synchronous videoconferencing, and in spring 2006, to 78 students located on the same 3 campuses using asynchronous video streaming. A course evaluation was administered to each group at the end of the courses. RESULTS: Students in the asynchronous setting had final course grades of 89% +/- 7% compared to the mean final course grade of 87% +/- 7% in the synchronous group (p = 0.05). Regardless of which technology was used, average course grades did not differ significantly among the 3 campus sites. Significantly more of the students in the asynchronous setting agreed (57%) with the statement that they could read the lecture notes and absorb the content on their own without attending the class than students in the synchronous class (23%; chi-square test; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Students in both asynchronous and synchronous settings performed well. However, students taught using asynchronous videotaped lectures had lower satisfaction with the method of content delivery, and preferred live interactive sessions or a mix of interactive sessions and asynchronous videos over delivery of content using the synchronous or asynchronous method alone.
Authors: Robert A Blouin; William H Riffee; Evan T Robinson; Diane E Beck; Charles Green; Pamela U Joyner; Adam M Persky; Gary M Pollack Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Craig Locatis; Eta S Berner; Glenn Hammack; Steve Smith; Richard Maisiak; Michael Ackerman Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 2.463