English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Blended learning is characterised as a combination of face-to-face teaching and e-learning in terms of knowledge transfer, students’ learning activities and reduced presence at the teaching facility. The present cohort study investigated long-term effects of blended learning regarding cognitive outcomes as well as self-indicated estimates of immediate learning effects on the affective domain in the inter-professional field of occupational medicine. Physiotherapy students (bachelor degree) at FH Campus Wien – University of Applied Sciences completed the course Occupational Medicine/Prevention either in a traditional teaching-learning setting entirely taught face-to-face (control-group, n=94), or with a blended learning model (intervention-group, n=93). Long-term effects (1.5 year follow-up) on the cognitive learning outcomes were assessed according to four levels of Bloom’s learning objectives. In addition, students estimated potential benefits resulting from blended learning based on four Krathwohl’s learning objectives for the affective domain by means of a six-option Likert scale (n=282). Concerning cognitive outcomes, significant results favouring both groups were found with effect sizes from small to medium. The traditional teaching-learning setting resulted in significantly better results in the upmost aspired learning objective (analysis) at the long-term (p<0,01; r=-0,33). In contrast, the intervention group resulted in significantly better long-term results on learning objective levels 1 (knowledge) and 2 (understanding) (p=0,01; r=-0,20 and, p=0,02; r=-0,17, respectively). Hence, no general recommendation favouring either the classical setting or blending learning can be drawn regarding the cognitive domain. However, students’ self-indications on the affective domain give preference to blended learning, particularly if inter-professional teamwork is a course objective

international journal of health professions

Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: Evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention / Blended Learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernergebnissen für das interprofessionelle Arbeitsfeld Arbeitsmedizin und Prävention