Comparison of On-Campus and Hybrid Student Outcomes in Occupational Therapy Doctoral Education

Abstract

We compared the graduate outcomes of doctoral students in a traditional on-campus occupational therapy program with those in a hybrid program. Participants were 81 students from an on-campus program and 13 students from a hybrid program. Graduate outcomes were measured with student grade-point average (GPA) at the end of each academic year, cumulative GPA, Fieldwork Performance Exam, National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT) practice exam scores, and final NBCOT pass rate. Consistent with previous research, our results revealed no significant differences on most outcome variables, suggesting that hybrid programs are an effective delivery model for postsecondary higher education. These findings may provide guidance to occupational therapy programs in curriculum design, content delivery, and program refinement and development. Replication of this study is needed with a larger sample and inclusion of qualitative data. Future studies should compare the affective domain of graduate outcomes in on-campus and online or hybrid programs.

A Preliminary Historical Report on Embracing Online Education in Occupational Therapy

“…Online education improved accessibility to occupational therapy courses and curricula, facilitated access to advanced degrees, and allowed richer connections among occupational therapy researchers, instructors, students, clinicians, and stakeholders. The acceptance toward online learning in occupational therapy became more evident in recent years as evidenced by an increased number of online occupational therapy programs and courses across entry and postprofessional master's and doctorate levels and increased growth in the number of enrollees in online occupational therapy programs (AOTA, 2017;Mu, Coppard, Bracciano, & Bradberry, 2014;Parker & Burkhardt, 2010).…”

“…The noted proliferation of online education in the more recent years may be attributed to: (a) the expansion of existing and the invention of new technology (Jacobs, Doyle, & Martin, 2013;Jedlicka et al, 2002;Mu et al, 2014;Parker & Burkardt, 2010), (b) the increased student demand for online programs (Hollis & Madill, 2006;Jacobs et al, 2013), and (c) the drive for increased revenue among institutions (Hollis & Madill, 2006). An increased number of options for online delivery of occupational therapy courses was noted as technology advanced.…”

“…There were arbitrary opinions regarding its effectiveness. In more recent years, the focus has shifted to outcomes, best practices, and experiences (Farber, 2013;Mu et al, 2014).…”

“…Rogers Mulholland, Derdall, and Hollis (2011) reported greater openness from stakeholders in discussing online education's potential in occupational therapy and ways it can be improved. The shift in the perception consequently resulted in a better appreciation of online learning as exhibited by the continued growth of the number of students enrolling in online programs (Mu et al, 2014;Parker & Burkhardt, 2010).…”

Faculty Mentors' Perspectives on E‐Mentoring Post‐Professional Occupational Therapy Doctoral Students

“…E‐mentoring is a particularly viable option for mentoring students engaged in online graduate degree programs. As online education continues to grow universally (Allen and Seaman, ) as well as in occupational therapy and other health professions, it is critical to provide evidence‐based and quality educational experiences (Bondoc, ; Richardson et al, ; Doyle and Jacobs, ; Mu et al, ). E‐mentoring is a tool that can contribute to the overall distance learning experiences of students.…”