Effectiveness of a Hybrid Classroom in the Delivery of Medical Terminology Course Content Relative to a Traditional Classroom Format

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Oct 31, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i5.13994
Keywords:
hybrid courses, flipped classroom courses, SOTL

Main Article Content

Jeffrey S Martin
1Department of Biomedical Sciences, Quinnipiac University, Hamden CT USA 06518 2Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine – Auburn Campus, Auburn, AL USA 36832
Joan E Kreiger
3Exercise Science Department – Respiratory Care Program, School of Health and Human Services, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT USA 06515
Amy L Apicerno
Eckerd College

Abstract

Hybrid courses are emerging as a viable option for content delivery across college campuses. In an attempt to maximize learning outcomes while leveraging resources, one institution used several sections of a Medical Terminology course as a pilot. Traditional and hybrid course delivery were compared utilizing a quantitative research method to evaluate the effectiveness of a hybrid course design in meeting and/or exceeding course objectives, as determined by student satisfaction and perceptions. Both hybrid and traditional class groups agreed that Medical Terminology has potential to be delivered in a hybrid format, but the hybrid group’s agreement was significant stronger (+0.38 points on 5-point scale, P=0.008).
Key words: hybrid course, flipped classroom, SOTL, STEM

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Martin, J. S., Kreiger, J. E., & Apicerno, A. L. (2015). Effectiveness of a Hybrid Classroom in the Delivery of Medical Terminology Course Content Relative to a Traditional Classroom Format. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(5), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i5.13994
Issue
Vol. 15 No. 5 (2015): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Author Biographies

Jeffrey S Martin, 1Department of Biomedical Sciences, Quinnipiac University, Hamden CT USA 06518 2Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine – Auburn Campus, Auburn, AL USA 36832

Chair, Assistant Professor Department of Cell Biology and Physiology

Joan E Kreiger, 3Exercise Science Department – Respiratory Care Program, School of Health and Human Services, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT USA 06515

Assistant Professor, Respiratory Care Program Coordinator

Amy L Apicerno, Eckerd College

Registrar

References

Adams, C. L. (2013). A Comparison of Student Outcomes in a Therapeutic Modalities Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Hybrid versus Traditional Classroom Instruction. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27(1), 20.

Aycokc, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the Hybrid Course Project. Teaching with Technology Today, [Online]. Available: www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm

Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41, 327– 337.

Delfino, M., Manca, S., & Persico, D. (2005). Harmonizing the online and face-to-face components in a blended course on educational technology. Paper presented at The Course on Educational Technology of the SSIS.

Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41–49.

Gascoigne, C., & Parnell, J. (2014). Comparing Enrollment and Persistence Rates in Hybrid and Traditional Post-Secondary French. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(1).

Jackson, M. J., & Helms, M. M. (2008). Student perceptions of hybrid courses: Measuring and interpreting quality. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 7-12. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/202821433?accountid=13381

McGuire, P. F. (2009). Teaching medical terminology. Journal of Foreign Language Education, 16, 45-54.

Nesbary, D.K. (2000). Survey research and the world wide web. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Scida, E.E. & Saury, R.E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, (23)3, 517–531.

So, H-J., & Brush, T.A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009

Steele, S. (2006). Curricular wars. The Journal of General Education, 55(3/4), 161-185.

Sue, V.M., & Ritter, L.A. (2007). Conducting online surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thoma, J.A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, (76,) 1, 93-135.

Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons learned from round I of the PEW grant program in course redesign. Paper presented at Center for Academic Transformation, New York.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Westover, J. H., & Westover, J. P. (2014). Teaching hybrid courses across disciplines: Effectively combining traditional learning and e-learning pedagogies. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), 93-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2014.V4.376