Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 30;19(1):39.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1475-4.

Internet skills of medical faculty and students: is there a difference?

Diane O'Doherty  1 , Justan Lougheed  2 , Ailish Hannigan  2 , Jason Last  3 , Marie Dromey  3 , Colm O'Tuathaigh  4 , Deirdre McGrath  2
Affiliations

Internet skills of medical faculty and students: is there a difference?

Diane O'Doherty et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: The shift from a more didactic to student-centred pedagogical approach has led to the implementation of new information communication technology (ICT) innovations and curricula. Consequently, analysis of the digital competency of both faculty and students is of increasing importance. The aim of this research is to measure and compare the internet skills of medical school faculty and students and to investigate any potential skills gap between the two groups.

Methods: A survey of medical school faculty and students across three universities in Ireland was carried out using a validated instrument (Internet Skills Scale) measuring five internet skills (Operational, Information Navigation, Social, Creative and Mobile). Three focus groups comprising a total of fifteen students and four semi-structured interviews with faculty across three institutions were carried out to explore further findings and perceptions towards digital literacy, give further insight and add context to the findings.

Results: Seventy-eight medical faculty (response rate 45%) and 401 students (response rate 15%) responded to the survey. Mean scores for each internet skill were high (above 4 out of 5) for all skills apart from Creative (mean of 3.08 for students and 3.10 for faculty). There were no large differences between student and faculty scores across the five skills. Qualitative results supported survey findings with a deeper investigation into topics such as online professionalism, use of licencing and mobile application development. Needs based skills training and support were highlighted as areas for faculty development.

Conclusion: Both medical educators and students tend to have similar competencies with respect to internet skills. When implementing online and distance learning methodologies however, medical schools need to ensure appropriate skills training and support for faculty as well as providing targeted training to improve the creative skills of both their educators and students.

Keywords: Digital; Internet skills; Medical faculty; Medical school; Medical students.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

  1. Diane O Doherty is a research assistant based in the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick.

  2. Justan Lougheed is a third year medical student and researcher based in the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick

  3. Professor Ailish Hannigan is Associate Professor of Biomedical Statistics in the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick.

  4. Professor Jason Last is Dean of Students at University College Dublin.

  5. Marie Dromey is a graduate student studying medicine, and a researcher based in UCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin.

  6. Dr. Colm O Tuathaigh is a lecturer in medicine in the School of Medicine at University College Cork.

  7. Professor Deirdre McGrath is Director of Education in the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was sought and approved from the University of Limerick’s Faculty of Education and Health Science ethics committee (2016_03_01_EHS). Written consent was given by all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Weinberger S. The medical educator in the 21st century: a personal perspective. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2009;120:239–248. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bury J, Martin L, Roberts S. Achieving change through mutual development: supported online learning and the evolving roles of health and information professionals. Health Inf Libr J. 2006;23(1):22–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00677.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maloney S, Haas R, Keating J, Molloy E, Jolly B, Sims J. Breakeven, Cost Benefit, Cost Effectiveness, and Willingness to Pay for Web-Based Versus Face-to-Face Education Delivery for Health Professionals. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e47. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Masic I. E-learning as new method of medical education. Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(2):102–117. doi: 10.5455/aim.2008.16.102-117. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dyrbye L, Cumyn A, Day H, Heflin M. A qualitative study of physicians’ experiences with online learning in a masters degree program: benefits, challenges, and proposed solutions. Med Teach. 2009;31(2):e40–e46. doi: 10.1080/01421590802366129. - DOI - PubMed