Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations.
As more educational programs transition to online and hybrid programming, there is a need to explore longer term outcomes of graduates of these programs. This mixed-methods survey study compared characteristics and perceptions of hybrid- and on-campus-pathway graduates from an entry-level OT program. Overall results indicated that both groups of graduates are similar in all areas, suggesting hybrid education is a suitable educational delivery model for OT students.
Primary Author and Speaker: Lou Jensen
Additional Authors and Speakers: Alie Banning, Morgan Dickerson, and Angelique Roebuck
PURPOSE: In 2016, 649,000 students were enrolled in health care programs and about 325,000 were enrolled in a distance or hybrid program (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). A hybrid education model is defined as a program containing both online and face-to-face components (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). Hybrid learning, compared to entirely face-to-face or online environments, is well-suited for allied health professional programs in which students must acquire knowledge and hands-on training for skills relevant to their profession, but desire flexibility in their education. There is limited research on the outcomes of graduates from occupational therapy hybrid programs. The purpose of this study was to examine employment characteristics, professional characteristics, and professional education perceptions of graduates from an entry-level Doctor of Occupational Therapy program. Researchers also investigated if graduates of the on-campus and hybrid pathways differed in terms of these variables.
DESIGN: An online survey was emailed to 513 graduates of an Occupational Therapy Entry Level Doctorate Program at a private university in the Midwest. This mixed methods study was descriptive and used a cross-sectional design with open-ended and close-ended questions. Survey respondents were program alumni who graduated between 2011 to 2018 and attended either the on-campus pathway or one of the program's hybrid pathways.
METHOD: After IRB approval, the online survey was delivered through Qualtrics. An email was sent to graduates who aligned with the participant criteria. The survey included demographic information, employment characteristics, professional education perceptions, and professional characteristics. Quantitative data was exported from Qualtrics to IBM SPSS Statistics. Frequency distribution described demographic information, along with other nominal data collected. An independent t-test evaluated differences between on-campus and hybrid graduates. Researchers used thematic analysis to evaluate open-ended survey questions (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). These themes were determined using cutting and sorting of repetitions found within the responses to the open-ended questions (Setia, 2016). Themes were placed into hierarchies based on importance to the project.
RESULTS: 165 alumni, 35 hybrid and 111 on-campus, completed the survey. There were no significant differences in levels of perceived preparedness for the certification exam or to enter the workforce between on-campus and hybrid alumni. No significant differences were found between groups in reported sense of belonging and skills learned throughout the program, or in practice settings or leadership roles held after graduation. There was a significantly greater number of hybrid alumni who were active members in state occupational therapy associations. Qualitative data yielded differences in why alumni chose their pathway.
CONCLUSION: Graduates were active members of state and national associations, held various leadership and professional roles, felt prepared to begin work, and experienced positive learning environments. Hybrid pathway graduates are similar in their professional characteristics, employment characteristics, and professional education perceptions compared to their on-campus counterparts. These results suggest hybrid education is a suitable educational delivery model for occupational therapy students. The impact of these results will help ensure occupational therapy educational programs are maintaining high levels of rigor and quality as they move into a future shaped by intrinsic student factors such as a desire for flexibility and environmental variables such as the need for viable virtual learning environments in the case of pandemics.
References
Allen, E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T.T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.
Bernard, H., & Ryan, G. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Setia, S. M. (2016). Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 61(3), 261-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Table 311.90. Graduate enrollment in research-based programs in engineering, natural and social sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, and selected health fields in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, fall 2007 through fall 2016. National Post-Secondary Student Aid Study. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_311.90.asp
