| Literature DB >> 34026910 |
Peyman Zamani1, Somayeh Biparva Haghighi2, Majid Ravanbakhsh3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Instruction in teacher-centered formats may lead to early learning fatigue, which in turn, decelerates students' knowledge retrieval. Presently, teachers try to increase students' participation and their active attention to course content by incorporating effective, applicable, low-cost, and enjoyable teaching apparatuses.Entities:
Keywords: Crossword puzzle; Medical education; Speech therapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34026910 PMCID: PMC8106739 DOI: 10.30476/jamp.2021.87911.1330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Med Educ Prof ISSN: 2322-2220
Characteristics of the participating students
| Variables | Groups | |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid method (n = 41) | Traditional method (n = 42) | |
| Age (Years; Months) | ||
| Mean±SD | 19.8 ± 1.2 | 19.7 ± 1.2 |
| Gender [n (%)] | ||
| Male | 13 (31.7%) | 16 (38.1%) |
| Female | 28 (68.3%) | 26 (61.9%) |
| Rejected history of the course [n (%)] | ||
| Yes | 2 (4.9%) | 3 (7.1%) |
| No | 39 (95.1%) | 39 (92.9%) |
The mean values of knowledge scores of speech therapy students at sections of training
| Time-points training | Groups | Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrid method (n = 41) | Traditional method (n = 42) | |||
| Students' knowledge | T0 | 7.35 ± 3.73 | 7.54 ± 3.24 | t = 0.231, P=0.818 |
| T1 | 17.14 ± 1.62 | 16.02 ± 1.36 | t = 2.131, P=0.036 | |
| T2 | 18.26 ± 1.46 | 16.10 ± 1.20 | t = 4.951, P=0.001 | |
| Test | F(1,81) = 5.12, P = 0.026, [T1 and T2 vs. T0: P < 0.001; T2 vs. T1: P = 0.044] | F(1,81) = 2.98, P = 0.030, [T1 and T2 vs. T0: P < 0.001; T2 vs. T1: P = 0.178] | ||
T0: Before education; T1: Immediately after education; T2: One month after the end of education;
Independent-samples T test;
Repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test; n: numbers;
Between-groups comparison;
Within-group comparison.
Figure 1Mean score of students' knowledge at three-points of trainings in both groups
Comparison of Mean ± SD of the students' satisfaction score between two groups
| Groups | Test, P | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrid method (n = 41) | Traditional method (n = 42) | ||
| Students' satisfaction score | 104.3 ± 13.8 | 98.2 ± 13.7 | t = 3.413, P = 0.010 |
P: Between-groups comparison
Student perceptions of hybrid/traditional methods as a teaching approach
| Groups | Statements | Lowest | Mild | Moderate | Good | Excellent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-2 | ↑2-4 | ↑4-6 | ↑6-8 | ↑8-10 | |||
| Students' satisfaction score | Hybrid method (n = 41) | The teaching purposes were clear and specified in advance | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 7 (17.1%) | 15 (36.6%) | 18 (43.9%) |
| The instruction was stress-free, attractive, and fun | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 6 (14.6)% | 12 (29.3%) | 23 (56.1%) | ||
| The instruction method matched the course content | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 8 (19.5%) | 16 (39.0%) | 17 (41.5%) | ||
| Students participated actively as the lesson was presented | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 19 (46.3%) | 22 (53.7%) | ||
| The teaching method enhanced my learning motivation | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 9 (22.0%) | 15 (36.6%) | 16 (39.0%) | ||
| My content knowledge has increased greatly than before | 0 (0) | 3 (7.3%) | 9 (22.0%) | 11 (26.8%) | 18 (43.9%) | ||
| The teaching method has relatively changed my learning objectives | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 9 (22.0%) | 15 (36.6%) | 16 (39.0%) | ||
| Owing to of this teaching method, I can retain the content better | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 3 (7.3%) | 13 (31.7%) | 24 (58.6%) | ||
| The teaching method made learning more dynamic and participatory | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (7.3%) | 18 (43.9%) | 20 (48.8%) | ||
| This teaching method neither distracted students’ attention nor disturb the class regulation | 0 (0) | 4 (9.8%) | 10 (24.4%) | 15 (36.6%) | 12 (29.3%) | ||
| This teaching method helped me to assess my knowledge better and faster | 0 (0) | 3 (7.3%) | 7 (17.1%) | 9 (22.0%) | 22 (53.7%) | ||
| I would prefer to pass my other courses with this methodology | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 11 (26.8%) | 29 (70.8%) | ||
| Traditional method (n = 42) | The teaching purposes were clear and specified in advance | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 10 (23.8%) | 21 (50.0%) | 10 (23.8%) | |
| The instruction was stress-free, attractive, and fun | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 20 (47.6%) | 13 (31.0%) | 8 (19.1%) | ||
| The instruction method matched the course content | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (21.4%) | 24 (57.1%) | 9 (21.4%) | ||
| Students participated actively as the lesson was presented | 1 (2.4%) | 7 (16.7%) | 8 (19.1%) | 20 (47.6%) | 6 (14.3%) | ||
| The teaching method enhanced my learning motivation | 1 (2.4%) | 6 (14.3%) | 15 (35.7%) | 16 (38.1%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
| My content knowledge has increased greatly than before | 0 (0) | 3 (7.1%) | 14 (33.3%) | 19 (45.2%) | 6 (14.3%) | ||
| The teaching method has relatively changed my learning objectives | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 6 (14.3%) | 19 (45.2%) | 16 (38.1%) | ||
| Owing to of this teaching method, I can retain the content better | 1 (2.4%) | 3 (7.1%) | 6 (14.3%) | 24 (57.1%) | 8 (19.1%) | ||
| The teaching method made learning more dynamic and participatory | 0 (0) | 3 (7.1%) | 6 (14.3%) | 20 (47.6%) | 13 (31.0%) | ||
| This teaching method neither distracted students’ attention nor disturb the class regulation | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4%) | 8 (19.1%) | 20 (47.6%) | 13 (31.0%) | ||
| This teaching method helped me to assess my knowledge better and faster | 1 (2.4%) | 4 (9.5%) | 7 (16.7%) | 17 (40.5%) | 13 (31.0%) | ||
| I would prefer to pass my other courses with this methodology | 1 (2.4%) | 13 (31.0%) | 12 (28.6%) | 9 (21.4%) | 7 (16.7%) |