Back to all available

Longitudinal impact of mobile app-enhanced project-based blended learning on self-study behavior among physical therapy students: A mixed methods study

science-and-medical-education
human-computer-interaction

Abstract

Background . Fostering consistent self-study habits is crucial for physical therapy students to master a vast amount of medical terminology and sustain self-directed learning after graduation. This competence serves as the foundation for the autonomous lifelong learning required of health professionals. While previous research has demonstrated that the mobile app-enhanced project-based blended learning (mPBBL) model cultivates students’ consistent study habits during the intervention, its longitudinal influence on sustaining these habits remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the long-term impact of the mPBBL model on the learning behavior of Japanese first-year physical therapy students.
Materials and Methods. A mixed methods approach was used to assess the trajectory of students ’ learning behaviors. In the quantitative analysis, the completion rates of assignments (CRA), a proxy for daily app usage, were compared across three distinct periods (pre-, during, and post -intervention ). Additionally, a longitudinal cluster analysis was performed to classify students based on their study patterns across these periods. Subsequently, focus group interviews were conducted with students who maintained self-study habits after the mPBBL ended to identify key factors influencing their behavioral change.
Results. Quantitative results showed a significant increase in median CRA values during the mPBBL period compared to the pre-intervention period (Z = -4.955, p < 0.001, |r| = 0.838) . Although the overall CRA significantly decreased post-intervention (Z = 2.847, p = 0.007, |r| = 0.481) , cluster analysis revealed that 34% of students maintained the study habits cultivated during the mPBBL . Thematic analysis suggested that social drivers, such as peer pressure and praise, along with app functions such as reminders, promoted students ’ engagement in self-study . Regarding factors for continuing self-study after the mPBBL ended, compatibility with learning content, a low psychological barrier to usage, a sense of accomplishment, continued peer interaction, and change in learning strategies were identified as critical factors.
Conclusions. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into effective instructional design by identifying the essential elements required to foster autonomous learners in health professions education.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].