Evaluation of an Interactive and Collaborative Cloud-based Learning Strategy in Medical Education

Background In most health professions education programs, didactic lectures remain the most common teaching modality. There is a need for synchronous interactive instructional methods that require little student preparation, promote directed-independent learning and high-order cognition, while increasing feedback and teamwork. We have recently created a Cloud-based learning (CL) educational tool that uses the conceptual Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework, together with generative learning theory. Using student surveys, we aim to evaluate this instructional methodology and compare it with more common practices in medical education, including Team-Based Learning (TBL), Flipped Class (FC), and Didactic Lectures (DL). In addition, using a literature-based analysis, we compared CL to several instruction methods (DL, PBL, TBL, FC) to determine whether CL has unique characteristics that differentiate it from other instructional methods. Methods Student perception surveys were used to contrast responses regarding these instruction methods in terms of satisfaction, student preparation time, teamwork, collaboration, and formative feedback received. Responses were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H-test and Dunn’s pairwise test to determine statistical significance between the medians. Results Compared to other teaching methods, students expressed a preference for TBL and DL over CL and FC (DL = TBL = CL > FC). CL and DL were perceived to require the least preparation time (less than 30 min), compared to FC and TBL (CL = DL < FC < TBL). Regarding the learning environment and engagement with each of the instructional strategies, participants were equally engaged with TBL, DL and CL, and less engaged with FC (TBL = CL = DL; TBL > FC). TBL and CL were rated significantly higher in terms of collaboration and teamwork, in which CL provided significantly higher instructor feedback than TBL, DL and FC (CL > TBL > DL = FC), while TBL provided significantly higher peer feedback than CL (TBL > CL > DL > FC). Conclusions Despite the benefits of CL (student preparedness, high feedback and collaborative environment), students express preferences toward TBL and DL. Compared with existing teaching methods, CL has some unique characteristics that enable students to create their own study tool with reduced preparation time, strong feedback and a collaborative environment that can be considered an alternative educational strategy.