New innovations and educational process in undergraduate neurology education in blended learning: readers left wanting more

Dear editor

We read with interest the article from Mu et al., discussing ``New Innovations and Educational Process in Undergraduate Neurology Education in Blended Learning” [1]. The article provides an excellent overview of four educational strategies used to support blended learning (i.e. near-peer teaching (NPT), problem-based learning (PBL), case-based learning (CBL), and team-based learning (TBL)). These strategies for blended learning represent significant opportunities for faculty and their employing institutions. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of information presented in the article regarding the required workload of faculty to develop the educational materials and the burden on students to learn from this new style of pedagogy.

The evolution of instructional approach is inevitable, results from the natural progression of faculty development, and is important to improving the effectiveness of knowledge transference to students. The natural experiment that was the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an abrupt and compulsory conversion from face-to-face learning to digital formatting. This was a significant challenge for faculty who struggled to manage their course delivery and the effectiveness of their curriculum during that difficult time [2]. The pandemic obligated faculty to identify technologies and platforms to support their teaching, as the examples described by Mu et al. The authors did this well, but we were hoping the authors would provide a section on the best practices to convert from face-to-face to digital/distance course delivery, but unfortunately that was not part of the information presented in the article.

It is important to note that even without a pandemic as the source of encouragement, the incorporation of new innovations in teaching by faculty requires extensive institutional and organizational strategies to facilitate faculty uptake of this new pedagogy [2]. Even under ideal circumstances faculty with lesser technological skill sets can find it difficult to incorporate teaching techniques that require extensive technology [3]. Student acceptance of new pedagogy must also be considered. In a study of 563 students, Alarabiat et al. found factors leading to student resistance to continuing to use online learning requirements related to sensory, relationship, synchronism, and monitoring capability [4]. Importantly, the students did not identify knowledge delivery itself as a major problem, rather, they identified peripheral factors to the student experience as being more important.

Additionally, omnipresent access to high-speed internet and technological proficiency remains a challenge in many geographical areas [5]. The deployment of pedagogical strategies must minimize extraneous cognitive workload to avoid overloading the mental capacity for dealing with the actual learning contents (i.e. the intrinsic cognitive workload) [6,7]. Incorporating digital pedagogies is a great start. However, digital pedagogy is not just about using technology but importantly, it supports collaboration, creation, and active use of information. The potential that comes with a multifaceted nature of digital pedagogy comes from the various teaching methods, teacher competencies, and the integration of technology that aims to enhance the students learning experience [8].

Lucas et al. in their study ‘A double-edged sword: Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of online teaching and learning in higher education’ provide great insight into the teachers’ importance to education [9]. The study highlights Online Teaching and Learning (OTL) as a ‘double-edged’ tool for teachers, offering benefits like flexibility and pedagogical innovation but presenting challenges such as curricular time constraints.

While the strategies discussed by Mu et al. can potentially enhance the learning of undergraduate neurological education, it will only occur if equal consideration is given to supporting the development of faculty to become skilled at and incorporate these strategies into their courses. Alhassan, A. I. (2022) asserts faculty development in medical education is crucial to meet the needs of the next generation of students [10]. Faculty are a pivotal part of the processes that shape the academics of future medical professionals. A supportive organizational environment is essential to the impact on student behaviors and societal outcomes. In this context, ongoing faculty development becomes paramount to enhance teaching skills, interactions, and overall educational quality. With that said, we believe that faculty development should be identified as equally important to any new electronic tools incorporated in the education of our future physicians and scientists.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.