Comparison of student cognitive outcomes and satisfaction between classroom and Web-based sections of a phlebotomy program using a mixed pedagogical approach

Changes in student population and increased Web-based education offerings provided the impetus to assess pedagogy, cognitive outcomes and perceptions of course quality. This study explored cognitive outcomes and students' perception of course quality related to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) between a live classroom delivery compared to a Web-based delivery of a phlebotomy program. The program included multiple courses and a clinical practicum, and used a mixed pedagogical approach that combined objectivist and constructivist strategies. Subjects represented a convenience sample enrolled by self selection in the two formats over two course offerings. Based on an analysis of subject demographics, the Web-based group had more students with education beyond high school.;Validated instruments were used to measure cognitive outcomes and course quality. No significant difference was found between the Web-based and live classroom groups on the cognitive outcome measure, as assessed both at the end of the first course and the end of the program. The more constructivist pedagogy applied in the second course (which included a clinical practicum), did not improve cognitive outcomes. However, it may have contributed to knowledge retention since there was no significant difference in scores between the two administrations of the cognitive measure.;Student perception of course quality differed only for Principle One (student-instructor contact). Students in the live classroom rated Principle One higher for the first course compared to the Web-based group. For the second course, there was no significant difference in perception of course quality related to any of the Seven Principles. The live group rated Principle One in the Part II course evaluation relatively the same as they did for the Part I course evaluation. However, the Web-based group rated Principle One considerable higher for the Part II course than for Part I course.;A major limitation was high attrition and sample size, which may have had an impact on power and external validity. Future studies with a larger sample could explore improved course quality assessment instruments.