ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Analyzing an Appropriate Blend of Face-to-Face, Offline and Online Learning Approaches for the In-Service Vocational Teacher's Training Program.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of an empathy ability index system for clinical nurses using the ADDIE model: a Delphi study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Application of online to offline teaching mode in the training of non-anesthesiology residents in the department of anesthesiology: a randomized, controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- How information literacy influences creative skills among medical students? The mediating role of lifelong learning.Medical education online · 2023Article
- Students' Performance in Face-to-Face, Online, and Hybrid Methods of Teaching and Assessment in Anatomy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blended learning approaches are considered as the most viable for the delivery of training to remote areas and accessing learners at a mass level. Blended learning is a combination of different learning approaches to facilitate the learners' needs. The National Vocational and Technical Training Commission (NAVTTC) conducted an in-service vocational teachers' training program through blended learning approaches in Pakistan. This study aimed to find the appropriate blend of face-to-face, online, and offline learning approaches for the training of in-service teachers in Pakistan. A mixed methods research approach was adopted. A survey collected data from 781 in-service vocational teachers who participated in training programs through blended learning approaches. The ANOVA test was applied to find the difference of the training participants' attitude toward different modes of learning. It was found that trainees had more positive attitude toward a face-to-face learning approach than online and the online learning approach than offline learning. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with training participants, admission and placement officers, and principals. They also endorsed that face-to-face learning approaches must be given more weight than online, and the online approach should have more weight than the offline approach. This study has practical implications for technical education and vocational training (TVET) institutes in developing countries such as Pakistan to design blended learning approaches for the training of in-service vocational teachers. Future research may be conducted on the effectiveness of in-service vocational education teachers through blended learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.