Healthc Inform Res.  2025 Jan;31(1):96-106. 10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.96.

Interactive Engagement with Self-Paced Learning Content in a Didactic Course

• Sharmin N
• Houshyar S
• Stevenson TR
• Chow AK

• KMID: 2564355
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.96

Abstract

Objectives
A growing number of health professional institutions around the world are embracing innovative technologies to increase student engagement, primarily to improve clinical and simulated learning experiences. Didactic learning is an essential component of dental and medical curricula. However, limited research is available regarding the implementation of technology-infused teaching in classroom settings. We developed self-paced interactive learning content using the HTML5 Package (H5P) to promote student engagement in a didactic course within a dental hygiene program.
Methods
A total of 52 interactive artifacts were created and administered to students as supplementary learning material. A descriptive study was conducted to explore student perceptions and engagement with the H5P content, as well as to evaluate the impact of these artifacts on academic performance.
Results
Students performed significantly better on exam questions associated with interactive H5P content posted in the learning management system compared to other questions. Most students were highly engaged with the H5P content during the week leading up to each summative assessment. However, two of the three students with the highest course grades demonstrated consistent engagement with this content throughout the course.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the effectiveness of interactive content created using the H5P platform in fostering student engagement. The development of self-paced interactive materials may benefit various aspects of didactic teaching, including both synchronous and asynchronous online learning.

Keyword

Simulation Training, Teaching Materials, Dental Education, Oral Hygiene, Learning, Education, Biochemistry

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Representative examples of interactive content created for students using the H5P platform. (A, B) Drag and drop. (C, D) Drag the words. Students can drag text or images to the appropriate locations. They receive immediate feedback on their performance by clicking “Check” and can click “Retry” as many times as needed to improve their performance. (E, F) Dialogue cards. On these two-sided digital flashcards, side 1 contains an image, clue, or question. (G) Crossword puzzle. (H) Memory game.

• 

  Figure 2 Impact of interactive H5P content on student academic performance. The relevant course (OBIOL 203 - Survey of Biochemistry) includes three non-cumulative assessments: (A) exam I, (B) exam II, and (C) exam III. Exam questions were categorized into two groups: (A) questions about concepts that were presented with supplementary H5P content and (B) questions regarding concepts that lacked such content. The difficulty indices of these two sets of questions were compared. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed t-tests, with significance set at p ≤ 0.05, using Microsoft Excel.

• 

  Figure 3 (A) Student engagement with H5P content throughout the course timeline. We collected data on the frequency of interactions with this content from the learning management system (LMS) and plotted it over the course timeline for the 28 students. (B) Correlation between course grade and interactions with H5P content. Microsoft Excel was used for Pearson correlation analysis (r = 0.368). (C) Student engagement with the H5P content over time. Patterns of interaction with this content were analyzed for six students, specifically those who ranked in the top three and bottom three for overall course grade. Student-specific engagement data were collected from the LMS and plotted across the course timeline.

• 

  Figure 4 (A) Percentage distribution of student survey responses. Students enrolled in the OBIOL 203 course during the winter 2024 term were invited to participate in a voluntary, anonymous survey. Of the class, 61% (n = 17) responded. (B) Student perceptions of the primary benefits of the H5P content. (C) Student perceptions of the most helpful types of H5P content. (D) Representative student comments from the open-ended survey questions.

Reference

References

1. Wang Y, Ji Y. How do they learn: types and characteristics of medical and healthcare student engagement in a simulation-based learning environment. BMC Med Educ. 2021; 21(1):420. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02858-7.

2. Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022; 56(7):703–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14799.

3. Algarni YA, Saini RS, Vaddamanu SK, Quadri SA, Gurumurthy V, Vyas R, et al. The impact of virtual reality simulation on dental education: a systematic review of learning outcomes and student engagement. J Dent Educ. 2024; 88(11):1549–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13619.

4. Lungu AJ, Swinkels W, Claesen L, Tu P, Egger J, Chen X. A review on the applications of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in surgical simulation: an extension to different kinds of surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021; 18(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2021.1860750.

5. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004; 74(1):59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

6. Wong ZY, Liem GA. Student engagement: crrent state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022; 34(1):107–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09628-3.

7. H5P. Create, share and reuse interactive HTML5 content in your browser [Internet]. Tromso, Norway: H5P Group;2023. [cited at 2023 Nov 14]. Available from https://h5p.org/.

8. Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies. Perspect Clin Res. 2019; 10(1):34–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18.

9. Inarrairaegui M, Fernandez-Ros N, Lucena F, Landecho MF, Garcia N, Quiroga J, et al. Evaluation of the quality of multiple-choice questions according to the students’ academic level. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):779. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03844-3.

10. Liu XS. A probabilistic explanation of Pearson’s correlation. Teach Stat. 2019; 41(3):115–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12204.

11. Sinnayah P, Salcedo A, Rekhari S. Reimagining physiology education with interactive content developed in H5P. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021; 45(1):71–6. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00021.2020.

12. Gunuc S. The relationships between student engagement and their academic achievement. Int J New Trends Educ Their Implic. 2014. 5(4):216–31. http://ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/19.gunuc.pdf.

13. Hoffman DL, Furutomo F, Eichelberger A, McKimmy P. Matters of frequency, immediacy and regularity: engagement in an online asynchronous course. Innov High Educ. 2023; 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09646-9.