Purposeful Course Planning: Considering Student Self-Efficacies When Selecting an Online, Hybrid, or Face-to-Face Course Delivery Modality

Autor/inn/en	Fukunaga, Marissa M.; Kasamatsu, Tricia M.
Titel	Purposeful Course Planning: Considering Student Self-Efficacies When Selecting an Online, Hybrid, or Face-to-Face Course Delivery Modality
Quelle	In: Athletic Training Education Journal, 17 (2022) 3, S.201-209 (9 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1947-380X
DOI	10.4085/1947-380X-21-038
Schlagwörter	Self Efficacy; Electronic Learning; Blended Learning; In Person Learning; Athletics; Allied Health Occupations; Undergraduate Students; Student Characteristics; Technology Uses in Education; Teaching Methods; Student Attitudes; COVID-19; Pandemics + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Self-efficacy; Selbstwirksamkeit; Leichtathletik; Gesundheitsberuf; Technology enhanced learning; Technology aided learning; Technologieunterstütztes Lernen; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Schülerverhalten
Abstract	Context: Self-efficacy (SE) can affect athletic training students' progression during their professional education and transition to autonomous clinical practice. It is unclear how course delivery may affect athletic training students' SE in various injury evaluation courses. Objective: Determine the relationship of course delivery modality and athletic training students' injury evaluation SE. Design: Cross-sectional investigation. Setting: Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants: Ninety-five noncertified National Athletic Trainers' Association student members (38/95 undergraduate athletic training students; 57/95 graduate athletic training students). Data Collection and Analysis: A 2-part survey including participant characteristic questions and piloted adapted General Self Efficacy (GSE) scales were distributed using the National Athletic Trainers' Association's Research Survey Service. The adapted GSE scales asked participants to rate their agreeance from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true) for 10 statements focused on injury evaluations in 6 areas. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and nonparametric tests were used to determine the differences in GSE scores based on course delivery modality (online model, hybrid model, and traditional face-to-face model). Measures of central tendencies were also calculated. Results: Only completed surveys (66.4%; 95/143) were included in the analysis (access rate = 14.3%). A significant difference existed between course delivery modality and upper extremity GSE scores (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between GSE scores for courses with delivery modalities affected or not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as well as between athletic training students who had or did not have previous online or hybrid course experiences. Conclusion(s): As health care education continues to shift toward technology-rich environments, educators can consider offering courses through various delivery modalities to promote didactic and clinical education. However, consideration of the content area and difficulty may be warranted while purposefully planning courses to best address learning objectives and students' SE. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	National Athletic Trainers' Association. 2952 Stemmons Freeway Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75247. Tel: 214-637-6282; Fax: 214-637-2206; e-mail: ATEdJournal@gmail.com; Web site: https://meridian.allenpress.com/atej
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01