Ian Hughes School of Biomedical Sciences University of Leeds, UK i.e.hughes@leeds.ac.uk

1. Factors influencing successful integration of computer-based learning (CBL) materials into pharmacology courses Ian Hughes School of Biomedical Sciences University of Leeds, UK i.e.hughes@leeds.ac.uk

2. What CBL materials are available? • Simple drill software • Electronic books • Tutorial type programs • Simulations • Video material • Internet-based teaching resources • Electronic learning environments

3. What affects successful use? • Usability • Suitability • Integration

4. Usability • Quality, presentation & internal navigation • Does it fall over? • Do you have enough screens? • Can the network cope? • Will it be there tomorrow? • Will they charge you for it? • Is it in your control? • Can the students access it?

5. Suitability • Content? • Level? • Culture? • Language? • Learning style? • Added value compared to other delivery mode • Is there an alternative?

6. Integration • Students simply provided with access to software over a network DON’T USE IT. Only 12% of students on a module actually accessed a piece of software associated with a module. • Use (and student satisfaction) increased to: • >40% when the software was demonstrated in class • >70% when associated with a set task • >90% when associated with an assessed task • There is a need to integrate software with the rest of the teaching material • Analogy with the laboratory class

7. So why don’t teachers do it? • It takes time to produce material to integrate software into courses • Do teachers have the time to do this along with the other pressures we all feel? • 86% of pharmacologists identified shortage of time and lack of recognition and reward from their institution as the prime reasons why they did not introduce innovative teaching methods into their teaching. [TIPS 19, 257-262 (1998)]

8. So why don’t teachers do it? • Do all teachers have the expertise to do this? • Attempts to integrate software into modules are often un-imaginative and do not enthuse students (e.g. look at the software and then answer these MCQ) • Of 8 groups developing support material 6 found significant difficulty in thinking of types of innovative materials which integrated software into courses. • All groups found devising methods for effective integration easier the second time around.

9. So, what’s the answer? A TLRP (Teaching and Learning Resource Pack) • a pre-prepared package of editable materials supplying teachers with a choice of methods with which to integrate a software package into a course • an editablewrap-around for a software package • TLTP project: Implementing technology based teaching and learning in pharmacology; 1998-2001; USD500k.

10. What do TLRPs contain? • Prepared editable exercises and tasks - complete with questions, answers, instructions, marking schedules, - everything you, as a teacher need - • e.g. MCQ, EMSQ (questions, answers, explanations, instructions to set, provided stems) • poster titles, web pages, crosswords, fill-ins, workbooks • PBL tasks, guided scenarios, drug profiles, disease profiles • essay titles, practical schedules and marking schedules, glossary construction, definitions……………..,

11. Do they work for staff & students? • TLRPs evaluated in • staff & students in development universities • staff & students in universities external to project • pre- and post-TLRP use questionnaires • structured interviews • knowledge tests • staff diaries/logs of development process [Dewhurst & Noris]

12. Evaluation - Results • Students(data from 12 universities) • positive about using CBL/TLRP as adjunct to normal teaching rather than replacement • liked explicit learning objectives • some preferred CBL practical to the ‘real thing’ • some had concerns about loss of tutor contact • good scores in knowledge assessments • mean marks (%  SD, n); 76  13 (42); 53  16 (55); 58  7 (6); 61  13 (60)

13. Evaluation - Results • Staff (developing TLRPs) • enjoyed collaboration with colleagues • enjoyed the intellectual challenge • each TLRP takes an average of 70h to put together • the development time is shortened with experience • Staff (using TLRPs) • need to use new teaching methods and student-centred learning • very positive about the resulting teaching sessions • TLRP made introducing CBL and new teaching methods easier • big reduction in time needed to prepare materials:------ • Simulation; 8-10 hours ---> 2 hours • Problem based learning; 30 hours ---> 3 hours • Case study; 60 hours ---> 2 hours • Work book; 32 hours --->0.5 hours

14. Are TLRPs useful to new users? • Carried out in-depth interviews with 6 first time users. • all found them really helpful - good example of how to use CBL e.g. good activities, ideas, assessments; good practical schedules; liked the glossaries • saved them considerable time - several days work achieved in a few hours • stimulated them to write their own TLRPs for other CBL programs • would definitely choose future CBL programs if TLRP available

15. Does it matter how CAL is integrated? YES!!!! ONE CAL program; used in 3 universities; all with year 2 students of pharmacology; approval rating by students:---- • provided with workbook which was assessed and a required part of the course; approval = 90% • provided with MCQ which had to be completed in pairs and a joint submission made; marked and marks count; approval = 78% • shown in a lecture and provided on the intranet; approval = 59% • simply made known that the material was available on the intranet but that use was voluntary; approval = 46% [response rate to questionnaire different; not at same stage in year 2; different numbers and mixes on courses]

16. So, where are we going? • 1994-1999 - development/production of CBL materials 21st century integration/implementation of learning resources in courses • NOT just of CBL materials - of all types of learning resources • NOT doing this individually • Collaboration and sharing is the way forward - we no longer have the time or the resource keep re-inventing the wheel at every university

17. Teaching and learning resource packs (TLRPs) • Developed collaboratively to provide editable shared materials to introduce new teaching into a course with minimal time commitment from the teacher • Can you afford not to be using one? • Can you contribute to the development of one? • Your LTSN will support you (£££!)

18. Internet based resources • Lots available - quality? Integration? • Will they be there tomorrow? • Will they charge you? • What if it goes down? • Download or use on-line? DOG LAB: Vincenzi, http://courses.washington.edu/chat543/cvans/ CVS MODULE: Cracowski, www-sante.ujf-grenoble.fr/SANTE/pharma/accueil.htm COURSE: Allain: med.univ-rennes1.fr/edud/pharmaco LABS: Dempster: www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/PhysPharm/index.html MATERIALS/SITES: British Pharmacological Society: bps.ac.uk

19. Integration • software just “available” on the network was looked at by 12% of the students! • Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 • just available 37 9 2 0 • seen in lecture 100 73 58 31 • left out but examinable 100 95 78 62 • specific work task 100 100 95 90 • assessed in software 100 100 100 100 • Does it improve learning? • In comparison with what? Students use in own time, spend their own money on it and complain if its not available.