The web has grown from a hyperlinked collection of read-only information to the inclusion of resources that can facilitate online discussion, participation, and sharing of various forms of content. Such media seems optimal to transform the method of teaching and learning. Social media (SM) is defined as a ‘collection of web-based technologies that share a user-focused approach to design and functionality, where users can actively participate in content creation and editing through open collaboration between members of communities of practice’ [1]. SM can reach a wider demographic of recipients compared with other conventional methods such as radio broadcasting, print media (i.e. newspapers and journals), and books [2]. Various SM tools such as those that involve social networking (such as Facebook and Twitter), video platforms (such as YouTube and Facebook), and blogging and microblogging sites are available. The increase in accessibility to the internet and mobile technologies has made SM tools a mainstream means for information sharing.
SM tools are increasingly being used in the educational sector. Virtual connections and open communication offered by SM tools provide an ideal and collaborative learning environment for students [3]. SM tools such as Facebook and YouTube have been reported to increase students’ knowledge and learning outcomes [4]. SM tools promote informal learning by providing more than one channel to communicate with other parties for accessing course content and video clips, sharing instructions and notes, and student engagement [5, 6]. The introduction of SM in academics has led to the development of new pedagogical practices such as student publication, social learning, and dynamic learning resources [7]. The educational benefits of these tools are well documented in literature [8, 9]. Other documented benefits of SM in education include positive learning experiences [1, 10] and an increase in knowledge and skills [11]. Despite the beneficial role of SM tools in education, scientific literature highlighting the impact of SM has been criticised for lack of methodological rigour [1], and it remains focused on culture change and different aspects of the learning experience [1, 12]. Further, whether SM enables deeper learning needs to be explored.
During COVID-19 pandemic, which was declared by the World Health Organisation as a public health emergency, the Government of India implemented a countrywide lockdown from March 2020, and it was extended in five phases. During the lockdown period, schools and colleges were closed, and thus, several of these institutions moved from traditional face-to-face education to online instruction. This transition has been challenging for teachers as well as students because it necessitates embracing the online teaching-learning process [13]. The online medium of instruction means that faculty members teach and students learn through electronic devices connected to the internet from their respective residences.
Several studies have examined the effect of online teaching and learning during this pandemic; the medical education community in India seems to have endorsed online teaching. Shetty et al. [14] evaluated the attitude of medical undergraduate students towards online learning in the subject of ENT through the student portal of their university website during the pandemic. The results showed that online learning was favoured by students during the pandemic, despite the presence of several technical and other barriers. Similar views favouring medical online education have been expressed by members of the medical community within as well as outside India [15, 16]. Mahdy [17] evaluated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on academic performance and online learning during lockdown on veterinary medical students and researchers. The author concluded that the academic performances of participants were affected during the pandemic, and it is difficult to fulfil veterinary competencies as most of the subjects are practical.
Data collected from undergraduate physiotherapy students in a university in Saudi Arabia showed that both male and female students had positive attitudes towards using SM platforms for learning [18]; however, it is not yet known if students belonging to physiotherapy discipline in India are prepared to accept this forced change, as it may be difficult for students to ‘unfreeze’ the traditional teaching-learning [19] for using SM tools for learning.
In a scoping review [20], the authors recommended that more studies should explore students’ perspectives and attitudes towards the use of SM in learning and teaching. Therefore, we aimed to explore students’ current SM utilisation rate and their attitudes and beliefs about the role of online teaching via SM tools as a substitute for regular classroom teaching. Further, many of the teachers and students have not been officially trained for online education; therefore, the role of SM tools in facilitating knowledge transfer remains known. Thus, the present study aims to (1) evaluate Indian physiotherapy students’ perceptions on the accessibility and acceptability of SM tools as a direct teaching pathway between faculties and students, and (2) assess the efficacy of SM tools as an educational medium in imparting knowledge. We hypothesize making online teaching a better implementable model and provide further insights to facilitate the transformation.
Design
The data for the study was collected between June 2020 and September 2020. The study was divided into two parts. The first part was a cross-sectional, observational study and utilised an anonymous Google questionnaire (in English, Annexure 1). The items in the questionnaire were developed from previous questionnaires that have analysed the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on students’ academic performance [21] and usage of SM applications [17]. The questionnaire was developed to collect information regarding the demographic details of the participants (gender, age, place of residence, academic enrolment, and parents’ educational and financial status), as well as their prior experience in using online media for learning, perceptions on the role and impact of online teaching during the pandemic, and experiences and barriers while using SM tools. The questionnaire briefly stated the aim of collecting these data at the beginning. The final questionnaire for this study comprised 27 questions regarding the students’ SM utilisation frequency and views on online learning (four open-ended and remaining closed-ended), in addition to questions about the demographic characteristics of participants.
In the second part, we used an open label randomised comparative design to evaluate knowledge change through an online examination, which was administered 10 min before and after a short session delivered through two different SM platforms (namely, Google Meet and YouTube) and email.
Participants
Full-time undergraduate physiotherapy students belonging to any geographical location within India were eligible to participate in the first phase of the study. There was no restriction in terms of participation in the study, except that students were asked to maintain sufficient battery and data backup for the online session. The questionnaire link was shared with participants through emails, WhatsApp, and other SM applications. Faculty members and colleges were requested to invite their students to participate in the survey through email or other SM tools. Online questionnaires regarding the use of SM tools were open between the months of June and July 2020.
For the second part of the study, the participants attended online classes via SM tools. The invitation to participate was distributed through emails to physiotherapy students of two institutions. The students who provided consent were randomly divided into three groups: Google Meet (group 1, 93 participants), YouTube (group 2, 93 participants), and email (group 3, 92 participants). These tools were chosen because they are currently the most popular SM platforms used by teachers.
Intervention
A total of 278 participants responded to the invitation and consented to participate in the short online teaching programme on ‘Disability Models’ that was a part of their course curricula. This content was delivered (in English, 35 min) through the aforementioned SM platforms by a teacher with more than 22 years of classroom teaching experience. Participants in groups 1, 2, and 3 received the learning content via Google Meet (live teaching), YouTube (video), and as an email attachment (PDF), respectively. For sharing on YouTube, a video was recorded and not shared publicly until the day of evaluation. To maintain uniformity, all three modes of teaching were conducted simultaneously.
Outcomes
Demographic data of the participants included gender, age, area of residence, financial status of their families, prior experience of SM use, and attitudes and beliefs of students regarding the use of SM tools in the online teaching context.
Knowledge transfer was measured using an online examination (10 questions) that was administered before and after the education programme. Questions were in a multiple-choice format, with one correct answer and four distractors for each question. The invitations to answer the pre-test and post-test questions via a Google Form were sent to all the participants by email 15 min before and after the delivery of course content. All the participants were instructed to submit the answers within 10 min; responses received after 10 min were not accepted. The same questions were used before and after the education sessions, except that the order of the questions along with their answers and distractors were changed to avoid answers based on pattern recognition. Each question was allocated 2 marks. No marking was made for not answering the question, and no negative marking was made for wrong responses.
Data analysis
Basic demographics and ordinal responses to questions were recorded for all the participants. All data pertaining to knowledge transfer between the three groups were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA. There was one between factor (group) with two levels (groups 1, 2, and 3) and one within factor (time) with two levels (pre and post). The P value was set at 0.05. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0 version).