Horizon of Medical Education Development

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Editorial policy

Peer Review Process

Advertising policy

Indexing and Abstracting

FAQ

Corrections, Retractions and Matters Arising

Authors General Guideline

Guide for Reviewers

Guideline of preparing Author Contribition

Audio Abstract Setting Guideline

Forms

Evaluation of clinical toxicology interns' opinions about the webinar based classes.

    Authors

    1 Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Research Center, Pharmaceutical Technology Institute, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    2 Associate professor, Medical toxicology research center, faculty of Medicine. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    3 Assistant Professor, Clinical Research Development Unit, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    4 E-learning department, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

    5 Assistant Professor ,Medical toxicology research center, faculty of Medicine. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

,

Document Type : Original Article

Abstract

Introduction: E-learning in medicine evolves over time. Students' opinions are the most important element of successful teaching. Therefore, we evaluated the opinions of participating students in the clinical toxicology department webinars.
Materials & Methods: In a cross-sectional study, we asked from precipitating medical interns (29/2/2020-25/4/2020) to complete the web-based questionnaire after the clinical toxicology department webinars. They know that completion of the questionnaires had no effect on the student's assessment score. The questions were open-ended, multiple-choice and Likert (5 scores). The answers of open-ended questions were categorized by two researchers. Questions were about student gender, months of internship, appropriateness of class time, suggested best time to hold class, quality of audio and video of software, the rate of student participation in class, net disconnection, tools and place of participation in class, teaching quality and strengths and weaknesses of classes.
Results: Ninety questionnaires were completed by XMRand 68.7% of the students completed the questionnaires. The average duration of the classes was 66.8 ± 18.36 minutes, which was longer than the suggested time by the students (42.4 ± 16.5 minutes, PV = 0.005). 72.2% of precipitants rated the quality of sound, image and software as medium to high. Half of the cases (55%) connected by mobile network. The rate of Internet disconnection was higher in extended classes. 81.5% of the precipitants hold the class at home and 91.5% of them used a smartphone.
Conclusion: Considering the use of smartphone by majority of participants and the possibility of disconnection between teacher and student in the webinar, it is better to repeatedly summarize the important points, do not extend the class and use standard slides with few lines and words visible on the smartphone.

Keywords

References
1. Zolfaghari M, Mehrdad N, Parsa Yekta Z,
Salmani Barugh N, Bahrani N. The Effect of
Lecture and E-learning Methods on Learning
Mother and Child Health Course in Nursing
Students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education.
2007;7(1):31-9.
2. Zamani BBE, Madani SA. Guidelines for
Increasing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of
Teachers in Virtual Education. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences.
2011;2(3):39-50.
3. Pakseresht S, Khalili Sabet M, Vahedi
MA, Monfared A. Comparative study for
knowledge and attitudes of virtual and non-virtual
students towards E-learning. Research in Medical
Education. 2017;8(4):59-66.
4. Keegan D. The Future of Learning: From
eLearning to mLearning. AVAILABLE FROM:
FernUniversitat, ZIFF, Postfach 940, D58084
Hagen,Germany. Fax: 49 2331 880637; Web site:
http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF. 2002.
6. Saberi A, Kazempour E, Porkar A. Feasibility of
Utilizing Virtual Education from the viewpoints of
Professors,Students and Information technology
Staff (IT) in Guilan University of Medical
Sciences. RME. 2018;10(1):21-9 URL:
http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-559-fa.html.
7. Babazade Kamangar M, Jahanian I, Gholinai H,
AbbasZadeh H. A Preliminary Study of the Effect
of Mobile-Based Education on Dental Students'
Learning in Practical Course of Oral Pathology.
The Horizon of Medical Education Development.
2018;9(22):21-6.
8. hourcheh B, Heydari M, Moosivand M,
Bashirian S, Farahani F, Masoomi M, et al.
Investigate and Compare the Effect of In-person
and Teacher-centered Education with Virtual
Education in Learning the History of Islamic
Culture and Civilization Course of Hamadan
Medical Sciences Students. Pajouhan Scientific
Journal. 2020;18(2):97-106. URL:
http://psj.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-535-fa.html.
9. Lucey CR, Johnston SC. The Transformational
Effects of COVID-19 on Medical Education.
JAMA. 2020;324(11):1033-4. .
10. Rezaei AM. Student learning evaluation during
the Corona: Challenges and Strategies. Educational
Psychology. 2020;16(55):179-214.
11. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-
Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning,
teaching and assessment. Medical teacher.
2008;30(5):455-73.
12. Knipfer C, Wagner F, Knipfer K, Millesi G,
Acero J, Hueto J, et al. Learners’ acceptance of a
webinar for continuing medical education.
International journal of oral and maxillofacial
surgery. 2019;48(6):841-6.
13. Mirzazadeh A, Aminian M, Alizadeh M,
Sahebozamani E, Sabzi Aliabadi S. Factors
Affecting Class Absenteeism: Perspective of
Medical Students and Faculty Members at Tehran
University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of
Medical Education. 2018;18(0):243-56.
14. Aubusson P, Schuck S, Burden K. Mobile
learning for teacher professional learning: benefits,
obstacles and issues. ALT-J. 2009;17(3):233-47.
15. Seppälä P, Alamäki H. Mobile learning in
teacher training. Journal of computer assisted
learning. 2003;19(3):330-5.
16. Masters K, Ng'ambi D. After the broadcast:
disrupting health sciences ‘students' lives with
SMS. IN Proceedings of IADIS International
Conference Mobile Learning Lisbon, Portugal 5-7
July 2007. p. 171-5.
17Baker JP, Goodboy AK, Bowman ND, Wright
AA. Does teaching with PowerPoint increase
students' learning? A meta-analysis. Computers &
Education. 2018;126:376-87.
18. Kinchin IM, Chadha D, Kokotailo P. Using
PowerPoint as a lens to focus on linearity in
teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education.
2008;32(4):333-46.
19. Priya MM. PowerPoint use in teaching,
available on:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cd3/2bb92824d6
0d207d24e3ff442589b1f4ef98.pdf. 2017.
20. Nourian A, Nourian A, Ebnahmadi A,
Akbarzadeh Baghban A, Khoshnevisan MH.
Comparison of E-learning and traditional
classroom instruction of dental public health for
dental students of shahid beheshti dental school
during 2010-201.1. Journal of Dental School
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science.
2012;30(3):174-83.
21. Mohammadzadeh N, Vaezi G, Ramezani Z,
Rezaei MJ, Moradi G, Roshani D. Defined under
the factors related to the effectiveness of teaching
according to comments of Medical Sciences
Students of Kurdistan University in 2013-2014.
Zanko Journal of Medical Sciences.
2014;15(45):67-75.
22. Classer W. Managing for quality in the schools.
In: Palmatier L, editor. Crisis Counseling for a
Quality School: A Family Perspective aplyiing Wm
Glassers choice theory London: Taylor & Francise
2013. p. 3-25
Horizon of Medical Education Development
Volume 12, Issue 1
January 2021
Pages 91-73
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics