Table 3.
Distribution of Responses to Statements for the Whole Group (N=363) After the Large-Scale Blended IPL Course (on a Scale from 0 to 5, State How Much You Agree or Disagree with the Following Statements, Where 0 Means “Completely Disagree” and 5 Means “Completely Agree”), N (%)
| Scores | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question: After Completing the IPL Course, to What Extent Do You Feel That: | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| - the information ahead of the IPL course was good? | 81 (22.3) | 82 (22.6) | 79 (21.8) | 63 (17.4) | 36 (9.9) | 22 (6.1) |
| - the practical organisation on campus was good? | 51 (14.0) | 48 (13.2) | 70 (19.3) | 80 (22.0) | 80 (22.0) | 34 (9.4) |
| - the digital academic content was well organised in LMS? | 16 (4.4) | 19 (5.2) | 46 (12.7) | 92 (25.3) | 108 (29.8) | 82 (22.6) |
| - the learning objectives were clear? | 8 (2.2) | 27 (7.4) | 34 (9.4) | 93 (25.6) | 111 (30.6) | 90 (24.8) |
| - there was a clear relation between learning objectives and the assignment? | 11 (3.0) | 20 (5.5) | 44 (12.1) | 90 (24.8) | 130 (35.8) | 68 (18.7) |
| - the digital learning resources were relevant? | 12 (3.3) | 19 (5.2) | 51 (14.0) | 93 (25.6) | 129 (35.5) | 59 (16.3) |
| - the group discussions were relevant? | 15 (4.1) | 16 (4.4) | 30 (8.3) | 79 (21.8) | 131 (36.1) | 92 (25.3) |
| - the assignment for submission was relevant? | 22 (6.1) | 21 (5.8) | 42 (11.6) | 89 (24.5) | 110 (30.3) | 79 (21.8) |
| - the syllabus was relevant? | 18 (5.0) | 17 (4.7) | 55 (15.2) | 118 (32.5) | 104 (28.7) | 51 (14.0) |
| - the supervision was relevant? | 75 (20.7) | 54 (14.9) | 66 (18.2) | 88 (24.2) | 51 (14.0) | 29 (8.0) |
| - the IPL group teamwork was relevant? | 2 (0.6) | 8 (2.2) | 12 (3.3) | 38 (10.5) | 76 (20.9) | 227 (62.5) |
| - the large-scale blended learning approach worked well? | 14 (3.9) | 18 (5.0) | 41 (11.3) | 70 (19.3) | 129 (35.5) | 91 (25.1) |
| - the blended learning approach worked better than plenary lectures? | 34 (9.4) | 23 (6.3) | 45 (12.4) | 83 (22.9) | 91 (25.1) | 87 (24.0) |
| - the learning outcomes have been higher from virtual groups? | 191 (52.6) | 75 (20.7) | 41 (11.3) | 28 (7.7) | 19 (5.2) | 9 (2.5) |
| - you had familiarised yourself with the digital contents ahead of course? | 47 (12.9) | 33 (9.1) | 67 (18.5) | 87 (24.0) | 69 (19.0) | 60 (16.5) |
Notes: Adapted from Almendingen K, Molin M, Šaltytė Benth J. Large-scale blended learningdesign in an undergraduate interprofessional course in norway:students’ perspectives from an exploratory study. J Res Interprof Pract 605Educ. 2021;11(1):1–2622 and Almendingen K, Saltyte-Benth J, Molin M, Almendingen K,Šaltytė BJ, Molin M. ‘Large scale blended learning design in aninterprofessional undergraduate course in Norway: context descrip- 625tion and supervisors’ perspective. MedEdPublish. 2021;10(162).28