Effectiveness of Online Teaching During COVID-19 Pandemic for West Midlands Urology Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective Urology trainees in the West Midlands are provided with protected compulsory teaching sessions by the deanery. These teaching sessions are usually held in a regional centre, on a face-to-face basis. However, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact not only on individuals, the healthcare system, but has affected medical education for trainees. All regional teaching sessions have been moved online for the safety of individuals and to comply with social distancing guidelines. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of online teaching during the pandemic. Material and Methods An online survey was sent out to all urology trainees in the West Midlands. The questionnaire, comprised of a mixture of open, closed and Likert-10-point scale questions was used to compare online teaching against face-to-face teaching. An independent t-test was carried out as the data was presumed to follow a normal distribution. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results 70% of trainees responded and participated in the survey. Attendance rates were higher when teaching was online compared to face-to-face sessions. 100% of trainees were able to attend at least 80% of online teaching sessions whilst 89% were able to attend face-to-face sessions. However, the quality of teaching were not statistically significant between face-to-face and online teaching sessions (mean = 7.95 and 8.11 respectively, p= 0.316). The study found that trainees benefited from the accessibility of online teaching sessions but lost out on social networking and interactivity of face-to-face sessions. Most participants recommended a hybrid or blended learning approach once the pandemic is over. Conclusion The impact of COVID-19 has almost forced all undergraduate and postgraduate education to have a form of virtual presence. All teaching sessions will remain online for the foreseeable future. Our study found no difference between the qualities of teaching for both approaches. However, benefits and drawbacks of online teaching have been identified. Hence, we recommend a mixed learning approach of face-to-face and online teaching for the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".