by Megan Davis, Pharm.D., PGY1 Pharmacy Practice Resident, Magnolia Regional Health Center
Continuing
education programs play an important role in a pharmacist’s development. Healthcare
practitioners should be self-directed learners and continuing education (CE)
provides them with a way to keep their knowledge and skills current. Moreover, CE
is required by law to order to maintain professional licensure. CE programs are
offered through a variety of methods. Two of the most common are face-to-face
and web-based methods. Web-based instruction uses the Internet as the primary method
of information delivery.1 Many terms are used interchangeably to describe
web-based learning. These include online learning, computer-assisted learning,
and e-learning. For the purpose of this essay, web-based learning is defined as
learning that does not take place in a live environment, that is, the
instruction and learning are happening at different times (asynchronous delivery).
Face-to-face learning, on the other hand, is live interaction that occurs in-person
between a learner and a teacher — that is, the instruction and learning are
occurring at the same time and in the same place. The problem with these
methods, however, is that neither is very effective in terms of behavior
change.2
The
effectiveness of continuing education is typically assessed in terms of learner
reactions and satisfaction, sometimes by testing for knowledge changes, but rarely
are patient outcomes or changes in practice measured. For example, knowledge
can be measured via pre-test and post-test scores. But a change in knowledge
may not lead to practice change and improved patient outcomes. None-the-less, while
there is some debate about how effective CE is, healthcare practitioners should
understand the advantages and disadvantages of the face-to-face and web-based
methods.2
Face-to-face
learners have the opportunity to perform and practice techniques while
receiving feedback and guidance from the instructor. In today’s world, I
realize the popularity of platforms such as YouTube, where the audience is able
to learn how to do just about any task by watching tutorial videos. However, I
argue that this web-based instruction is not as effective as learning how to perform
the activity in-person with feedback from an instructor. Face-to-face instruction
can provide the learner with real-time, on-the-spot feedback, whereas non-live
web-based instruction does not.
When
learners and instructors meet face-to-face, it’s an opportunity network and connect
with others in your profession. This initial
forming of relationships is easier in a face-to-face environment where one is
able to connect with others between sessions, during breaks, or at dinner. Pharmacy,
like nursing and medicine, is a small world and connecting and building
relationships is best accomplished through face-to-face interactions and
continuing education that takes place at local, regional, and national
meetings.3 In my personal experience, I have made countless lasting
relationships by attending face-to-face continuing education programs. Social
media platforms, which are web-based, do allow for continued connection once
the face-to-face interaction has occurred, but I do not believe that it can
replace the initial contact, conversations, and networking that face-to-face
allows.
However,
face-to-face instruction typically does not take into account the individual’s
learning preferences. As we know, learning is not a one size fits all format. In
web-based instruction, the learner can seek out different instructional methods
(readings, videos, podcasts) — one’s that are most conducive to their learning
style. In face-to-face instruction, the learner can’t select the instructional
method — the instructor chooses.
Also,
live instruction generally does not evaluate learning using a valid assessment
at the conclusion of the education. Credit is awarded based on attendance. By
not assessing improvements in knowledge or skill, it difficult to assess
whether any learning has occurred. Some live programs incorporate audience
response (aka clicker-type) questions throughout the program, but answering
these questions correctly is not a requirement for credit.
Lastly,
the face-to-face methods can be inconvenient and costly, especially when travel
is involved. This is important for busy professionals who may not have the time
to seek out and attend live programs.3
Potential
Advantages and Limitations of Web-based Instruction:
Web-based
instruction provides a way for learners to complete CE programs on their own
time and any location with Internet access (which is practically everywhere
nowadays). With 24-hour, flexible access, web-based instruction is both
convenient and accessible. It also allows for a greater variety of topics from
which to select. Learners have the ability to seek out programs that align with
their professional interests. These programs can be accessed through numerous professional
organizations, Universities, and medical education companies. Lastly, most web-based programs test the
learner’s understanding of the material at completion of the course and often
include critical thinking and problem-solving exercise to determine if the
learner retained the information presented.3
Unfortunately,
technical problems are inevitable with both web-based and face-to-face
instruction. When technical problems are encountered, learning is hindered and learner
satisfaction declines.4 Technical problems are more difficult to
overcome with web-based instruction due to the dependence on technology to
deliver the instruction. Technical issues are a bit easier to address during face-to-face
programs because the instructor is still able to communicate with the audience and can
use alternative methods, like providing paper handouts, if the instructor has planned
ahead.4
Comparing
the changes in pre-test and post-test scores, one study found that the
face-to-face and web-based methods were equally effective with regard to the
knowledge gained after the topic was presented.3 This is not
surprising as both delivery methods seem to achieve similar knowledge gains in
aggregate across many studies. That is, pre-test and post-test scores are
significantly better after the instruction is completed. However, what studies have
not yet demonstrated is the effectiveness of instruction in terms of practice
change. This means that it is still unknown if CE leads to behavior change or improves
patient outcomes regardless of the instructional method used.2
With
the Internet playing a vital role in our lives now, it is safe to say that
web-based instruction is here to stay.4 By exploring the advantages
and limitations to both face-to-face and web-based methods, we are better able
to choose the method that is most effective for what we, as individual learners
and educators, are trying to accomplish. In many states, regulatory boards require
that a portion of continuing education be completed via live face-to-face
instruction.3 I believe when we combine the two methods and are cognizant
of the advantages and limitations of each, we are more likely to achieve our
continuing education goals.
References:
- Cook, D. Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clin Med 2007; 7:37-42.
- Rouleau G, et al. Effects of E-learning in a Continuing Education Context on Nursing Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Studies Reviews. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21(10):e15118.
- Brown, L. Continuing Education Showdown: Online Learning vs. In-Person Seminars. Acupuncture Today 2013; 14(12).
- Khatony, A. et al. The effectiveness of web-based and face-to-face continuing education methods on nurses’ knowledge about AIDS: a comparative study. BMC Medical Education 2009; 9:41.
No comments:
Post a Comment