Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T05:21:19.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paramedic Student Performance: Comparison of Online with On-Campus Lecture Delivery Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Michael W. Hubble  and
Michael E. Richards
Michael W. Hubble*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medical Care Program, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA
Michael E. Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
*
Michael Hubble, PhD, NREMT-P Emergency Medical Care Program, 122 Moore Building, Western Carolina University Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA E-mail: mhubble@email.wcu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Colleges and universities are experiencing increasing demand for online courses in many healthcare disciplines, including emergency medical services (EMS). Development and implementation of online paramedic courses with the quality of education experienced in the traditional classroom setting is essential in order to maintain the integrity of the educational process. Currently, there is conflicting evidence of whether a significant difference exists in student performance between online and traditional nursing and allied health courses. However, there are no published investigations of the effectiveness of online learning by paramedic students.

Hypothesis:

Performance of paramedic students enrolled in an online, undergraduate, research methods course is equivalent to the performance of students enrolled in the same course provided in a traditional, classroom environment.

Methods:

Academic performance, learning styles, and course satisfaction surveys were compared between two groups of students. The course content was identical for both courses and taught by the same instructor during the same semester. The primary difference between the traditional course and the online course was the method of lecture delivery. Lectures for the on-campus students were provided live in a traditional classroom setting using PowerPoint slides. Lectures for the online students were provided using the same PowerPoint slides with prerecorded streaming audio and video.

Results:

A convenience sample of 23 online and 10 traditional students participated in this study. With the exception of two learning domains, the two groups of students exhibited similar learning styles as assessed using the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales instrument. The online students scored significantly lower in the competitive and dependent dimensions than did the on-campus students. Academic performance was similar between the two groups. The online students devoted slightly more time to the course than did the campus students, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In general, the online students believed the online audio lectures were more effective than the traditional live lectures.

Conclusion:

Distance learning technology appears to be an effective mechanism for extending didactic paramedic education off-campus, and may be beneficial particularly to areas that lack paramedic training programs or adequate numbers of qualified instructors.

Keywords

distance educationeducationemergency medical serviceslearning stylesparamediconlineresearch methods
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 261 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Buckley, K: Evaluation of classroom-based, Web-enhanced, and Web-based distance learning nutrition courses for undergraduate nursing. J Nur Ed 2003;42(8):367–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Billings, D: A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in Web-based courses in nursing. J Nur Ed 2000;39:60–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Leasure, A, Davis, L, Thievon, S: Comparison of student outcomes and pref-erences in a traditional vs. World Wide Web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. J Nur Ed 2000;39:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Dupin-Bryan, P: Pre-entry variables related to retention in online distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 2004;18(4):199–206.Google Scholar
5.Lim, C: Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and other predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education 2001;15(2):41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Ryan, M, Carlton, K, Ali, N: Evaluation of traditional classroom teaching methods versus course delivery via the World Wide Web. J Nur Ed 1999;38:272–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Spickard, A, Smithers, J, Cordray, D, Gigante, J, Wofford, J: A randomized trial of an online lecture with and without audio. Med Educ 2004;38:787–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Halsne, A, Gatta, L: Online versus traditionally-delivered instruction: A descriptive study of learner characteristics in a community college setting. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2002;5(1):1–15.Google Scholar
9.Carr, S: As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chron High Educ 2000(February):A39.Google Scholar
10.Phipps, R, Merisotis, J: What's the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington, DC: The Institute of Higher Education Policy. 1999.Google Scholar
11.Moore, P, Hart, L: Strategies for teaching nursing research online. ICN Int Nurs Rev 2004;51:123–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Christianson, L, Tiene, D, Luft, P: Examining online instruction in under-graduate nursing education. Distance Education 2002;23(2):213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Halstead, J, Coudret, N: Implementing Web-based instruction in a school of nursing: Implications for faculty and students. J Prof Nur 2000;16(5):273–281.Google Scholar
14.Gaude, W: Assessing the impact of web courses. Syllabus 1999;13(4):49–50.Google Scholar
15.Visser, J: Faculty work in developing and teaching Web-based distance cours-es: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education 2000;14(3):21–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.White, C: Learn online: Students and faculty respond to online distance courses at Grant MacEwan Community College. T.H.E. Journal 2000;27(5):66–70.Google Scholar
17.Kearns, L, Shoaf, J, Summer, M: Performance and satisfaction of second-degree BSN students in Web-based and traditional course delivery environ-ments. J Nur Ed 2004;43:280–284.Google Scholar
18.Merisotis, J, Phipps, R: What's the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. tra-ditional classroom-based learning. Change 1999;31:12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Rose, M, Frisby, A, Hamlin, M, Jones, S: Evaluation of Effectiveness of a Web-based graduate epidemiology course. Comp Nurs 2000;18(4):162–167.Google Scholar
20.Bata-Jones, B, Averay, M: Teaching pharmacology to graduate nursing students: evaluation and comparison of Web-based and face-to-face methods. J Nur Ed 2004;43:185–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Bearden, E, Robinson, K, Deis, M: A statistical analysis of dental hygiene stu-dents' grades in online and on-campus courses and performance on the national board dental hygiene exams. J Den Hyg 2002;76:213–217.Google Scholar
22.Woo, M, Kimmick, J: Comparison of internet versus lecture instructional methods for teaching nursing research. J Prof Nurs 2000;16:132–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Diaz, D, Cartnal, R: Students' learning styles in two classes. College Teaching 1999;47:130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Atack, L, Rankin, J: A descriptive study of registered nurses' experiences with Web-based learning. J Adv Nurs 2002;40:457–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed