Background: COVID-19 pandemic forced educational institutions to adopt online methods which were inevitable to keep continuity of education across all academia after suspension of traditional educational systems. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of faculty and students of online and face-to-face learning, and their preference of the mode of learning after the pandemic.Methods: This is a mixed-method study. Quantitative data was collected through a survey from 194 medical students and 33 faculty members, while qualitative data was collected through two focus group discussions with 9 students and another two with 13 faculty members. Quantitative variables were presented as means and standard deviations. Paired samples t-test and Chi-square test were used. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was used to code, interpret, and make sense of data.Results: Mean scores of responses of faculty members and students were higher for face-to-face and blended learning compared to online learning in all survey statements with statistically significant differences. More than half of the students (53.1%) preferred the face-to-face mode of learning, while most of the faculty members (60.6%) preferred the blended mode of learning. Qualitative analysis identified five themes, namely: “Transforming the way theoretical teaching sessions are given,” “Face-to-face teaching at campus cannot be replaced for some types of education,” “Interaction in online sessions is limited,” “Problems and challenges of online examinations,” and “Technical issues and challenges of online education.” It revealed suggestions that at least 30% of the curriculum could be taught online post-COVID-19. Some aspects of clinically oriented teaching including history taking and case discussions can also be delivered online in the future. Faculty members and students reported that dealing with online education was not difficult, although the transition was not smooth.Conclusion: Medical students and faculty members were in favor of face-to-face and blended modes of learning. However, they perceived online mode of learning as an acceptable adaptation in theoretical teaching and in some clinically oriented teaching including history taking and clinical case discussions. Although face-to-face education in medicine is irreplaceable, the blended mode of learning remains an acceptable and practical solution for the post-COVID era.

Background: With the strike of Covid-19, an unprecedented rapid shift to remote learning happened worldwide with a paradigm shift to online learning from an institutional adjuvant luxury package and learner choice into a forced solo choice. This raises the question of quality assurance. While some groups have already established standards for online courses, teaching and programs yet very little information is included on methodology of their development and very little emphasis is placed on the online learning experience. Nevertheless, no work has been done specifically for medical education institutions.Aim: To develop a set of descriptors for best practice in online learning in medical education utilizing existing expertise and needs.Methods: This work utilizes a qualitative multistage approach to identify the descriptors of best practice in online learning starting with a question guided focus group, thematic analysis, Delphi technique and an expert consensus session done simultaneously for triangulation. This was done involving 32 institution in 19 countries.Results: This materialized into the development of a set of standards, indicators, and development of a checklist for each standard area. The standard areas identified were organizational capacity, educational effectiveness, and human resources each of which listed a number of standards. Expert consensus sessions identified the need for qualification of data and thus the development of indicators for best practice.Conclusion: Standards are needed for online learning experience and their development and redesign is situational and needs to be enhanced methodologically in axes that are pertaining to the needs of the education community. Taking such axes into consideration by educators and institutions will lead to planning and implementing successful online learning activities, while taking them into consideration by the evaluators will help them conduct comprehensive audits and provide stakeholders with highly informative evaluation reports.

Background: While online education is by no means a new concept, it was recently thrust into the spotlight after school campuses all over the world were forced to close because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The sudden need to shift revealed emerging challenges to online teaching, both logistic and personal. One important challenge is the ability to assess the readiness of educators for online teaching, so that appropriate and specific feedback/training can be offered to those in need. This study aims at developing, validating, and implementing a tool to measure the teachers’ readiness for online teaching in three medical schools from three different countries. Methods: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional study that involved developing a survey through review of literature and previous studies, item development and revision, and pilot testing. The survey was then distributed electronically to a convenient sample of 217 teaching faculty members of different academic ranks from three medical schools in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability study were performed. Descriptive statistics were applied, and the statistical significance level was set at 0.05. Results: Factor analysis produced the following five factors: “Online Teaching and Course Design Skills”, “Digital Communication”, “Basic Computer Skills”, “Advanced Computer Skills” and “Using Learning Management Systems”. The tool showed high reliability (alpha = 0.94). Survey results showed highest mean scores for Basic Computer Skills with lower scores for Online Teaching and Course Design Skills and Using Learning Management Systems. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the three studied schools regarding Digital Communication (F=5.13; p=0.007) and Basic Computer Skills (F=4.47; p=0.012) factors. Conclusion: The tool proved to be reliable and valid. Results indicated an overall acceptable readiness in the three involved schools, with a need for improvement in “Online Teaching and Course Design” and Using Learning Management Systems.

Background: Formative assessment with feedback is part of the assessment program in medical education to improve students’ learning. Limited research has focused on its application and impact on practical anatomy education. Methods: This study aimed to examine medical students’ perceptions of formative assessment in practical anatomy sessions of body systems-based educational units and explore its influence on final practical exam performance. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted. Data was collected from 173 Year 2 medical students through a survey that addressed their perception of process and importance of formative assessment and feedback. The survey employed a 5-point Likert scale. Two open-ended questions were appended at the end of the survey. Students’ performance in Unit 3 (where formative assessment was conducted) was compared to their performance in Unit 2 (where no formative assessment was conducted) and with the performance of the previous academic year’s students in Unit 3 (where no formative assessment was conducted). Descriptive statistics were used. The level of statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.05. Responses to open-ended questions (qualitative data) were counted, categorized as themes, and presented as frequencies and percentages. Results: The survey showed high internal consistency, and its validity was established through exploratory factor analysis. Results showed that the mean mark for the unit with formative assessment and feedback was significantly higher than for the units without formative assessment and feedback. Students showed positive perception of formative assessment and feedback conducted after practical anatomy sessions. They reported useful insights regarding the benefits they gained from formative assessment and feedback as well as constructive suggestions for future improvements. Conclusion: The study indicates that students positively perceived formative assessment and feedback sessions after practical anatomy sessions. Findings also refer to a positive effect of formative assessment on students’ performance in summative practical assessment in anatomy.