190 likes | 204 Views
An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups. Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5. Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon. The PBL process in medicine. Groups of 8-12 students with a facilitator A rotating Chair and Scribe 3 one-hour meetings per case, per week
E N D
An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5 Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon
The PBL process in medicine • Groups of 8-12 students with a facilitator • A rotating Chair and Scribe • 3 one-hour meetings per case, per week • Process: • Definitions • Cues – in three groups • Links – between cues and their explanation • Learning objectives – questions to answer • All currently recorded on a whiteboard and then lost, unless on a flipchart
The IAW and its use • Promethean Activboard • Physical board plus ‘flipchart’ software • Print the electronic flipcharts? • Distribution of files? • By email or Web? • Types of files to distribute? • As ‘flipcharts’? students did not have software • Export to Office .doc or .ppt
The project • To help learning by students creating a shared, electronic, editable record of the PBL process • 2 yr1 groups and 2 yr2 groups, in both semesters • 4 facilitators, who swapped groups in semester 2(and one new facilitator) • Software • ActivStudio flipchart software • semantic net software – planned but not done • not planned: PowerPoint 2003 • Evaluation: Questionnaire to IAW groups and traditional whiteboard/flipchart groups, plus observation. Focus groups?
First semester results • Many groups typing to hand writing, which can isolate the scribe: we tried a radio keyboard and mouse, then used cable extensions • Printer not used – no time! • Emails generally sent but variable • Semantic net software not used – flipchart software was difficult enough • Questionnaire given before Christmas: • 40 responses, • 22 without IAW from 6 yr1 groups • 18 with IAW from 2 yr1 groups and 1 yr2 group
Semester 1 Evaluation Traditional technology is helpful … • Flipcharts a permanent record (9 responses)“We could take flipchart paper with us” • Easy to use (6)“Quick and easy to use” • Plenty of writing space (4)“Large boards” • Visual quality (4)“Can use different coloured pens” • And 15 responses about any shared writing
Semester 1 evaluation Traditional technology is unhelpful … • No record of work to share (9 responses)“Not a permanent record.” • Visual quality poor (6)“not everyone able to get a good view” • Practical difficulties (6)“Pens that didn't work “ • Writing space limited (3)“Often ran out of space” • Slow (2)“Sometimes slowed the discussion down”
Semester 1 evaluation The IAW is helpful… • Distributing notes (12 comments)“Allowed everyone in the group to have a copy of the same notes.” • The visual quality (6)“Nice, neat, readable notes.” • Storing, retrieving, editing (5)“Access to previous notes quickly and accurately” • Not having to write notes in sessions (4) • Other reasons (8)
Semester 1 evaluation The IAW is unhelpful… • Unreliable (15 comments)“Crashes a lot.” • Slow (9)“Too time consuming, slowed down our work.” • Visual clarity (6) “sometimes couldn't read hand writing” • Familiarity/training (3) • Damaged group process (2)
Semester 1Overall helpful vs unhelpful0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful N = 146 n = 40 Response rate: 27% Number of respondents who used IAW = 18
Semester 2 • PowerPoint 2003 instead of ActivStudio • Annotate with mouse or pen on IAW • Annotations can be saved • No conversion to Office files needed • Cases ready in a prepared slideshow for highlighting and linking • Web access instead of emailing – web spaces with passwords for PBL groups • Simpler process, more familiar software, fewer risks
Semester 2 evaluation PowerPoint/IAW is helpful … “A lot better now using Powerpoint. Easy to read and quick to use Interactive whiteboard“ • Helps group process, saves time, notes are more readable (16 comments) • Remote access to a permanent copy (9) • Ease of use (5) • Continuity between sessions (4) • Web access during session (4)
Semester 2 evaluationPowerPoint/IAW is unhelpful … • Slower (14 comments)“Takes too long to work with” • Handwriting, drawing is difficult (10)“Difficult to draw diagrams”; “much cleaner if typed out” • Technical problems, crashes (rare) (7)“System occasionally crashed” • Needs training (3) • Other (3)
Semester 2 evaluation Overall helpful vs unhelpful0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful N = 146 students Number of respondents who used IAW = 18
Challenges in using the IAW • Using the software. Powerpoint much easier thean software last semester • Slows down our work too much. Too much time is spent trying to figure out how to work it. Disucssions are constantly interupted because of this. • It slowed down the recording process of the groups thoughts. But then again sometimes recording thoughts were quicker e.g. highlighting cues. • It is very difficult to be able to draw diagrams as the pen does not write smoothly enough. But we have managed to tackle this by using the whiteboard, although it is a shame that the pictures cannot be saved with the other work. • Nothing apart from getting used to typing faster amd beomg able to spell. • Trying to write with the pen in a way that would make your handwriting legible.
Next year … • Initial student training in PowerPoint 2003 as part of IT skills, emphasizing Ink Annotations • PowerPoint 2003 in all PBL rooms, for use with/without an IAW • Prepared cases on PowerPoint in web spaces • Let PBL groups mix traditional whiteboards and flipcharts with PowerPoint/web/IAW • Auto-login to web spaces for editing case files, to reduce dependence on facilitators