Premium
Lessons learned from a randomised controlled trial on web learning
Author(s) -
Canegallo L.,
Pinelli I.,
Beccalli M. G.,
Lodi G.,
Bez C.,
Demarosi F.,
Sardella A.,
Esposito A.,
Visioli S.,
Zannini L.,
Carrassi A.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00326.x
Subject(s) - test (biology) , randomized controlled trial , medical education , class (philosophy) , psychology , medicine , computer science , paleontology , surgery , artificial intelligence , biology
The web‐based course in Oral Pathology ran its third edition during the academic year 2001–2002. To encourage the independence in the selection of contents, site structure supports not only a ‘guided’ and sequential, but also a ‘free’ usage of the learning material. Qualitative evaluations conducted during the last 2 years through questionnaires and interviews reported a positive feedback from students. However, due to lack of quantitative data regarding the added value of a dual‐mode web‐based course versus the in‐class teaching course, we decided to undertake a pilot randomised control trial (RCT) to measure the learning gain of students who had access to the web support. The aim of this work is to present difficulties emerged in the design of such a study. Authors point out their experience about the following aspects: appropriateness of outcomes considered (pre‐ and post‐test and questionnaires were distributed to assess learning and skills developed in hypothetical deductive reasoning; final examination marks were also considered); methods of randomisation and groups' matching (students were assigned randomly to a test and control group; a later analysis of pre‐tests and questionnaires showed that the two groups were comparable); study design (study design had to be a cross‐evaluation, but due to practice difficulties we could not cross the groups); control of the web access (only the test group received a password to log in), duration of the trial (it was not possible to limit the site access for several months; therefore, trial lasted 5 weeks); influence of formal teaching (in order to record the teacher's behaviour during in‐class teaching activities an external observer, pedagogist, attended all lectures). We can conclude that previously mentioned difficulties will limit the possibility to draw affordable results from this first attempt of RCT on web learning, even if data collected are still under analysis. However, the authors hope their experience will be helpful when planning and setting up similar evaluations in other European Faculties' web based courses .