| Literature DB >> 32778088 |
Lei Li1, Chi Wing Tam1, Ning Wang1, Fan Cheung1, Qing Zhou2, Cheng Zhang1, Chien-Shan Cheng1, Lei Xiong3, Yibin Feng4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chinese Medicine education is part of professional medical training in Hong Kong. An important element of this is herbal medicine, which requires both theoretical and practical knowledge. A field trip programme was adopted to provide students with direct experience of medicinal plants studied in lectures. However, problems with the current programme were identified in learning outcome assessment and long-term knowledge management. To improve the teaching quality, a Moodle e-learning module was designed for augmentation. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of the Moodle module in supplementing the current field trip programme.Entities:
Keywords: Blended learning; Chinese herbal; E-learning; Field trip; Materia Medica; Medical education; Medicinal plants; Moodle; Teaching
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32778088 PMCID: PMC7419198 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-020-03034-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther ISSN: 2662-7671
Pre-teaching data
| 5-year cohort | 6-year cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of students | 26 | 23 | |
| Gender | |||
| Men | 10 | 12 | 0.396 |
| Women | 16 | 11 | |
Recent “Chinese Materia Medica” examination score (out of 100) (mean ± SD) | 75.18 ± 8.19 | 70.69 ± 7.89 | 0.869 |
Baseline test score (out of 15) (mean ± SD) | 0.17 ± 0.4 | 0.10 ± 0.3 | 0.204 |
Fig. 1Study design. Flowchart of the research design
Summary of student responses to 12 statements in the questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale
| Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Mean ± SD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| 1. The Moodle course was effective in helping me achieve the learning outcomes of BCHM2109/2606. | 9 | 21.4 | 19 | 45.2 | 13 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.4 | 3.83 ± 0.9 |
| 2. The uploaded pictures and materials were useful. | 5 | 11.9 | 24 | 57.1 | 12 | 28.6 | 1 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.79 ± 0.7 |
| 3. It was easy to navigate and use. | 8 | 19 | 18 | 42.9 | 15 | 35.7 | 1 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.79 ± 0.8 |
| 4. I was able to cope with the Moodle course site workload. | 8 | 19 | 20 | 47.6 | 14 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.86 ± 0.7 |
| 5. The atlas of herbal plants helped me to systematically review what I had learned during the field trip. | 7 | 16.7 | 21 | 50 | 10 | 23.8 | 4 | 9.5 | 0 | 0 | 3.74 ± 0.9 |
| 6. I like to share my work on Moodle. | 6 | 14.3 | 16 | 38.1 | 19 | 45.2 | 1 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.64 ± 0.8 |
| 7. The self-test exercises helped me to prepare for the test. | 9 | 21.4 | 21 | 50 | 11 | 26.2 | 1 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.90 ± 0.8 |
| 8. The Moodle course site was useful for reviewing herbal plants studied during the field trip. | 9 | 21.4 | 21 | 50 | 12 | 28.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.93 ± 0.7 |
| 9. The Moodle course site well complemented the field trip learning. | 11 | 26.2 | 18 | 42.9 | 11 | 26.2 | 2 | 4.8 | 0 | 0 | 3.90 ± 0.8 |
| 10. I will review the herbal plant photos even after the course. | 7 | 16.7 | 17 | 40.5 | 15 | 35.7 | 3 | 7.1 | 0 | 0 | 3.67 ± 0.8 |
| 11. I will recommend this Moodle course site to students who will participate next year’s field trip. | 10 | 23.8 | 14 | 33.3 | 13 | 31 | 4 | 9.5 | 1 | 2.4 | 3.67 ± 1.0 |
| 12. I will make use of this Moodle course site for further learning on herbal plant identification. | 8 | 19 | 17 | 40.5 | 14 | 33.3 | 3 | 7.1 | 0 | 0 | 3.71 ± 0.9 |
Post-teaching assessment results for herbal plant identification
| N | Score (out of 64) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
5-year cohort (intervention group) | 26 | 29.65 ± 5.0 | < 0.01 |
6-year cohort (control group) | 23 | 21.65 ± 6.5 | |
5-year cohort (control group) | 26 | 24.26 ± 7.7 | < 0.01 |
6-year cohort (intervention group) | 23 | 28.68 ± 4.7 | |
Fig. 2Statistics on student access to the Moodle system. a Total daily hits of the students’ Moodle activities; b Comparison of total daily hits per person of Moodle activities between students in the 5-year cohort and students in the 6-year cohort; c Moodle activity hits of all students; d Comparison of Moodle activity hits per person between students in the 5-year cohort and students in the 6-year cohort