Hooi Min Lim1, Chirk Jenn Ng1, Chin Hai Teo1, Ping Yein Lee2, Puteri Shanaz Jahn Kassim2, Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin3, Phelim Voon Chen Yong4, Renukha Sellappans5, Wei Hsum Yap4, Yew Kong Lee1, Zahiruddin Fitri Abu Hassan6, Kuhan Krishnan7, Sazlina Shariff Ghazali2, Faridah Idris8, Nurhanim Hassan9, Enna Ayub9, Stathis Konstantinidis10, Michael Taylor10, Cherry Poussa10, Klas Karlgren11, Natalia Stathakarou11, Petter Mordt12, Arne Thomas Nilsen12, Heather Wharrad10. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Primary Care Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Family Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 3. Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Department of Multimedia, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 4. Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences, School of Biosciences, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 5. Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 6. Faculty of Built Environment, Department of Building Surveying, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 7. Faculty of Medicine, Medical Research and Development Unit, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 8. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Pathology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 9. E-Learning Academy, INTELLECT, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 10. School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England. 11. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. 12. NettOp, Department of E-Learning Development, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engaging students in the e-learning development process enhances the effective implementation of e-learning, however, students' priority on the topics for e-learning may differ from that of the educators. This study aims to compare the differences between the students and their educators in prioritising the topics in three healthcare curricula for reusable e-learning object (RLO) development. METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators. RESULT: A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised. CONCLUSION: The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.
BACKGROUND: Engaging students in the e-learning development process enhances the effective implementation of e-learning, however, students' priority on the topics for e-learning may differ from that of the educators. This study aims to compare the differences between the students and their educators in prioritising the topics in three healthcare curricula for reusable e-learning object (RLO) development. METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators. RESULT: A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised. CONCLUSION: The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.
Authors: Evangelos Paraskevopoulos; Marios Avraamides; Panagiotis D Bamidis; Christian Dobel; Sotiria Gilou; Christos I Ioannou; Dimitris Kikidis; Birgit Mazurek; Winfried Schlee; Andria Shimi; Eleftheria Vellidou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.614