The First Dive into the Ocean of Non-Face-to-Face Learning

Main Article Content

Ashfaq Akram Saeed Ahmed Sheikh Maher D. Fuad Qamar Aziz Asif Ahmed

Abstract

Introduction


Students’ self-learning time that takes place outside of the classroom is an unmeasured learning time. In medical education, students’ learning in the presence and the absence of a teacher are ‘Face-to-Face’ (F2F) and ‘Non-Face-to-Face’ (NF2F) learning, respectively. Traditionally, the content of a topic delivered by a teacher in a one-hour lecture is recognized as F2F learning time. However, its mirror NF2F learning time that is students’ self-learning remains unknown. The objective of this study was to reckon the NF2F learning time for pharmacology topics taught by F2F one-hour lecture method.


Methods


In a cross-over study, following convenience sampling, two cohorts of undergraduate medical students (N=200) were randomly divided into two equal subgroups; group I and group II. For data purposes, novice and expert faculty categorized based on their teaching experience taught two pharmacology topics (Aminoglycosides drugs and Estrogen drugs) by lecture method.  Respondents gave their perceived NF2F (self-learning) time on a Five-point Likert scale. The association of teaching experience and NF2F learning time of students was observed by applying the chi-square test.


Results


For contents delivered in a one-hour lecture, the NF2F learning time by most students was ≥ 3 hours. There was a significant statistical association between students NF2F learning time and teachers’ experience for ‘Aminoglycosides drugs’ [X2, 95% CI: 4.985, 2.062 (1.087, 3.193), p 0.026]. It was noted that the NF2F learning time had no association with gender (P> 0.05).


Conclusion


Mostly, the required NF2F learning time is more than double the time of F2F time. The implication of this study suggests that the estimation of students’ NF2F learning time may likely be estimated for other topics of pharmacology in a controlled manner. 

Keywords: Experienced faculty, Face-to-Face Teaching, Pharmacology, Self-Learning, Teaching experience, Undergraduate medical students

Article Details

How to Cite
AKRAM, Ashfaq et al. The First Dive into the Ocean of Non-Face-to-Face Learning. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 8, aug. 2021. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2473>. Date accessed: 31 jan. 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v9i8.2473.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Louise C D, Johanne M H, Ellen L F, Anna B A, Janine M T. Mandatory medication content in the curricula of six health care personnel types with patient contact in Denmark. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019; 124 (4): 431-438. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.13147
2. Hughes G J, Lee R, Sideras V. Design, and delivery of clinical pharmacokinetics in colleges and school of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ.2018; 82, 6430. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6430
3. Bhosale UA, Yegnanarayan R, Yadav GE. Attitude perception and feedback of second -year medical students on teaching-learning methodology and evaluation method in pharmacology: a questionnaire-based study. Niger Med J.2013; 54: 33. doi: 10.4103/0300-1652.108891.
4. Akram A. Non-face-to-face student learning time: an ocean in medical education. Pak J Med Sci. 2019; 35: 589-590. doi: 10.12669/pjms.35.3.935.
5. European Commission. European credit transfer and accumulation system (ECTS). May 25, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources/european-credit-transfer-accumulation-system_en
6. Malaysian Qualification Agency. www.mqa.gov.my (visited May 20, 2020)
7. James L B, Martha A H, Inshik S. The effects of the 150-credit -hour requirement for the certified public accountant (CPA) exam on the career intentions of women and minorities. J Educ Buss.2005; 81: 99-104.
8. David B, Whitney T, Donald P S, Einar M. Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. J Learning Disabilities. 2007; 40;(3): 226-243.
9. Oxford learning: studying -alone -vs- studying -Benefits of group study vs self-study: www.oxfordlearning.com (visited May 17, 2020)
10. Martin GT, Kulamakan MK, Charlotte V R. Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when, and for whom. Med Educ.2016; 50(1): 69-78.
11. Juha N, Pekka S, Kirsti L. On the relationship between group functioning and study success in problem -based learning. Med Educ. 2006; 40(1): 64-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02344. x.
12. Badyal D K, Bala S, Kathuria P. Student evaluation of teaching and assessment methods in Pharmacology. Ind J Pharmacol. 2010; 42: 87-89. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.64502.
13. Louis D, Logan SM, Kelly M, Kristina C, Greg K. Measuring actual learning versus the feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2019; 116: 19251-19257. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116
14. OECD. 2005. Learning a living first results of the adult literacy and life skills survey. Statistic, Canada
15. Juliane E K, Wolf E H, Maren M. Self-monitoring accuracy does not increase throughout undergraduate medical education. Med Educ. 2020, 54 (4): 320-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14057
16. Adeolu M, Chichun S, Max Lowden. Enhancing engagement during live virtual learning using interactive quizzes. Med Educ. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14253
17. Stes A, De Maeyer S, Gijbels D, Van Petegem P. Instructional development for teachers in higher education: effects on students’ perception of the teaching-learning environment. Br J Educ Psychol. 2012 82: 398-419. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011. 02032.x
18. Mahfoudh A M A, Redhwan A N. Students’ perception about learning pharmacology at a single private institute in Malaysia. J Taibah Uni Med Sci. 2015; 10: 40-44.
19. Lalit M, Bharti C, Shalini A, Smita S, Bairy KL, Anoop K. Undergraduate medical students’ perception regarding personal drug selection exercise. Int J Pharm Clin Sci. 2012; 1: 61-67