↓ Skip to main content

Online or face-to-face instruction? A qualitative study on the electrocardiogram course at the University of Ulm to examine why students choose a particular format

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 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
Online or face-to-face instruction? A qualitative study on the electrocardiogram course at the University of Ulm to examine why students choose a particular format
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1053-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Keis, Claudia Grab, Achim Schneider, Wolfgang Öchsner

Abstract

Since the introduction of the e-learning electrocardiogram (ECG) course 'ECG Online' into the curriculum at the University of Ulm, a small but relatively constant number of students have decided not to participate in the online course but to attend the face-to-face course, although the content of both courses is identical. The present study examined why students prefer one format or the other. In a qualitative research approach, ten medical students were questioned in a guided interview. At the time of the survey the interviewees were enrolled in the 7th to 10th semesters. Among the respondents, 2 had participated only in the face-to-face ECG course, 4 only in the online version and 4 in both the face-to-face and the online course. Interestingly, the very factors associated with e-learning - and always praised as advantages of it - are viewed critically by the students. Thus, although the 24-h access to learning content was consistently evaluated positively, the unlimited availability (lack of expiry date) was not seen as conducive to learning. The lack of fixed time constraints and the attendant lack of pressure were important reasons why some of the students had discontinued the online course prematurely. A similar distinction was seen in the flexibility of location for e-learning, because the very obligation to be physically present on a particular day at a fixed time led to a higher degree of commitment to courses and a willingness to actually attend the course until the end. In addition, if the content has a high degree of perceived professional relevance face-to-face courses are preferred because they offer the possibility of direct interaction. Even though the small sample size limits the generalisability of the results, our findings indicate that when developing online courses students' needs could be better met if measures were included to strengthen extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and formats were favoured that enable students to have a minimum level of personal interaction with the lecturer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Lecturer 17 7%
Other 16 6%
Researcher 16 6%
Other 57 23%
Unknown 93 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Social Sciences 16 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 102 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#16,121,662
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,287
of 4,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,464
of 342,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#74
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,007 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 342,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.