6.3 Teaching and Learning Case studies

6.3.4 Extended Study on a Casual Basis - University of Brighton Students at this university were given four weeks in which to study the guinea pig ileum package in their own time. They had previously carried out a practical on this subject and received a series of lectures relating to it. The whole year group was pre-tested at the same time in a lecture theatre in place of one time-tabled lecture. The group was advised to study just the 'Agonists' section and told which computer laboratory had the package available. The students were told that the post test would take place in the fourth week. No other help was given and the students were asked to study in their own time. The number of valid cases for the whole year group is 28. There are a number of contributory factors to this small sample. Firstly the evaluation took place over a long period and therefore the attendance for pre-test and post test was very variable, some people who attended for the pre-test were absent for the post test and vice versa. Some students were absent for both, due at least in part to the time of year (February) and the prevalence of illness at this time. Nevertheless it must be assumed that some people who were aware of the evaluation deliberately excluded themselves from the post tests. Only those present for both pre-test and post test have been included. In addition, students were asked to state on the post test questionnaire if they had not studied the package at all and these cases have also been excluded. The methods used to evaluate this group of students were the same as at other sites, except that no observations were conducted. It would have been very difficult to observe the students w ithout creating an artificial "class" and this would have made it impossible to ass ess the effectiveness of the method of allowing students to work on the package in their own time. Finally, students had some problems accessing the package in the computer laboratory for one of the four weeks. Levels of computer readiness and comfort were very similar to other groups of students, with 100% having used a computer and mouse previously. 64% stated that they used a computer "At least once a week" and 93% felt at least "Fairly Comfortable" about using a computer. However, on the subject of help, only one person, from the valid cases indicated that they had asked for help and that this was from a friend. This suggests that students are much more reliant on their own resources when working in their own time on CAL. A large number of cases had to be discarded because students had not looked at the package at all. 33 students declared on their post test forms they had not worked on the package, others were possibly absent because of this. Of those that did work on it, many reported frustrati ons about the timing of the work, which was just before their mock exams and the fact that they had completed work including practicals on guinea pig ileum some time before and were unsure why they were now being asked to do the package, as the following quotations suggest: "We're very pressed for time and it wasn't a difficult area to understand. This isn't particularly hard stuff" - Discussion group "If it was part of the syllabus, I think we'd probably feel more motivated. It seemed to be that a lot of stuff on the package wasn't in the syllabus (....)So I didn't really feel like spending much time on it" - Discussion group "Whereas anything that was very relevant on the package was very easy. That's really good for anyone who hasn't done the experiment but (not for) anyone who has" - Discussion group In other words they had an inadequate contextual framework for the task and this acted as a de-motivating factor. The students had done practicals on the guinea pig ileum several weeks earlier and in the discussion group those that had done the package felt that this meant that studying it again at this time seemed of little relevance. There seemed to be general agreement that doing the package before the practicals would be more helpful: "I did that actually. I found it on the computer. Before I went into the prac, I looked up the setting up of the experiment and I found that very helpful" - Discussion group   Someone also suggested that it could be useful immediately after doing the practicals:   "I guess, after you finished the labs and you were revising and you used that as a revision aid then it would be OK but at this stage......" - Discussion grouP These comments all lend weight to the view that a teaching episode using CAL must have a clear purpose and that this must be evident to the students. Furthermore the timing of the use of CAL packages will also have a significant effect upon their usefulness. In the studies on Problem Solving in Community Practice we will see further evidence on this. FIGURE 11: LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE IN SUBJECT click on image to see larger version Levels of confidence beforehand were similar to those found at the other study sites. Levels afterwards show that the majority of those who actually worked on the package (67%) felt it to be of no real benefit. This supports the comments made above about the use of the package. The t test results below also bear out these findings. Table 14 below sets out the results of paired t tests for the pre and post tests for this group. TABLE 14: PRE AND POST TEST SCORES AT BRIGHTON (N=28) PRESCORE Range 0 - 10 POSTSCORE Range 0 - 10 MEAN DIFFERENCE t VALUE 2 TAILED P S.E.M 3.5714 4.2143 -.6429 -1.71 .098 .375 It is clear from these results that students have not increased their learning significantly although some improvement is evident. It must be remembered that the post test took place after four weeks and that if a student studied the package early on in that period, lack of retention may account for some of the poor results. However, the fact that so few students, 28 out of a possible 110 actually studied the package is strong evidence in itself to suggest that this method of working is far less effective than others shown in this research. FIGURE 12: TIME SPENT WORKING ON THE PACKAGE click on image to see larger version Figure 12 shows the time spent working on the package. It is clear that students spent ar less time than those at other institutions with time-tabled sessions and also that the time spent was much more variable. 33% of students spent one hour or less and this will almost certainly have had an effect on the learning outcomes. It appears to confirm the earlier evidence from the discussion group that the students lacked motivation and perceived the work to be unrelated to their syllabus. Furthermore, in developing appropriate learning strategies, students have to rely mu ch more on their own resources. The following quotation from the transcript of the discussion group shows how this method of implementation also shifts the responsibility not only for doing the work, but also for ensuring the accessibility and stability of software, from the academic staff to the students and that this is probably not desirable: "I actually tried to timetable it in. I tried to allocate an hour a week towards using the PCCAL packages and I've had a lot of difficulty with it partly because they've been moved from our pharmacy room to the main computer room (....) One whole week of the month we've just been given it was booked out to another department. Very frustrating to come in first thing in the morning at 8.30 when it says its open and then its not open." Discussion group Although all these problems were unfortunate and could be improved upon for future groups, it is clear that the learning situation will always be more volatile when students are asked to learn in their own time. In conclusion, it appears from the evidence shown in this case study, that the method of allowing students a block of time in which to study the package outside of time-tabled sessions is likely to be far less effective in achieving overall improvement in teaching and learning. Many students failed to study the package at all and those that did spent little time on it given the size of the package and the long time slot available. Responsibility for the accessibility and smooth working of software and hardware is transferred to the student and this increases the likelihood of a high drop-out rate. Finally, to improve overall effectiveness, methods need to be sought to improve student motivation and to give the learning task a clear status.