6.3 Teaching and Learning Case studies

6.3.3 Practical and CAL Sessions Working in Groups Liverpool John Moores University This teaching method involves a live practical class on the guinea pig ileum and a time-tabled CAL session on all sections connected to the Agonists. Students at Liverpool John Moores University are divided into four groups A-D who study the package in a different order depending on time-tabling. This is purely a practical issue of resources and for this study it operated as follows: Groups A and C had the CAL session first and then the practical Groups B and D had the practical first and then the CAL session All sessions were time-tabled for three hours, although the pre-test took up the first 30 minutes approximately of the CAL session for each group. A member of academic staff was teaching another group in the practical laboratory close by and could be called in the case of any difficulties or specific queries. This member of staff also introduced the session, explained which sections of the package to work through and suggested that the students take a break for about 15 minutes half way through. Group A also had another member of staff who was available to offer help when required for the first 1.5 hours of their session. He was unfortunately not available for other groups. Students were post tested the week following the two week practical and CAL sessions, before beginning the next course of study. Technological awareness and readiness were again similar to other groups with 99% of students declaring previous experience with a computer and a mouse. Levels of usage were lower than at Bath. 31% used a computer "Every day" or "Every 2-3 days", despite the fact that the studies were undertaken at similar times in the year. This is probably more associated with levels of access and resources. Feelings about using a computer were however, similar, with 48% declaring themselves "Completely comfortable" or "Comfortable".

FIGURE 9: LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE IN SUBJECT click on image to see larger version

Levels of student confidence (figure 9) were again measured by self assessment, with a large number of students (46%) stating that they were "Not very Confident" beforehand . When analysed as two groups, the results are almost the same with groups A & C, who did the CAL package first - 45% and groups B & D, who did it after their practical - 48%. This is also true of the post confidence measures. In figure 9 we see that 58% of respondents declared that they were "Much More Confident" or "More Confident" . Analysed in two groups, the results are - groups A & C - 58% , groups B & D - 57% for the same two responses. Once again, it must be pointed out that these measures refer to the whole teaching episode, however it is interesting to note that there was almost no difference between the groups either before or afterwards. Groups B & D had already completed the practical when they underwent the pre-test and yet they appear to be no more confident. Once all parts of the teaching episode have been completed, confidence levels are again very similar, suggesting that whichever way round the students do the work makes no difference to their level of confidence in their own progress. The results of pre and post content questions also appear to support this view. Table 7 shows the results of paired t tests for the pre and post tests for groups A & C and groups B & D .

TABLE 7: PRE AND POST TEST SCORES AT LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES (N=96) GROUPS PRESCORE Range 0 - 10 POSTSCORE Range 0 - 10 MEAN DIFFERENCE t VALUE 2 TAILED P S.E.M A+ C 2.1731 3.7500 -1.5769 -7.16 .000 .220 B+ D 3.4091 4.0000 -.5909 -2.28 .027 .259

Groups B and D have a higher pre-test score than the other groups, but this was expected as they took the pre-test the week after their practical class. Groups A and C who did the CAL package before the practical have a greater mean difference in scores and a higher t value than those that did the tasks the opposite way round. But the mean post score is higher for the second two groups possibly indicating that doing the package after the practical is a more effective method. However, there were many variables affecting these two groups and so direct comparisons are probably unwise. Both groups show a significant increase in scores and the post score results for each group are, in fact, not far apart. As previously mentioned, the teaching methods used at Liverpool are driven primarily by the need to maximise resources available and within that context, it would appear that both methods are equally appropriate. One key difference between the approach taken at Liverpool John Moores and other sites, is the fact that students worked in groups of two or three or sometimes four in the CAL session. The vast majority of students at the other institutions worked alone, with one or two in each group choosing to work together. Observers noted repeatedly the high level of interaction between students working in groups, in contrast to other institutions where discussion was limited usually to one or two queries followed by independent working again. It was particularly noticeable that three appeared to be the ideal grouping. Groups of two worked well where the students were already good friends, but with others this appeared to impose an uncomfortable intimacy and resulted in little or no discussion between the two. Whereas, in a typical group of three, all of them could still see and access the screen but the relationships in the group were more relaxed and the dialogue involved all 3 participants. In the one or two groups of four, some students had difficulty accessing the machine as it was difficult to sit near enough. These groups also tended to pair off into two's with one pair working whilst the others were chatting. It will not be surprising that observers noted a higher level of chat and lack of concentration than at other institutions. Despite this, the overall impressions gained were that there was a very high level of discussion and collaboration whilst working with the package. When asked in the discussion groups whether they liked working in groups, the following quotation is indicative: "I think that's helpful because if you don't understand it when the answer comes up on the screen, if you've got friends there sitting with you, you can ask them to help you or to explain and working with someone else, sometimes you can understand it better. Whereas in a lecture you can't do that 'cause you can't talk" - Discussion group - Liverpool

FIGURE 10: TIME SPENT WORKING ON THE PACKAGE click on image to see larger version

Students were asked to state how much time they had spent working on the package and the results are presented in figure 10. These show that 75% of respondents spent between 1 and 2 hours on this. This is quite low, compared to the other case study sites and may be due to a number of factors, such as having no tutor immediately on hand, group working and the fact that students had a break half way through and some left early, as can be seen from the observation data in table 13 below.

TABLE 13: LIVERPOOL - OBSERVATION DATA OBSERVATION NUMBER OF COUNTS Requests for help 20 Discussion with neighbour(s) 116 Use of other aids or support materials: Calculator Pen and paper calculations Own notes   13 2 3 Taking notes 44 Leaving without returning to room (most within the last half hour) 30 Negative statements or behaviour 2 Positive statements or behaviour 17

The observation data shows that a relatively small number of requests for help were made, supporting the view that groups discussed amongst themselves and worked through problems together. It is possibly also the reason why relatively few notes were taken as groups were discussing and pointing to the screen rather than writing notes which is a more individual activity. The number of discussions with neighbours does not include all the discussion taking place as this was often continuous or in hushed tones and sometimes it was difficult to separate appropriate talk from unrelated chatter. However, it is also interesting to note the high level of positive statements or behaviour, normally addressed to other group members. This is much higher than at other sites and again probably reflects greater self expression amongst these groups. As mentioned previously, a fairly large number of students left before the end, contributing to the lower levels of time spent on the package. In summary, the teaching methods used in this case study have provided an interesting examination of the merits of doing the package with a practical and whether or not the order and timing make any difference to learning. On the basis of the evidence gathered here, it appears that there is very little overall difference in outcomes between the two approaches and that students do equally well with both methods. Further discussion on the use of practicals with the package and the studen t opinions on the merits of the two approaches will be considered in section 6.4.