| Literature DB >> 34367783 |
Meenakshi Khapre1, Smita Sinha1, Pawna Kaushal1.
Abstract
Background To maintain physical distancing for reducing the spread of COVID-19, online learning appears to be a viable option to carry on teaching and learning. Aim The aim of study was to assess the effectiveness of integrated flipped classroom and reciprocal peer teaching (RPT) using Google Classroom as a learning management system (LMS) for teaching and learning, a module of Research Methodology. We also aimed to assess learner's satisfaction. Methods An educational interventional study was conducted with 17 students enrolled in the Master of Public Health course, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, for one month. As per protocol development and integration were conducted and validated pre- and post-tests were held for assessment of knowledge and skill component. Class normalized learning gain was used as objective measure for improvement in knowledge and skill. Students' feedback was collected using a structured questionnaire at the end of module. Results Mean test scores of knowledge and skill, improved significantly from 26.4 (11.95) to 33.64 (6.63) and 17.88 (5.7) to 62.76 (18.18) respectively. Class average normalized gain for knowledge and skill was 30.28% and 55.67, respectively. Students agreed that online learning imparted good understanding, at comfortable pace, opportunity for interaction. Students felt poor network affected their learning. Conclusion The study concluded that flipped classroom and RPT integrated with Google Classroom is an effective intervention.Entities:
Keywords: covid-19; flipped classroom; google classroom; online learning; reciprocal peer teaching (rpt)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34367783 PMCID: PMC8331173 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1SOP for Google Classroom
SOP: standard operating procedure; MCQ: multiple choice question
Comparison of pre- and post-test scores of knowledge and skill learning gain among students
| Pre-test scores mean (SD) | Post-test scores mean (SD) | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Z(p) | Absolute gain | Relative gain | Class normalized gain | |
| Knowledge | 26.4(11.95) | 33.64(6.63) | -3.012 (0.003) | 14.47% | 27.39% | 30.28% |
| Skill | 17.88(5.7) | 62.76(18.18) | -3.626 (0.000) | 44.88% | 250.98% | 55.67% |
Figure 2Pre- and post-test knowledge and skill score of students
Figure 3Feedback from students for online learning
Feedback comments on the strength and weakness of the online RM module
* reported by more than 30% of students
RM: Research Methodology
| Questions | Comments (N=17) |
| Q.1 What were the strengths of this e-learning course? | Learned practical applications; active course kept students engaged; attended in comfort; learnt the course at well-timed pace*; course was consistent, scalable and offers personalization; full availability of moderator and good healthy discussions*; good interaction with teacher and students*; enough time for better understanding*; nicely narrated presentations*; the students themselves do most of the work, so it gives a sense of responsibility; extra course material provided during discussion in the form of documents and videos*; quizzes were interesting; assignments were relevant to the topics |
| Q.2 What were the weaknesses of this e-learning course? | Some presentations were not satisfactory; network and electricity issues sometimes*; faced difficultly during online exam*; lack of flexibility; no face to face interaction; sometimes doubts were not wholly solved during discussions; sometimes moderator was unavailable; It was more of textual knowledge and lacks a bit in improving the practical skills*; sometimes difficult for students who were not good in technical knowledge; need to type on discussion board, no audio option |
Rubric for protocol
PICOT: patient/problem, intervention, comparison, outcome, time; SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound
| Sr no | Not at all written (0) | Does not meet expectations (1) | Approaching expectations (2) | Meet expectations (3) | Exceeds expectations (4) | |
| 1 | Title appropriate; not lengthy, study design and place mentioned | |||||
| 2 | Introduction includes key concepts and relevant background information. | |||||
| 3 | Literature review (comprehensive and clear) | |||||
| 4 | Rationale and relevance (finer criteria) | |||||
| 5 | Hypothesis | |||||
| 6 | Research question (specific, researchable questions that have the potential to add to the current body of knowledge (PICOT) | |||||
| 7 | Objective (SMART) | |||||
| 8 | Sufficient detail to determine that methodology is sound (quality, the validity of data is maintained) | |||||
| 9 | Sufficient detail to carry out the experiment or replication, including subject, setting, procedure, etc. | |||||
| 10 | Appropriate study design is chosen with details mentioned | |||||
| 11 | Specific independent and dependent variables are appropriate to the objective | |||||
| 12 | Quantitative components are appropriately added | |||||
| 13 | Detailed framework of data analysis | |||||
| 14 | Dummy tables address the objective | |||||
| 15 | Ethical consideration mentioned | |||||
| 16 | Gnatt chart | |||||
| 17 | Citation done by referencing manager | |||||
| 18 | References (one or other style) by manager | |||||
| 19 | Questionnaire / schedule (variety of questions added ) | |||||
| 20 | Logical flow of question | |||||
| 21 | Questions framed in a correct manner | |||||
| 22 | Absence of ambiguous questions | |||||
| 23 | Appropriate in length and relevant to the objective | |||||
| 24 | Overall writing skill and clarity | |||||
| 25 | Grammar, punctuation, and spelling | |||||
| Total marks |