Cargando…

Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION: An implementation research (IR) massive open online course (MOOC) was developed by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, to address the scarcity of training in low-income and middle-income countries in the field of IR. The Kirkpatrick model was used to e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ross, Bella, Penkunas, Michael J, Maher, Dermot, Certain, Edith, Launois, Pascal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35504633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054719
_version_ 1784699810651045888
author Ross, Bella
Penkunas, Michael J
Maher, Dermot
Certain, Edith
Launois, Pascal
author_facet Ross, Bella
Penkunas, Michael J
Maher, Dermot
Certain, Edith
Launois, Pascal
author_sort Ross, Bella
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: An implementation research (IR) massive open online course (MOOC) was developed by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, to address the scarcity of training in low-income and middle-income countries in the field of IR. The Kirkpatrick model was used to evaluate the IR MOOC as it is widely applied for evaluation of training and educational programmes. The Kirkpatrick model evaluates training programmes on four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. This paper addresses the impact of the IR MOOC on participants’ professional practice. METHODS: Findings are based on analysis of survey and interview data collected 1.5–2 years after the conclusion of the two 2018 IR MOOC offerings. Of the 3858 MOC participants, 748 responded to the anonymous online survey and seven of these respondents were interviewed. All data are self-reported. RESULTS: The IR MOOC was successful in enhancing the professional practice of participants and for their organisations. Over 40% reported modifying or implementing changes in their professional work. Respondents reported that participation in the MOOC had improved their ability to conduct IR, enhanced their professional profiles and increased their opportunities for collaboration, research and job promotion. Respondents stated that the MOOC had improved their work quality and productivity, and allowed them to contribute to research, initiate and develop professional collaborations and train others in IR. Respondents reported an increase in applying for grants and scholarships and presenting and publishing work on IR after participating in the MOOC. Barriers applying the knowledge gained from the IR MOOC were experienced, for example, due to a lack of funding and lack of support from colleagues, managers and organisations. CONCLUSION: Participants perceived that the IR MOOC was successful in its aims of delivering medium-term and long-term results in relation to their own and their organisations’ professional outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9066485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90664852022-05-12 Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study Ross, Bella Penkunas, Michael J Maher, Dermot Certain, Edith Launois, Pascal BMJ Open Global Health INTRODUCTION: An implementation research (IR) massive open online course (MOOC) was developed by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, to address the scarcity of training in low-income and middle-income countries in the field of IR. The Kirkpatrick model was used to evaluate the IR MOOC as it is widely applied for evaluation of training and educational programmes. The Kirkpatrick model evaluates training programmes on four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. This paper addresses the impact of the IR MOOC on participants’ professional practice. METHODS: Findings are based on analysis of survey and interview data collected 1.5–2 years after the conclusion of the two 2018 IR MOOC offerings. Of the 3858 MOC participants, 748 responded to the anonymous online survey and seven of these respondents were interviewed. All data are self-reported. RESULTS: The IR MOOC was successful in enhancing the professional practice of participants and for their organisations. Over 40% reported modifying or implementing changes in their professional work. Respondents reported that participation in the MOOC had improved their ability to conduct IR, enhanced their professional profiles and increased their opportunities for collaboration, research and job promotion. Respondents stated that the MOOC had improved their work quality and productivity, and allowed them to contribute to research, initiate and develop professional collaborations and train others in IR. Respondents reported an increase in applying for grants and scholarships and presenting and publishing work on IR after participating in the MOOC. Barriers applying the knowledge gained from the IR MOOC were experienced, for example, due to a lack of funding and lack of support from colleagues, managers and organisations. CONCLUSION: Participants perceived that the IR MOOC was successful in its aims of delivering medium-term and long-term results in relation to their own and their organisations’ professional outcomes. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9066485/ /pubmed/35504633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054719 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Global Health
Ross, Bella
Penkunas, Michael J
Maher, Dermot
Certain, Edith
Launois, Pascal
Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title_full Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title_fullStr Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title_short Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
title_sort evaluating results of the implementation research mooc using kirkpatrick’s four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study
topic Global Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35504633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054719
work_keys_str_mv AT rossbella evaluatingresultsoftheimplementationresearchmoocusingkirkpatricksfourlevelmodelacrosssectionalmixedmethodsstudy
AT penkunasmichaelj evaluatingresultsoftheimplementationresearchmoocusingkirkpatricksfourlevelmodelacrosssectionalmixedmethodsstudy
AT maherdermot evaluatingresultsoftheimplementationresearchmoocusingkirkpatricksfourlevelmodelacrosssectionalmixedmethodsstudy
AT certainedith evaluatingresultsoftheimplementationresearchmoocusingkirkpatricksfourlevelmodelacrosssectionalmixedmethodsstudy
AT launoispascal evaluatingresultsoftheimplementationresearchmoocusingkirkpatricksfourlevelmodelacrosssectionalmixedmethodsstudy