The questionnaires with incomplete answers were removed (N=31). 221 valid questionnaires were gathered, with a response rate of 87.70% (221/252). The response rate of offline teaching, online teaching, and blended teaching was 83.33% (50/60), 84.78% (78/92), and 93.00% (93/100), respectively. Among them, 87(39.37%) were males, and 134(60.63%) were females. The reliability of the questionnaire Cronbach.α coefficient is 0.967.
Table 1
Differences of three different teaching methods in questionnaire questions (n=221)
|
Offline mean (SD) (n=50)
|
Online mean (SD) (n=78)
|
Blended mean (SD) (n=93)
|
F
|
p
|
learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.I have mastered the content of contact lens
|
4.62(0.60)
|
4.54(0.68)
|
4.33(0.86)
|
2.89
|
0.06
|
13.My interest and motivation have increased as a consequence of this teaching method
|
4.78(0.51)
|
4.78(0.50)
|
4.72(0.54)
|
0.37
|
0.69
|
14.I have learned some valuable thing in this course
|
4.82(0.44)
|
4.71(0.54)
|
4.73(0.51)
|
0.82
|
0.44
|
group interaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.Students were encouraged to participate in the contact lens course
|
4.74(0.53)
|
4.69(0.54)
|
4.59(0.74)
|
1.06
|
0.35
|
10.Students were encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers
|
4.82(0.44)
|
4.77(0.51)
|
4.70(0.53)
|
1.03
|
0.36
|
17.Students were encouraged to shared their ideas and knowledge
|
4.82(0.48)
|
4.71(0.58)
|
4.67(0.65)
|
1.11
|
0.33
|
29.Students were encouraged to discuss in the class
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.74(0.47)
|
4.66(0.60)
|
2.10
|
0.13
|
individual rapport
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.Faculty and students have sufficient contact time during office hours or after class
|
4.74(0.53)
|
4.51(0.70)
|
4.40(0.86)
|
3.48
|
0.03*
|
9.The faculty sincerely cares about every student
|
4.80(0.45)
|
4.72(0.53)
|
4.70(0.57)
|
0.61
|
0.54
|
12.Faculty have a sense of humor in lecturing
|
4.74(0.53)
|
4.62(0.65)
|
4.69(0.59)
|
0.71
|
0.50
|
18.No matter inside or outside the course, I feel that faculty welcome to ask him for help and understanding
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.73(0.53)
|
4.76(0.50)
|
0.76
|
0.50
|
21.The faculty had a sincere interest in students
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.81(0.43)
|
4.84(0.43)
|
0.14
|
0.87
|
organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.The faculty's lecture helps students to take notes
|
4.70(0.51)
|
4.72(0.56)
|
4.53(0.76)
|
2.24
|
0.11
|
7.Exams or grade-assessment homework can test the teaching content emphasized by the faculty
|
4.76(0.52)
|
4.72(0.51)
|
4.66(0.60)
|
0.64
|
0.53
|
11.The faculty covered the stated objectives for contact lens
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.74(0.57)
|
4.73(0.49)
|
0.82
|
0.44
|
20.The methods used by faculty to evaluate student performance are fair and appropriate
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.72(0.53)
|
4.76(0.52)
|
0.90
|
0.41
|
24.The reading materials or reference materials specified by the faculty are valuable
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.81(0.40)
|
4.73(0.55)
|
1.02
|
0.36
|
25.Reading materials and homework help me understand and master the Contact Lenses course
|
4.82(0.44)
|
4.73(0.53)
|
4.74(0.55)
|
0.51
|
0.60
|
28.The faculty’ explanation was clear
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.78(0.45)
|
4.72(0.52)
|
1.08
|
0.34
|
enthusiasm
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.This teaching methods can keep students interested in the classroom
|
4.76(0.48)
|
4.69(0.57)
|
4.62(0.62)
|
0.96
|
0.39
|
15.The faculty is full of energy and energy when teaching this Contact Lenses course
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.74(0.55)
|
4.75(0.48)
|
0.67
|
0.51
|
16.The contact lens course was well prepared and carefully explained
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.78(0.47)
|
4.76(0.50)
|
0.43
|
0.65
|
26.The lecture stimulate students intellectually, enlightening and motivating
|
4.82(0.44)
|
4.74(0.50)
|
4.72(0.56)
|
0.63
|
0.53
|
27.The faculty was enthusiastic about teaching contact lens
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.78(0.45)
|
4.76(0.48)
|
0.47
|
0.63
|
knowledge breadth
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.The faculty can fully introduce the latest development trend of the Contact Lenses course
|
4.78(0.47)
|
4.64(0.56)
|
4.69(0.55)
|
1.03
|
0.36
|
8.faculty also teach other people's various views besides his/her view.
|
4.80(0.45)
|
4.65(0.62)
|
4.68(0.57)
|
1.10
|
0.33
|
19.The faculty can explain the background or source of the concepts and ideas used in the course
|
4.84(0.42)
|
4.74(0.55)
|
4.82(0.44)
|
0.78
|
0.46
|
22.The faculty can compare the connotation of various related theories in the lecture
|
4.86(0.40)
|
4.78(0.45)
|
4.78(0.46)
|
0.57
|
0.57
|
assignment
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.Faculty’ feedback on exams or assessment assignments is very valuable
|
4.82(0.44)
|
4.74(0.50)
|
4.73(0.55)
|
0.53
|
0.59
|
30.How is the difficulty of the course taught by faculty?
|
4.08(0.99)
|
4.00(1.03)
|
4.13(0.95)
|
0.37
|
0.70
|
31.How is the amount of homework assigned by faculty?
|
4.02(1.08)
|
3.79(1.20)
|
3.84(1.17)
|
0.61
|
0.54
|
32.How is the progress of the course taught by faculty?
|
4.12(0.94)
|
4.06(0.92)
|
4.02(0.96)
|
0.18
|
0.83
|
*=p<0.05; N=number; SD=Standard Deviation; |
The mean (SD) score of question 5 was 4.74 (0.53), 4.51 (0.70), and, 4.40 (0.86) in the group of offline, online, and blending education respectively. There was a statistically significant difference among the three teaching methods in contact time with the faculty during office or after class (F=3.48, p=0.03). The scores of other questions were also higher in the offline group compared to the other two teaching methods, although there were no statistically significant differences (p >0.05).
The following questions had the highest scores: Q22 in offline teaching. Q24 and Q21in online teaching, and Q21 in blended teaching. It indicates that faculty members were sincere and responsible for teaching. The theoretical knowledge, viewpoints, and background in the course were presented in detail. The reading materials the faculty hands out were valuable.
Q31ranked the lowest in all the three teaching methods. It indicates that the amount of homework assigned by faculty might be too heavy and increase the difficulty of students' learning.
Table 2
Different evaluation scores to three different teaching methods between females and males (n=221)
|
Offline teaching
|
Online teaching
|
Blended teaching
|
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
Female
|
28
|
152.68(9.85)
|
54
|
147.59(13.94)
|
52
|
146.31(14.86)
|
Male
|
22
|
149.91(15.24)
|
24
|
151.21(11.00)
|
41
|
150.07(14.06)
|
Total
|
50
|
151.46(12.45)
|
78
|
148.71(13.14)
|
93
|
147.97(14.56)
|
t
|
0.78
|
-1.12
|
-1.24
|
p
|
0.44
|
0.27
|
0.22
|
F
|
1.10
|
p
|
0.33
|
N=number; SD=Standard Deviation; |
The average (SD) total score was 151.46 (12.45), 148.71(13.14), and 147.97 (14.56) in the group of offline teaching, online teaching, and blended teaching respectively, with no significant difference (F=1.10, p=0.33).
In the offline group, the total score was 152.68 (9.85) in the females and 149.91 (15.24) in the males, with no statistically significant difference (t = 0.78, p= 0.44).
In the online group, the total score was 147.59 (13.94) in the females and 151.21 (11.00) in the males, with no statistically significant difference (t = -1.12, p = 0.27).
In the mixed group, the total score was 146.31 (14.86) in the females and 150.07 (14.06) in the males, with no statistically significant difference (t = -1.24, p= 0.22).
Table 3
Differences of three teaching methods among students with different academic performance (n=221)
|
Top 30%
|
30-60%
|
Bottom 30%
|
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
N
|
Mean (SD)
|
Offline
|
18
|
151.50(16.06)
|
20
|
153.15(9.40)
|
12
|
148.58(11.18)
|
Online
|
46
|
149.72(12.29)
|
29
|
147.55(14.24)
|
3
|
144.33(18.45)
|
Blended
|
41
|
147.68(14.63)
|
43
|
147.16(15.20)
|
9
|
153.11(10.96)
|
Total
|
105
|
149.23(13.89)
|
92
|
148.59(13.91)
|
24
|
149.75(11.84)
|
F
|
0.52
|
1.39
|
0.72
|
p
|
0.60
|
0.25
|
0.50
|
F
|
0.09
|
p
|
0.91
|
There were a total of 47.51% (105/221) students ranked in the top 30% of academic performance with an average score of 149.23 (13.85), 41.63% (92/221) of students in 30%-60% of academic performance with an average score of 148.59 (13.91), and 10.86% (24/221) of students in the bottom 30% of academic performance with an average score of 149.75 (11.84). There were no significant differences in the score among the three groups (F=0.09, p=0.91).
Among the top 30% students, the offline teaching score was 151.50 (16.06), the online teaching score was 149.72 (12.29), the blended teaching score was 149.23 (13.89). The offline teaching score was the highest. However, the difference among the three teaching methods was not significant (F=0.52, p=0.60).
Among the students ranked 30%-60%, the offline teaching score was 153.15(9.40), the online teaching score was 147.55 (14.24), and the blended teaching score was 147.16(15.20). The offline teaching score was the highest but without any statistical significance (F=1.39, p=0.25).
Among the bottom 30% of the students, the offline teaching score was 148.58 (11.18). The online teaching score was 144.33 (18.45), and the blended teaching score was 153.11 (10.96). The blended teaching score was the highest. There were no significant differences in scores among the three teaching methods (F=0.72, p=0.50).
Table 4
Some of the students’ comments
|
|
comments
|
1.
|
Offline
|
“In the experimental part of Contact Lenses, I need personal guidance from the faculty, but the faculty has limited time and it is difficult to guide one by one”
|
2.
|
Offline
|
“Offline teaching needs to arrive in the classroom on time, and the learning time is fixed and inflexible”
|
3.
|
Online
|
“I felt not good in the experimental part, my eyes understood, but my hands did not”
|
4.
|
Online
|
“There is already a lot of class content, after-school homework is also a lot, spend a lot of time”
|
5.
|
Blended
|
“Increase experiment time”
|
Analysis of the word cloud of students’ comments showed 18.10% (40/221) of students proposed increasing the time of the experiment and practice time. There were 5.88%(13/221)students suggested increasing communication and interaction time. Some students suggested adding high-quality teaching videos and teaching pictures; Some students hoped that their theoretical knowledge could be extended.