Assessing Study Literacy and Tech Readiness in Medical Students: Kirkpatrick Model Evaluation : Menilai Kuliah Literasi Belajar dan Teknologi pada Mahasiswa Kedokteran: Evaluasi Model Kirkpatrick

Elizabeth Sulastri Nugraheni

doi:10.31004/riggs.v4i2.1771

Authors

Elizabeth Sulastri Nugraheni Universitas Ciputra

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v4i2.1771

Keywords:

Outcome-Based, Study Strategies, Medical Education, Digital Literacy, Kirkpatrick Model

Abstract

The ability to work with technology is essential for our future doctor. In the era of digitalization, doctor patient consultation is changing. Therefore, it is important for students to develop specific skills early in their medical education. To meet future competency demands and support sustainable learning, we designed 16 weeks The Learning Literacy and Technology course. Which is consists of soft-skills facilitation and technology and AI modules for the first semester medical students. This study used the Kirpatrick Four-Level of Evaluation Model to assess the impact of the course. This model is widely used to evaluate the program on four levels: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Result. The aim of the study is to measure the evaluation outcome of this course in enhancing soft skills for learning and the use of technology in both medical education and future careers. A mixed method descriptive cross-sectional designs was used, incorporating quantitative data from the surveys and qualitative insights from guided interviews. Finding shows that quantiatively, students scored higher than 4 out of 5 across all levels. Qualitatively, similar themes emerged from the interview data. Overall, the mixed-method study indicates that the course effectively meets all four levels of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mauratidis K, Papagiannakis A. coronavirus COVID- 19 . COVID-19, internet, and mobility: The rise of telework, telehealth, e-learning, and e-shopping. Sustain Cities Soc. 2021;74(July).

Zhao Y, Watterston J. The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. J Educ Chang. 2021;22(1):3–12.

Selvam KP, Kosalram K, Chinnaiyan S. Post-Covid Pandemic: The new Normal and Aftermath. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2024;13:4308–14.

Mason AN, Narcum J, Mason K. Social media marketing gains importance after Covid-19. Cogent Bus Manag [Internet]. 2021;8(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1870797

Frenk J, Chen LC, Chandran L, Groff EOH, King R, Meleis A, et al. Challenges and opportunities for educating health professionals after the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet [Internet]. 2022;400(10362):1539–56. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02092-X

Jazieh AR, Kozlakidis Z. Healthcare Transformation in the Post-Coronavirus Pandemic Era. Front Med. 2020;7(July):1–6.

Harden RM. Ten key features of the future medical school—not an impossible dream. Med Teach [Internet]. 2018;40(10):1010–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1498613

Marsilio M, Calcaterra V, Infante G, Pisarra M, Zuccotti G. The digital readiness of future physicians: nurturing the post-pandemic medical education. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1–13.

Biosci IJ, Alhur AA. Integrating digital health into medical curricula: A review of current practices and future directions. Int J Biosci. 2023;6655:34–43.

Lovato C, Peterson L. Programme Evaluation. In: Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. 2019. p. 443–56.

Morrison J. Evaluation. In: Cantillon P, Hutchinson L, Wood D, editors. ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine. 1st ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. p. 21–3.

Mohanna K, Cottrell E, Wall D, Chambers R. Evaluation. In: Teaching Made Easy a Manual for Health Professionals. 3rd ed. CRC Taylor & Francis Group; 2011. p. 181–9.

Quirk M., Harden RM. Curriculum Planning and Development. In: Dent J, Harden RM, Hunt D, editors. a Practical Guide for Medical Teachers. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2017. p. 4–12.

Pencheon D. Developing a sustainable health care system: The United Kingdom experience. Med J Aust [Internet]. 2018;208(7):284-285.e1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.01134

Holmboe E., Harden RM. Outcome-based Education. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, Hunt D, editors. A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2017. p. 114–21.

Nugraheni ES, Widyandana D, Hidayah RN. Do Autonomy Supports Improve Medical Students’ Motivation in a Developing Country? J Pendidik Kedokt Indones Indones J Med Educ. 2022;11(2):160.

Alhameedyeen NAB, Alhameedyeen RAB. An analysis of learning and study strategies among undergraduate students. J Pedagog Res. 2023;7(5):81–96.

Jouhari Z, Haghani F, Changiz T. Assessment of medical students’ learning and study strategies in self-regulated learning. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2016;4(2):72–9.

Ritunga I, Nugraheni ES, Rambung E. GAMBARAN KOMPONEN PENGATURAN DIRI MAHASISWA FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN SEMESTER SATU. 2024;8:4500–7.

Anuratha K. Promoting learning outcomes using digital literacy. Int J Adv Res Ideas Innov Technol. 2020;6(3):318–23.

Poncette A-S, Glauert DL, Mosh L, Braune K, Balzer F, Back DA. Undergraduate Medical Competencies in Digital Health and Curricular Module Development:Mixed Methods Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;23:e26034.

Moretti V, Brunelli L, Conte A, Valdi G, Guelfi MR, Masoni M, et al. A Web Tool to Help Counter the Spread of Misinformation and Fake News: Pre-Post Study among Medical Students to Increase Digital Health Literacy. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:1–12.

Yuan X, Rehman S, Altalbe A, Rehman E, Shahiman MA. Digital literacy as a catalyst for academic confidence: exploring the interplay between academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination among medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1).

Ambrose S, Waecther D., Hunt D. Student engagement in learning. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, Hunt D, editors. A Practial Guide for Medical Teachers. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2017. p. 339–44.

Filetti S, Saso L. Innovative Medical Education in the Digital Era eBook. 2022;121.