Comparing Knowledge Acquisition and Retention Between Mobile Learning and Traditional Learning in Teaching Respiratory Therapy Students: A Randomized Control Trial.

PURPOSE

Mobile learning (m-learning) is one of the trends in health professions' education. It has a promising future in education, but it also presents various challenges and risks. This research seeks to highlight some of the greatest accomplishments, opportunities, and issues related to m-Learning in teaching and learning. We believe the findings help us maximize the positive effects of m-Learning while minimizing any potential drawbacks associated with the technological changes taking place in education. The study aimed to compare respiratory therapy students' knowledge acquisition and retention between using m-learning and traditional learning.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Randomized pre-test, post-test, control group design was used. All 3rd year (N = 46) respiratory therapy students in one governmental university in Saudi Arabia were randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. Both groups took the same content of arterial blood gas lecture for 2 hours. The intervention group took the lecture using m-learning; two mobile apps: (1) ABG Book, (2) Arterial Blood Gas (Lite). The traditional learning (lecture-based learning) was used for the control group. The same test was conducted before, immediately after, and two weeks after the lecture. The duration of the test was 30 minutes. The data were analyzed using independent -test and repeated measured ANOVA using p < 0.05. IRB Approval was obtained.

RESULTS

Forty-five students participated. Although no statistically significant difference was found on knowledge acquisition and retention between the two types of learning (p = 0.305, p = 0.904, respectively), it was found among the three time-points within each group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both m-learning and traditional learning are effective in increasing knowledge acquisition and retention. However, no one is better than the other. Further researches were needed with larger sample size through multi-institutional studies to validate the results of this study.