Technology-enhanced learning in physiotherapy education: Student satisfaction and knowledge acquisition of entry-level students in the United Kingdom

  • James Alexander Kingston & St George's University of London
  • Sarah McLachlan King's College London
  • Massimo Barcellona King's College London
  • Catherine Sackley King's College London
Keywords: technology-enhanced learning, curriculum development, education, higher education, online learning


Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) can engage students with learning and offer benefits in knowledge acquisition due to the flexibility of learning it provides. There is difficulty ascertaining best practice for the implementation of TEL in physiotherapy education. This study aims to address this through a case study with pre-registration students using a virtual learning environment (VLE) to supplement their learning. Seventy-nine students were enrolled onto a Movement & Exercise module and had access to the VLE resources. Data were captured by online survey, student focus groups, learning analytics data and comparison of examination results with a previous cohort who did not have access to all the resources. Survey data demonstrated that most students were satisfied with the resources and that they facilitated knowledge acquisition. Thematic analysis from the focus groups resulted in five higher order themes: (1) Content quality, (2) Interaction and accessibility, (3) Learning goal alignment, (4) Satisfaction with resources and (5) Suggestions for the future. Learning analytics data revealed students accessed the resources predominantly before examination periods. There were statistically significant improvements in mean examination marks compared to the previous cohort. In conclusion, satisfaction with the TEL resources was high, and there may be some positive effect on knowledge acquisition.


Download data is not yet available.


Akpinar, Y. (2008) ‘Validation of a learning object review instrument: relationship between ratings of learning objects and actual learning outcomes’, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, vol. 4, pp. 291–302. Available at:

Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2015) ‘An examination of undergraduate student's perceptions and predilections of the use of YouTube in the teaching and learning process’, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, vol. 10, pp. 17–32. Available at:

Denzin, N. K. (1978) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Demain, P. (2012) ‘The use of virtual learning environments and their impact on academic performance’, Engineering Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 11–19. doi: 10.11120/ened.2012.07010011.

DfES (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, The Stationary Office, Norwich.

Douglas, J., et al., (2015) ‘Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 329–349. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842217.

Entwistle, N. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning, Croom Helm, London.

Flavin, M. (2016) ‘Technology-enhanced learning and higher education’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 632–645. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grw028.

Gibbons, A. & Rogers, P. (2009) The Architecture of Instructional Theory, (Vol. 3 Building a common knowledge base), Routledge, New York.

Gordon, N. (2014) Flexible Pedogogies: Technology-Enhanced Learning, The Higher Education Academy, York. Available at:

Graham, C. (2006) ‘Blended learning systems. Definition, current trends and future direction’, in The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, 1st edn, eds C. Bonk & C. Graham, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3–21.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. & Gros, B. (2011) ‘E-learning: confusing terminology, research gaps and inherent challenges’, Journal of Distance Education, vol. 25, no. 1. Available at:

Henderson, M., Selwyn, N. & Aston, R. (2015) ‘What works and why? Student perceptions of 'useful' digital technology in university teaching and learning’, Studies in Higher Education. vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1567–1579. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.

HESA (2018a) HE Student Enrolments by HE Provider, Domicile, Level of Study, Mode of Study, First Year Marker and Sex, [Online] HESA, Available at:

HESA (2018b) Widening Participation: UK Performance Indicators 2016/17, [Online] HESA, Available at:

HESA (2018c) Where do HE Students Study?, [Online] HESA, Available at:

Khor, S., et al., (2017) ‘Consumer perception towards internet health information resources’, in Handbook of Research on Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Customer Engagement, ed N. Mohd Suki, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 234–244.

Laurillard, D. (2008) ‘Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedogogical innovation’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, vol. 42, no. 3–4, pp. 521–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x.

Lawrence, K. (2015) ‘Today's college students: skimmers, scanners and efficiency-seekers’, Information Services & Use, vol. 35, pp. 89–93. doi: 10.3233/ISU-150765.

Leacock, T. & Nesbit, J. C. (2007) ‘A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources’, International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 44–59. Available at:

Macznik, A. K., Ribeiro, D. C. & Baxter, G. D. (2015) ‘Online technology use in physiotherapy teaching and learning: a systematic review of effectiveness and users’ perceptions’, BMC Medical Education, vol. 15, p. 160. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0429-8.

Margulieux, L., McCracken, W. M. & Catrambone, R. (2015) ‘Mixing in-class and online learning: Content meta-analysis of outcomes for hybrid, blended, and flipped courses’, In O. Lindwall, P. Hakkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.) Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference (pp. 220–227), 2. Gothenburg, Sweden: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E. & Woodrow, J. (2000) ‘Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: a case study’, Computers & Education, vol. 35, pp. 51–63. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00018-X.

McCutcheon, K., et al., (2015) ‘A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 255–270. doi: 10.1111/jan.12509.

Nesbit, J. C. & Leacock, T. L. (Ed.) (2009) Collaborative Argumentation in Learning Resource Evaluation, Idea Group, Hershey, PA.

Ong, C. & Lai, J. (2004) ‘Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 22, pp. 816–829. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006.

Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R. & Ives, B. (2001) ‘Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training’, Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 401–426. doi: 10.2307/3250989.

Rowe, M., Frantz, J. & Bozalek, V. (2012) ‘The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: a systematic review’, Medical Teacher, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. e216–e221. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831.

Sclater, N., Peasgood, A. & Mullan, J. (2016) Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A Review of UK and International Practice, Full report, Jisc, Bristol. Available at: href="

Stokoe, E., Benwell, B. & Attenborough, F. (2013) ‘University students managing engagement, preparation, knowledge and achievement: interactional evidence from institutional, domestic and virtual settings’, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 2, pp. 75–90. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.01.001.

Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) (2016) 2016 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK, University of Oxford, Oxford.

Vale, C. & Leder, G. C. (2004) ‘Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: does gender make a difference?’ Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 56, pp. 287–312. doi: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040411.94890.56.

Veneri, D. (2011) ‘The role and effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in physical therapy education: a systematic review’, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 287–298. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2010.493192.

Virtanen, V. & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2010) ‘University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences’, Instructional Science, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 355–370. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9088-z.

Wilson, B. G. (1996) Constructivist Learning Environments: Case studies in instructional design, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Woodhall, T., Hiller, A. & Resnick, S. (2014) ‘Making sense of higher education: students as consumers and the value of the university experience’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 48–67. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.648373.

Yukselturk, E. & Bulut, S. (2009) ‘Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment’, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 12–22. Available at:

How to Cite
Alexander J., McLachlan S., Barcellona M., & Sackley C. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning in physiotherapy education: Student satisfaction and knowledge acquisition of entry-level students in the United Kingdom. Research in Learning Technology, 27.
Original Research Articles