An exploration of perceptions of online asynchronous and synchronous interprofessional education facilitation strategies

ABSTRACT

Interprofessional education (IPE) has increasingly been delivered online using synchronous and asynchronous mediums; however, little research focuses on facilitation strategies in the synchronous environment. We explored whether the perceived strategies used by facilitators in online synchronous IPE facilitation are similar to those used in face-to-face and online asynchronous IPE facilitation, and if the strategies are used to a similar degree online in both synchronous and asynchronous environments. Following completion of an online IPE course, students and facilitators were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire exploring their perceptions of the facilitation strategies used in their synchronous and asynchronous IPE experiences. Responses were received from 118 students and 21 facilitators. Descriptive statistics indicate that students and facilitators perceived facilitation strategies are being used in online synchronous settings that have previously been recognized in asynchronous and face-to-face IPE settings. This included strategies linked to communicating about the design/organization of the experience, providing direct instruction, facilitating and encouraging interprofessional interaction, and contextualizing IPE. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests demonstrated a perception that these strategies were being used to a greater extent in the synchronous than asynchronous environment. This knowledge is useful to further refine the training of online IPE facilitators in both synchronous and asynchronous settings.

KEYWORDS:

• Asynchronous
• community of inquiry
• facilitation strategies
• Interprofessional education
• online
• synchronous

Introduction

Interprofessional education (IPE) – when learners from “two or more healthcare professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and quality of care” (Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education [Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education: CAIPE, 2013, p. 4) – has traditionally been delivered to learners in a face-to-face manner. Over the last decade, however, IPE has increasingly been delivered online, particularly since the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic when many institutions had to swiftly move their IPE programs online (T. A. Jones et al., 2020). In fact, online mediums are currently considered one of the most prevalent methods of IPE delivery (Aldriwesh et al., 2022).

Online IPE can be delivered using either synchronous or asynchronous information and communication technologies (ICT) to facilitate interprofessional learning (Santy et al., 2008). Synchronous delivery involves real-time learning conducted via video conferencing programs, such as Zoom® or instant messaging, whereby the learning, responses, and feedback given are instantaneous (Ruiz et al., 2006). Asynchronous learning is often conducted via discussion boards whereby there is a time delay in learning, responses, and feedback (Ruiz et al., 2006). A 2015 scoping review found that the majority of online IPE, up to that time point, was delivered in an asynchronous format (Curran et al., 2015). This review reported the use of ICT for IPE to be a positive experience with an increase in attitudes and professional knowledge equivalent to traditional face-to-face IPE (Curran et al., 2015).

Facilitators play an integral role in the success of both face-to-face and online IPE (Reeves et al., 2016). An IPE facilitator’s role is to guide and encourage student interaction, collaboration, and group cohesion to enable the dialogue, discussion, debate, and reflection that is essential for interprofessional learning (Reeves et al., 2016; Solomon & King, 2010). Interprofessional education facilitation is therefore a complex and demanding role whereby a unique skill set is necessitated, and extensive training is required (Botma, 2019). A small number of researchers have begun to explore various aspects of IPE facilitation, including the strategies used (i.e., what the facilitators actually do) to support effective student learning. A 2016 review reported that IPE facilitators use strategies such as encouraging shared reflection, modeling collaboration, exploring different professional responsibilities, and displaying enthusiasm, humor, and empathy to promote collaborative learning (Reeves et al., 2016). Since that review, further work has emerged to expand on the strategies, mostly linked to maintaining supportive learning environments, conflict resolution, and facilitating effective teamwork (e.g., Botma, 2019; Hadley et al., 2018; Kerry et al., 2021; Watkins, 2016). Further, the Interprofessional Facilitation Scale (IPFS) has been developed to assess the skill of the IPE facilitator in using many of these strategies and has now been applied in a small number of studies assessing face-to-face IPE facilitation (Sargeant et al., 2010).

Facilitation of IPE in the online environment is arguably more complex than face-to-face facilitation given the limited, or absence of, important non-verbal and paralinguistic cues available in the face-to-face setting (Evans, Ward, et al., 2020). Despite the growing use of online IPE, a 2019 scoping review found only 10 papers focused on online IPE facilitation (Evans et al., 2019). Similar to the face-to-face context, the papers in this review also had a dominant focus on strategies used by the facilitators to support collaborative learning, particularly those strategies used on asynchronous discussion boards. The papers in the review used interviews to obtain facilitator reflections on the facilitation strategies used (Solomon & King, 2010), or directed content analysis of the facilitators actual strategies executed on online discussion boards based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework (Garrison et al., 2000), a widely used higher education model that identifies three interdependent elements (cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence) that contribute to successful online asynchronous teaching and learning (e.g., Evans et al., 2017; Evans, Knight, et al., 2020; Waterston, 2011). The strategies identified in the papers in the Evans et al. (2019) review link particularly to the creation of teacher and social presence, supporting interactive discussions, role modeling, and questioning in the asynchronous environment. None of the studies included in this review considered the students’ perceptions of the facilitation strategies used. Since the 2019 scoping review, further work based on an asynchronous online experience has proposed the construct of “the good enough facilitator,” suggesting that online IPE facilitators should, in addition to focusing on the elements of the CoI Framework, be using strategies aligning with a therapeutic presence, emphasizing the importance of the facilitators understanding when to intervene and when to retreat in their online facilitation role (Bluteau, 2020).

Interprofessional education facilitation in the online synchronous environment has been largely unexplored. Given that online synchronous IPE has been identified as a widely used approach for facilitating learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Karpa, 2021; Robertson et al., 2021), it is likely that online synchronous IPE facilitation is increasingly prevalent, and therefore understanding the facilitation strategies used in this context is important. Although some authors acknowledge the practice of synchronous online IPE facilitation (e.g., Evans et al., 2016; Hanna et al., 2013; Power et al., 2022), no studies were found to examine in detail the facilitation strategies used in this context. Similarly, a key practical guide on developing and supporting online IPE facilitators reflected on various aspects of online synchronous IPE facilitation (Evans, Ward, et al., 2020) but did not scrutinize the strategies that facilitators actually use in their synchronous role. Outside of the IPE arena, specific synchronous facilitation strategies have also attracted minimal attention, with most papers in the tertiary education context predominantly considering bichronous course facilitation (i.e., facilitation of both asynchronous and synchronous online learning (Martin, Polly, et al., 2020), with a clear distinction not made between the strategies used in the asynchronous mediums versus the synchronous sessions. Martin et al. (2023) however, have recently highlighted the use of specific synchronous strategies such as preparing and logging on to sessions early, getting to know each other, and the use of virtual backgrounds and whiteboards.

Despite the growth in online IPE and some recent impetus for research into its facilitation, there is still much to learn about online IPE facilitation. In particular, there is a paucity of the literature exploring the strategies used by facilitators in synchronous IPE facilitation to support effective collaborative student learning. Understanding more about the facilitation strategies used in the synchronous IPE environment could inform effective training of IPE facilitators, which in turn has the potential to optimize the interprofessional learning of the participants.

We therefore aimed to explore synchronous IPE facilitation strategies, linked to what is currently known about IPE facilitation strategies in face-to-face and asynchronous contexts. We posed the following research questions:

1. Do IPE facilitators use similar facilitation strategies in the synchronous environment to what have previously been identified in face-to-face IPE facilitation and asynchronous IPE facilitation?

2. Do students and facilitators perceive facilitators are using these strategies to a similar degree in synchronous and asynchronous online IPE facilitation?

Method

Design

We employed a case study design (Yin, 2018) and gathered data from students and facilitators on their perceptions of the facilitation strategies used in an online IPE course, utilizing both synchronous and asynchronous technologies, at Deakin University, Australia. The data were collected and analyzed separately for students and facilitators. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Deakin University’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

Online IPE course design and participants

Since 2009, the Faculty of Health at Deakin University has offered an online IPE course, known as Collaborative Practice in Healthcare (CPH), over an 11-week trimester of study. In the 2022 offering of CPH, approximately 520 students from seven different health professions (medical imaging, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, optometry, psychology, and social work) were allocated to interprofessional teams of between 8 and 10 students, supported by a team facilitator. In these teams, the students collaborated to develop three care plans for complex clinical cases situated in a virtual town. Each care plan was developed over a 3-week block based on a bichronous online learning model that blended asynchronous and synchronous components. In the first week of each three-week block, facilitators would initiate asynchronous discussion with their teams by posting set text relating to their case on their team’s discussion board. Student team members were then required to introduce themselves to their other team members and discuss problems for the case for the remainder of the week, with the facilitator supporting these interactions. In the second week, the interprofessional student teams would meet via Zoom® for a 1.5 hour synchronous case conference to begin to develop the care plan for their case. During the synchronous case conference, facilitators guided their teams to refine problems for their case, goals, interventions, timeframes, and review plans while focusing on ensuring team members actively engaged in discussion, debate, and reflection to foster interprofessional learning. In the weeks following the synchronous case conference, teams would return to their asynchronous discussion boards to continue discussing their case and finalize their care plans, with the facilitator again focusing on encouraging student interactions, collaboration, and group cohesion. During this period, the number of messages posted on each team's discussion board varied between 65 and 252, with a mean of 110 (SD = 29). This three-week process was then repeated twice, resulting in teams developing three different care plans in total.

Twenty-six facilitators supported 50 student teams. Most facilitators supported multiple teams, which assisted in enhancing equity in the student experience. Given the large number of teams requiring facilitation in CPH, facilitators are recruited externally to the university. The employed facilitators were all working healthcare professionals, experienced in collaborative practice work environments. The majority (approximately 90%) were also experienced IPE facilitators, with many having undertaken the role each year since CPH’s inception in 2009. Online training was completed by all facilitators prior to commencement of the course in 2022, and focused on course content, the use of the various synchronous and asynchronous programs, and the facilitator’s role. More detailed training was provided to the three new facilitators in 2022.

Measures

An online questionnaire was developed and delivered using Qualtrics© software (Qualtrics, 2020) comprising a variety of single-item and scale measures. The single-item measures captured general demographic information (age, gender, role, and profession being studied). In the absence of a scale designed to assess synchronous online IPE facilitation, two scales were selected that have previously been used in face-to-face IPE facilitation or asynchronous facilitation (not specific to IPE): the Interprofessional Education Facilitation Scale (IPFS) (Sargeant et al., 2010) and the Teaching Presence scale of the Community of Inquiry (CoI-TP) Framework survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008).

The IPFS is a 15-item validated questionnaire initially designed for students to assess facilitator skills in executing IPE facilitation strategies and consists of two subscales: “encourage IP interaction,” and “contextualize IPE” (Sargeant et al., 2010). All items are rated using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (fair) to 4 (excellent) with higher scores on these subscales indicating a more prevalent representation of effective IPE facilitation skills and strategies. The IPFS has been used in a small number of studies assessing face-to-face IPE facilitation (e.g., M. Jones et al., 2015) but has not yet been applied in an online environment.

The teaching presence scale of CoI (CoI-TP) survey consists of 13 items designed to assess the strategies an online facilitator uses to bring a community of learners together in the asynchronous environment and comprises three subscales: “design and organization,” “facilitation,” and “direct instruction” (Arbaugh et al., 2008). All items are rated using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores on these subscales indicate a more prevalent representation of strategies for effective asynchronous facilitation. The CoI-TP survey is a validated measure that has been extensively applied in a range of higher education contexts, but it is not specific to IPE (Arbaugh et al., 2008).

Both students and facilitators were asked to respond to each of the statements from the IPFS and CoI-TP in relation to the synchronous (case conference) experience and then again in relation to the asynchronous (discussion board) experience in the online IPE course. The questionnaire was piloted at the end of the 2021 CPH offering with a subset of facilitators and students.

Data collection

All students and facilitators were invited to participate in the study by e-mail. The recruitment e-mail was sent by a research assistant to facilitators at the completion of their employment and to students after course marks were released to avoid feelings of obligation or coercion. A reminder e-mail was sent to both groups one week after the recruitment e-mail. The recruitment e-mail included a plain language statement (PLS) and a questionnaire link. Submission of the questionnaire implied consent by the participants. Participation was anonymous and voluntary.

Data analysis

Data were downloaded from the Qualtrics© software and exported into IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27) for statistical analyses. Total scores for the IPFS and CoI-TP surveys were computed along with subscale scores for each measure. Scale and subscale variables were calculated separately for the synchronous and asynchronous responses. To explore the strategies used in synchronous IPE facilitation (research question 1), descriptive statistics were examined. To determine if facilitators use the facilitation strategies to a similar degree in synchronous and asynchronous environments (research question 2), Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used as the data did not meet the key assumptions of the parametric equivalent.

Results

Respondent characteristics

Of the 520 students invited to participate in the study, 118 (23%) responded to the questionnaire request. Table 1 summarizes student demographic information. The majority of students were female (80%), commonly aged between 20 and 24 years (47%). Although all programs were represented, the majority of the students were studying either Medicine (28%), Psychology (20%), Occupational Therapy (19%), Nursing or Midwifery (12%), or Social Work (12%).

Table 1. Student demographic frequencies and percentages (N = 118).

		Frequency
Demographic (N = 118)		n	%
Program	Medical Imaging	7	6
	Medicine	33	28
	Nursing or Midwifery	14	12
	Occupational Therapy	23	19
	Optometry	2	2
	Psychology	24	20
	Social Work	14	12
	Unknown	1	1
Age	Less than 20 years	1	1
	20–24 years	56	47
	25–29 years	27	23
	30–34 years	19	16
	35–39 years	10	8
	40 years and above	5	4
Gender	Female	94	80
	Male	22	19
	Prefer not to say	2	2

Of the 26 facilitators invited to participate in the study, 21 (81%) completed the questionnaire. Table 2 details facilitator demographic information. The majority of facilitators were female (76%) and were aged 40–44 (29%) and 45–49 (29%) years. The facilitators represented eight different health professional backgrounds, with physiotherapy (29%), occupational therapy (25%), and nursing (19%) most common.

Table 2. Facilitator demographic frequencies and percentages (N = 21).

		Frequency
Demographic (N = 21)		n	%
Profession	Dietetics	2	9
	Medical Imaging Technologist	1	5
	Nursing	4	19
	Occupational Therapist	5	24
	Optometry	1	5
	Physiotherapy	6	29
	Podiatry	1	5
	Social Work	1	5
Age	30–34 years	2	9
	35–39 years	4	19
	40–44 years	6	29
	45–49 years	6	29
	50–54 years	3	14
Gender	Female	16	76
	Male	5	24
	Prefer not to say	0	0

Strategies used in synchronous IPE facilitation

Table 3 includes descriptive data to explore students’ perceptions of the facilitation strategies used in their synchronous sessions. The overall IPFS mean item score was 3.16 (SD = 0.72; potential range 1 to 4) indicating students perceived the facilitation as good to excellent. More specifically, students rated the facilitators in the synchronous environment between good and excellent on the “encourage IPE interaction” subscale (M=3.17, SD = 0.74). Similarly, students perceived that the facilitators were good to excellent on the “contextualize IPE” subscale (M = 3.13, SD = 0.75). The student's overall mean item score on the CoI-TP scale was 3.96, (SD = 0.73; potential range of 1 to 5), corresponding closely with the agree anchor of the scale. The mean score was the highest for the “design and organization” subscale at 4.2 (SD = 0.64). The students’ mean scores on “direct instruction” (M = 3.8, SD = 0.79) and “facilitation” (M = 3.8, SD = 0.89) were also closest to the agree anchor.

Table 3. Student synchronous^a and asynchronous^b descriptive statistics and corresponding Wilcoxon signed-rank test results.

		Synchronous Descriptive Statistics					Asynchronous Descriptive Statistics					Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
	N	Mean	Median	SD	Min.	Max.	Mean	Median	SD	Min	Max	z	Sig.
IPFS: Total	118	3.16	3.27	0.72	1.40	4.00	3.07	3.07	0.65	1.40	4.00	−3.15	.002
IPFS subscale: Encourage IPE Interaction	118	3.17	3.38	0.74	1.42	4.00	3.09	3.17	0.69	1.42	4.00	−2.34	.019
IPFS subscale: Contextualise IPE	118	3.13	3.33	0.75	1.33	4.00	3.01	3.00	0.69	1.33	4.00	−3.27	.001
CoP-TP: Total	118	3.96	4.00	0.73	1.92	5.00	3.62	3.69	0.65	1.62	4.62	−9.09	.000
CoP-TP subscale: Design & Organisation	118	4.23	4.25	0.64	2.00	5.00	4.22	4.25	0.64	1.75	5.00	−0.47	.641
CoP-TP subscale: Facilitation	118	3.84	4.00	0.89	1.17	5.00	3.80	3.83	0.89	1.17	5.00	−0.93	.355
CoP-TP subscale: Direct Instruction	118	3.86	4.00	0.79	1.67	5.00	3.77	4.00	0.80	1.67	5.00	−3.14	.002

a. Via case conferences.

b. Via discussion boards.

IPFS = Interprofessional Education Facilitation Scale.

CoP-TP = The Teaching Presence scale of the Community of Inquiry Framework survey instrument.

Table 4 indicates the facilitators’ perception of their own facilitation skills and strategies used. The overall IPFS mean score of 3.35 (SD = 0.32), along with subscales “encourage IPE interaction” (M=3.37, SD = 0.30) and “contextualize IPE” (M=3.27, SD = 0.44) indicated facilitators rated their synchronous facilitation as good to excellent. The overall mean score on the CoI-TP scale was 3.99 (SD = 0.25), corresponding with the agree anchor. Facilitators rated themselves strongly on the “design and organization” subscale (M=4.29, SD = 0.43). Similarly, facilitators perceived agreement for the “facilitation” subscale (M=4.05, SD = 0.35). The “direct instruction” subscale had a slightly lower mean (M=3.49, SD = 0.66), but still indicative of some level of use of strategies focused on intellectual leadership in the sessions.

Table 4. Facilitator synchronous^a and asynchronous^b descriptive statistics and corresponding Wilcoxin signed-rank test results.

		Synchronous					Asynchronous					Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
	N	Mean	Median	SD	Min.	Max.	Mean	Median	SD	Min.	Max.	z	Sig.
IPFS: Total	21	3.35	3.40	0.32	2.80	3.93	3.22	3.20	0.50	2.20	3.87	−0.85	.393
IPFS subscale: Encourage IPE Interaction	21	3.37	3.42	0.30	2.75	3.92	3.23	3.17	0.49	2.17	3.83	−0.92	.360
IPFS subscale: Contextualise IPE	21	3.27	3.33	0.44	2.67	4.00	3.18	3.33	0.56	2.33	4.00	−1.08	.281
CoP-TP: Total	21	3.99	4.00	0.25	3.69	4.54	3.56	3.54	0.29	3.08	4.00	−4.04	.001
CoP-TP subscale: Design & Organisation	21	4.29	4.25	0.43	3.50	5.00	4.20	4.25	0.46	3.50	5.00	−1.94	.050
CoP-TP subscale: Facilitation	21	4.05	3.83	0.35	3.50	4.67	3.92	3.83	0.54	3.00	5.00	−1.34	.179
CoP-TP subscale: Direct Instruction	21	3.49	3.67	0.66	2.33	4.33	3.33	3.67	0.69	2.33	4.33	−.99	.320

a.Via case conferences.

b.Via discussion boards.

IPFS = Interprofessional Education Facilitation Scale.

CoP-TP = The Teaching Presence scale of the Community of Inquiry Framework survey instrument.

Comparison of the use of strategies in synchronous and asynchronous environments

Table 3 also compares the students’ perceptions of the use of facilitation strategies in synchronous versus asynchronous environments. Students rated the usage of facilitation strategies higher on both scales and their subscales in the synchronous than the asynchronous environment. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests determined these higher ratings in the synchronous environment than the asynchronous were statistically significant for all scales and subscales, apart from the CoI-TP “design and organization” and “facilitation.”

Table 4 also compares the facilitators’ perceptions of the use of different facilitation strategies in synchronous versus asynchronous environments. Similar to the students, facilitators rated facilitation strategies higher in the synchronous environment than asynchronous environment for both scales and their subscales. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that these differences were statistically significant for the CoI-TP overall and the CoI-TP subscale “design and organization.”

Discussion

Given the recent increase in online IPE, and particularly synchronous online IPE, it was appropriate to explore the facilitation strategies (i.e., what the facilitators are actually doing) to support student collaborative learning in the online IPE setting. Although some researchers have considered the strategies used in face-to-face and asynchronous online IPE facilitation, minimal work has examined the strategies used in synchronous online IPE facilitation. Our findings demonstrate that both students and facilitators perceived facilitators to be using strategies in IPE synchronous facilitation that had previously been documented in both online asynchronous and face-to-face IPE facilitation. This included strategies linked to communicating important details about the design and organization of the experience, providing direct instruction, facilitating and encouraging interprofessional interaction, and contextualizing IPE. In fact, we showed that students and facilitators who perceive these strategies are used to a higher degree in the synchronous than asynchronous environment.

Similar to previous work exploring IPE asynchronous facilitation using the CoI-TP (e.g., Evans et al., 2017; Evans, Knight, et al., 2020; Waterston, 2011), facilitators were using strategies in their synchronous facilitation linked to “design and organization,” “direct instruction,” and “facilitation.” This suggests that the facilitators in their synchronous facilitation were using strategies focused on communicating important details about the experience, demonstrating a degree of intellectual leadership, and facilitating the conversation for the student teams (Arbaugh et al., 2008). In contrast to these previous studies, however, “design and organization” was rated higher than “facilitation” and “direct instruction” by both students and facilitators. The real-time nature of the synchronous environment may be more conducive than the delayed response of asynchronous environments to facilitators being able to communicate key details of the experience, leading to stronger perceptions of the use of these design and organization strategies. These real time interactions may lead to a sense of feeling more supported with less ambiguity around instructions and expectations (Barton & Maness, 2017). In addition, similar to previous work using the IPFS to explore face-to-face IPE facilitation strategies (e.g. M. Jones et al., 2015), students and facilitators perceived facilitators were “contextualizing IPE” and “encouraging IPE interaction” well in the synchronous sessions, suggesting they were explaining the benefits and demonstrating the positive aspects of IPE to them, along with encouraging participants to share their opinions and views (Sargeant et al., 2010). Collectively, these results suggest that the previously identified IPE facilitation strategies are also relevant and informative in the synchronous setting.

We directly compared the use of the various facilitation strategies between the synchronous and asynchronous settings. Although all strategies were used well in the asynchronous environment, students and facilitators mean scores on all scales and subscales were higher in the synchronous environment, with the majority being statistically significant for the students and some significant for the facilitators. Students may perceive strategies to be more observable in the synchronous space due to a facilitators’ ability to build rapport and read body language, being closer to representing face-to-face settings and connections (Hadley et al., 2018). The perception of greater use of facilitation strategies in the synchronous context may also relate to students having the opportunity to pose questions and get immediate, effective, and timely feedback from facilitators allowing them to direct their focus and apply guidance to their learning (Martin, Wang, et al., 2020). Similarly, facilitators may believe they are able to grasp more frequent and opportune times for interaction in the synchronous setting, ultimately leaving them to believe they are doing a better job in teaching and learning (M. Jones et al., 2015). Synchronous facilitation allows for greater interactivity and connectedness between facilitators and students (Heuberger & Clark, 2019), which better mimics face-to-face interactions (Karpa, 2021). As such, it is likely that facilitators, such as health professionals who are experienced in face-to-face interactions, are more likely to feel comfortable in a synchronous environment, closely resembling real-world practice.

The inclusion of the students’ perceptions in this study is novel given no previous studies were identified that considered the students’ perceptions of facilitation strategies in any online IPE facilitation research. It was not the aim of this study to directly compare the students’ and facilitators’ perceptions of the strategies, instead it was intended to explore each of their perceptions of the usage of facilitation strategies. It was interesting to note, however, that facilitators scored their use of facilitation strategies higher on most subscales than students, although this finding was not assessed for statistical significance given it was not the aim of this study. Similar findings have been reported in other studies directly comparing student and teachers perceived teaching presence using the CoI-TP survey in asynchronous teaching in non-IPE contexts (e.g., Wang et al., 2021). For the collection of facilitator data in the current study, self-assessment was used. Higher scores in most areas by facilitators may reflect their perceptions not matching their actual teaching practices, perhaps being inflated by belief in their own self efficacy and their confidence in IPE delivery, or that students do not notice all strategies executed subtlety by facilitators (Wang et al., 2021). Student data were not collected until after their grades for the unit were released, approximately 6 weeks after their final team interactions, and four weeks after when the facilitators completed the questionnaire. It is unknown if knowledge of their grades or further reflection on the experience may have influenced student responses. Future researchers could compare the students’ and facilitators’ perceptions in more detail, supported by observational studies to assess what strategies are actually being used.

This research has been helpful in highlighting that similar strategies are used by IPE facilitators in a variety of contexts. In the short term, this knowledge may help leaders of IPE programs develop and further tailor facilitator training for online IPE facilitation. The Evans, Ward, et al. (2020) practice guide on developing, supporting, and sustaining a team of online IPE facilitators emphasized the importance of carefully tailored training for facilitators, yet little work has focused on the outcomes related to such training (Bennie et al., 2022). The findings of this study are therefore an important contribution to informing the content of online IPE facilitation training, enabling the careful tailoring of training suggested by Evans, Knight, et al. (2020)

This study provides support that this training can focus on developing skills in facilitation strategies already documented in the literature. It suggests that online IPE facilitation training can be targeted to develop skills in similar strategies for both synchronous and asynchronous mediums whilst exploring ways in which facilitators may be able to enhance their application, particularly in the asynchronous context. The information from this study is a progressive step in informing the content of training for online IPE facilitation with more research required to aid further refinement. More focused facilitator training may contribute to delivering effective teaching and learning opportunities for students, standing them in good stead for future IPE experiences and collaborative practice.

Although the use of the IPFS and CoI-TP surveys were valuable for the purpose of examining strategies used in the synchronous IPE facilitation environment relative to those previously used in other contexts, a tool designed to specifically assess online IPE facilitation does not exist. The IPFS was designed for face-to-face IPE facilitation, and the CoI-TP survey is not specific to IPE. The results should therefore be treated with some caution given that the original purpose of these measures was not to assess IPE facilitation in either the synchronous or asynchronous space. Building on the work of this study, future researchers could consider developing a scale to assess IPE facilitation skills across synchronous and asynchronous environments.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the relatively small facilitator sample size (N = 21), which may have impacted on the ability to determine significance between the asynchronous and synchronous settings. Furthermore, this case study was based on a sample taken from a single institution and as such, the transferability of these findings to other contexts may be limited. Future researchers could endeavor to assess online IPE facilitation strategies across several institutions and with varied methodology. This study is based on perceptions and, therefore, results are dependent on how well participants believe the facilitation strategies to be used within their experiences. Perception is subjective, and although students and facilitators consider IPE facilitation strategies to be occurring, they may not be. Additionally, we did not explore differences in perceptions of students and facilitators from different programs or professions. Different theoretical perspectives and experiences relevant to collaborative practice may impact on perceptions of facilitation strategies and warrant further investigation.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that both students and facilitators perceive that facilitators are using strategies in IPE synchronous facilitation that have previously been described in both online asynchronous and face-to-face IPE facilitation. It was also shown that students and facilitators who perceive these strategies are used to a greater extent in the synchronous than asynchronous environment. This information is valuable to inform the training of online IPE facilitators in both synchronous and asynchronous mediums in the future. Further research is needed to substantiate these findings; however, this study adds to an emerging body of research highlighting online IPE facilitation.

Acknowledgments

The research team would like to thank the students and facilitators involved in the online IPE for the course for completing the questionnaire for this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was provided for this study.

Notes on contributors

Sherryn Evans

Sherryn Evans, PhD is a Senior Lecturer and the Interprofessional Education Coordinator in the Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Australia.

Erin Perry

Erin Perry is a student candidate for the Graduate Diploma of Psychology (Advanced), Deakin University, Australia.