OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
The Journal of continuing education in the health professions
Sep 12, 2024;

Optimizing e-Learning in CPD: Preferences and Perceptions of Health Professionals.

Anita Samuel, Ronald M Cervero, Beth King, Steven J Durning
Author Information
  1. Anita Samuel: Center for Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD. ORCID
PMID: 39264238 DOI: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000570

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Continuing professional development for health professionals increasingly relies on e-learning. However, there is insufficient research into the instructional strategies health professionals prefer to engage with in e-learning. An empirical study was undertaken to answer the research question: What instructional strategies do learners prefer in e-learning modules to improve their learning experience?
METHODS: The Department of Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences developed six, stand-alone, self-paced modules for health professionals focusing on education and leadership. The module evaluation survey consisted of six Likert scale questions and two open-ended questions. Responses from these anonymized module evaluations from 2019 to 2022 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics for the Likert scale questions were calculated. Responses to the two open-ended questions were compiled and analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: All survey respondents found the content of the modules helpful and met their stated learning objectives. A majority (94%) agreed or strongly agreed that readings and videos increased their knowledge in the topic area and that quizzes effectively strengthened their understanding of the topics. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data: pedagogical strategies, technology issues, feedback and interaction, and transfer of learning.
CONCLUSIONS: This study foregrounds the voice of the learner, which emphasizes health professionals' preference for instructional strategies that align with their needs as adult learners. The findings highlight the value of content relevance, expert creation, and authentic examples in enhancing learner satisfaction.

References

  1. ACCME Data Report Renewal and Growth in Accredited Continuing Education-2022. Available at: https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/2022%20ACCME%20Annual%20Data%20Report%201003_20230808.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2023.
  2. ACCME Data Report Onward and Upward: Thriving Together in Accredited Continuing Education-2021. Available at: https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/2021%20ACCME%20Data%20Report%20967_20221109_0.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2023.
  3. Intelligence AA & U.S. Continuing Medical Education Market Insights - Revenue to Reach USD 4.23 Billion by 2028. Arizton Advisory & Intelligence. Available at: https://www.arizton.com/market-reports/us-continuing-medical-education-market. Accessed December 2, 2023.
  4. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME ®) 2013 Annual Report Executive Summary. Available at: https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/630_20140715_2013_Annual_Report.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2023.
  5. ACCME Data Report Rising to the Challenge in Accredited Continuing Education-2020. Available at: https://www.accme.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/902_20210615_2020%20Data%20Report.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2023.
  6. Al-Balas M, Al-Balas HI, Jaber HM, et al. Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation, challenges, and perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:341.
  7. Ruggeri K, Farrington C, Brayne C. A global model for effective use and evaluation of e-learning in health. Telemed J E-health. 2013;19:312–321.
  8. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, et al. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:1181–1196.
  9. Rouleau G, Gagnon MP, Côté J, et al. Effects of e-learning in a continuing education context on nursing care: systematic review of systematic qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-studies reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e15118.
  10. Sinclair PM, Kable A, Levett-Jones T, et al. The effectiveness of Internet-based e-learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;57:70–81.
  11. Williams E, Fernandes RD, Choi K, et al. Learning outcomes and educational effectiveness of e-learning as a continuing professional development intervention for practicing surgeons and proceduralists: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2023;80:1139–1149. doi.
  12. Zhang K, Thompson AW. Effectiveness of electronic learning for continuing interprofessional education on behavior change of healthcare professionals: a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2022;37:807–817.
  13. Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, et al. What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ. 2010;44:765–774.
  14. Regmi K, Jones L. A systematic review of the factors – enablers and barriers – affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:91–18.
  15. He Y, Fu X. Learning satisfaction of learners and curriculum design under different online teaching platforms. Int J Emerging Tech Learn. 2022;17:227–239.
  16. Nortvig AM, Petersen AK, Balle SH. A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electron J E-learning. 2018;16:46–55.
  17. Maile CA, Cooper MS. The CIMC Guide to Developing Modules for Self-paced Learning: A Handbook for Teachers. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, Curriculum and Instructional Materials Center (CIMC); 2018.
  18. Miyazoe T, Anderson T. Interaction equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and informal learning era. J Interactive Media Educ. 2013;2013:9.
  19. Nixon EK, Lee D. Rapid prototyping in the instructional design process. Perform Improvement Q. 2001;14:95–116.
  20. Rudolph M. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. J Online Higher Educ. 2017;1:1.
  21. Kirschner PA. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instruction. 2002;12:1–10.
  22. Samuel T. Novel Approach in Measuring Training Effectiveness [Dissertation]. Milwaukee, WI: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 2020.
  23. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
  24. Wurth S, Maisonneuve H, Moussa MA, et al. Development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity in clinical teachers via distance learning: a mixed methods study. Med Educ Online. 2023;28:2265163.
  25. Zhu M, Bonk CJ, Berri S. Fostering self-directed learning in MOOCs: motivation, learning strategies, and instruction. Online Learn. 2022;26:153–173.
  26. Davis D, Jivet I, Kizilcec RF, et al. Follow the successful crowd: raising MOOC completion rates through social comparison at scale. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference; 2017:454–463.
  27. Khalil H, Ebner M. MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention: a literature review. EdMedia+ Innovate Learn. 2014;23:1305–1313.
  28. Kavadella A, Kossioni AE, Tsiklakis K, et al. Recommendations for the development of e‐modules for the continuing professional development of European dentists. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17(suppl 1):45–54.
  29. Knowles MS. Andragogy: adult learning theory in perspective. Community Coll Rev. 1978;5:9–20.
  30. Naeem NI, Yusoff MS, Hadie SN, et al. Understanding the functional components of technology-enhanced learning environment in medical education: a scoping review. Med Sci Educ. 2023;33:595–609.
  31. Song D, Bonk CJ. Motivational factors in self-directed informal learning from online learning resources. Cogent Educ. 2016;3:1205838.
  32. Zhu M, Bonk CJ. Designing MOOCs to facilitate participant self-monitoring for self-directed learning. Online Learn. 2019;23:106–134.
  33. Moore MG. Editorial: three types of interaction. Am J Distance Educ. 1989;3:1–7.
  34. Samuel A, Conceição SC. Using the critical incident questionnaire as a formative evaluation tool to inform online course design: a qualitative study. Int Rev Res Open Distributed Learn. 2022;23:151–169.
  35. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 1

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0healthstrategiesquestionsprofessionalse-learninginstructionalmoduleslearningHealthresearchpreferstudylearnerssixmodulesurveyLikertscaletwoopen-endedResponsesanalyzedcontentagreedlearnerINTRODUCTION:ContinuingprofessionaldevelopmentincreasinglyreliesHoweverinsufficientengageempiricalundertakenanswerquestion:improveexperience?​METHODS:DepartmentProfessionsEducationUniformedServicesUniversitySciencesdevelopedstand-aloneself-pacedfocusingeducationleadershipevaluationconsistedanonymizedevaluations20192022DescriptivestatisticscalculatedcompiledthematicallyRESULTS:respondentsfoundhelpfulmetstatedobjectivesmajority94%stronglyreadingsvideosincreasedknowledgetopicareaquizzeseffectivelystrengthenedunderstandingtopicsFourthemesemergedqualitativedata:pedagogicaltechnologyissuesfeedbackinteractiontransferCONCLUSIONS:foregroundsvoiceemphasizesprofessionals'preferencealignneedsadultfindingshighlightvaluerelevanceexpertcreationauthenticexamplesenhancingsatisfactionOptimizinge-LearningCPD:PreferencesPerceptionsProfessionals

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.