Model for utilizing distance learning post COVID-19 using (PACT)™ a cross sectional qualitative study

• Main Authors: Samar A. Ahmed, Nagwa N. Hegazy, Hany W. Abdel Malak, W. Cliff Kayser, Noha M. Elrafie, Mohammed Hassanien, Abdulmonem A. Al-Hayani, Sherif A. El Saadany, Abdulrahman O. AI-Youbi, Mohamed H. Shehata
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-11-01
• Series: BMC Medical Education
• Subjects: Planning; Distance learning; Polarity mapping; COVID
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-020-02311-1

Abstract Background COVID − 19 pandemic pressured medical schools globally to shift to Distance learning (DL) as an alternative way to ensure that the content delivered is satisfactory for student progression. Aim of the work This work aims at mapping priorities for post-COVID planning for better balance between distance learning and face to face learning. Methods This qualitative study aimed to develop a model for utilizing DL using The Polarity Approach for Continuity and Transformation (PACT)™. A virtual mapping session was held with 79 faculty from 19 countries. They worked in small groups to determine upsides and downsides of face-to-face and DL subsequently. An initial polarity map was generated identifying five tension areas; Faculty, Students, Curriculum, Social aspects and Logistics. A 63-item assessment tool was generated based on this map, piloted and then distributed as a self-administered assessment. The outcomes of this assessment were utilized for another mapping session to discuss warning signs and action steps to maintain upsides and avoid downsides of each pole. Results Participants agreed that face-to-face teaching allows them to inspire students and have meaningful connections with them. They also agreed that DL provides a good environment for most students. However, students with financial challenges and special needs may not have equal opportunities to access technology. As regards social issues, participants agreed that face-to-face learning provides a better chance for professionalism through enhanced team-work. Cognitive, communication and clinical skills are best achieved in face-to-face. Participants agreed that logistics for conducting DL are much more complicated when compared to face-to-face learning. Participants identified around 10 warning signs for each method that need to be continuously monitored in order to minimize the drawbacks of over focusing on one pole at the expense of the other. Action steps were determined to ensure optimized use of in either method. Conclusion In order to plan for the future, we need to understand the dynamics of education within the context of polarities. Educators need to understand that the choice of DL, although was imposed as a no-alternative solution during the COVID era, yet it has always existed as a possible alternative and will continue to exist after this era. The value of polarity mapping and leveraging allows us to maximize the benefit of each method and guide educators’ decisions to minimize the downsides for the good of the learning process.