Experiences of developing, using & evaluating CAL programs in physiology & pharmacology teaching.

1. Experiences of developing, using & evaluating CAL programs in physiology & pharmacology teaching. David Dewhurst Director of Learning Technology College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh

2. Main points to be covered: • Description of different types of CAL programs • Persuading teachers to use them • Raising awareness of their existence • Evaluation studies • Strategies to facilitate their integration into courses?

3. Multimedia CAL programs • Interactive tutorials • support (or replace) lectures or tutorials • combine text, graphics, animations, videoclips, audioclips, self-assessment activities • Simulations of experiments • support or replace laboratory practicals • present data (real or generated from a model) for different experiments (either tutor-prescribed or student-designed) To be most effective they must be integrated into mainstream teaching and learning

4. The challenge - persuading teachers to integrate CAL programs into mainstream teaching and learning • Despite widespread availability uptake has been patchy – why? • Teachers may not have the time or skills to successfully integrate CAL programs developed elsewhere into their teaching • Not-invented here

5. How can we help? • Make teachers more aware of the existence of CAL programs • Information rich databases e.g. BPS, LTSN Centres in the UK • Persuade them that they are useful • Evaluation • Peer review • Users comments • Give advice about how to integrate them into their teaching practice

6. Evaluation of computer simulations versus wet labs • Retrospective Studies: • Compare lab marks of different cohorts BSc students • Control - undergraduate students doing live frog sciatic nerve experiment • Test - CAL simulation of same experiment. • no significant difference in lab report marks • Clarke, ATLA 14: 134-140 (1987) • Dewhurst, et al ATLA 15: 280-289 (1988) • Prospective Studies - Control & Test groups from same cohort • BSc (Hons) Physiology students - intestinal transport of nutrients • Control - mini project (10 full days) in lab. - everted, intestinal sac of the rat • Test - CAL simulation of experiments + workbook • Measured:knowledge acquisition; attitudes to using CAL vs wet lab; cost of resources • Dewhurst et al (1994) Amer. J. Physiol. 267 (Adv. Physiol. Educ. 12) S95-S104

7. Findings: 1. Mean gain in knowledge 1 0 0 • students tested before (pre) and after (post) period of study • used test comprising 50 questions (MCQ, short answer, problem solving, data interpretation) • knowledge gain calculated as: • (post-test score) - (pre-test score) • no significant difference 8 0 ± s.d. 6 0 % knowledge gain 4 0 2 0 0 CAL group Laboratory Group

8. Findings: 2. Attitude to using CAL as an alternative Pre-test 2 0 upper graph - Control Group (Animals) Attitude Scales • ease of use • perception of effectiveness • learning style preferences • perception of knowledge gain • time & place lower graph - Test Group (CAL) Post-test 1 5 1 0 (n=8) 5 Attitude score 0 - 5 - 1 0 - 1 5 Pre-test 2 0 Post-test 1 5 (n=6) 1 0 Attitude score 5 0 - 5

9. Finding: 3. Comparison of resources required 1800 Lab Group CAL Group 1600 • KEY (1993 prices) • 1. Academic staff time • lecturers: £40/h • demonstrators: £10/h 2. Technical staff time £10/h 2. Materials (£) • 4. Total cost (£) 1400 1200 1000 Cost (£) 800 600 400 200 0 2 1 3 4

10. So do simulations of practicals work?-the evidence is YES • but it depends on what you measure • skills: data handling, experimental design, communication • promoting group work, staff-student interaction • knowledge gain is equivalent ; • Practical skills CANNOT be taught or practised • teachers must accept that different goals are achieved and therefore must decide their primary learning objectives • students’ reaction to CAL is generally positive • Simulations are usually less expensive

11. Evaluating the use of CAL as a replacement for lectures • first year course (40 students) in UK university - cardiovascular physiology 6 x 1h lectures • replaced with in-house CAL + workbooks • Used focus sessions to plan study • study 1- provided well-supported learning environment. Cross-over study • study 2 - students (different cohort) not supported • measured • pre- and post-test factual knowledge (64 questions) • end of module exam • student perceptions - pre- and post-test questionnaires

12. So do interactive tutorials work?-the evidence is YES • study 1- supported learning environment • knowledge gain (post-test score - pre-test score) Lectures CAL Heart 5.9 ± 4.2 7.7 ± 5.5 P = 0.28 Circulation 4.3 ± 2.9 6.3 ± 2.6 P = 0.03* • students were more positive about the potential of CAL after the study but still preferred lectures • study 2 - non-supported learning environment • assessment vehicle - end of module exam • 71% answered the cardiovascular question • no significant difference in marks between optional questions • students positive about CAL, able to organise own learning

13. Incorporating CAL into mainstream practice • TLTP project – development of ‘wrap-around’support materials (TLRPs)e.g. text-based study guides or workbooks(objectives and outcomes, exercises, tasks and activities, self-assessment questions to reinforce learning) • Focus on ‘learning objects’ rather than multimedia CAL programs(RLOs:Reusable Learning Objects) • ‘Atomistic’ content may be more acceptable to teachers • May need to disaggregate multimedia CAL programs such as pharma-CAL-ogy to unlock high quality content

14. RLO Dimensions Level:undergraduatepostgraduateprofessional/CPD Subject:medicinevets nursingbiomedicalPAMs Organisational:Other HEIsOther bodies

15. Learning objects to VLEs Information Objects Learning Activity Course Educational design Delivery system eg VLE, LCMS Atomistic e.g text, images, animations, SAQs, videoclips, cases Catalogue, add extended metadata Standards Dublin Core Metadata, IMS, SCORM, IEEE, EML Extensible Markup Language (XML)

16. Thank you for listening David Dewhurst e-mail d.dewhurst@ed.ac.uk