A systematic review of the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education

Background: Recently, much attention has been given to e-learning in higher education as it provides better access to learning resources online, utilising technology – regardless of learners’ geographical locations and timescale – to enhance learning. It has now become part of the mainstream in education in the health sciences, including medical, dental, public health, nursing, and other allied health professionals. Despite growing evidence claiming that e-learning is as effective as traditional means of learning, there is very limited evidence available about what works, and when and how e-learning enhances teaching and learning. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the factors – enablers and barriers – affecting e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) that have been reported in the medical literature. Methods: A systemic review of articles published on e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Global Health, from 1980 through 2019, using ‘Textword’ and ‘Thesaurus’ search terms. All original articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: (1) e-learning was implemented in health sciences education, and (2) the investigation of the factors – enablers and barriers – about el-HSE related to learning performance or outcomes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, both relevant published and unpublished papers were searched. Data were extracted and quality appraised using QualSyst tools, and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Results: Out of 985 records identified, a total of 162 citations were screened, of which 57 were found to be of relevance to this study. The primary evidence base comprises 24 papers, with two broad categories identified, enablers and barriers, under eight separate themes: facilitate learning; learning in practice; systematic approach to learning; integration of e-learning into curricula; poor motivation and expectation; resource-intensive; not suitable for all disciplines or contents, and lack of IT skills. Conclusions: This study has identified the factors which impact on e-learning: interaction and collaboration between learners and facilitators; considering learners’ motivation and expectations; utilising user-friendly technology; and putting learners at the centre of pedagogy. There is significant scope for better understanding of the issues related to enablers and facilitators associated with e-learning, and developing appropriate policies and initiatives to establish when, how and where they fit best, creating a broader framework for making e-learning effective

E-Learning in Business

e-Learning is replacing face-to-face classroom instruction in a growing number of businesses, but what is the prospect for the continued proliferation of e-learning in business? On one hand, the quality of instruction, the cost effectiveness of new technology, a supportive e-learning educational culture, an expansion of the Internet, an increase in online courses, shorter business cycles, mergers, and increasing competition encourage business use of e-learning. On the other hand, employee reticence in using learning technologies, insufficient corporate investment, lack of business-relevant university courses, narrow bandwidth, and Internet access issues are constricting the business use of these technologies

The whole of university experience: retention, attrition, learning and personal support interventions during undergraduate business studies

The Whole of University Experience (WoUE) project examined factors underpinning attrition in the first, second and third year of a business degree at six Australian universities – Griffith University, Monash University, Murdoch University, University of South Australia, University of Southern Queensland, and University of the Sunshine Coast. A questionnaire completed in 2008, 2009, and 2010 by a total of 7,486 students enabled gathering of data relating to demographics; students’ experience of university; their use and perceptions of the usefulness of student support interventions; open-ended comments about the best and worst aspects of the university experience; and aspects in need of improvement. In each year a small number of students were also interviewed for the purpose of fleshing out the survey data and exploring the interactions between various factors associated with attrition. Overall, the data strongly indicates that factors related to attrition are generally university-specific and reflect both student characteristics and their responses to the specific institutional culture and environment. The only attrition triggers which span most universities and most years of study are ‘lack of a clear reason for being at university’ and ‘the feeling of having insufficient ability to succeed at university’. Correlation analysis relating 70 statements probing students’ experience of university to the strength of their intention to leave before completing a degree revealed notable differentiation in attrition triggers on the basis of year of study. Follow-up analysis in one university indicated further differentiation in the triggers for attrition, semester by semester. It seems that many different factors underpin attrition decisions in any one institution and for any one individual, for whom attrition appears to be the result of the aggregation of diverse factors generally followed by ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’. When responses are grouped by demographic variables some difference in the factors associated with domestic and international student attrition is apparent, but no difference in the factors associated with their sense of satisfaction or belonging is obvious. In the responses of international and domestic students to issues of teaching quality, differences primarily related to expectations regarding teaching staff approachability, availability and helpfulness. For students enrolled part-time or full-time different factors underpin attrition, and attrition triggers also differ on the basis of time spent on campus and average grades. Preliminary analysis suggests that having to take a loan or engage in full-time work to fund studies is a greater attrition risk factor in most universities than is the receipt of Centrelink benefits (which may be seen as a proxy indicator for low socio-economic status). Analysis of responses to questions about the use and usefulness of student support interventions indicates that, in general, when students use personal support interventions these are mostly seen as very useful. However, data also indicate that many, and often the majority of, students have either not used or are not aware of the support services available. Practically, the project has delivered, and will continue to deliver, significant value to the higher education sector. On the basis of evidence from the project, partner universities have begun addressing high-value student retention issues and it is expected that this evidence will continue to influence institutional decision-making for several years beyond the life of the project. Dissemination activities external to partner universities, including publication of five journal articles and numerous workshops or presentations, have assisted staff in other universities to reflect upon issues critical to student retention in both first year and beyond. Further publication outcomes are expected. Critically, as indicated in the independent project evaluation, “the project has directed much needed attention to factors associated with attrition in later years of the student experience (second and third years) … facilitated discussion around frameworks for evidence-based institutional responses that constitute effective interventions … [and] reinforced the need for institutions to collect their own data on the student experience to inform individual institutional responses and interventions”

Effective Philanthropy: Towards a Research Agenda - A White Paper

Many people look at getting people to give more. Giving Evidence and the Social Enterprise Initiative at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business have been looking at getting donors to give better. Perhaps improving giving will achieve more than increasing it: For instance, the cost of raising capital for charities is about 20-40 per cent, against only about 3-5 per cent for companies, and charities turn away some donors who are fiddly to deal with. It may be easier to reduce that cost of capital than to raise the amount given. Plus, money doesn't always go where it's most needed: for example, about 90 per cent of global health spending goes on 10 percent of the disease burden -- maybe those donations can cheaply be re-directed. Our white paper looks at at (i)what good giving is, i.e., what donor behaviours produce the best outcomes, and (ii)how to persuade/enable/nudge donors to do those behaviours. It collates what is known on these topics, and lays out many unanswered questions which would form a strong research agenda. [The Chicago Booth School of Business was recently ranked by The Economist as the best business school in the world. And its leading centre on decision science is highly relevant since decisions are so integral to giving.] The white paper identifies questions which non-profits, funders and other practitioners want answered about making giving better, and aims to encourage researchers to address them