Comparison of Virtual and Actual Education Models on the Learning of Internal Interns During the Pandemic of COVID-19

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-506082/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Comparison of Virtual and Actual Education Models on the Learning of Internal Interns During the Pandemic of COVID-19

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-506082/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Following the outbreak of coronavirus and its impact on the educational process of medical students, attention was paid to e-learning due to importance of education and research. The aim of present study is to evaluation of virtual and actual education models on the learning of internal interns during the pandemic of COVID-19.

Results: The mean±SD age of the participants was 24.9±2.3 years, 46% of participants were men and 54% of them live in dormitory. Results of study shows that difference of pre-test and post-test score with actual and virtual education models in the male and female is significantly different (P value=0.020). Virtual education for men and actual education for women have resulted in higher difference scores in pre-test and post-test. Actual and virtual education models were no different in academic achievements of participants. Thus, the scores obtained in 9 areas did not make a significant difference between the two types of educational models.

Discussion: Virtual and actual education methods for internal interns were examined and the results showed that there is no significant difference between these two methods in student output. Given the conditions that have created by COVID-19 disease in the world, it seems that the use of virtual education can be a good alternative to educating medical students so that education does not stop.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Educational Psychology

Special Education

virtual and actual education

COVID-19

coronavirus

e-learning

Evaluating and inventing desirable educational models is one of the most important tasks of educational system. Development and access to internet caused expansion in the virtual education and virtual universities in the field of education (1). Following the outbreak of coronavirus and its impact on the educational process of medical students, attention was paid to e-learning due to importance of education and research. Since social distance is the best way to prevent COVID-19, this issue with definitely involve medical students as well. In this regard, medical school in response to COVID-19 pandemic have tried to hold the training of this course virtually, and in some school, clinical skills training classes have been held online. Evaluation is also carried out online. There are also challenges due to the suddenness of this change in the training process and the attention paid to web-based (virtual) distance learning.

At this time, the challenge facing medical schools is to train externs and interns and create appropriate clinical experiences for them in dealing with patients, which does not seem to be easily achieved with virtual and online training (2). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the courses that are presented virtually in order to better prepare educational activities in cyberspace. On the other hand, because student evaluation methods in Iran have been more face-to-face, so there are shortcomings in virtual evaluation along with virtual education (3–5).

One of the main foundations of the virtual education process is the evaluation of educational outcomes. In fact, evaluation and measurement is an essential component of the educational system through which the performance of learners is observed and evaluated. Inclusive evaluation is an important part of the distance education program (6). Effective evaluation allows examining the effectiveness of the virtual teaching method and comparing it with the actual teaching method, which has been considered in the project (7).

In today's fast-paced world, many teaching methods are slow and inefficient and do not have the power to convey new concepts to learners, so it is necessary to use new technology in this regard. The move to new approaches to education has led many universities around the world to use e-learning technology in their courses, and this is more important these days in the shadow of the Corona pandemic (8).

Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and actual training is one of the most important design principles of virtual training. Knowing in which areas e-learning is likely to be less sufficient for learners to learn, or what factors may affect the effectiveness of e-learning, will help to establish the best e-learning practices.

Given the situation in the corona pandemic and the need to create a physical distance between people, the need to use virtual training is much more important than before. In this regard, the aim of present study is to evaluation of virtual and actual education models on the learning of internal interns during the pandemic of COVID-19.

The present study is a randomized clinical trial that was performed on 112 internal interns of Firoozgar Hospital in 2020. In each season, 28 interns were present in the internal department for 3 months, who was randomly assigned to one of the actual or virtual educational model groups with personal consent.

Ethical committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences approved all experimental protocols. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Group 1 (actual education)

14 interns learned about internal emergencies priorities approved by the internal group with actual educational model (wearing a mask and observing physical distance). In this method, at the beginning of the class, 10 questions were displayed for interns using the online software of Porsline and WhatsApp social network, and after recording the answer by them, online graphs of correct answer percentage was drawn on the class screen without mentioning the name of the examiner. Then, the training was done in the form of case presentation (history, examination, diagnostic and treatment plans, respectively) and at the end, 10 questions were displayed for the interns again using the online software of Porsline and WhatsApp social network. Answers by them, online graphs of correct answer percentages were drawn on the class screen without mentioning the name of the examiner, and by comparing these two tests, students noticed an increase in their knowledge of the subject taught. During the class, the interns were asked 10 intervention questions that they had to send to the instructor using the online software Porsline and WhatsApp social network.

Group 2 (virtual education)

14 interns learned about internal emergencies priorities approved by the internal group with virtual educational model (using Adobe Connect software). As the same previous model, in this method also at the beginning of the class, 10 questions were displayed for interns using the online software of Porsline and WhatsApp social network, and after recording the answer by them, online graphs of correct answer percentage was drawn on the class screen without mentioning the name of the examiner. Then, the training was done in the form of case presentation (history, examination, diagnostic and treatment plans, respectively) and at the end, 10 questions were displayed for the interns again using the online software of Porsline and WhatsApp social network. Answers by them, online graphs of correct answer percentages were drawn on the class screen without mentioning the name of the examiner, and by comparing these two tests, students noticed an increase in their knowledge of the subject taught. During the class, the interns were asked 10 intervention questions that they had to send to the instructor using the online software Porsline and WhatsApp social network.

The learning outcomes of the interns of these two groups were compared in 9 areas with 95% confidence level and 5% random error.

Average score of multiple choice theory test at the end of each month (MCT)
Average score of descriptive theory test at the end of each month (Exam)
Average score of the recall test 10 days after the end of each month (Recall)
Average score of PMP theory test at the end of each month (PMP)
Average score of “approach to the patient” practical test based on the orders written by the interns on the patient's bedside in the emergency ward from the course content which is held monthly (Approach)
Average score of “Hx and Ph.E” practical test based on the history and examination performed by interns on the patient's bedside in the emergency ward which is held monthly (HxandPhE)
Average score of the interns' survey questionnaire in each month (Form)
Average score of differences between the post-test and pre-test in each session (PostPre)
Average score of 10 intervention tests per session (Interactive)

Data about age, sex, type of residence (home or dormitory), pre-internship score (≤ 150 or > 150) and entrance exam rank (≤ 300 or > 300) were collected.

Continuous variables are reported as mean ± SD. In order to test the difference between mean of 9 tests score across demographic variables Two-way ANOVA was used. Difference between average score of 9 areas in actual and virtual models were assessed by Independent sample t-test. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). For all statistical tests, p values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

The mean ± SD age of the participants was 24.9 ± 2.3 years, 46% of participants were men and 54% of them live in dormitory. Results of study shows that difference of pre-test and post-test score with actual and virtual education models in the male and female is significantly different (P value = 0.020). Virtual education for men and actual education for women have resulted in higher difference scores in pre-test and post-test, Table 1.

Table 1

The effect of age, sex, pre-internship score, entrance exam rank, accommodation type and type of education on scores obtained in 9 areas
	MCT		Exam		Recall		PMP		Approach to patient test		Hx& PHE		Average Survey Score		Post-Pre Difference		Interactive
	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual	Virtual	Actual
Age ≤ 25 years > 25 years p-value	75.24 73.46 70.64 71.46 0.786		78.31 80.56 78.36 79.53 0.873		67.78 68.12 66.85 63.33 0.720		70.59 71.41 68.92 66.60 0.697		71.24 70.83 64.78 66.06 0.845		77.26 75.68 74.14 75.53 0.673		83.16 78.34 72.35 80.60 0.084		4.35 4.39 3.35 3.73 0.879		74.24 73.24 72.71 70.80 0.892
Sex Female Male p-value	69.33 74.76 78.48 70.09 0.098		74.81 80.00 81.58 80.72 0.305		62.26 68.61 72.48 64.09 0.120		67.78 72.06 72.41 67.13 0.181		66.55 70.76 72.48 67.68 0.243		74.22 77.17 78.58 73.27 0.184		80.44 81.11 80.48 75.59 0.411		3.26 5.38 4.89 2.41 0.020		71.18 73.20 76.34 71.63 0.261
Accommodation type Home Dormitory p-value	76.28 69.52 71.85 75.30 0.222		82.25 80.26 74.39 80.30 0.177		70.46 63.04 64.64 69.48 0.196		73.57 67.34 66.78 72.06 0.106		71.96 66.91 67.28 71.39 0.233		79.10 73.47 73.85 77.15 0.150		81.03 76.30 79.89 80.78 0.404		4.32 4.39 3.89 4.09 0.949		76.14 70.95 71.57 73.72 0.218
Pre-internship score ≤ 150 > 150 p-value	63.70 64.24 81.84 78.14 0.593		70.04 74.24 84.53 83.91 0.383		55.12 56.38 76.87 73.11 0.572		62.16 61.71 76.18 75.17 0.933		60.71 62.00 76.31 74.08 0.631		69.83 70.38 81.46 78.80 0.592		77.37 74.47 82.78 81.63 0.796		4.04 3.38 4.15 4.71 0.546		67.83 68.19 78.37 75.23 0.547
Entrance exam rank ≤ 300 > 300 p-value	76.68 76.41 70.58 67.54 0.741		80.90 83.29 74.87 75.63 0.780		71.62 71.14 62.12 60.18 0.876		74.06 72.17 65.00 66.95 0.587		73.93 70.91 63.87 67.45 0.388		80.15 76.79 71.58 73.86 0.360		82.53 78.67 77.70 79.36 0.418		3.53 3.50 4.87 5.31 0.812		76.34 76.08 70.54 67.18 0.597

Actual and virtual education models were no different in academic achievements of participants. Thus, the scores obtained in 9 areas did not make a significant difference between the two types of educational models, Table 2.

Table 2

Difference between average score of 9 areas in actual and virtual models
	Actual	Virtual	p-value
MCT	72.93 ± 22.03	74.07 ± 21.52	0.782
Exam	78.32 ± 15.62	80.28 ± 15.10	0.500
Recall	67.55 ± 24.50	66.84 ± 24.85	0.879
PMP	70.18 ± 18.64	70.12 ± 18.46	0.988
Approach to Patient Test	69.62 ± 20.26	69.55 ± 19.73	0.985
Hx & PHE	76.84 ± 16.40	75.64 ± 15.90	0.784
Average Survey Score	80.46 ± 18.25	78.94 ± 16.83	0.684
Post-Pre Difference	4.11 ± 5.45	4.16 ± 4.90	0.913
Interactive	73.86 ± 15.03	72.59 ± 16.02	0.667

A two-way ANOVA was conducted that examined the effect of age, sex, pre-internship score, entrance exam rank, accommodation type and type of education on scores obtained in 9 areas, Fig. 1–45. There was an only one statistically significant interaction between the effects of sex and type of education on average score of differences between the post-test and pre-test in each session, p = 0.020.

The main finding of present study is accepting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between academic achievements of internal interns with actual and virtual education models. In the present study we assess the learning outcomes in the 9 areas. Surprisingly we found that different educational models had no effect on student learning. However results of two-way ANOVA showed that actual education for women and virtual education for men have resulted in higher difference scores in pre-test and post-test.

Following the Corona pandemic, the need for changes in traditional teaching methods became inevitable. Virtual learning, which is mainly web-based, also brings challenges. To what extent learners can keep up with this style of teaching requires precise evaluation and comparison of this new method of teaching with actual training.

Just as actual training has its advantages, such as face-to-face communication, so does virtual training. Among the advantages of virtual learning can be mentioned the following. First, this method of education allows medical students to observe and interact with patients with COVID-19 while eliminating the risk of infection. In the Hofmann et al study, 92.9% of medical students were agreed with the virtual methods of teaching (9). Second, virtual education provides the opportunity for other students from different parts of the world to participate and exchange information between them. One of the strength of this mode of training is active participation of all students in clinical reasoning skills and gets a guide from tutors and peers alike. Murdock et al. (10) used the virtual method for holding morning report. Participants stated that this method is an effective and suitable method for using different physician in different physical places and reduced clinical load for the medical team.

In a study conducted by the Imperial College London, interns visited patients virtually. The results of this study show that the interns eagerly attended these visits and the patients' visits were well done without the physical presence of the patient and the doctor (11).

Like actual training, students' learning in e-learning is related to the mastery of the teacher and the correct transmission of concepts. Results of one study showed that 97.2% of students were satisfied from virtual teaching and this method was known as the efficiency of the actual method (12). Consistent with present study, Kaur et al study also confirmed satisfaction of 983 medical students with virtual teaching during the COVID-19 crisis (13).

In addition to the advantages mentioned for virtual education, this educational method also has disadvantages. One of the most important weaknesses of virtual training is no access to digital technology for some students. Availability of trustworthy internet connection (14, 15), hardware and software problems for virtual learning platforms (16, 17), problems relating to internet speed and quality (18, 19), and problems with audio and video playback (20) are the other disadvantages of this mode of teaching. Besides, in some cases, the educational website may become inaccessible due to overloaded, which can make learning difficult for learners (21).

Elimination of face-to-face training and clinical examination by medical students are other weaknesses of e-learning (22, 23). Results of recently published systematic review declare that progression of the competencies of a medical student were highly impacted by loss of clinical examinations, loss of bedside training and reduced direct patient care (22). Moreover other studies have confirmed these findings (14, 18, 24).

The move to virtual education by means of web-based medical teaching has problems in its nature. Some of these problems can be referred to lose focus and concentration whilst sitting in front of a screen (15). Besides, reduced motivation, poor communication, physical discomfort for instance exhaustion, visual issues, and muscle and joint pain, were related to virtual education especially in long period (25).

Another disadvantage of the virtual learning method is the lack of validity of evaluations and tests. Results of several studies showed that due to the lack of supervision during the exam, many of the scores obtained were significantly higher than the students' academic level based on their academic records (18, 21, 24, 25). Surprisingly, Lara et al (26) published a study whose results show that the scores obtained by 49 medical students in the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) who participated in the teleconference were not significantly different from the scores of the same test in the form of face to face.

Different teaching methods each have advantages and disadvantages that by recognizing these characteristics can be selected the best of those for teaching medical students depending on condition. In the present study, the virtual and actual education methods for internal interns were examined and the results showed that there is no significant difference between these two methods in student output. Given the conditions that have created by COVID-19 disease in the world, it seems that the use of virtual education can be a good alternative to educating medical students so that education does not stop.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors received ethical approval from the Iran University of Medical Sciences Ethics Board. All guidelines were followed in accordance with ethics approval and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current project are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Iran University of Medical Sciences funded present study. The funding agent had not role in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and writing of manuscript.

Authors' contributions

N.R. and N.A. contributed to the design and implementation of the research. Sh. S., B. Sh., R. A., S. A., S. B., R. B. and E. P. were involved in data collection. A.M. processed the experimental data, performed the analysis, drafted the manuscript and designed the figures. KS.A. supervised the project. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors expressed the appreciation to all interns involved in this study.

Golzari Z, Kiamanesh A, Ghorchian G, Ghafari P. Development and accreditation of a model for internal evaluation of E-Learning courses. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies. 2010;1(1):160-85.
Ferrel MN, Ryan JJ. The impact of COVID-19 on medical education. Cureus. 2020;12(3).
Vlachopoulos D. Assuring quality in e-learning course design: The roadmap. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL. 2016;17(6):183-205.
Fattahi M, Roshani Ali Bene See H, Heydari S, Shahalizadeh M. Implementation Pathology of the E-learning Curriculum in Iran (Case Study Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran). Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2016;7(2).
Seraji F. Virtual learning environments, possibility to help improve learning culture. 2013.
Learn II HP. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. 2018.
Pletz C, Zinn B. Evaluation of an immersive virtual learning environment for operator training in mechanical and plant engineering using video analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020;51(6):2159-79.
Saleh SE. Remote Teaching for Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. 2020.
Hofmann H, Harding C, Youm J, Wiechmann W. Virtual bedside teaching rounds with patients with COVID‐19. Medical education. 2020;54(10):959-60.
Murdock HM, Penner JC, Le S, Nematollahi S. Virtual Morning Report during COVID‐19: A novel model for case‐based teaching conferences. Medical education. 2020;54(9):851-2.
Mian A, Khan S. Medical education during pandemics: a UK perspective. BMC medicine. 2020;18(1):1-2.
Sud R, Sharma P, Budhwar V, Khanduja S. Undergraduate ophthalmology teaching in COVID-19 times: Students' perspective and feedback. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;68(7):1490.
Kaur N, Dwivedi D, Arora J, Gandhi A. Study of the effectiveness of e-learning to conventional teaching in medical undergraduates amid COVID-19 pandemic. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2020;10(7):1-5.
Sahi PK, Mishra D, Singh T. Medical education amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian pediatrics. 2020;57(7):652-7.
Atreya A, Acharya J. Distant virtual medical education during COVID‐19: Half a loaf of bread. The clinical teacher. 2020.
Da Silva BM. Will Virtual Teaching Continue After the COVID-19 Pandemic? Acta medica portuguesa. 2020;33(6):446-.
Hodgson JC, Hagan P. Medical education adaptations during a pandemic: transitioning to virtual student support. Medical education. 2020;54(7):662-3.
Kaup S, Jain R, Shivalli S, Pandey S, Kaup S. Sustaining academics during COVID-19 pandemic: the role of online teaching-learning. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;68(6):1220.
Roskvist R, Eggleton K, Goodyear-Smith F. Provision of e-learning programmes to replace undergraduate medical students’ clinical general practice attachments during COVID-19 stand-down. Education for Primary Care. 2020;31(4):247-54.
Sleiwah A, Mughal M, Hachach-Haram N, Roblin P. COVID-19 lockdown learning: the uprising of virtual teaching. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2020;73(8):1575-92.
Machado RA, Bonan PRF, Perez DEdC, Martelli DRB, Martelli-Júnior H. I am having trouble keeping up with virtual teaching activities: Reflections in the COVID-19 era. Clinics. 2020;75.
Dedeilia A, Sotiropoulos MG, Hanrahan JG, Janga D, Dedeilias P, Sideris M. Medical and surgical education challenges and innovations in the COVID-19 era: a systematic review. in vivo. 2020;34(3 suppl):1603-11.
Guadix SW, Winston GM, Chae JK, Haghdel A, Chen J, Younus I, et al. Medical student concerns relating to neurosurgery education during COVID-19. World neurosurgery. 2020;139:e836-e47.
Hilburg R, Patel N, Ambruso S, Biewald MA, Farouk SS. Medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: learning from a distance. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease. 2020.
Surkhali B, Garbuja CK. Virtual learning during COVID-19 pandemic: pros and cons. Journal of Lumbini Medical College. 2020;8(1):154-5.
Lara S, Foster CW, Hawks M, Montgomery M. Remote assessment of clinical skills during COVID-19: a virtual, high-stakes, summative pediatric OSCE. Academic pediatrics. 2020.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparison of Virtual and Actual Education Models on the Learning of Internal Interns During the Pandemic of COVID-19

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Group 1 (actual education)

Group 2 (virtual education)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Availability of data and materials

Competing interests

Funding

Authors' contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1