4.2 Article

Impact of distance education via interactive videoconferencing on students' course performance and satisfaction

期刊

ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 21-25

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00113.2016

关键词

distance campus; distance education; distance learning; interactive videoconferencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of distance education via interactive videoconferencing on pharmacy students' performance in a course was assessed after implementation of a distance campus. Students filled out a Student Demographic Survey and a Precourse Knowledge Assessment at the start of the course and a Postcourse Knowledge Assessment and a Postcourse Student Perceptions Survey at the end of the course. The primary end point, a comparison of course grades (%) between the main and distance campuses, was examined using the two-sample t-test. We examined the relationships among demographics, campus location, course grades, grade point average, pre-and postcourse knowledge assessments, and postcourse perceptions as our secondary end points with parametric and nonparametric tests. Data from 93 students were included in the analysis [main campus (n = 81); distance campus (n = 12)]. Students on the main campus achieved a significantly higher final course grade (87 vs. 81%; P = 0.02). Scores on the Postcourse Knowledge Assessment were also significantly higher compared with those of students on the distance education campus (77 vs. 68%; P = 0.04). Students on both campuses reported selfperceived improvement in their knowledge base regarding various aspects of infectious diseases. Compared with the students on the distance campus, those on the main campus were more likely to subjectively perceive that they had succeeded in the course (P = 0.04). Our study suggests that students on the main campus achieved a higher final course grade and were more likely to feel that they had succeeded in the course. Students on both campuses reported improvement in knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据