Clinical records after asynchronous and synchronous e-learning courses: a multi-method randomised controlled trial on students' performance and experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Record (CR) writing is a fundamental skill for healthcare professionals, but the best e-learning methods for teaching it remain unstudied. Therefore, we investigated speech therapy students' differences in the quality production of CR at the placement and their experience after following asynchronous or synchronous e-learning courses. METHODS: A multi-method randomised controlled trial. Fifty speech therapist students were equally and randomly divided into two groups attending asynchronous or synchronous e-learning classes to learn how to write a CR. The quality of the CR was tested through an ad hoc checklist (score 0-32) and the groups' scores were compared. The assessors and the statistician were blinded to students' group assignment. Students' experience was assessed through semi-structured interviews analysed with a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: No score differences between the two groups were found (Cohen's d = 0.1; 95% Confidence Interval [-0.6; 0.7]). Four themes were generated: (1) 'Different Forms of Learning Interaction', as the synchronous group reported a positive experience with being fed back immediately by the lecturer, whereas the asynchronous group reported that pushing back the question time allows for reflecting more on the learning experience; (2) 'Different Ways to Manage the Time', as the synchronous group had to stick to the lecturer's schedule and the asynchronous group felt the possibility to manage its time; (3) 'To Be or Not To Be (Present)?' due to the different experiences of having (or not) the lecturer in front of them; (4) 'Inspiring Relationships With The Peers', where both groups preferred a peer-to-peer discussion instead of contacting the lecturer. DISCUSSION: Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning courses appeared equally effective in teaching CR writing. However, students perceive and experience these methods differently. The choice or blend of these methods should be based on students' needs and preferences, teacher input, as well as organisational requirements rather than solely on students' attended performance.

Which lecturers' characteristics facilitate the learning process? A qualitative study on students' perceptions in the rehabilitation sciences.

BACKGROUND: In education, lecturers play a crucial role in facilitating students' learning process. However, only a few studies explored which lecturers' characteristics can facilitate this process in higher education for rehabilitation healthcare professionals. Starting from students' perspectives, our qualitative study investigated the lecturers' characteristics that facilitate students' learning process in the rehabilitation sciences. METHODS: A qualitative interview study. We enrolled students attending the 2nd year of the Master of Science (MSc) degree in 'Rehabilitation Sciences of Healthcare Professions'. Different themes were generated following a 'Reflexive Thematic Analysis'. RESULTS: Thirteen students completed the interviews. From their analysis, we generated five themes. Specifically, a lecturer that facilitates students' learning process should be: 1) 'A Performer who Interacts with the Classroom', 2) A Flexible Planner who Adopts Innovative Teaching Skills', 3) 'A Motivator who Embraces Transformational Leadership', 4) 'A Facilitator Who Encourages a Constructive Learning Context' and 5) 'A Coach who Devises Strategies to Reach Shared Learning Goals'. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study underscore the importance for lecturers in rehabilitation to cultivate a diverse set of skills drawn from the arts and performance, education, team building and leadership to facilitate students' learning process. By developing these skills, lecturers can design lessons that are worth attending not only for their relevant content but also for their value in human experience.

Effective teaching of manual skills to physiotherapy students: a randomised clinical trial.

CONTEXT: To date, despite the relevance of manual skills laboratories in physiotherapy education, evidence on the effectiveness of different teaching methods is limited. OBJECTIVES: Peyton's four-step and the 'See one, do one' approaches were compared for their effectiveness in teaching manual skills. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial was performed among final-year, right-handed physiotherapy students, without prior experience in manual therapy or skills laboratories. The manual technique of C1-C2 passive right rotation was taught by different experienced physiotherapist using Peyton's four-step approach (intervention group) and the 'See one, do one' approach (control group). Participants, teachers and assessors were blinded to the aims of the study. Primary outcomes were quality of performance at the end of the skills laboratories, and after 1 week and 1 month. Secondary outcomes were time required to teach, time required to perform the procedure and student satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 39 students were included in the study (21 in the intervention group and 18 in the control group). Their main characteristics were homogeneous at baseline. The intervention group showed better quality of performance in the short, medium and long terms (F1,111  = 35.91, p < 0.001). Both groups demonstrated decreased quality of performance over time (F2,111  = 12.91, p < 0.001). The intervention group reported significantly greater mean ± standard deviation satisfaction (4.31 ± 1.23) than the control group (4.03 ± 1.31) (p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference between the two methods in the time required for teaching, the time required by the intervention group to perform the procedure was significantly lower immediately after the skills laboratories and over time (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Peyton's four-step approach is more effective than the 'See one, do one' approach in skills laboratories aimed at developing physiotherapy student competence in C1-C2 passive mobilisation.