Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing Best Practices for Effective Online Learning Modules: a Single Institution Study

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To reduce lecture hours, medical schools turned to online teaching modalities to re-engage students and reduce cognitive overload and burnout. Importantly, developing effective online learning modules expands the teaching product toolbox and enhances schedule flexibility. Various authorship tools are available, but there is a significant need for faculty development to successfully build these novel resources. We performed this study to establish best practices for creating effective online learning modules. Our mixed-methods survey generated data on student perceptions for overall effectiveness of 19 online learning modules employed in a single course of the first year medical curriculum. These surveys also obtained data on additional parameters to assess their impact on overall effectiveness. Our data revealed that transitioning content from a lecture format to an interactive online exercise can be challenging because online instructors no longer have a real-time presence to assess and redirect learning on an ad hoc basis. Thus, the manner in which an online module is organized, clarity of provided written information, and helpfulness of figures all correlated strongly with student perceptions of overall effectiveness of an online module. In contrast, formative feedback and brief audio/visual lecture capture clips, while viewed very positively by students, appeared more as independent variables correlating less well with overall effectiveness. These data will help guide faculty development as medical education transitions from traditional lectures to an increasing number of online learning resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zinski A, Blackwell K, Belue FM, Brooks WS. Is lecture dead? A preliminary study of medical students’ evaluation of teaching methods in the preclinical curriculum. Int J Med Educ. 2017;8:326–33. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.59b9.5f40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Drake RL. A retrospective and prospective look at medical education in the United States: trends shaping anatomical sciences education. J Anat. 2014;224(3):256–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(23):8410–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Prunuske AJ, Batzli J, Howell E, Miller S. Using online lectures to make time for active learning. Genetics. 2012;192(1):67–72; quiz 1Sl-3SL. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.141754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McFarlin BK. Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32(1):86–91. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00066.2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Celik S. Development of usability criteria for e-learning content development software. Turkish Online J Dist Educ. 2012;13(2):336–45.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hill M, Sharma MD, Johnston H. How online learning modules can improve the representational fluency and conceptual understanding of university physics students. Eur J Phys. 2015;36(4).

  8. Kharb P, Samanta PP, Jindal M, Singh V. The learning styles and the preferred teaching-learning strategies of first year medical students. J Clin Diagn Res: JCDR. 2013;7(6):1089–92. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2013/5809.3090.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, et al. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med. 2014;89(2):236–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider J, Munro I, Krishnan S. Flipping the Classroom for Pharmacokinetics. Am J Educ Res. 2014;2(12):1225–9. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-12-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Limpach AL, Bazrafshan P, Turner PD, Monaghan MS. Effectiveness of human anatomy education for pharmacy students via the Internet. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(6):145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hale LS, Mirakian EA, Day DB. Online vs classroom instruction: student satisfaction and learning outcomes in an undergraduate allied health pharmacology course. J Allied Health. 2009;38(2):e36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Newman A, Gillis J. Strategies in undergraduate medical education: web-based self-directed learning in genetics 2013. 2013.

  14. Miller CJ, Aiken SA, Metz MJ. Perceptions of D.M.D. student readiness for basic science courses in the United States: can online review modules help? Eur J Dent Educ. 2015;19(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coffman AG Grant, Jordan, Matthew; Marden, Erica; Pan, Xiaofan; Willis, Cornelia; Xue, Emily; Richardson, Martha; and Pendlebury, William. Creating an online CME module: early detection and diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Public Health Projects (2008-present). 2014.

  16. Munson CE. Assessment of the efficacy of blended learning in an introductory pharmacy class [dissertation]. University of Kansas: University of Kansas; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ilic D, Nordin RB, Glasziou P, Tilson JK, Villanueva E. A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching evidence-based medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang F, Hu R, Li Y, Yan W. The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1):e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cleveland LM, Carmona EV, Paper B, Solis L, Taylor B. Baby boy Jones interactive case-based learning activity: a web-delivered teaching strategy. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(4):179–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buxton EC. Pharmacists’ perception of synchronous versus asynchronous distance learning for continuing education programs. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(1):8. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carver L, Todd C. Student perception of content master and engagement in using an e-authoring tool. High Learn Res Commun. 2013;3(3):64–73. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v3i3.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dyrbye L, Cumyn A, Day H, Heflin M. A qualitative study of physicians’ experiences with online learning in a masters degree program: benefits, challenges, and proposed solutions. Med Teach. 2009;31(2):e40–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802366129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Head BA, Schapmire T, Hermann C, Earnshaw L, Faul A, Jones C, et al. The interdisciplinary curriculum for oncology palliative care education (iCOPE): meeting the challenge of interprofessional education. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(10):1107–14. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2014.0070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pickering JD, Henningsohn L, DeRuiter MC, de Jong PGM, Reinders MEJ. Twelve tips for developing and delivering a massive open online course in medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39(7):691–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1322189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zoumenou V, Sigman-Grant M, Coleman G, Malekian F, Zee JMK, Fountain BJ, et al. Identifying best practices for an interactive webinar. J Fam Consum Sci. 2015;107(2):62–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Abela J. Adult learning theories and medical education: a review. Malta Med J. 2009;21(01):11–8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Broadbent J, Poon WL. Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: a systematic review. Internet High Educ. 2015;27:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bennett LA. The potential and uniqueness of virtual environments for education. New Horiz Adult Educ Human Resour Dev. 2008;22:53–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.10317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Team RC. R: a language and environment for stastistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016. https://www.R-project.org

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol. 2006;41(2):75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mania K, Chalmers A. The effects of levels of immersion on memory and presence in virtual environments: a reality centered approach. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2001;4(2):247–264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117938.

  32. Dunlap JC, Sobel D, Sands DI. Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions. TechTrends. 2007;51(4):20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Merrienboer JJ, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Klatt EC, Klatt CA. How much is too much reading for medical students? Assigned reading and reading rates at one medical school. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1079–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822579fc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald PL, Lyons LB, Straker HO, Barnett JS, Schlumpf KS, Cotton L, et al. Educational mixology: a pedagogical approach to promoting adoption of technology to support new learning models in health science disciplines. Online Learn. 2014;18(4):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Laksov KB, McGrath C, Josephson A. Let’s talk about integration: a study of students’ understandings of integration. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2014;19:709–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9499-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sadler DR. Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education. 1998;5(1):77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Phillips JA, Schumacher C, Arif S. Time spent, workload, and student and faculty perceptions in a blended learning environment. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016;80(6):102. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe806102.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hunter TS, Deziel-Evans L, Marsh WA. Assuring excellence in distance pharmaceutical education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67(3):519–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Decelle G. Andragogy: a fundamental principle of online education for nursing. J Best Pract Health Prof Divers. 2016;9(2):1263–73.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Spring K. “Takin’ it to the web”: updating operations manuals for today’s techno-realities. J Interlibrary Loan Doc Deliv Electron Reserv. 2012;22(1):33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2012.682642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Paul Klein for his assistance in survey data collection; Ann Shaw, Susan Sawning, Emily Carr, Laura Weingartner, and the UME Medical Education Research Unit staff for providing substantial research support; Cynthia Metz, Jennifer Brueckner-Collins, Ronald Gregg, and Robert Eli Brainard for their insightful discussions; the University of Louisville Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning; the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics; the University of Louisville Institutional Review Board; and the University of Louisville School of Medicine for their support and participation in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    C. A. Cobb, C. T. Watson & S. R. Ellis

  2. Department of Undergraduate Medical Education Office, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    S. R. Ellis

Authors
  1. C. A. Cobb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. T. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. R. Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. R. Ellis.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 298 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 145 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 29 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 68 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cobb, C.A., Watson, C.T. & Ellis, S.R. Establishing Best Practices for Effective Online Learning Modules: a Single Institution Study. Med.Sci.Educ. 28, 683–691 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0613-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0613-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation