Effect of the Blended Workshop Learning and Web-Based Learning Order and Sequence on the Interest Level: (Spiritual Effectiveness) Factor Analysis
Abstract
The well-known blended electronic learning system has been seen so far from the point of view of comparison with other e-learning, but not much research has been done about educational planning, in terms of students' interest in how to organize the combined face-to-face and non-face-to-face implementation of this type of educational method. The present study is an assessment with the aim of comparing the effect of the combined implementation sequence of two methods of blended web-based and workshop learning on the level of interest of students who are members of the research committee of Arak University of Medical Sciences to participate in the Vital Statistics course. This is a quasi-experimental study with an alternative treatment design. The statistical population, who were selected through census sampling due to limited numbers, included 38 students of the Faculty of Medicine and 15 students of the Faculty of Health. The data collection tool included two questionnaires of demographic characteristics and an interesting questionnaire. The validity of the interest questionnaire was assessed through content validity and factor analysis, and its reliability was by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The data were analyzed in SPSS-16 through independent t-tests, Keyser's index, Bartlett's test, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The results showed a statistical difference between interest in the first group (A: Workshop/Web-based) and the second group (B: Web-based/Workshop) in blended learning: In the medical faculty (P=0.043), in the health faculty (P=0.051) and the total of two faculties (P=0.004). Given the statistical difference observed in conditions (Comparison of groups in each faculty independently and comparison of groups in total of two faculties), we suggest holding Workshop (in-person) courses at first and online courses then.
2. Twomey A. Web-based teaching in nursing: lessons from the literature. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24:452-8.
3. Alvarez Jr AV. Learning from the problems and challenges in blended learning: Basis for faculty development and program enhancement. Asian J Distance Educ 2020;15:112-32.
4. Smith K, Hill J. Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. High Educ Res Dev 2019;38:383-97.
5. Jafar S, Mohammad M, Authors a group of, Ali Akbar D. Dehkhoda Dictionary [Internet]. Vol. 1, Dehkhoda Dictionary. Rozane; 1373. (Accessed 2024, at https://noorlib.ir/book/view/20629.)
6. Dewey J. Interest and effort in education. Forgotten Books 1913:16.
7. Insorio AO. Building awareness, interest, and readiness towards college course through work immersion. Mediterranean J Soc Behav Res 2023;7:65-74.
8. Baglien VG. Implementation of blended instruction: a case study of secondary family ans consumer sciences. [dissertation]. United States: Iowa state university; 2009.
9. EL Mansour B, Mupinga DM. Student positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. Coll Student J 2007:73:300-6.
10. Garrison DR, Vaughan ND. Blended learning in Higher education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. san Francisco (ca): Jossey-bass; 2008.
11. Zolfaghari M, Sarmadi M, Negarandeh R, Zandi B, Ahmadi F. Attitudes of Nursing and Midwifery School's Faculty toward Blended E-learning at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Hayat 2009;15:31-9.
12. Sarmento R, Costa V. Comparative approaches to using R and Python for statistical data analysis. Applied Statistics for Environmental Science with R: IGI Global; 2017:189-205.
13. Shuttleworth M. Counterbalanced Measures Design. Counterbalancing Test Groups, 2009 (Accessed Jan 24, 2015 at: https://explorable.com/counterbalanced-measures-design.)
14. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor Analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ 2020;11:245-7.
15. Sirkin RM. Statistics for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage; 2006: 252.
16. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. United States: Harcourt brace Jovanovich college publishers; 1993.
17. Yussoff NM, Nayan SM. Review on Customer Satisfaction. J Undergrad Soc Sci Technol 2020;2:1-6.
18. Suadiyatno T, Bagis AK, Scientific J. BLENDED LEARNING: ITS EFFECT ON STUDENTS’LEARNING MOTIVATION LEVEL. J Sci Mandalika 2023;4:136-40.
19. Sofna A, Sakinah Y, Pentang JT. Analysis of Student Learning Interest In Physics Subject In Force Material. Int J Educ Teach Zone 2023;2:1-2.
Files | ||
Issue | Vol 62 No 6 (2024) | |
Section | Original Articles | |
Keywords | ||
E-learning Workshop learning Interest Satisfaction Attitude Motivation Blended learning Factor analysis Medical education |
Rights and permissions | |
![]() |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |