Physiotherapy in Motion, Multispecialty Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Front Public Health. 2023 May 9;11:1145892. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1145892. eCollection 2023.
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of a BL intervention vs. a FL intervention in relation to the knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, and BL acceptance of physiotherapy students.
An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 students were randomly allocated to either the BL group (BLG, = 48) or FL group (FLG, = 52). The BLG received face-to-face classes plus access to online resources (online syllabus, Moodle, scientific-based videos and websites, activities, glossary, and apps). The FLG received face-to-face classes and hardcopy resources (hardcopy syllabus, scientific-based information, activities, and a glossary). Knowledge, ethical and gender competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, and BL acceptance were assessed.
The BLG showed higher scores than the FLG for knowledge ( = 0.011), three ethical/gender competencies ( < 0.05), increased motivation to prepare themselves before class ( = 0.005), increased motivation and ability of thinking ( = 0.005), improved understanding of important topics ( = 0.015), course organization ( = 0.017), educational material ( = 0.001), easiness of understanding ( = 0.007), comprehensive coverage of the subject ( = 0.001), and clarity of instructions ( = 0.004), while usability was acceptable.
The BL intervention can be used for improving the knowledge, competencies, perceptions, and satisfaction of the students. In addition, BL acceptance was positive, and usability was found to be acceptable. This study supports the use of BL as a pedagogical approach to foster innovative learning.
混合学习（BL）结合了面对面学习（FL）和在线学习。本研究旨在比较 BL 干预与 FL 干预在物理治疗学生的知识、能力、满意度、感知、可用性和 BL 接受度方面的效果。
进行了一项评估员盲法随机试验。共有 100 名学生被随机分配到 BL 组（BLG，n = 48）或 FL 组（FLG，n = 52）。BLG 接受面对面课程加在线资源（在线教学大纲、Moodle、基于科学的视频和网站、活动、词汇表和应用程序）。FLG 接受面对面课程和纸质资源（纸质教学大纲、基于科学的信息、活动和词汇表）。评估知识、伦理和性别能力、满意度、感知、可用性和 BL 接受度。
BLG 的知识得分高于 FLG（ = 0.011），三个伦理/性别能力得分较高（<0.05），课前准备的动机增加（ = 0.005），思维能力提高（ = 0.005），对重要主题的理解提高（ = 0.015），课程组织（ = 0.017），教育材料（ = 0.001），理解的容易程度（ = 0.007），主题的全面涵盖（ = 0.001），和指令的清晰度（ = 0.004），而可用性是可以接受的。
BL 干预可用于提高学生的知识、能力、感知和满意度。此外，BL 接受度为正，可用性被认为是可以接受的。本研究支持将 BL 用作促进创新学习的教学方法。
