When Students Choose E‐learning Resources—the Importance of Ease and Convenience

Abstract

Electronic learning resources are popular with today's students. How students choose their favorite e‐learning tools has not been investigated in detail and therefore is not well understood. The popular SecondLook™ (SL) Histology e‐learning self‐review tool was offered in three different formats to students participating in two different histology courses at the University of Michigan (CDB450/550 and DENT510). The SL formats included downloadable PowerPoint files, an interactive online website, and a mobile smartphone and computer tablet application (app). Identical in content, each format had specific advantages and disadvantages with respect to the types of compatible devices, user features, and access limitations. Upon the conclusion of their courses, students were surveyed about their format choices and reasons for their selection, as well as usage patterns. Only 3 out of 213 participating students (91.4% participation rate) reported not having used the SL resource. Many students (46% CDB450/550, 64% DENT510) tried only one resource format, with PowerPoint being the most popular final choice (56% CBD450/550, 64% DENT510). Although the interactive website and mobile app offered several user‐friendly features not available within the PowerPoint files, they each only garnered approximately 20% final popularity in both courses. “Convenience,” “larger screen,” and “easy to use” were given most often as reasons for students' PowerPoint software format choice. The flexibility of time and place to use the resource and availability of features were also named as factors in the format selection. The access to a mobile learning tool enticed some students to use this resource in distractive environments. It also encouraged some students to forgo other learning resources, specifically textbooks, and the course website. These results suggest that today's students are in fact less motivated to actively seek out novel, high‐tech learning resources than commonly believed and instead often select easy to use and convenient review tools with which they are familiar. The study received an exempt status from the University of Michigan IRB.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.