A comparison of a distance education and locally based course in an urban university setting

The purpose of this research was to compare the academic performance and attitudes of students at the instructor-based site of a televised course and the distant site. An earlier pilot program indicated the need for certain technical and structural interventions at the distant site such as multiple "press-to-touch" microphones, a site-administrator and participative seating arrangements. At the beginning of the class, demographic data were collected from the students at both sites through a questionnaire and supplemented with information from students' records. Factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, current class status, major, work status and CLAST scores (achievement tests) were examined. There were no significant differences between the students at the sites except ethnicity and reading CLAST scores. The instructor-based site had a higher percentage of Hispanic students and the distant site had a larger percentage of Caucasian and Black Americans. The distant site scored significantly better on the reading section of the CLAST achievement test. An evaluation instrument was distributed to both sites, at the midpoint of the semester, measuring their attitude toward the organizational, technical, and pedagogical factors of the course. A second evaluation instrument, measuring similar factors, but more in-depth, was distributed to both sites near the end of the term. Nine students at the distant site were interviewed along with the site administrator to collect additional information.^ Course completion rates, dropout rates, pass rates and final grades of students at both sites were compared. There were no significant differences in academic performance between the students at both sites, however, there were significant differences in their attitudes. Those at the instructor-based site gave better ratings to most of items in the evaluation instruments. Problems at the distant site included audio and visual clarity, lack of available assistance, too much nonrelated talking, not enough opportunities to ask questions or to interact with the instructor during class. ^

Subject -centered and problem -based approaches to teaching clinical competence in physical therapy

Physical therapy students must apply the relevant information learned in their academic and clinical experience to problem solve in treating patients. I compared the clinical cognitive competence in patient care of second-year masters students enrolled in two different curricular programs: modified problem-based (M P-B; n = 27) and subject-centered (S-C; n = 41). Main features of S-C learning include lecture and demonstration as the major teaching strategies and no exposure to patients or problem solving learning until the sciences (knowledge) have been taught. Comparatively, main features of M P-B learning include case study in small student groups as the main teaching strategy, early and frequent exposure to patients, and knowledge and problem solving skills learned together for each specific case. Basic and clinical orthopedic knowledge was measured with a written test with open-ended items. Problem solving skills were measured with a written case study patient problem test yielding three subscores: assessment, problem identification, and treatment planning. ^ Results indicated that among the demographic and educational characteristics analyzed, there was a significant difference between groups on ethnicity, bachelor degree type, admission GPA, and current GPA, but there was no significant difference on gender, age, possession of a physical therapy assistant license, and GRE score. In addition, the M P-B group achieved a significantly higher adjusted mean score on the orthopedic knowledge test after controlling for GRE scores. The S-C group achieved a significantly higher adjusted mean total score and treatment management subscore on the case study test after controlling for orthopedic knowledge test scores. These findings did not support their respective research hypotheses. There was no significant difference between groups on the assessment and problem identification subscores of the case study test. The integrated M P-B approach promoted superior retention of basic and clinical science knowledge. The results on problem solving skills were mixed. The S-C approach facilitated superior treatment planning skills, but equivalent patient assessment and problem identification skills by emphasizing all equally and exposing the students to more patients with a wider variety of orthopedic physical therapy needs than in the M P-B approach. ^