Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1/15
The Feedback From Students on O�ine Teaching,Online Teaching, and Blended Teaching of the"Contact Lenses" Course in Tianjin, ChinaHongmei ZHANG
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalYing ZHU
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalLin LIU
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalWeiping LIN
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalTianpu GU
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalLin HAN
Tianjin Medical University Eye HospitalYi PANG
Illinois College of OptometryRuihua WEI ( [email protected] )
Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital
Research Article
Keywords: SEEQ, Contact Lenses, O�ine teaching, Online teaching, Blended teaching
Posted Date: October 14th, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-965379/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 2/15
AbstractBackground: To determine the effect of the three teaching methods on the learning of contact lenses andprovide recommendations to improve Contact Lenses teaching in optometric education.
Methods: The survey was conducted at Tianjin Medical University with the students' evaluations ofeducational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire with a �ve-point Likert scale over 2 weeks in June 2021. It is foroptometry students whose contact lenses were taught by any of three methods: 92 students enrolled in2017 at Dagang campus performed online learning, 60 students enrolled in 2017 at Qixiangtai campusperformed o�ine learning, and 100 students enrolled in 2018 at Dagang campus performed blendedlearning: both online and o�ine; A total of 252 students were invited to participate in this study.Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze SEEQ items. ANOVA was used to determine signi�cantdifferences among different teaching methods.
Results: 221 valid questionnaires were collected, with a response rate of 87.70% (221/252). Among them,87(39.37%) were male, and 134(60.63%) were female. O�ine teaching students had longer contact timewith the faculty than online teaching and blended teaching (p<0.05). No statistically signi�cantdifferences in sex or academic performance were found among 3 different teaching methods (p=0.33,p=0.91, respectively). There were 18.10% (40/221) of students who suggested increasing experiment andpractice time.
Conclusion: The traditional o�ine teaching method had a stable teaching effect. Students had morecontact time with faculty than students taught by online and blended teaching. Online teaching andblended teaching worked as well as o�ine learning. The effectiveness was not be in�uenced by genderand academic performance.
BackgroundWith the increasing use of technology in education, online learning has become a common teachingmethod. [1–7]Many schools have adopted online learning into their teaching including medical schools.[1, 8–12] The COVID-19 accelerated this process. The United Nations Educational, Scienti�c, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) reported that 1.2 billion students have been affected by school and universityclosures. Tianjin Medical University is one of the universities.
The School of Optometry at Tianjin Medical University used a traditional o�ine teaching model, that isface-to-face in class, to teach "Contact Lenses" before 2020. The content was taught according to thearrangement order of the textbooks in class. At the beginning of 2020, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19, schools at all levels across China postponed the opening of classes. In response to the call of theMinistry of Education, "stop schools, non-stop learning" during the epidemic prevention and controlperiod, schools at all levels moved the course online and adopted new approaches to remote education.Medical and healthcare education is also severely affected by this global crisis. Faculty members inTianjin Medical University School of Optometry shifted from o�ine to remote education to facilitate
Page 3/15
students’ education. Most countries and regions have adopted digital remote learning methods to ensurethe stability and continuity of education.[1, 10, 13–17]
Although the online teaching model was a temporary emergency teaching method, it brought anopportunity to advance China's education and teaching reform. Even after the travel restrictions imposedby the COVID-19 were lifted, the number of users who use remote learning continues to grow, which haschanged the learning habits of students and the teaching habits of faculty.[18] In the fall semester of2020, Tianjin Medical University School of Optometry adopt a blended (online and o�ine) teachingmethod for the Contact Lenses course.
The Contact Lenses course had gone through three teaching methods: o�ine teaching, online teaching,and blended teaching within 1.5 years. It remains unknown which teaching method is more effective formedical undergraduate students.
Some studies reported that no signi�cant difference was found between the online and o�ine teachingmethods[1] and others reported that signi�cant improvement in the online learning groups.[3] Evaluatingthe effectiveness of online and o�ine teaching remains di�cult. Evaluations have failed to reachconsistent conclusions, resulting in complex decisions when selecting a teaching method for medicaleducation.[19]
In this study, a questionnaire was administrated to determine the effect of the three teaching methods oncontact lenses and to provide recommendations to improve Contact Lenses teaching in optometriceducation. To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the �rst one to evaluate the three teachingmethods on Contact Lenses education.
Methods
The study participantsThe survey was conducted at Tianjin Medical University in June 2021. Tianjin Medical Universitycomprises two campuses, Dagang and Qixiangtai campuses. The study participants including threegroups, 92 students enrolled in 2017 at Dagang campus used online teaching, 60 students enrolled in2017 at Qixiangtai campus used o�ine teaching, 100 students enrolled in 2018 at Dagang campusadopted blended teaching. A total of 252 students participate in this survey.
The students' evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ)questionnaireAmong the various evaluation scales for teaching effectiveness, the students' evaluation of educationalquality (SEEQ) is widely used. SEEQ is a teaching effectiveness questionnaire compiled by the eminentAustralian educator Marsh in 1987 after years of research[20]. It is used to evaluate student satisfactionwith faculty effectiveness to improve teaching quality. This questionnaire developed among teaching
Page 4/15
evaluation tools has been established in universities in many countries and regions, [21] and has goodreliability, validity, and applicability. After being revised by Meng Qingmao according to the culturalcharacteristics of our country [22], the SEEQ questionnaire for students to evaluate teaching effects waswidely used in China.[23, 24] We used the Chinese version of the SEEQ questionnaire to evaluate theteaching effect of faculty. There were 32 questions in SEEQ, using the Likert 5-level scoring method rangefrom 1 to 5. The higher the score, the higher the evaluation. The SEEQ examines nine characteristics ofeffective learning: learning, individual rapport, enthusiasm, examinations, organization, breadth, groupinteraction, assignments, and overall rating. Participant were also asked to comment on their experiencewith an open-ended question.
We attached an invitation letter via weblink explaining the purpose of the study and asked the students tocomplete the survey within 2 weeks duration and to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreedwith each item on the survey. The student's participation was voluntary and anonymous, and they had theopportunity to withdraw at any time.
Statistical analysisData were collected using WenJuanXing and analyzed using SPSS 23.0 software to determine the meansand standard deviation of each item. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the difference betweenthe three teaching methods. The difference was statistically signi�cant with p < 0.05.
ResultsThe questionnaires with incomplete answers were removed (N=31). 221 valid questionnaires weregathered, with a response rate of 87.70% (221/252). The response rate of o�ine teaching, onlineteaching, and blended teaching was 83.33% (50/60), 84.78% (78/92), and 93.00% (93/100), respectively.Among them, 87(39.37%) were males, and 134(60.63%) were females. The reliability of the questionnaireCronbach.α coe�cient is 0.967.
Page 5/15
Table 1Differences of three different teaching methods in questionnaire questions (n=221)
O�inemean(SD)(n=50)
Onlinemean(SD)(n=78)
Blendedmean (SD)(n=93)
F p
learning
1.I have mastered the content of contactlens
4.62(0.60) 4.54(0.68) 4.33(0.86) 2.89 0.06
13.My interest and motivation haveincreased as a consequence of thisteaching method
4.78(0.51) 4.78(0.50) 4.72(0.54) 0.37 0.69
14.I have learned some valuable thing inthis course
4.82(0.44) 4.71(0.54) 4.73(0.51) 0.82 0.44
group interaction
4.Students were encouraged to participatein the contact lens course
4.74(0.53) 4.69(0.54) 4.59(0.74) 1.06 0.35
10.Students were encouraged to askquestions and were given meaningfulanswers
4.82(0.44) 4.77(0.51) 4.70(0.53) 1.03 0.36
17.Students were encouraged to sharedtheir ideas and knowledge
4.82(0.48) 4.71(0.58) 4.67(0.65) 1.11 0.33
29.Students were encouraged to discussin the class
4.84(0.42) 4.74(0.47) 4.66(0.60) 2.10 0.13
individual rapport
5.Faculty and students have su�cientcontact time during o�ce hours or afterclass
4.74(0.53) 4.51(0.70) 4.40(0.86) 3.48 0.03*
9.The faculty sincerely cares about everystudent
4.80(0.45) 4.72(0.53) 4.70(0.57) 0.61 0.54
12.Faculty have a sense of humor inlecturing
4.74(0.53) 4.62(0.65) 4.69(0.59) 0.71 0.50
18.No matter inside or outside the course,I feel that faculty welcome to ask him forhelp and understanding
4.84(0.42) 4.73(0.53) 4.76(0.50) 0.76 0.50
21.The faculty had a sincere interest instudents
4.84(0.42) 4.81(0.43) 4.84(0.43) 0.14 0.87
organization
*=p<0.05; N=number; SD=Standard Deviation;
Page 6/15
O�inemean(SD)(n=50)
Onlinemean(SD)(n=78)
Blendedmean (SD)(n=93)
F p
3.The faculty's lecture helps students totake notes
4.70(0.51) 4.72(0.56) 4.53(0.76) 2.24 0.11
7.Exams or grade-assessment homeworkcan test the teaching content emphasizedby the faculty
4.76(0.52) 4.72(0.51) 4.66(0.60) 0.64 0.53
11.The faculty covered the statedobjectives for contact lens
4.84(0.42) 4.74(0.57) 4.73(0.49) 0.82 0.44
20.The methods used by faculty toevaluate student performance are fair andappropriate
4.84(0.42) 4.72(0.53) 4.76(0.52) 0.90 0.41
24.The reading materials or referencematerials speci�ed by the faculty arevaluable
4.84(0.42) 4.81(0.40) 4.73(0.55) 1.02 0.36
25.Reading materials and homework helpme understand and master the ContactLenses course
4.82(0.44) 4.73(0.53) 4.74(0.55) 0.51 0.60
28.The faculty’ explanation was clear 4.84(0.42) 4.78(0.45) 4.72(0.52) 1.08 0.34
enthusiasm
2.This teaching methods can keepstudents interested in the classroom
4.76(0.48) 4.69(0.57) 4.62(0.62) 0.96 0.39
15.The faculty is full of energy and energywhen teaching this Contact Lenses course
4.84(0.42) 4.74(0.55) 4.75(0.48) 0.67 0.51
16.The contact lens course was wellprepared and carefully explained
4.84(0.42) 4.78(0.47) 4.76(0.50) 0.43 0.65
26.The lecture stimulate studentsintellectually, enlightening and motivating
4.82(0.44) 4.74(0.50) 4.72(0.56) 0.63 0.53
27.The faculty was enthusiastic aboutteaching contact lens
4.84(0.42) 4.78(0.45) 4.76(0.48) 0.47 0.63
knowledge breadth
6.The faculty can fully introduce the latestdevelopment trend of the Contact Lensescourse
4.78(0.47) 4.64(0.56) 4.69(0.55) 1.03 0.36
8.faculty also teach other people's variousviews besides his/her view.
4.80(0.45) 4.65(0.62) 4.68(0.57) 1.10 0.33
*=p<0.05; N=number; SD=Standard Deviation;
Page 7/15
O�inemean(SD)(n=50)
Onlinemean(SD)(n=78)
Blendedmean (SD)(n=93)
F p
19.The faculty can explain thebackground or source of the concepts andideas used in the course
4.84(0.42) 4.74(0.55) 4.82(0.44) 0.78 0.46
22.The faculty can compare theconnotation of various related theories inthe lecture
4.86(0.40) 4.78(0.45) 4.78(0.46) 0.57 0.57
assignment
23.Faculty’ feedback on exams orassessment assignments is very valuable
4.82(0.44) 4.74(0.50) 4.73(0.55) 0.53 0.59
30.How is the di�culty of the coursetaught by faculty?
4.08(0.99) 4.00(1.03) 4.13(0.95) 0.37 0.70
31.How is the amount of homeworkassigned by faculty?
4.02(1.08) 3.79(1.20) 3.84(1.17) 0.61 0.54
32.How is the progress of the coursetaught by faculty?
4.12(0.94) 4.06(0.92) 4.02(0.96) 0.18 0.83
*=p<0.05; N=number; SD=Standard Deviation;
The mean (SD) score of question 5 was 4.74 (0.53), 4.51 (0.70), and, 4.40 (0.86) in the group of o�ine,online, and blending education respectively. There was a statistically signi�cant difference among thethree teaching methods in contact time with the faculty during o�ce or after class (F=3.48, p=0.03). Thescores of other questions were also higher in the o�ine group compared to the other two teachingmethods, although there were no statistically signi�cant differences (p >0.05).
The following questions had the highest scores: Q22 in o�ine teaching. Q24 and Q21in online teaching,and Q21 in blended teaching. It indicates that faculty members were sincere and responsible for teaching.The theoretical knowledge, viewpoints, and background in the course were presented in detail. Thereading materials the faculty hands out were valuable.
Q31ranked the lowest in all the three teaching methods. It indicates that the amount of homeworkassigned by faculty might be too heavy and increase the di�culty of students' learning.
Page 8/15
Table 2Different evaluation scores to three different teaching methods between females
and males (n=221)
O�ine teaching Online teaching Blended teaching
N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD)
Female 28 152.68(9.85) 54 147.59(13.94) 52 146.31(14.86)
Male 22 149.91(15.24) 24 151.21(11.00) 41 150.07(14.06)
Total 50 151.46(12.45) 78 148.71(13.14) 93 147.97(14.56)
t 0.78 -1.12 -1.24
p 0.44 0.27 0.22
F 1.10
p 0.33
N=number; SD=Standard Deviation;
The average (SD) total score was 151.46 (12.45), 148.71(13.14), and 147.97 (14.56) in the group ofo�ine teaching, online teaching, and blended teaching respectively, with no signi�cant difference (F=1.10,p=0.33).
In the o�ine group, the total score was 152.68 (9.85) in the females and 149.91 (15.24) in the males, withno statistically signi�cant difference (t = 0.78, p= 0.44).
In the online group, the total score was 147.59 (13.94) in the females and 151.21 (11.00) in the males,with no statistically signi�cant difference (t = -1.12, p = 0.27).
In the mixed group, the total score was 146.31 (14.86) in the females and 150.07 (14.06) in the males,with no statistically signi�cant difference (t = -1.24, p= 0.22).
Page 9/15
Table 3Differences of three teaching methods among students with different academic
performance (n=221)
Top 30% 30-60% Bottom 30%
N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD)
O�ine 18 151.50(16.06) 20 153.15(9.40) 12 148.58(11.18)
Online 46 149.72(12.29) 29 147.55(14.24) 3 144.33(18.45)
Blended 41 147.68(14.63) 43 147.16(15.20) 9 153.11(10.96)
Total 105 149.23(13.89) 92 148.59(13.91) 24 149.75(11.84)
F 0.52 1.39 0.72
p 0.60 0.25 0.50
F 0.09
p 0.91
There were a total of 47.51% (105/221) students ranked in the top 30% of academic performance with anaverage score of 149.23 (13.85), 41.63% (92/221) of students in 30%-60% of academic performance withan average score of 148.59 (13.91), and 10.86% (24/221) of students in the bottom 30% of academicperformance with an average score of 149.75 (11.84). There were no signi�cant differences in the scoreamong the three groups (F=0.09, p=0.91).
Among the top 30% students, the o�ine teaching score was 151.50 (16.06), the online teaching scorewas 149.72 (12.29), the blended teaching score was 149.23 (13.89). The o�ine teaching score was thehighest. However, the difference among the three teaching methods was not signi�cant (F=0.52, p=0.60).
Among the students ranked 30%-60%, the o�ine teaching score was 153.15(9.40), the online teachingscore was 147.55 (14.24), and the blended teaching score was 147.16(15.20). The o�ine teaching scorewas the highest but without any statistical signi�cance (F=1.39, p=0.25).
Among the bottom 30% of the students, the o�ine teaching score was 148.58 (11.18). The onlineteaching score was 144.33 (18.45), and the blended teaching score was 153.11 (10.96). The blendedteaching score was the highest. There were no signi�cant differences in scores among the three teachingmethods (F=0.72, p=0.50).
Page 10/15
Table 4Some of the students’ comments
comments
1. O�ine “In the experimental part of Contact Lenses, I need personal guidance from thefaculty, but the faculty has limited time and it is di�cult to guide one by one”
2. O�ine “O�ine teaching needs to arrive in the classroom on time, and the learning time is�xed and in�exible”
3. Online “I felt not good in the experimental part, my eyes understood, but my hands did not”
4. Online “There is already a lot of class content, after-school homework is also a lot, spend alot of time”
5. Blended “Increase experiment time”
Analysis of the word cloud of students’ comments showed 18.10% (40/221) of students proposedincreasing the time of the experiment and practice time. There were 5.88%(13/221)students suggestedincreasing communication and interaction time. Some students suggested adding high-quality teachingvideos and teaching pictures; Some students hoped that their theoretical knowledge could be extended.
DiscussionThe COVID-19 pandemic boosts the process of online learning[25]. To improve the teaching quality of thecontact lens course, we assessed the effect of three teaching methods. To the best of our knowledge, thiswas the �rst study to explore student satisfaction with contact lens teaching quality. It provided insightinto the strengths and weaknesses of student satisfaction with the teaching quality of contact lenses.
Compared with traditional o�ine teaching, the new online teaching and blended teaching had nosigni�cant difference in the teaching effectiveness of " Contact Lenses ". Our results were consistent withGoodwin D et al.[26], who considered that e-learning in blended learning environments does not appear toimprove students’ grades in clinical skills teaching in optometry, and it is important to better understandin which situations e-learning tools can best be utilized within the optometry curriculum.
In this survey, the total score of traditional o�ine teaching was slightly better than online teaching andblended teaching. This also re�ected that student was accustomed to accepting traditional teachingmethods. From the results of question 5, students with o�ine teaching had more contact time withfaculty and students. They could discuss with faculty and classmates in time which could result insolving questions immediately and having a higher learning e�ciency. O�ine teaching does not requireusing the screen for a long time, which has the potential to protect the eyes and reduce eyestrain to someextent and might help concentration on the learning content itself.
Page 11/15
Despite their lower level of satisfaction with online teaching and blended teaching compared to o�ineteaching, students expected that distance e-learning could partially replace the traditional method indelivering theoretical but not clinical skills. Our results were consistent with Goodwin[26] who stated e-learning in blended learning environments did not appear to improve students’ grades, especially inclinical skills.
Faculty often assign after-school exercises to test the learning effect of students, especially for onlineteaching or blended teaching, because they cannot interact effectively with classmates through theInternet, however, these after-school exercises also increase students learning pressure, as question 31showed. As mentioned by Diane[27], online learning not only highlights its advantages of �exibility andrich learning resources but also exposes faculty’s inadequacy in teaching design. At the same time, somestudents were short of electronic equipment or a stable network to support online teaching[28].
The online teaching model during COVID-19 prompted higher education to complement a novel paradigmtransformation even in the post-epidemic era. To overcome o�ine teaching or online teaching drawbacks,the blended teaching model had become an effective way to promote higher education "classroomrevolution". Blended teaching absorbs the advantages of o�ine and online teaching, and avoids theirdisadvantages. The Chinese ministry of education vigorously advocates online and o�ine blendedcourses with high quality to develop.
In a systematic review and Meta-Analysis[29], 26 of the 41 studies showed that groups with blendedlearning had better scores than those of their corresponding control groups. In this survey, blendedteaching did not show its expected advantage. The reasons could be as following: First, the faculty didnot fully adapt to the new teaching design. The faculty simply recorded a lecture and uploaded it on anonline platform instead of making it more interactive; Second, online tools such as video conferencingand virtual classrooms had not been mastered by faculty. Faculty should consider enhancing their abilityto design teaching in a remote context.
This survey consists of the following shortcomings: First,the basic knowledge and learning ability of ourparticipants were different, which could affect the outcomes and evaluation of the three differentteaching methods. Second, the answers were self-reported; therefore, recall and reporting bias cannot beexcluded, especially for the students enrolled in 2017 at Dagang campus who �nished the contact lensescourse 1.5 years ago. Third, online teaching and blended teaching only were performed for one year, theteaching effects of these new teaching methods have not been still exhibited completely.
ConclusionThe traditional o�ine teaching method had a stable teaching effect, including contact time with thefaculty. Both the innovative online teaching and blended teaching were as effective as o�ine teaching.The adoption of online learning in medical school may enhance traditional medical education or evenprovide additional bene�ts during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Page 12/15
AbbreviationsSEEQ: The students' evaluation of educational quality
DeclarationsEthics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Availability of data and materials
All data relevant to the study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Funding
This study was supported by an education grant from Tianjin medical university (BK11020026).
Authors' contributions
RHW and YP conceived and supervised the experiment. HMZ, YZ, LL, WPL, TPG, and LH performed thestudy and collected the data. HMZ analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read andapproved the �nal manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the students who participate in the study.
References1. Abbasi MS, Ahmed N, Sajjad B, Alshahrani A, Saeed S, Sarfaraz S, Alhamdan RS, Vohra F,
Abduljabbar T: E-Learning perception and satisfaction among health sciences students amid theCOVID-19 pandemic. Work (Reading, Mass) 2020, 67(3):549-556.
2. Chiodini J: Online learning in the time of COVID-19. Travel medicine and infectious disease 2020,34:101669.
3. Emery A: E-lectures and online learning: Not a replacement for live teaching. Medical teacher 2017,39(12):1292.
Page 13/15
4. García-Mejido JA, Fernández-Palacín A, Bonomi-Barby MJ, De la Fuente Vaquero P, Iglesias E, SainzJA: Online learning for 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound of the pelvic �oor. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the o�cial journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, theFederation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of PerinatalObstet 2020, 33(16):2805-2811.
5. Haugen K, Metcalf KL: Assessment of Online Learning. Radiologic technology 2019, 90(3):307-311.
�. Hsu PC, Chang IH, Chen RS: Online Learning Communities and Mental Health Literacy for PreschoolTeachers: The Moderating Role of Enthusiasm for Engagement. International journal ofenvironmental research and public health 2019, 16(22).
7. Rhim HC, Han H: Teaching online: foundational concepts of online learning and practical guidelines.Korean journal of medical education 2020, 32(3):175-183.
�. Medicare learning online. Optometry (St Louis, Mo) 2004, 75(10):658-659.
9. Extavour RM, Allison GL: Students' perceptions of a blended learning pharmacy seminar course in aCaribbean school of pharmacy. Currents in pharmacy teaching & learning 2018, 10(4):517-522.
10. Kharel Sitaula R, Khatri A, Janani MK, Mandage R, Sadhu S, Madhavan HN, Upadhyay MP, Biswas J:Unfolding COVID-19: Lessons-in-Learning in Ophthalmology. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland,NZ) 2020, 14:2807-2820.
11. Memon AR, Rathore FA: Moodle and Online Learning in Pakistani Medical Universities: Anopportunity worth exploring in higher education and research. JPMA The Journal of the PakistanMedical Association 2018, 68(7):1076-1078.
12. Wu XV, Chan YS, Tan KHS, Wang W: A systematic review of online learning programs for nursepreceptors. Nurse education today 2018, 60:11-22.
13. Fatani TH: Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19pandemic. BMC medical education 2020, 20(1):396.
14. Jonuscheit S, Lam AKC, Schmid KL, Flanagan J, Martin R, Troilo D: COVID-19: ensuring safe clinicalteaching at university optometry schools. Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of theBritish College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) 2021, 41(1):144-156.
15. Rose S: Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. Jama 2020, 323(21):2131-2132.
1�. Schneider SL, Council ML: Distance learning in the era of COVID-19. Archives of dermatologicalresearch 2021, 313(5):389-390.
17. Woolliscroft JO: Innovation in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis. Academic medicine :journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2020, 95(8):1140-1142.
1�. Ahmed SA, Hegazy NN, Abdel Malak HW, Cliff Kayser W, 3rd, Elra�e NM, Hassanien M, Al-Hayani AA,El Saadany SA, Ai-Youbi AO, Shehata MH: Model for utilizing distance learning post COVID-19 using(PACT)™ a cross sectional qualitative study. BMC medical education 2020, 20(1):400.
19. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM: Internet-based learning in thehealth professions: a meta-analysis. Jama 2008, 300(10):1181-1196.
Page 14/15
20. MARSH HW: SEEQ: A RELIABLE, VALID, AND USEFUL INSTRUMENT FOR COLLECTING STUDENTS'EVALUATIONS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHING. The British Journal of Educational Psychological 1982,52(1):77-95.
21. Ogunnaike OO, Ayeni B, Olorunyomi B, Olokundun M, Ayoade O, Borishade T: Data set on interactiveservice quality in higher education marketing. Data in brief 2018, 19:1403-1409.
22. Qingmao M, Hongyun L: The university teacher's teaching effect evaluates the dimensional structureand in�uence factors. Psychological science 2003, 4:617-619.
23. Zhang Y, Lun S, Qu B: The application of the SEEQ Questionnaire on the Evaluation of teachingEffects of University Teachers Zhonghuayixuejiaoyutansuozazhi 2014, 13(05):433-436.
24. Feng S: A survey of teaching effectiveness based on the SEEQ questionnaire. Gaojiaoxuekan 2017,21:5-9.
25. Rajhans V, Memon U, Patil V, Goyal A: Impact of COVID-19 on academic activities and way forward inIndian Optometry. Journal of optometry 2020, 13(4):216-226.
2�. Goodwin D HL, Hayes JR: Blended Learning in Optometric Clinical Procedures Instruction. Optometriceducation 2014, 39(2).
27. O'Doherty D, Dromey M, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, McGrath D: Barriers and solutions to onlinelearning in medical education - an integrative review. BMC medical education 2018, 18(1):130.
2�. Online learning cannot just be for those who can afford its technology. Nature 2020, 585(7826):482.
29. Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorbets E: Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning inMedical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of medical Internetresearch 2020, 22(8):e16504.
Figures
Page 15/15
Figure 1
Word cloud of students’ comments
