ABSTRACT
This Innovate Practice work-in-progress paper presents findings around how distance learning, due to the the COVID-19 pandemic, affected students as measured by time-on-task in programming.In this qualitative study, we examine a group of 36 second year upper-secondary students in Programming 1 during a nine week period in Spring 2021. During this time, they alternated between one whole week of distance learning followed by two weeks of in school instruction. For the Programming 1 lessons, students used an online platform to write, edit and run code in. We analyzed the log data from the platform to estimate time-on-task for each student for every lesson both at home and at school.We observed that students were affected differently by distance learning as measured by time-on-task. 12 students had more average time-on-task at school. 15 students had more average time-on-task at home. Nine students had less than five minutes difference on average.In addition to the analysis of time-on-task, students were given a survey in Fall 2021 to follow up on their experiences with in-school teaching and distance learning. In the survey, students were asked questions about their study environment at home during distance learning. From the responses, 13 students described their study environment as 'in bed' despite having access to a table and chair in a room for themselves and twenty-three students described their study environment as 'playing video games during online lectures'. Not surprisingly, students that said they were playing video games during online lectures had a lower average time-on-task by about ten minutes than their peers. Interestingly, students that said they participated in class in bed had a higher average time-on-task by about ten minutes than their peers.Correlating responses from the survey and time-on-task data, we reason about how students' study environments at home affected their time-on-task and how distance learning has affected students in the pandemic. © 2022 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
Background The Canada-Global Rating Scale (C-GRS) is a web-based, patient centered endoscopy quality improvement tool. It assesses the quality of services a unit provides in two dimensions: clinical quality and patient experience. Endoscopy units submit results to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology twice a year. In Alberta, units receive an A, B, C or D grade for each of the 12 C-GRS Items and a C-GRS score. The C-GRS promotes that patient feedback is sought annually. Patient feedback is important because it informs practice improvement opportunities. However, survey creation, distribution, analysis and reporting can be time consuming and costly for an endoscopy unit and is a potential barrier to participation. Aims The purpose of this quality improvement project is to demonstrate how a provincial infrastructure, which includes coordination, management and reporting of an endoscopy patient satisfaction survey, can enhance provincial endoscopy unit survey participation and facilitate C-GRS compliance. Methods The Digestive Health Strategic Clinical Network (DHSCN), the Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and Primary Data Support (PDS) collaborated on the Provincial Endoscopy Patient Experience Survey (PEPES) in 2019. An existing paper survey was adapted to meet the needs of the 50 endoscopy units in AB with the addition of an electronic version. Education about the PEPES process was provided via a webinar and site visits. Each unit was responsible for distribution of the surveys to their patients. PDS coordinated the paper survey process and the DHSCN managed the electronic survey submissions. Paper survey results were merged with electronic PEPES data. A summary report was provided to units and shared with each AHS Zone Endoscopy Executive Leadership Team. Results Provincially coordinated implementation of the PEPES fosters compliance with C-GRS criteria. Participating endoscopy units were able to achieve at minimum 9 C-GRS descriptors and improve their C-GRS score in the following 7 of the 12 C-GRS Items: consent, comfort, equality, booking, privacy, aftercare and feedback. Initial enrollment in the PEPES increased with the onset of provincial coordination (Figure 1). However, subsequent participation was negatively impacted by COVID-19 as many endoscopy units in AB were required to decrease their capacity and redeploy staff. Conclusions A provincially coordinated approach to the management of an endoscopy patient experience survey is an effective way to enhance site participation and improve C-GRS scores. Units can focus on actioning survey results, rather than the burden of survey administration. Future work includes comparison of results across sites allowing for potential provincial equity issues to be addressed. Funding Agencies None