J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2015;12:33. 10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.33.

External and internal factors influencing self-directed online learning of physiotherapy undergraduate students in Sweden: a qualitative study

• Hammarlund CS
• Nilsson MH
• Gummesson

• KMID: 2402040
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.33

Abstract

PURPOSE
Online courses have become common in health sciences education. This learning environment can be designed using different approaches to support student learning. To further develop online environment, it is important to understand how students perceive working and learning online. The aim of this study is to identify aspects influencing students' learning processes and their adaptation to self-directed learning online.
METHODS
Thirty-four physiotherapy students with a mean age of 25 years (range, 21 to 34 years) participated. Qualitative content analysis and triangulation was used when investigating the students' self-reflections, written during a five week self-directed, problem-oriented online course.
RESULTS
Two categories emerged: 'the influence of the structured framework' and 'communication and interaction with teachers and peers.' The learning processes were influenced by external factors, e.g., a clear structure including a transparent alignment of assignments and assessment. Important challenges to over-come were primarily internal factors, e.g., low self-efficacy, difficulties to plan the work effectively and adapting to a new environment.
CONCLUSIONS
The analyses reflected important perspectives targeting areas which enable further course development. The influences of external and internal factors on learning strategies and self-efficacy are important aspects to consider when designing online courses. Factors such as pedagogical design, clarity of purpose, goals, and guidelines were important as well as continuous opportunities for communication and collaboration. Further studies are needed to understand and scaffold the motivational factors among students with low self-efficacy.

Keyword

Communication; Cooperative behavior; Learning; Perception; Physiotherapy

MeSH Terms

Cooperative Behavior
Education
Humans
Learning*
Sweden*

Reference

1. Cook DA. Learning and cognitive styles in web-based learning: theory, evidence, and application. Acad Med. 2005; 80:266–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00012.

2. Kropf C. Connectivism: 21st century’s new learning theory. EURODL. 2013; 16:13–24. Available from: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2013/Kropf.pdf.

3. Jungert T, Rosander M. Self-efficacy and strategies to influence the study environment. Teach High Educ. 2010; 15:647–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.522080.

4. Reeves PM, Reeves TC. Design considerations for online learning in health and social work education. Learn Health Soc Care. 2008; 7:46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2008.00170.x.

5. Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009; 14:595–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2.

6. Ward ME, Peters G, Shelley K. Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. IRRODL. 2010; 11:57–77.

7. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004; 24:105–112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.

8. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and actions: a social cognitive theory. Englewoods Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall;1986.

9. Gikandi JW, Morrow D, Davis NE. One line formative assessment in higher education: a review of the literature. Comput Educ. 2011; 57:2333–2351.

10. Li N, Hung KH, Chang CH. A cognitive-situative approach to understand motivation: implications to technology supported education. US-China Educ Rev. 2010; 7:26–33.

11. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000; 25:54–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

12. Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn Instr. 2010; 20:304–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.

13. Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Metsemakers JF. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009; 14:399–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9124-4.

14. Ferla J, Valcke M, Schuyten G. Student models of learning and their impact on study strategies. Stud High Educ. 2009; 34:185–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802528288.