Teacher Satisfaction with Active Learning Methods: A Comparison between Emergency Remote Teaching During COVID-19 and Pre-Pandemic Face-to-Face Classes in Latin America

Verónica Encina*, María Teresa Solís-Soto*¹,², Marie Astrid Garrido¹,³, María Fernanda Bauleo¹, Sonia Raboni⁴, Claudia Meneses⁵, Katja Radon¹

1. Center for International Health @ Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU Hospital, Ziemssenstr. 5, 80336 Munich, Germany
2. One Health – Training and Research Global Network (OH-TARGET) Competence Center, Universidad San Francisco Xavier, Rosendo Villa 150, Sucre, Bolivia
3. Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Aysén, Eusebio Lillo 667, Coyhaique, Chile
4. Programa de Pós-graduação em Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua Padre Camargo 280, 7º Andar, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
5. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia, Escuela de Química Farmacéutica, Departamento de Toxicología, Centro SOA SALTRA, Guatemala

Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

OPEN ACCESS

PUBLISHED 31 August 2025

CITATION Encina, V., Solís-Soto, MT., et al., 2025. Teacher Satisfaction with Active Learning Methods: A Comparison between Emergency Remote Teaching During COVID-19 and Pre-Pandemic Face-to-Face Classes in Latin America. Medical Research Archives, [online] 13(8). https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i8.6817

COPYRIGHT: © 2025 European Society of Medicine. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i8.6817

 ISSN 2375-1924

ABSTRACT

Background: Online education has been implemented in various higher education contexts for several years, enabling increased access to education. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the education system at multiple levels, and higher education was compelled to implement an “emergency remote teaching” (ERT) format, enabling it to address the health crisis promptly. However, few studies in Latin America have compared the results of courses implemented in both modalities (online and face-to-face).

Objective: Analyze the satisfaction of a teacher training course on active learning methods for university instructors in Latin America, implemented online in the context of ERT during 2020-2022, compared to the course implemented face-to-face during 2018 and 2019.

Methods: For this, instructors from the Universidad San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC), Universidad San Francisco Xavier de Chuquisaca, Bolivia (USFX), and Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil (UFPR) were invited to participate in a course on “Educational Interventions” adapted to the virtual environment. The face-to-face courses were performed in Lima, Peru, and San José, Costa Rica, with instructors from different universities in Latin America. The evaluation utilized a 5-point Likert-based questionnaire that assessed satisfaction in accordance with the Kirkpatrick model.

Results: A total of 121 surveys were collected (83 from the online course and 38 from the face-to-face courses). Participants resided in 9 countries (Argentina, Germany, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Peru, and Mexico) and represented various disciplines, including Biology, Medicine, and Engineering. Online course participants reported a significantly higher age than in-person course participants (p = 0.008). All respondents would recommend the course to their colleagues, and the average course rating was 9.28 out of 10. Overall, a good level of satisfaction was reported in both formats. Technological resources were better valued in the online course, whereas tutor support was more valued in the in-person format.

Conclusion: The results highlight the potential of online education based on active learning methods, particularly during crises, to enhance access while maintaining educational quality, leveraging the technological resources currently available.

Keywords

• Active Learning
• Emergency Remote Teaching
• Teacher Satisfaction
• Higher Education
• Latin America

Introduction

Active learning is a key component of healthcare training, where the student is considered the center of the teaching-learning process and is actively engaged in the content covered, thereby promoting their understanding and fostering meaningful learning. Active teaching methodologies have been reported as an effective strategy to facilitate the transition from theory to practice, providing a clear understanding of the objectives and skills to be achieved. It has been linked to enhanced memorization, increased self-confidence, greater empathy, and increased creativity. They also promote communication skills, critical thinking, and the ability to assess one’s own learning, allowing students to become aware of their limitations and needs.

In this context, it is essential to implement a teaching process that not only incorporates effective techniques but also relies on active methodologies organized to achieve the learning objectives. ARIPE model (AVIVA, from the German acronym) is a conceptual model that guides the structure of classes or educational interventions for effective active learning in face-to-face formats. Based on the logic of the meaningful constructivist process and considering the cognitive load of learning, this model follows five stages: 1) Adjust, to prepare the student to be open to new knowledge; 2) Reactivate previous knowledge; 3) Inform, to construct new knowledge; 4) Process, to consolidate knowledge; and 5) Evaluate the achievement of objectives and the process. It has been proven to be an effective learning methodology across various learner groups. The Center for International Health at Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (CIHLMU), an institute dedicated to promoting global health, research, and education within an international network, has, for several years, been implementing a face-to-face course aimed at promoting the design of educational interventions based on the ARIPE model and active teaching methods, under the “train-the-trainer” concept. This course has been applied in diverse educational, research, and community settings.

Emergency Remote Teaching

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a significant challenge to the educational system and its capacity to provide tools for distance education at various levels. These challenges included inflexible curricular designs, insufficient teacher training in the use of technology, inadequate infrastructure, limitations in software and hardware, and limited access to the internet. Higher education was pushed to implement a format of “emergency remote teaching” (ERT), recognized as virtual education delivered rapidly, with minimal curricular planning, and in crisis situations. Low- and Middle-income countries faced the most significant challenges regarding access to online tools, faculty training, and student engagement during the pandemic.

Globally, online education and its methodological tools have been implemented for several years in various contexts of higher education. The most commonly used formats are blended learning, which combines both online and face-to-face activities; fully online learning with tutor support; self-directed online learning by the student; and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). These formats have facilitated access to education for a larger number of students in different contexts. However, the integration of these various modalities of knowledge transfer, application, and skill development remains a subject of ongoing research within different theoretical frameworks. This scrutiny is essential for fostering continuous improvement in the teaching-learning ecosystem, particularly in anticipation of new challenges emerging in the educational landscape.

It has been highlighted that for effective online education at the higher education level, it is essential to consider the characteristics of adult education, particularly the importance of feedback and meaningful learning based on experience and practice. Additionally, alignment between objectives, methodology, and assessment is crucial. Furthermore, the support provided by various approaches, including interactive classes, student-centered learning, teamwork, debate, project development, and interprofessional learning, as well as the increasing availability of technological tools (ICTs) for educators, demonstrates positive pedagogical effects. Techniques such as storytelling, gamification, case-based learning (CBL), flipped classroom, and collaborative learning have been reported as effective.

The existing literature on the effectiveness of online educational interventions in higher education has generally reported positive outcomes across various learning contexts. However, the literature has also described certain obstacles to active learning methodologies, which need to be considered also in the online context, including the lack of preparation of the actors involved, both students and facilitators, linked to the lack of structural support, organization, and coordination of activities, which contributes to dissatisfaction.

In response to the needs of partner institutions in the CIHLMU networking arising from the COVID-19 crisis and the suspension of face-to-face classes, the course on educational interventions was adapted to a virtual format through an online teaching course designed to provide educators with basic tools to adjust their classes to the online environment during the pandemic emergency. The adaptation considered the urgent needs of educators and their limited prior training in the use of information and communication technologies prior to the closure. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore participant satisfaction in both courses, comparing the results between the face-to-face modality and the online format during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results will help improve future faculty training initiatives, especially in contexts where a rapid transition between different teaching modalities is required.

Methodology

CONTENT FACE TO FACE COURSE

The Educational Intervention course was offered in person from 2014 to 2019 to various groups of instructors and/or faculty members from partner institutions of CIHLMU. It was available in Spanish and English and lasted one week, requiring complete immersion from the participants. These interventions included a series of participatory learning tools designed based on the ARIPE model, with the final product being a lesson plan that applied the methods in a local context.

CONTENT ONLINE COURSE

The online course was developed within the CIHLMU network between 2020 and 2021 and continued as part of the network’s ongoing training offerings under the name “Train-trainers with E-learning Applications, Fostering Creativity and One Health Approach” (TEACH Course). Its purpose was to support educators and trainers from different disciplines in adapting the content of their face-to-face classes to an interactive virtual format. The course design was based on the structure of the ARIPE training model, utilizing teaching skills adapted to case-based learning (CBL). Asynchronous content delivered through the Learning Management System (LMS) Moodle platform and synchronous meetings were held in a collaborative interdisciplinary environment via Zoom® making international participation possible. The total duration of the course was 6 weeks, during which participants received support from a team of tutors experienced in methodology. The seven modules guide educators step by step in transforming their classes into an interactive virtual format.

In both courses, the main contents were maintained, however, in the online course, specific contents were included to address online education (e.g., cybersecurity, or online interactive methods).

Participants / users

For the Online Courses, educators from various disciplines were invited to participate from 2020 to 2022 (two courses in Spanish in 2020 and 2022, and two courses in Portuguese in 2021 and 2022). They were faculty from our partner universities, San Carlos University of Guatemala (USAC), San Francisco Xavier University of Chuquisaca, Bolivia (USFX), and Federal University of Paraná (UFPR). The selection and enrollment criteria for participants were adapted to local needs. The course was developed under the “train the trainers” approach, and the users were primarily educators and trainers at a higher education level. The purpose was to provide them with interactive methodological tools to support their daily classes.

The face-to-face courses primarily included participants from the fields of occupational health and primary health care; we used data collected during sessions held in Lima, Peru (2018) and San José, Costa Rica (2019).

Evaluation Instrument

For evaluation, we used a satisfaction questionnaire regarding the content, methodology, and potential applicability in local teaching contexts. This questionnaire was administered at the end of each course, in physical format for face-to-face classes and as an online survey within the Learning Management System (LMS) used for the virtual courses. The “perception” criterion, as described by Kirkpatrick, focuses on the level of satisfaction and reaction of participants regarding the content, instructor, and learning environment.

The instrument contained a total of 33 questions. Satisfaction (12) was explored using a 5-point Likert scale (1= Not at all satisfied to 5= Completely satisfied), which we dichotomized into two groups (1: not at all satisfied, somewhat satisfied, and satisfied; 2: quite satisfied and completely satisfied). Additionally, questions related to the overall course rating (1= poor rating to 10= very high rating) and recommendation of the course to colleagues (yes/no) were included.

Data Analysis

The surveys were digitized and exported in Excel format for subsequent analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics V.29. Absolute and relative frequencies were reported, with the Chi-square test used to compare percentages between the face-to-face and online education groups. For the overall course rating question, the mean and Standard Deviation were reported, and a T-test was calculated to compare the two groups. In all cases, a 95% significance level was considered, with an alpha error of 0.05.

Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in a completely anonymous and voluntary manner. Therefore, the ethical board of the Medical Faculty of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (Munich, Germany) waived the need for evaluation by the ethical Committee.

Results

A total of 118 participants completed the evaluation surveys, of which 84 corresponded to evaluations of the online courses and 34 to the face-to-face courses (Response face to face courses 100%; Online 50%). Participants resided in 9 different countries (Argentina, Germany, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Peru, Mexico) and came from various disciplines (Biology, Medicine, Engineering). Participants in online courses were statistically significantly older than those in face-to-face courses (p = 0.008). The gender distribution was equal between the two groups.

Regarding the course evaluation, all respondents would recommend the course to their colleagues. The average rating was 9.28 (on a scale of 1-10). Overall satisfaction was reported in both delivery formats, with certain aspects, such as the use of technological resources, rated higher in the online course. In the face-to-face format, participants reported greater satisfaction with the availability of tutors and the structure of the content. Generally, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated.

Discussion

This study evaluated two teaching formats — online and face-to-face — for active teaching methodologies to professionals from different disciplines in Latin America. High levels of satisfaction were reported, with no significant differences found in the evaluation of the two course modalities. The high level of satisfaction with the online course, the favorable rating, and the intention of participants to recommend it to their colleagues suggest that, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, it is possible to address the issue of Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) by providing interactive and applicable methodologies for higher education educators at the local level, taking into account the international and interdisciplinary context in which the courses were conducted.

Encouraging results have been observed when comparing the effectiveness of training and the achievement of learning objectives with similar content in both online and face-to-face delivery modalities, which supports the findings of our study. In a recent systematic review, similar learning outcomes regarding the acquisition of clinical practical skills were observed between courses implemented in an online format and those taught in face-to-face classes. However, online education appears to face significant challenges in the realm of practical learning in certain specific disciplines that require manual skills or dexterity, such as those in the medical sciences or engineering. From the students’ perspective, other studies reported as the main challenges for online education those related to time management, lack of support for online activities, and limited human interaction; while for educators, the lack of infrastructure and technical support, lack of formal training in the use of technological tools (ICT), and difficulties in assessing students are identified as significant obstacles. In this sense, it is crucial to implement practical methodologies that promote active learning, with a constructivist approach connecting with real-life experiences, as the ARIPE model suggests. In our study, it seems that the selected model and active methods, the ICT options presented, and the mixed approach (utilizing both asynchronous content and synchronous meetings) were perceived as helpful in implementing the course, thereby overcoming some of the challenges mentioned earlier.

Currently, online education is very common, facilitating access to education and showing flexibility to accommodate work and personal responsibilities. In this sense, and in agreement with previous experiences with higher education faculty, it is necessary to provide them with tools that can handle both synchronous instruction and asynchronous content, as well as conduct assessments that meet curricular objectives. On the other hand, it is also essential to consider the potential impact on mental health, especially in a health crisis situation.

Despite the widespread use of online education, several key elements must still be considered for the optimal implementation of online courses. It includes the institutional support, access to quality internet services and software, having the appropriate electronic devices, and the existence of a support plan to face the challenges of ERT. In addition, it is essential the adaptability and flexibility of educators when transforming their classes. In our study, most of the participants in the online course were between 41 and 60 years old, who expressed a high interest to learn interactive teaching tools in a virtual format. This interest may be due to the demanding challenges of ERT during the pandemic and the need for educators in this higher age group to incorporate interactive online methodologies. Our study has some limitations. It was not possible to adjust the results for other variables that may have affected perceived satisfaction, such as participants’ prior training. Furthermore, we did not conduct a more exhaustive evaluation of the learning of specific content and the complementarity of a qualitative assessment, which should be considered for future studies to explore the effectiveness of both course formats. On the other hand, it is important to recognize that the results obtained from online course participants may not be representative of all participants enrolled in the online course. A high percentage of participants didn’t complete the online course, and only 50% finished the final evaluation form. Although the online course competition rate was high compared to other massive open online competition rates (average 13%), it is possible that those with the highest levels of satisfaction may have been more likely to complete the evaluation, potentially overestimating the satisfaction of this group.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study’s results did not reveal significant differences in perceived satisfaction between courses delivered in online and face-to-face formats, both of which utilized active learning methods. This finding underscores the feasibility of promoting online education, particularly in crisis contexts, where maintaining high educational quality standards is crucial. Online learning platforms offer the advantage of facilitating access to education in remote areas, thereby promoting universal and equitable access to knowledge, regardless of the student’s location. Although discussion about online education is not a new topic, the pandemic has accelerated its adoption and development. It is now imperative that we focus on refining the interactive methodology for both face-to-face and online courses, so that access to knowledge can overcome geographical barriers and significantly contribute to the improvement of quality of life for many people.

References

1. Torralba KD, Doo L. Active learning strategies to improve progression from knowledge to action. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2020;46(1):1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2019.09.001
2. Ghezzi JFSA, Higa EFR, Lemes MA, Marin MJS. Strategies of active learning methodologies in nursing education: an integrative literature review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(1):e20200130. doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0130
3. Städeli C, Grassi A, Rhiner K, Obrist W. Kompetenzorientiertunterrichten – Das AVIVA®-Modell, FünfPhasengutenUnterrichts. 2020.
4. Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36(5):371-384. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290
5. Beege B, Eichhorn M, Tillmann A, et al. Enhancing collaboration and digital teaching competencies in higher education: the KoKoN Project. eleed. 2023;15(2)
6. Garrido MA, Encina V, Solis-Soto MT, et al. Courses on basic occupational safety and health: a train-the-trainer educational program for rural areas of Latin America. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6). doi:10.3390/ijerph17061842
7. Lucchini RG, McDiarmid M, Van der Laan G, et al. Education and training: key factors in global occupational and environmental health. Ann Glob Health. 2018;84(3):436-441. doi:10.29024/aogh.2328
8. Connolly N, Abdalla ME. Impact of COVID-19 on medical education in different income countries: a scoping review of the literature. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2040192. doi:10.1080/10872981.2022.2040192
9. Hodges CM, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond A. The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. 2020.
10. Iglesias-Pradas S, Hernández-García A, Chaparro-Peláez J, Prieto JL. Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Comput Human Behav.2021;119:106713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713
11. Shraga-Roitman Y, Hellwing A, Almog N, Goffer A. The adjustment to emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 global crisis among diverse students in higher education. Intercultural Education. 2022/07/04 2022;33(4):367-379. doi:10.1080/14675986.2022.2090685
12. Hayat AA, Keshavarzi MH, Zare S, et al. Challenges and opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic in medical education: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):247. doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02682-z
13. Hofer SI, Nistor N, Scheibenzuber C. Online teaching and learning in higher education: lessons learned in crisis situations. Comput Human Behav. 2021;121:106789. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106789
14. Chen BY, Kern DE, Kearns RM, Thomas PA, Hughes MT, Tackett S. From Modules to MOOCs: application of the six-step approach to online curriculum development for medical education. Acad Med. 2019;94(5):678-685. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002580
15. El-Sakran A, Salman R, Alzaatreh A. Impacts of emergency remote teaching on college students amid COVID-19 in the UAE. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(5):2979. doi:10.3390/ijerph19052979
16. Bozkurt A, Sharma RC. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coronavirus pandemic. AsianJDE. 2020;15(1):i-vi. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
17. Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561-e1572. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153
18. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e288-e299. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
19. Walker P. Book review: John Biggs 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd edn.). Buckingham: The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press. High Educ. 2005;49(4):535-537. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-7092-z
20. Lim J, Ko H, Park J, Ihm J. Effect of active learning and online discussions on the academic performances of dental students. BMC Med Educ. Apr 25 2022;22(1):312. doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03377-9
21. Lewis K, Bismilla Z, Kuzma N, O’Toole J, Calaman S. Twelve tips for teaching with virtual learning Platforms [version 1]. MedEdPublish. 2021;10:72. doi: https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2021.000072.1
22. Kallunki V, Katajavuori N, Kinnunen P, et al. Comparison of voluntary and forced digital leaps in higher education – Teachers’ experiences of the added value of using digital tools in teaching and learning. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). Jan 19 2023:1-26. doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11559-7
23. Bonilla Torres CA, Gómez Contreras JL, Esteban Ojeda YC. Estrategias didácticas y pedagógicas, modelos pedagógicos y herramientas tecnológicas en educación superior mediada por TIC. Sophia. 2023;19(1):8. doi:10.18634/sophiaj.19v.1i.1173
24. Berndt A, Murray CM, Kennedy K, Stanley MJ, Gilbert-Hunt S. Effectiveness of distance learning strategies for continuing professional development (CPD) for rural allied health practitioners: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):117. doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0949-5
25. Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos V, Matarranz M, Casado-Aranda L-A, Otto A. Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: a systematic literature review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2022;19(1):8. doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8
26. Kirkpatrick D. Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training & Development. 1996;50(1):54.
27. Harwood KJ, McDonald PL, Butler JT, Drago D, Schlumpf KS. Comparing student outcomes in traditional vs intensive, online graduate programs in health professional education. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):240. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1343-7
28. McCutcheon K, Lohan M, Traynor M, Martin D. A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(2):255-270. doi:10.1111/jan.12509
29. Benis A, Amador Nelke S, Winokur M, Uckelmann D. Training the next industrial engineers and managers about industry 4.0: a case study about challenges and opportunities in the COVID-19 era. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(9):2905-2905. doi:10.3390/s21092905
30. Wilhelm J, Mattingly S, Gonzalez VH. Perceptions, satisfactions, and performance of undergraduate students during Covid-19 emergency remote teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(1):42-56. doi:10.1002/ase.2161
31. Celik I, Gedrimiene E, Silvola A, Muukkonen H. Response of learning analytics to the online education challenges during pandemic: opportunities and key examples in higher education. Policy Futur Educ. 2023;21(4):387-404. doi:10.1177/14782103221078401
32. Viola S, Saeki E, Hendricker E. Distance education in graduate training programs: lessons learned from school psychology students. J Educ Online. 2019;16(2). doi:10.9743/JEO.2019.12.2.12
33. Silva S, Fernandes J, Peres P, Lima V, Silva C. Teachers’ perceptions of remote learning during the pandemic: a case study. Educ Sci. 2022;12(10):698. doi:10.3390/educsci12100698
34. Bocanegra JO, Gallup J, Hou M, et al. COVID-19, mental health, technology use, and job satisfaction among school psychology trainers. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2023;2:1-12. doi:10.1007/s40688-023-00449-5
35. Delgaty L. Twelve tips for academic role and institutional change in distance learning. Med Teach. 2015;37(1):41-46. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.932900
36. Peimani N, Kamalipour H. Online education and the COVID-19 outbreak: a case study of online teaching during lockdown. Educ Sci. 2021;11(2):72. doi:10.3390/educsci11020072
37. Nicolini AP, Celestino FS, Franciozi C, Andreoli CV, Mansur NSB. Changes in the methodology of medical teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2023;21:eAO0101. doi:10.31744/einstein_journal/2023AO0101
38. Jordan K. Massive open online course completion rates revisited: assessment, length and attrition. Int Rev Res Open Dis. 2015;16(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112