Volume 16, Issue 1 (2024)
Res Med Edu 2024, 16(1): 46-55 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mirmoghtadaie Z, Haeri A. Comparative Study of Traditional and Microlearning Methods in Teaching Drug-Loaded Nanoliposomes to Pharmacy Students. Res Med Edu 2024; 16 (1) :46-55
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-1330-en.html
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-1330-en.html
Department of e-Learning in Medical Sciences, School of Medical Education and Learning Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran & Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran & Protein Technology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , a_haeri@sbmu.ac.ir
Abstract: (545 Views)
Introduction: Microlearning is one of the new educational methods presented in small units in a short time. The present study aimed to compare the two methods of traditional teaching and microlearning in teaching nanoliposomes to pharmacy students.
Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 40 pharmacy students of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in 2023. Students were randomly assigned to two groups of traditional education and microlearning. The intervention group received educational content, including methods of manufacturing, drug loading, and characterization of pharmaceutical nanoliposomes as microlearning, while the control group received the standard liposome textbook that contains educational content in written form. Educational content was prepared and edited using educational video design software. After intervention, a researcher-made test was employed to evaluate learning in the two groups. The questionnaire for user interface satisfaction (QUIS) was used to measure users' satisfaction with microlearning educational packages. The normality of the distribution of scores was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and The Mann-Whitney U test was also used to compare differences between the two groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS (22).
Results: Totally 40 pharmacy students participated in this study, including 20 participants in the traditional education group (14 women and 6 men) and 20 cases in the microlearning group (12 women and 8 men). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age and grade point average. The results demonstrated that the average scores of the two groups represented no statistically significant difference (P=0.38). Moreover, the overall satisfaction level of students with the educational content was 8.07 (out of 10). The highest score (8.7) pertained to the ease of working with the educational package and the sequence of demonstration parts in the educational package, while the lowest score (5.9) was related to the speed of the educational videos.
Conclusions: As evidenced by the results of this study, although the use of microlearning content in teaching the methods of making liposomes did not lead to a marked increase in students' grades, it brought most of them great satisfaction. The microlearning package can be made available to the audience at any time and place, resulting in a higher rate of satisfaction.
Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 40 pharmacy students of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in 2023. Students were randomly assigned to two groups of traditional education and microlearning. The intervention group received educational content, including methods of manufacturing, drug loading, and characterization of pharmaceutical nanoliposomes as microlearning, while the control group received the standard liposome textbook that contains educational content in written form. Educational content was prepared and edited using educational video design software. After intervention, a researcher-made test was employed to evaluate learning in the two groups. The questionnaire for user interface satisfaction (QUIS) was used to measure users' satisfaction with microlearning educational packages. The normality of the distribution of scores was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and The Mann-Whitney U test was also used to compare differences between the two groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS (22).
Results: Totally 40 pharmacy students participated in this study, including 20 participants in the traditional education group (14 women and 6 men) and 20 cases in the microlearning group (12 women and 8 men). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age and grade point average. The results demonstrated that the average scores of the two groups represented no statistically significant difference (P=0.38). Moreover, the overall satisfaction level of students with the educational content was 8.07 (out of 10). The highest score (8.7) pertained to the ease of working with the educational package and the sequence of demonstration parts in the educational package, while the lowest score (5.9) was related to the speed of the educational videos.
Conclusions: As evidenced by the results of this study, although the use of microlearning content in teaching the methods of making liposomes did not lead to a marked increase in students' grades, it brought most of them great satisfaction. The microlearning package can be made available to the audience at any time and place, resulting in a higher rate of satisfaction.
Type of Study: Applicable |
Subject:
Educational technology, e-Learning,Virtual Education
References
1. Abdulrahaman MD, Faruk N, Oloyede AA, Surajudeen-Bakinde NT, Olawoyin LA, Mejabi OV, et al. Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review. Heliyon 2020; 6 (11): e05312. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05312]
2. Mulla ZD, Osland-Paton V, Rodriguez MA, Vazquez E, Plavsic SK. Novel coronavirus, novel faculty development programs: rapid transition to eLearning during the pandemic. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 2020; 48 (5): 446-9. [DOI:10.1515/jpm-2020-0197]
3. Oermann MH. Teaching in nursing and role of the educator the complete guide to best practice in teaching, evaluation, and curriculum development. second ed. Ebooks C, editor. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC; 2015.
4. Cheng YT, Liu DR, Wang VJ. Teaching Splinting Techniques Using a Just-in-Time Training Instructional Video. Pediatric emergency care. 2017; 33 (3): 166-70. [DOI:10.1097/PEC.0000000000000390]
5. Sichani MM, Mobarakeh SR, Omid A. The effect of distance learning via SMS on academic achievement and satisfaction of medical students. Journal of education and health promotion. 2018; 7: 29. [DOI:10.4103/jehp.jehp_116_16]
6. Swartzwelder K. Examining the effect of texting on students' perceptions of learning. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2014; 35 (6): 405-7. [DOI:10.5480/12-1012.1]
7. Lameris AL, Hoenderop JG, Bindels RJ, Eijsvogels TM. The impact of formative testing on study behaviour and study performance of (bio)medical students: a smartphone application intervention study. BMC medical education. 2015; 15: 72. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-015-0351-0]
8. Redondo RPD, Ktena A, Kunicina N, Zabasta A, Patlins A, Mele DE, editors. Advanced practices: micro learning, practice oriented teaching and gamified learning. 2020 IEEE 61th International Scientific Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering of Riga Technical University (RTUCON); 2020 5-7 Nov. 2020.
9. Leong K, Sung A, Au D, Blanchard C. A review of the trend of microlearning. Journal of Work-Applied Management. 2021; 13 (1): 88-102. [DOI:10.1108/JWAM-10-2020-0044]
10. Bell F, editor Network theories for technology-enabled learning and social change: Connectivism and actor network theory. Networked learning conference 2010: Seventh international conference on networked learning; 2010.
11. Christ-Libertin C. Leveraging Technology: The Macy Report's Recommendation #4. Journal of continuing education in nursing 2016; 47 (4): 151-2. [DOI:10.3928/00220124-20160322-01]
12. Becker MB, Behrends M, Barthel C, Kupka T, Schmeer R, Meyenburg-Altwarg I, et al. Developing a mobile application for recording learning experiences in nursing practice. Studies in health technology and informatics 2015; 210: 899-903.
13. Bogoch, II, Frost DW, Bridge S, Lee TC, Gold WL, Panisko DM, et al. Morning report blog: a web-based tool to enhance case-based learning. Teaching and learning in medicine. 2012; 24 (3): 238-41. [DOI:10.1080/10401334.2012.692273]
14. Hayes Lane S, Serafica R, Huffman C, Cuddy A. Making Research Delicious: An Evaluation of Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Using the Great American Cookie Experiment With Mobile Device Gaming. Journal for nurses in professional development 2016; 32 (5): 256-61. [DOI:10.1097/NND.0000000000000292]
15. Chaves RO, de Oliveira PAV, Rocha LC, David JPF, Ferreira SC, Santos A, et al. An Innovative Streaming Video System With a Point-of-View Head Camera Transmission of Surgeries to Smartphones and Tablets: An Educational Utility. Surgical innovation 2017; 24 (5): 462-70. [DOI:10.1177/1553350617715162]
16. De Gagne JC, Park HK, Hall K, Woodward A, Yamane S, Kim SS. Microlearning in Health Professions Education: Scoping Review. JMIR medical education 2019; 5 (2): e13997. [DOI:10.2196/13997]
17. Bozzuto G, Molinari A. Liposomes as nanomedical devices. International journal of nanomedicine 2015; 10: 975. [DOI:10.2147/IJN.S68861]
18. Li M, Du C, Guo N, Teng Y, Meng X, Sun H, et al. Composition design and medical application of liposomes. European journal of medicinal chemistry 2019; 164: 640-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.01.007]
19. Zylberberg C, Matosevic S. Pharmaceutical liposomal drug delivery: a review of new delivery systems and a look at the regulatory landscape. Drug delivery 2016; 23 (9): 3319-29. [DOI:10.1080/10717544.2016.1177136]
20. Lee T-Y, Lin F-Y. The effectiveness of an e-learning program on pediatric medication safety for undergraduate students: A pretest-post-test intervention study. Nurse education today 2013; 33 (4): 378-83. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.023]
21. Díaz-Millón M, Rivera-Trigueros I, Gutiérrez-Artacho J. Student satisfaction with a micro-learning approach in distance translation and interpreting training: an empirical investigation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 2023; 17 (3): 434-53. [DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2023.2237322]
22. Roskowski SM, Wolcott MD, Persky AM, Rhoney DH, Williams CR. Assessing the Use of Microlearning for Preceptor Development. Pharmacy 2023; 11 (3): 102. [DOI:10.3390/pharmacy11030102]
23. Sozmen E, Karaca O, Batı A. The effectiveness of interactive training and microlearning approaches on motivation and independent learning of medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2021; 60(1):70-9. [DOI:10.1080/14703297.2021.1966488]
24. Zarshenas L, Keshavarz T, Momennasab M, Zarifsanaiey N. Interactive Multimedia Training in Osteoporosis Prevention of Female High School Students: An Interventional Study. Acta medica Iranica 2017; 55 (8): 514-20.
25. Buchem I, Hamelmann H. Microlearning: a strategy for ongoing professional development. 2010; 21;21(7):1-5. [DOI:10.1111/j.2045-0648.2010.tb00137.x]
26. Bledsoe TS, Harmeyer D, Wu SF. Utilizing Twitter and #Hashtags Toward Enhancing Student Learning in an Online Course Environment. In: Management Association IR, editor. Student Engagement and Participation: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global; 2018. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225-2584-4.ch060]
27. Diug B, Kendal E, Ilic D. Evaluating the use of twitter as a tool to increase engagement in medical education. Education for health 2016; 29 (3): 223-30.
28. Kalludi SN, Punja D, Pai KM, Dhar M. Efficacy and perceived utility of podcasts as a supplementary teaching aid among first-year dental students. The Australasian medical journal 2013; 6 (9): 450-7. [DOI:10.21767/AMJ.2013.1786]
29. Wang T, Wang F, Shi L. The use of microblog-based case studies in a pharmacotherapy introduction class in China. BMC medical education 2013; 13: 120. [DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-13-120]
30. Ghorbani B, Jackson AC, Noorchenarboo M, Mandegar MH, Sharifi F, Mirmoghtadaie Z, et al. Comparing the effects of gamification and teach-back training methods on adherence to a therapeutic regimen in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: randomized clinical trial. Journal of medical Internet research 2021; 23 (12): e22557. [DOI:10.2196/22557]
31. Nikou SA, Economides AA. Mobile-Based micro-Learning and Assessment: Impact on learning performance and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2018; 34 (3): 269-78. [DOI:10.1111/jcal.12240]
32. Ahmad N, Al-Khanjari Z. Effects of audio podcasts as a micro learning tool on instruction. E-Leader Int J 2016;11(2):1-6.
33. Mirmoghtadaie Z, Keshavarz M, Kohan N, Ahmady S. Developing a Conceptual Model of Self-Directed Learning in Virtual Environments for Medical Sciences Students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2023; 24 (2): 37-52. [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.7024]
34. Hesse A, Ospina P, Wieland M, Yepes FAL, Nguyen B, Heuwieser W. Short communication: Microlearning courses are effective at increasing the feelings of confidence and accuracy in the work of dairy personnel. Journal of Dairy Science 2019; 102 (10): 9505-11. [DOI:10.3168/jds.2018-15927]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
