skip to main content
10.1145/3022227.3022234acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicuimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design & development of digital learning resource (BMT): blended learning approach

Published:05 January 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The evolution of technologies and the development of new media design for educational purposes are expanding. This work aims to look at the use of blended learning and how it affects students' score in examination. BMT (Basic Movement Therapy) Digital Learning Resource was constructed and developed based on multimedia design guideline. A quasi-experimental design using two groups with pretest posttest approach was used. A total of 103 students from the Universiti Kuala Lumpur, RCMP (Royal College Medical, Perak) was divided in two groups. The Control group received standard teaching sessions (N=51). The Treatment group received the same standard sessions but additionally used BMT Digital Learning Resource application (N=52). Written test on basic movement therapy was done by students before and after the intervention. Statistically significant better scorings for the treatment group were found. The results strongly suggest that the use of BMT Digital Learning Resource application is suitable for practical procedure purposes.

References

  1. N. Vernadakis, M. Giannousi, E. Tsitskari, P. Antoniou, and E. Kioumourtzoglou, "A comparison of student satisfaction between traditional and blended technology course offerings in physical education," Turkish Online J. Distance Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 137--147, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Goodwin, L. V. Hua, and J. R. Hayes, "Blended Learning in Optometric Clinical Procedures Instruction," Optom. Educ., vol. 39, no. September, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. B. Uǧur, B. Akkoyunlu, and S. Kurbanoǧlu, "Students' opinions on blended learning and its implementation in terms of their learning styles," Educ. Inf. Technol., pp. 1--19, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D.-H. Shin, H. An, and J. H. Kim, "How the second screens change the way people interact and learn: the effects of second screen use on information processing," Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1--22, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Herlo, "Benefits of using blended learning in 'performer' education master program," J. Plus Educ., vol. Special Is, pp. 145--150, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Rowe, J. Frantz, and V. Bozalek, "The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: a systematic review.," Med. Teach., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. e216--21, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. S. A. Azer, H. A. AlGrain, R. A. AlKhelaif, and S. M. AlEshaiwi, "Evaluation of the educational value of youtube videos about physical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems," J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 15, no. 11, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. K. Baker, "Practice-Based Learning: Emphasizing Practice and Offering Critical Perspectives on the Dangers of 'Co-Op' tation," vol. 56, pp. 619--658, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Tam, "Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning," Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 50--60, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer, E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning: Third Edition. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. G. Sole, A. Schneiders, K. Hébert-Losier, and M. Perry, "Perceptions by physiotherapy students and faculty staff of a multimedia learning resource for musculoskeletal practical skills teaching," New Zeal. J. Physiother., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 58--64, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. K. Weeks and S. A. Horan, "A video-based learning activity is effective for preparing physiotherapy students for practical examinations," Physiother. (United Kingdom), vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 292--297, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. G. McArdle and M. Crisp, Developing Instructional Design, no. August. Course Technology / Cengage Learning, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Bhatnagar, V. K. Sharma, and A. Bansal, "Managing Multimedia," vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 13--20, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. X. Y. Cheng and X. Y. Huang, "Design and Realization of Jiufeng Multimedia Display System," Appl. Mech. Mater., vol. 39, pp. 388--394, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. T. Galvis, "Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) as a teaching tool for occupational therapy education: A guide to understand CAI design and effectiveness," Texas Woman's University, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Clarke, Designing Computer-Based Learning Materials. USA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. Huitt, "Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain," Educ. Psychol. Interact., no. 2011, pp. 4--7, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. U. Jamornmann, "Techniques for Assessing Students' eLearning Achievement," Int. J. Comput., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 26--31, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. B. M. Stecher, M. Rahn, a. Ruby, M. Alt, a. Robyn, and B. Ward, "Types of Assessment," Using Altern. Assessments Vocat. Educ., pp. 23--34, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. D.-H. Shin, F. Biocca, and H. Choo, "Exploring the user experience of three-dimensional virtual learning environments," Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1--12, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. H. Shin, Y. J. Shin, H. Choo, and K. Beom, "Smartphones as smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning devices," Comput. Human Behav., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 2207--2214, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. D. Muijs, Muijs, Daniel. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London, GBR: SAGE Publications Inc. (US), 2004. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 30 June 2015. Copyright © 2004. SAGE Publications Inc. (US). All rights reserved. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Kneebone, "Evaluating clinical simulations for learning procedural skills: a theory-based approach.," Acad. Med., vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 549--553, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. G. Wulf, C. Shea, and R. Lewthwaite, "Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors," Med. Educ., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 75--84, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Design & development of digital learning resource (BMT): blended learning approach

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IMCOM '17: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication
        January 2017
        746 pages
        ISBN:9781450348881
        DOI:10.1145/3022227

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 January 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        IMCOM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate113of366submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate213of621submissions,34%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader