Online improvisation training, hybrid improvisation training and on-site improvisation training; are they the same?

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019, lifestyle has been changing to an online-based learning and working environment rather than on-site, and improvisation training is no exception. However, no research compares the efficacy of online versus on-site training. Although we believed that the most effective way to learn improvisation is an on-site format, it is important to explore how format differences can affect learners.

We offer three types of training such as on-site training (n = 6) (Consisting of 1 female with age ≥40 and <50, and 5 males with ages ≥20 and <50), hybrid training (Instructor participates from online and learners participate on-site) (n = 120) (Consisting of 55 female with age ≥15 and <20, and 65 males with ages ≥15 and <50), and online training (n = 20) (Consisting of 4 female with age ≥20 and <30, and 16 males with ages ≥20 and <50) We collected pretest, test, and posttest data by using the Kansei Analyzer, a simplified electroencephalograph (EEG) and Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire.

All formats of training displayed an increase in vigor and a decrease in depression, confusion, tension, anger, and fatigue. The online training displayed better results than the on-site training. Regardless of the format, all training displayed an increase in stress during the activities and a decrease in stress after the activity without changes in other indexes. Additionally, on-site training displayed an increase in sleepiness and stress during the activities. Some participants were tested twice but no significant differences were found between the initial results and the secondary results.

In this study, we found evidence that online improvisation can lead to the prevention of depressive symptoms and can function as a method for the reduction of stress in conjunction with the increase of individual vigor. However, a future study is required due to the low number of participants and the absence of POMS data for the on-site training. Any future studies should account for these factors while examining other data such as blood pressure, blood sugar, and pulse.