Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 Ph.D Candidate, Health Information Management Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran

2 Ph.D Student of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 PhD Candidate, Health Information Management Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan,Iran


Background: E-learning is one of the new methods of education that helps to increase people’s knowledge and performance by using new technologies.
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitude of graduate and postgraduate students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences toward using e-learning technology.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out among graduate and postgraduate students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences in autumn 2017. The data were collected by a researcher-made questionnaire whose validity and reliability was verified (α = 0.82). Data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical tests (including t-test, ANOVA, and Spearman correlation) to investigate the relationship between the mean score of e-learning usefulness and students’ demographic information in SPSS software.
Results: About 80% of e-learning students found it a good tool for the exchange of information and educational content between faculty and students at different universities and more than 40% believed that e-learning could improve the quality of education. About 57% of the participants were interested in using the technology. More than 70% of the students reported e-learning to be useful. Also, there was a significant relationship between the mean score of the usefulness of e-learning with age (P = 0.049), computer use skill (P = 0.025), and mobile use skill (P <0.001).
Conclusion: From the students’ perspective, using e-learning technology is useful and it saves time and costs, and improves the quality of their education. It also makes it easier for students to answer their questions later. Therefore, it may be better to use this technology besides the traditional method to make it more effective.


  1. Commission E. Communication from the Commission Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. Brussels. [Cited 2010 Oct]. Available From:
  1. Njenga JK, Fourie LCH. The myths about e-learning in higher education. Br J Educ Technol. 2010; 41(2): 199-212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x
  2. I Union. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social committee and committee of the regions. Commission E. [Cited 2010 Oct]. Available From: Initiative%20INNOVATION.pdf.
  3. Digital Agenda Assembly. Report from the workshop 08. ‘‘Mainstreaming e-Learning in education and training’’ DAE action 6. Brussels. 2011; 16–177.
  4. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006; 81(3): 207-12. doi:10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
  5. Martínez-Torres MR, Toral SL, Barrero F. Identification of the design variables of eLearning tools. Interacting with Computers. 2011; 23 (3): 279-88.
  6. Evans AM, Ellis G, Norman S, Luke K. Patient safety education - description and evaluation of an international, interdisciplinary e-learning program. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(2):248-51.
  7. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic medicine. Acad Med. 2010;85(5):909-22.
  8. Belcher JV, Vonderhaar KJ. Web-delivered research-based nursing staff education for seeking Magnet status. J Nurs Adm. 2005;35(9):382-6. doi:10.1097/00005110-200509000-00004
  9. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181-96.
  10. Sife A, Lwoga E, Sanga C. New technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT.2007; 3(2):57-67. doi:10.3917/rdes.057.0067
  11. Ahadiyan M. Introduction to Instructional Technology. 25th ed. Tehran: Nashr va Tabligh Boshra Pub; 2004. [In Persian]
  12. Garavan TN, Carbery RO, Malley G, O’Donnell D. Understanding Participation in E-learning in Organizations: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Employees. International Journal of Training & Development. 2010;14(3):155-68.
  13. Simpson BP. Web-based and computer-assisted instruction in physical therapy education. J Physical Therapy Education. 2003;17(2):45-9.doi:10.1097/00001416-200307000-00007
  14. Bloomfield JG, Jones A. Using e-learning to support clinical skills acquisition: exploring the experiences and perceptions of graduate firstyear pre-registration nursing students - a mixed-method study. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(12):1605-11. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.024
  15. Fernández Alemán JL, Carrillo de Gea JM, RodríguezMondéjar JJ. Effects of competitive computer-assisted learning versus conventional teaching methods on the acquisition and retention of knowledge in medical-surgical nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(8):866-71.doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.026
  1. Beeckman D, Schoonhoven L, Boucqué H, Van Maele G, Defloor T. Pressure ulcers – e-learning to improve classification by nurses and nursing students. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(13):1697-707.
  2. Bloomfield J, Roberts J, While A. The effects of computer-assisted learning versus conventional methods on the acquisition and retention of handwashing theory and skills in pre-qualification nursing students: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(3):287-94.
  3. Cega L, Norman IJ, Marks I. Computer-aided vs. tutor-delivered teaching of exposure therapy for phobia/panic: a randomized controlled trial with pre-registration nursing students. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007; 44(3):397-405.
  4. Lahti M, Hatonen H, Valimaki M. Impact of e-learning on nurses’ and student nurses’ knowledge, skills, and satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(1): 136-49.
  5. Martínez-Argüelles M, Castán J, Juan A. How do students measure service quality in e-learning? A case study regarding an internet-based University. Proceedings of 8the European Conference on E-Learning; 2009 Oct 29-30; Italy: University of Bari; 2009. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.016
  6. Jara M, Mellar H. Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback. Computers & Education. 2010;54(3):709-14.
  7. El Gamal S, Aziz A. The perception of students regarding E-learning implementation in Egyptian Universities: The case of Arab Academy for Science and Technology. Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning; 2009 Aug 16-18;Beijing, China; 2010.
  8. Khodadad Hoseiny SH, Noori A, Zabihi MR. E-learning acceptance in higher education: Application of flow theory, technology acceptance model & e-service quality. J Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2013; 19(1): 111-36. [In Persian]
  9. Zolfaghari M, Negarandeh R, Ahmadi F. The Evaluation of a Blended E-learning Program for Nursing and Midwifery Students in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2011; 10(4): 398-409. [In Persian]
  10. Yasini A, Taban M. Study of virtual learning courses effectiveness from the perspective of faculty members and students. J Iranian Higher Education Association. 2015;7(4):175-98. [In Persian]
  11. Mcvey G, Gusella J, Tweed S, Ferrari M. A controlled evaluation of web-based training for teachers and public health practitioners on the prevention of eating disorders. Eat Disord. 2009;17(1):1-26.
  12. Tsai SL, Tsai WW, Chai SK, Sung WH, Doong JL, Fung CP. Evaluation of computer-assisted multimedia instruction in intravenous injection. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41(2):191-8.
  13. Curran VR, Fleet L. A review of evaluation outcomes of web-based continuing medical education. Med Educ. 2005;39(6):561-7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02173.x
  14. Voutilainen A, Saaranen T, Sormunen M. Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:97-103. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.020
  15. Yanuschik OV, Pakhomova EG, Batbold K. E-learning as a Way to Improve the Quality of Educational for International Students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;215:147-55.
  16. Salter SM, Karia A, Sanfilippo FM, Clifford RM. Effectiveness of E-learning in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(4):83. doi:10.1016/S1350-4789(12)70319-7
  17. Mehra V, Omidian F. Examining Students’ Attitudes Towards E-learning: A Case from India. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology. 2011;11(2):13-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  18. Garrison D, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2004;7(2):95-105.
  19. Reichelmayer T. Enhancing the student project team experience with blended learning techniques. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference Indianopolis; 2005 Oct 19-22; Indianopolis, IN, USA. 2005.
  20. Kvasnica O, Hrmo R. Importance of computer literacy for e-learning education. Proceedings of the Joint International IGIP-SEFI: Annual Conference 2010. Diversity unifies - Diversity in Engineering Education, 19th - 22 th September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia. Brussel: SEFI, 2010
  21. Link TM, Marz R. Computer literacy and attitudes towards e-learning among first-year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:34