(E)valuating VLE. pp Dr Mike Davis Lead Educator, ALSG. Today …. Rationale revisited Pilot and telephone interviews Full implementation Outcomes Feedback on course Achievement Uptake. Rationale. Instructor availability to teach on courses
pp Dr Mike Davis
Lead Educator, ALSG
Pilot and telephone interviews
Instructor availability to teach on courses
The difficulties candidates are having obtaining study leave
The reduction in study leave budgets
The improved availability of robust internet access
A feeling that there were still too many lectures
Wanting to capitalise on the benefits of blended learning
The difference in the amount of work that piles up and inconvenience to your colleagues is very big between 2 and 3 days.
I’m not sure doing lectures adds anything. The 2nd day of the old course, the morning full of lectures was too much. I think it’s better than the old course.
Pilot January to June 2008
Phone interviews with candidates and instructors
Evaluation of results
Feedback from candidates and instructors on courses
Revisions to face to face programme
AMEE conference, Prague, September 2008
See handout and/or poster
No ‘down’ time (previously provided by lectures)
Less workshop time for exploring issues
Is the teaching too specific now because it is done through scenarios?
Without any lectures there is no time to sit down.
There is a little bit missing and it does feel a bit like you’re going from scenario to scenario, but I wouldn’t want to replace them with discussions and there is no leeway in the time table.
I wasn’t sure whether they would manage, I was pleasantly surprised.
Problems with specific aspects of the VLE
Time spent varied 7 – 15 (24) hours
What was missing face to face?
we didn’t cover things like bradycardia. And I would have benefited from that in case I come across it in real life then I’ve only got the VLE to fall back on and that wouldn’t be enough.
It would be better if, when you re-did the MCQ it asked you different questions. There could be a bank of 1000 questions and it randomly asks them.
what I like most, was the lectures were kept to a bare minimum
It was very intense and I stopped being able to learn. It would be nice if the practical sessions were broken up with lectures.
I thought it was a very clever way of doing it and it was very interactive so it was quite good.
the only thing is the VLE was a bit, very simple, like I could sense they didn’t actually care what answers I gave so I didn’t take it that seriously.
Access – NHS networks and firewalls
Mini teaching sessions around scenarios not working face to face
Candidates completing VLE but not registering for face to face
Launch July 2008
I think it’s more challenging because… you want to make sure they are achieving, you’ve got less time to observe them. It’s a new course so I think I felt, some of it was my anxiety… It’s another thing I’d need to talk about in a year’s time if the course has been accepted.
If anything candidates are doing a little better
Concerns about group dynamics have not materialised
Concerns about struggling candidates did not materialise during the pilot
Registration of candidates is dropping
… you tell us …
Why are candidate numbers dropping?
To date the emergent themes are:
From VLE to face to face
I know you must be aware of the issues with VLE and candidates accessing the F2F because of not completing the VLE component I think this and the change in programme are probably at the heart of the issues
VLE is not fixed like a book
The working group will review one topic each month
Sue has been noting down the concerns that you have raised
What strengths do you see in the APLS blended learning package?