Comparing Participatory and Direct Instructional Types of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences and Professions Students’ Perceived Achievement in a Group Module Project A dissertation presented to the faculty of The Patton College of Education of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy John F. K. Ekpe August 2016 © 2016 John F. K. Ekpe. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Comparing Participatory and Direct Instructional Types of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences and Professions Students’ Perceived Achievement in a Group Module Project by JOHN F. K. EKPE has been approved for the Department of Educational Studies and The Patton College of Education by David R. Moore Professor of Educational Studies Renée A. Middleton Dean, The Patton College of Education 3 Abstract EKPE, JOHN F. K., Ph.D., August 2016, Curriculum and Instruction, Instructional Technology Comparing Participatory and Direct Instructional Types of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences and Professions Students’ Perceived Achievement in a Group Module Project (572 pp.) Director of Dissertation: David R. Moore The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate the use of a participatory instruction as a means of teaching Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards of a group module project, compared to the teaching of the same standards using direct instruction. The students’ final perceived achievement score, instructional type (two levels), team preference (two levels), major (six levels), and inter-professional (IP) team (nine levels) and standards (five levels) were considered. Students’ final perceived achievement, students’ initial perceived achievement (students’ perceived self-efficacy), self-concept gains, and differences by team preference, major, and inter-professional teams were also analyzed. Students in this study were from three intact classes of - three cohorts group of 2013/2014 academic year (the experimental group) and three intact classes of three cohorts group of 2014/2015 academic year (comparative group). The sample consisted of 90 students. The experimental group used participatory instruction for 14 weeks of the semester. This is a value-driven, practice-based learning type of instruction, which allowed the students to interact in their teams. The comparative group, not taught using 4 participatory instruction, was taught the same standards using a direct instruction method (primarily lecture). A quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group design was used. The dependent variable was final perceived achievement score. The independent variables were initial perceived achievement score (covariate), instructional methods, team preference, major, and IP teams. Pre-survey and post-survey scores on IOM Self- Reported Knowledge Achievement scales were analyzed. Analysis of the data revealed that the participatory group gained significantly, while they improved on their final perceived achievement and self-concepts scores. The participatory group working in teams, when compared to their direct instruction counterparts, increased significantly in their change in perceived achievement scores. It is recommended that further studies be conducted to investigate students’ self- concepts, perceived self-efficacy and perceived achievement levels of the students using participatory instruction at all levels of inter-professional educations and some implications were provided. 5 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to David and John, thank you for everything. 6 Acknowledgments Professor David Richard Moore, thank you for being my advisor, a dissertation chair, a constant source of encouragement, and a friend; without you I could not have been enrolled and completed this journey. I would also like to thank my committee members Professor Emerita, Teresa Franklin and Dr. Krisanna Machtmes for your advice, time, and thoughts that you have put into this study. The same thanks go to Dr. John McCarthy who has been very encouraging, allowing me to use the HSP 4510/5510 project database, and keeping me on the MedTAPP Healthcare Access Initiative grant from the beginning to the completion of my journey. Each of you has inspired me throughout the years I have known you. You have influenced my life in various ways. You are very wonderful committee members; and I am very appreciative of all your time, supports, and advices given me from my Program of Study to the end of my Dissertation journey. I would also like to thank other professors who taught and mentored me what I know about research at various stages toward this dissertation journey. The names include Drs. Gordon P. Brooks, Adah Ward-Randolph, Seann Dikkers, Ong Kim Lee, Ronaldo Vigo, Mark Alicke, Bruce Carlson, and Dwan V. Robinson. Other names are Chris Hitchcock, Gabriela Castaneda-Jimenez, Lara Walace, Reuben Asempapa, Samuel Antwi, and Rashmi Sharma. Also, I could never have completed this journey without the support from my course-mates; my twin brothers (Reuben and Simeon); and Emily and Diana. 7 Table of Contents Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 17 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 22 Background ................................................................................................................... 22 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 30 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 31 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 31 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 32 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 34 Hypothesis 1.............................................................................................................. 34 Hypothesis 2.............................................................................................................. 34 Hypothesis 2a ........................................................................................................ 35 Hypothesis 2b........................................................................................................ 35 Hypothesis 2c ........................................................................................................ 36 Hypothesis 2d........................................................................................................ 36 Hypothesis 3.............................................................................................................. 37 Hypothesis 4.............................................................................................................. 37 Hypothesis 5.............................................................................................................. 38 Hypothesis 6.............................................................................................................. 38 Hypothesis 7.............................................................................................................. 39 Hypothesis 8.............................................................................................................. 39 Hypothesis 9.............................................................................................................. 40 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 40 Delimitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 42 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 43 8 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 48 Chapter 2: Review of Literature........................................................................................ 50 Theoretical Perspective ................................................................................................. 50 Ontological Literature ................................................................................................... 50 Epistemological Literature ............................................................................................ 51 Axiological Literature ................................................................................................... 52 A Theory of Practice ..................................................................................................... 52 Parameters for the Metatheory of Instruction ..............................................................