↓ Skip to main content

Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
453 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline E. Morton, Sohag N. Saleh, Susan F. Smith, Ashish Hemani, Akram Ameen, Taylor D. Bennie, Maria Toro-Troconis

Abstract

Blended learning is a combination of online and face-to-face learning and is increasingly of interest for use in undergraduate medical education. It has been used to teach clinical post-graduate students pharmacology but needs evaluation for its use in teaching pharmacology to undergraduate medical students, which represent a different group of students with different learning needs. An existing BSc-level module on neuropharmacology was redesigned using the Blended Learning Design Tool (BLEnDT), a tool which uses learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive and affective) to classify learning outcomes into those taught best by self-directed learning (online) or by collaborative learning (face-to-face). Two online courses were developed, one on Neurotransmitters and the other on Neurodegenerative Conditions. These were supported with face-to-face tutorials. Undergraduate students' engagement with blended learning was explored by the means of three focus groups, the data from which were analysed thematically. Five major themes emerged from the data 1) Purpose and Acceptability 2) Structure, Focus and Consolidation 3) Preparation and workload 4) Engagement with e-learning component 5) Future Medical Education. Blended learning was acceptable and of interest to undergraduate students learning this subject. They expressed a desire for more blended learning in their courses, but only if it was highly structured, of high quality and supported by tutorials. Students identified that the 'blend' was beneficial rather than purely online learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 453 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 452 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 65 14%
Student > Master 54 12%
Student > Bachelor 39 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 6%
Other 101 22%
Unknown 131 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 18%
Social Sciences 48 11%
Computer Science 31 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 23 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 5%
Other 85 19%
Unknown 161 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#18,741,020
of 23,230,825 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,816
of 3,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,730
of 368,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#59
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,230,825 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.