19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Online anatomy team‐based learning using blackboard collaborate platform during COVID‐19 pandemic

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          During the COVID‐19 pandemic, many educational institutions followed the blended learning system. Using the participants' opinions, we evaluated the Blackboard (Bb) collaborate platform for online team‐based learning (TBL) sessions for undergraduate students from different medical programs in the KSA. The participants were students on the MBBS Program (157 year two and 149 year three), together with 53 students in year one of the Nursing Program, 25 in year two of the Doctor of Pharmacy Program, and 11 in year two of the Medical Laboratory Sciences Program in Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences, (FCMS) KSA. To assess students' recall, engagement, and satisfaction with the sessions, an online TBL plan was designed and reviewed by the Medical Education Department. The students completed an online survey at the end of each session. All responses in this study showed a statistically significant positive difference from the neutral mid‐point response ( p < 0.05), reflecting high satisfaction. In the MBBS Program, the survey was completed by 40 students in year two and 76 in year three. The mean responses were 4.1 ± 0.3 and 3.9 ± 0.2 respectively (mean ± SD). In the BSN Program, 19 students completed the survey. The mean response was 4.6 ± 0.2. In the Pharm D Program, 10 students completed the survey. The mean response was 4.9 ± 0.12. In the MLS Program, eight students completed the survey. The mean response was 4.8 ± 0.12. It was concluded that online TBL using Bb collaborate is a successful anatomy‐learning tool among FCMS students on different programs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65.

            Team-based learning™ (TBL) is an instructional strategy developed in the business school environment in the early 1990s by Dr Michaelsen who wanted the benefits of small group learning within large classes. In 2001, a US federal granting agency awarded funds for educators in the health sciences to learn about and implement the strategy in their educational programs; TBL was put forward as one such strategy and as a result it is used in over 60 US and international health science professional schools. TBL is very different from problem-based learning (PBL) and other small group approaches in that there is no need for multiple faculty or rooms, students must come prepared to sessions, and individual and small groups of students (teams) are highly accountable for their contributions to team productivity. The instructor must be a content-expert, but need not have any experience or expertise in group process to conduct a successful TBL session. Students do not need any specific instruction in teamwork since they learn how to be collaborative and productive in the process. TBL can replace or complement a lecture-based course or curriculum.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

              Background Blended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning, has grown rapidly and is now widely used in education. Concerns about the effectiveness of blended learning have led to an increasing number of studies on this topic. However, there has yet to be a quantitative synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge acquisition in health professions. Objective We aimed to assess the effectiveness of blended learning for health professional learners compared with no intervention and with nonblended learning. We also aimed to explore factors that could explain differences in learning effects across study designs, participants, country socioeconomic status, intervention durations, randomization, and quality score for each of these questions. Methods We conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment). Results We identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I2 ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes. Conclusions Blended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dr_ahmed_farid@yahoo.com , afalneklawy@fcms.edu.sa
                Journal
                Clin Anat
                Clin Anat
                10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2353
                CA
                Clinical Anatomy (New York, N.y.)
                John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )
                0897-3806
                1098-2353
                12 October 2021
                January 2022
                12 October 2021
                : 35
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/ca.v35.1 )
                : 87-93
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University Cairo Egypt
                [ 2 ] Department of Physiological Sciences Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences Jeddah Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
                [ 3 ] Medical Education Department Suez Canal University Ismailia Egypt
                [ 4 ] Medical Education Department Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences Jeddah Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Ahmed Farid Al‐Neklawy, Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

                Department of Physiological Sciences, Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

                Email: dr_ahmed_farid@ 123456yahoo.com ; afalneklawy@ 123456fcms.edu.sa

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-9612
                Article
                CA23797
                10.1002/ca.23797
                8653201
                34609024
                4384598c-d956-42f5-8235-67a04240c503
                © 2021 American Association of Clinical Anatomists.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 20 September 2021
                : 15 July 2021
                : 02 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Pages: 7, Words: 4040
                Categories
                Original Communication
                Original Communications
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:08.12.2021

                Anatomy & Physiology
                blackboard collaborate,blended learning,covid‐19,medical education,online tbl

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content168

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors127