E-university delivery model: handling the evaluation process

PurposeThe setting up of e-university has been slow-going. Much of e-university slow progress has been attributed to poor business models, branding, disruptive technologies, lack of organisational structure that accommodates such challenges, and failure to integrate a blended approach. One of the stumbling blocks, among many, is the handling of evaluation process. E-university models do not provide much automation compared to the original brick-and-mortar classroom model of delivery. The underlining technologies may not have been supportive; however, the conditions are changing, and more evaluation tools are becoming available for academics. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachThis paper identifies the extent of current online evaluation processes. In this process, the team reviews the case study of a UK E-University using Adobe Connect learning model that mirrors much of the physical processes as well as online exams and evaluation tools. Using the Riva model, the paper compares the physical with the online evaluation processes for e-universities to identify differences in these processes to evaluate the benefits of e-learning. As a result, the models can help us to identify the processes where improvements can take place for automating the process and evaluate the impact of this change.FindingsThe paper concludes that this process can be significantly shortened and provide a fairer outcome but there remain some challenges for e-university processes to overcome.Originality/valueThis paper examines the vital quality assurance processes in academia as more universities move towards process automation, blended or e-university business models. Using the case study of Arden University online distance learning, the paper demonstrates, through modelling and analysis that the process of online automation of the evaluation process is achieved with significant efficiency

Affective and enjoyment responses to 12 weeks of high intensity interval training and moderate continuous training in adults with Crohn’s disease

The aim was to undertake secondary data analysis from a three-arm randomised feasibility trial of high intensity interval training (HIIT), moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), and usual care control in adults with Crohn’s disease (CD; n = 36), with a primary focus on exploring affective and enjoyment responses. Twenty-five participants with quiescent or mildly-active CD were randomised to one of the two exercise groups: HIIT (n = 13) and MICT (n = 12). Both groups were offered thrice weekly sessions for 12 weeks. MICT consisted of cycling for 30 minutes at 35% peak power (Wpeak), whereas HIIT involved ten 1-minute bouts at 90% Wpeak, interspersed with 1-minute bouts at 15% Wpeak. Heart rate (HR), differentiated ratings of perceived exertion for legs (RPE-L) and central (RPE-C), along with feeling state (Feeling Scale; FS) were measured at 92.5% of each session. Enjoyment was measured at the end of training using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Post-hoc exploratory analysis involved a mixed-model two-way ANOVA to compare HR, RPE-L, RPE-C and FS for the exercise sessions in weeks 1, 6 and 12 between groups. Overall, HR was greater (p < 0.01) during HIIT (173 ± 8 bpm) compared with MICT (128 ± 6 bpm). Similarly, RPE-L and RPE-C responses were greater overall (p = 0.03 and p = 0.03, respectively) during HIIT (5.5 ± 1.6 and 5.1 ± 1.7, respectively) compared to MICT (3.3 ± 1.5 and 2.9 ± 1.5, respectively). Overall, FS was 2.2 ± 1.9 for HIIT and 2.1 ± 1.4 for MICT with no effect of treatment group (p = 0.25) or time (p = 0.94). There was also no significant difference in PACES scores between HIIT (99.4 ± 12.9) and MICT (101.3 ± 17.4; p = 0.78). The findings suggest HIIT and MICT protocols elicited similar enjoyment and affect in adults with quiescent or mildly-active CD

Current physiotherapy practice in Greek intensive care units: a national study

Background: The purpose of the study was to investigate the responsibilities and frequency of clinical procedures that physiotherapists perform within the intensive care unit (ICU) in Greece, along with the level of education and training of these physiotherapists. Methods: Physiotherapists who work in general ICUs of hospitals were invited to complete a developed questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 83 items, of closed and opened–ended format. Items for service provision and physiotherapists’ employment were included, along with participants’ involvement in respiratory care, early mobilisation and the use of the ICU equipment. Results: One hundred forty physiotherapists completed the questionnaire. Seventy-three respondents (52%) reported working in ICU in Athens and 67 (48%) in other cities of Greece. Almost all the physiotherapists’ performed early mobilisation and respiratory techniques; although the frequency of procedures and use of equipment were variable. Sixty-one (44%) and 70 (50%) respondents participated in the weaning procedure and mobilised the patient whilst using the ventilator, respectively. Conclusion: The physiotherapists are from ICUs all over Greece. The results reflect the differences among the procedures that physiotherapists perform, regarding early mobility and respiratory physiotherapy. The results indicate the need for a national up-to-date job description of the physiotherapy services in ICUs in Greece