An Exploratory Study of Live vs. Web-Based Delivery of a Phlebotomy Program

Nadine A. Fydryszewski; Craig Scanlan; H. Jesse Guiles; Ann W. Tucker

doi:10.29074/ascls.23.3_Supplement.39

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Nadine A. Fydryszewski, PhD, MLS⇑
1. Dept. of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101
Craig Scanlan, EdD, RT
1. Dept. of Primary Care, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101
H. Jesse Guiles, EdD, MLS
1. Dept. of Clinical Laboratory Sciecnes, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101
Ann W. Tucker, DEd, RDH
1. Dept of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101

Address for Correspondence: Nadine A, Fydryszewski, PhD, MLS, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 65 Bergen Street- SSB GB 20, Newark, NJ 07101, 973-972-5089, fydrysna{at}umdnj.edu

Abstract

Changes in student population and increased Web-based education offerings provided the impetus to assess pedagogy, cognitive outcomes and perceptions of course quality.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored cognitive outcomes and students' perception of course quality related to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education between live classroom delivery, compared to a Web-based delivery of a phlebotomy program.

DESIGN: Quasi-experimental; students self-selected to enroll in live or Web-based program.

RESULTS: For cognitive outcomes, no significant difference was found between the groups. Student perception of course quality differed only for Principle One (student-instructor contact). Students in the live classroom rated Principle One higher for the Part I course compared to the Web-based group. For the Part II course, there was no significant difference in perception of course quality related to any of the Seven Principles.

CONCLUSIONS: The more constructivist pedagogy in the Part II course did not improve cognitive outcomes however, it may have contributed to knowledge retention. The live group rated Principle One in the Part II course evaluation relatively the same as they did for the Part I course evaluation. However, the Web-based group rated Principle One considerable higher for the Part II course than for Part I course. Future studies with a larger sample could explore improved course quality assessment instruments.