Videoconferencing in Nurse Education

1. Videoconferencing in Nurse Education Heather Wharrad School of Nursing University of Nottingham

2. The University of Nottingham, School of Nursing – East Midlands, England

3. Courses • 4000 students (pre and post registration, undergraduate and postgraduate); 200+ staff • Pre-registration diploma 300 students (2 intakes/year) • 120 LBR modules NB one core module run 17 times/academic year • Academic and professional practice competence assessed • Mature students (100% LBR; 65% pre-reg diploma; 4% undergraduate Masters)

4. SONET Applied Research Centre & CETL base

5. SONET Applied Research Centre • Reusable Learning Objects – RLO’s • Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning (CETL) • Reusable learning designs • Sustainable approaches –communities of practice • Rapid development and course builder tools for e-learning • Web CT and online discussion • Teaching and Learning Observatory (Videoconferencing) • Social networking tools • Facebook, Second life • Social Learning Hubs

6. Genetics Applied Maths Engineering Study skills EB Practice Pharmacology Languages Clinical skills Sports science Study skills Study skills Business studies Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning Collaboration http:www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk

7. The RLO-CETL is concerned with: Developing RLOs for Health Sciences Evaluating the use of RLOs Helping lecturers to develop and use RLOs Developing tools and templates for RLO use Integrating RLO use with other technologies eg mobile phones, white boards, videoconferencing Research and advancing RLO pedagogy

9. Reasons Pragmatic • Old VC equipment replaced and expensive (BT phone line rental) • Integration with e-learning initiatives eg RLOs, electronic whiteboards • Reduce time and costs travelling between centres • Capital funding from RLO-CETL Pedagogical advantages • Extend learning communities • Synchronous communication • Access to specialists local and world wide for teaching and research • Widening practice opportunities

10. Travel costs (2006-2007) • Last year we spent £157,000 on student travel. Across the centres this was split: • Boston - £86,000 • Lincoln - £14,000 • Derby - £19,000 • Mansfield - £17,000 • Nottingham - £7,000 • Midwifery - £14,000 • Staff costs on travel - £110,000

11. VC Specification • 42 inch plasma screens with speakers • Portable – small/medium meeting rooms and medium/large classrooms • Link to existing AV (projectors) in classrooms • Join up to 8 sites in conference (multipoint) • Supports network and video equipment from multiple vendors • Simultaneous display of presenter and presentation material • Manages calls made on multiple protocols (IP, ISDN ) • Complies with standards policies (JANET acceptable policy; UoN IS security policy) • Remote management system • Training package

12. Stages in Installation • procurement process - Tender & Shortlist 3 companies (delayed us by four months) • VC solution selected and contracts signed • Getting the Video Conference units to work correctly with existing AV Infrastructure i.e. Lecterns already installed in the Classrooms • Bandwidth issues and Quality of Service on those points, i.e. enough network bandwidth available to give good video & audio quality • Finding suitable rooms at each centre (QoS) • Registration with the University of Nottingham's Gatekeeper and JANET (to allow ISDN as well as IP) • Tandberg management software installed onto a server and get all the VC units registered with this software so that the MCU & VC units could make multi-sited calls. • Staff development for SoN AV Technicians

13. SoN Videoconferencing Project VC equipment installed in all centres (7 units) and projectors and classrooms upgraded • Tandberg (First Connections)

14. EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONDERENCING EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONDERENCING EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONDERENCING EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONDERENCING EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONDERENCING TEACHING & LEARNING OBSERVATORY TEACHING & LEARNING OBSERVATORY TEACHING & LEARNING OBSERVATORY TEACHING & LEARNING OBSERVATORY TEACHING & LEARNING OBSERVATORY KEY School of Nursing Education Centre USER CARERS & HEALTH PROFESSIONALS EVALUATION Interactive teaching & learning Nottingham Derby Boston Lincoln Mansfield Virtual Learning Laboratory Reusable Learning Objects CURRICULUM MAPPING STAFF DEVELOPMENT INTERPROFESSIONAL LEARNING

15. Visual Learning Lab CETL Teaching & Learning Observatory • VLL CETL funded 2 year project • Identify target areas of the curriculum for VC delivery • Evaluate the implementation and disseminate findings • Feasibility of establishing a TLO in a nursing practice setting

16. Outcomes & Progress • Literature review • Open day (Feb 2007) with talks and hands-on • Cross school/course working group and ToR • Website – good practice and etiquette guidelines http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/sonet/projects/vc.html • Monitoring usage and trends • Case studies of use of VC in selected modules • Evaluation • Scoping TLO

17. Usage (TCM stats)

18. VC in Teaching • Third year Diploma in Nursing students • module Personal and Professional Development • hosted at Grantham with link to Mansfield. • Mental Health Diploma in Nursing students • Lincoln to Duncan MacMillan House

19. Evaluation Grantham(n=25)-Mansfield (n=21)

20. Evaluation Grantham(n=25)-Mansfield (n=21)

21. Evaluation Grantham(n=25)-Mansfield (n=21)

22. Evaluation Grantham(n=25)-Mansfield (n=21)

23. Evaluation Grantham(n=25)-Mansfield (n=21) • enjoyed the session although would have liked to be told about the videolink so I could be more prepared (G) • if we were prepared it would have been better as it took a while to relax (G) • I found it intimidating (G) • Found questioning stilted videoconferencing is good for lectures not for Q&A sessions (G) • very good session - it worked a lot better than expected (M) • I really enjoyed it, it was a lot better than I thought it was going to be (M) • I really enjoyed this method of learning and think it is really good, especially when the teacher is not present as we can still have a lesson Thankyou (M) • mansfield cohort too large, perhaps 2 sessions would be better than large one (M) • at first felt too shy to speak but got used to it by the end of the day (M) • I did not feel I could ask the questions I normally would ask(G)

24. EvaluationLincoln-DM Nottingham • Video-conferencing proved effective – good to share learning with another centre • Good video-conference, nice to interact with Nottingham • Enjoyed the video-conferencing and news of other students from another centre • I found the video-conferencing to be a useful component. It was interesting to have opinions from another cohort • Good method of teaching and combining two sites • The room was far too small for 40 odd people in Nottingham. It was hot and scruffy and the sound at times was too quiet to hear. Very hard to concentrate at times and that made interest hard to keep • Personally feel that video conferencing is a waste of tutor resource

25. Conclusions • Procurement and installation across sites – more time than planned • Early indications that students are positive about the use of VC in teaching • VC use across school is increasing for curriculum/research meetings – familiarity with the technology • pioneers at each centre in using VC in T&L • support and strategic role out from project researcher • TLO – probably in a mental health practice setting

26. Videoconferencing Open Day 1st February 11.00-15.00 hours Programme 11.00-12.00 Welcome and Introductions Brief presentations from First Connections and School staff 'Using the Videoconferencing system' 'Videoconferencing tips and etiquette' 'How to book the VC facilities and how to get support‘ From Visual Learning Lab CETL 'Videoconferencing in the School of Education- the Teaching and Learning Observatory' 12.00-15.00 Demonstrations, activities and questions (Between 12 and 3pm) ALSO: From University of Ulster and RCN via videoconference links ‘Question and answer session on using videoconferencing in teaching and learning‘