Published on December 10, 2007
WebCT and Anatomical Pathology tutorials: WebCT and Anatomical Pathology tutorials Ken Masters & Maureen Duffield Faculty of Health Sciences University of Cape Town South Africa Contents : Contents Introduction Implementation Usage Figures and Results Other student comments Discussion Conclusion 1. Introduction : 1. Introduction South African Situation 2002: 8.6% of SA households have computers* *ITU Report, Berne, 2003 2002: < 7% of the population use the Internet* Telkom expensive for dialup Private broadband practically null 1. Introduction : 1. Introduction UCT’s Faculty of Health Sciences Reputation for producing fine doctors Operating in a technological backwater In a field where online education is becoming ever-more important Risk: will fall behind the rest of the world Challenge: use the technology well 1. Introduction : 1. Introduction Anatomical Pathology In Africa and South Africa: severe shortage of trained pathologists Also shortage in popular emigration target countries like Canada and Australia 1. Introduction : 1. Introduction Our Challenge New Curriculum demanded new AnatPath course run in parallel with old curriculum Old course based on face-to-face tutorials: staff intensive New course had to be linked to the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) of the new curriculum. 1. Introduction : 1. Introduction WebCT in Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) FHS using WebCT since 2001. Use of WebCT per capita is 3x rest of UCT Students trained in the use of WebCT as part of their IT training in 1st year Tightly integrated into the students’ PBL work Broad Decision: To use WebCT for Anatomical Pathology (AnatPath). Primarily the Quiz Tool to deliver “pracs”; very little staff f2f contact. 2. Implementation: 2. Implementation Logistical Issues Timetabling: although accessible anytime, time built into the time table for access PC availability: PC labs were booked so student get access Technical Issues Enlarging of Quiz window to fill screen Image size: New Window for full image “Take-home copy” 2. Implementation: 2. Implementation Educational Issues Emphasis on questions rather than supplying reams of information Mix questions types: MCQs, Matching, Open-ended Short questions: answers, no explanations Open-ended questions: used for synthesis: explanations and guidelines given after completion 2. Implementation: 2. Implementation Educational Issues Value of marks: marks did not “count”; students could take quiz as often as they liked. Totally self-paced and assessed: no staff available for assistance! Evaluation: though our monitoring of attempts, student evaluations and discussions. Interaction with staff: primarily through WebCT’s discussion boards. 3. Usage Figures and Results: 3. Usage Figures and Results Usage Students taking course: 184 2nd-year students Access WebCT > 5 times per week: 71% Access Discussions > 5 times per week: 62% 3. Usage Figures and Results: 3. Usage Figures and Results Usage Av. No. taking each prac: 163 Highest No. taking a prac: 173 Lowest No. taking a prac: 151 No. students not taking any pracs: 3 No. students taking all pracs: 93 Av. No of times each prac was taken: 433* Highest No of times a prac was taken: 522* Lowest No of times a prac was taken: 305 3. Usage Figures and Results: 3. Usage Figures and Results Usage Percentage students taking the prac: as soon as available: 29% within 2 weeks: 56% in preparation for assessments: 70% Percentage students finding the pracs: “very valuable”: 44% “moderately valuable”: 50% 4. Other student comments: 4. Other student comments Positive Enjoyable, helped with understanding, useful, helped to pinpoint weak areas. Negative Feedback: too little, too late; Staff contact: 45% wanted staff contact at least once / week Quizzes to be in smaller chunks 5. Discussion: 5. Discussion Success areas: Most students saw the quizzes as intended: launching areas for their own research in line with Problem-Based Learning Discussions in bulletin boards displayed a continuation of the debates, with students posing questions and answers about the material. 5. Discussion: 5. Discussion Failure Area: Perception Too many students wanted “facts” fed to them, to be learnt. Wanted reasons behind the answers. 5. Changes: 5. Changes Need to make explicit the role of the quizzes, and therefore the role of the feedback Break quizzes into smaller chunks. Need to encourage more students to take the quizzes 6. Conclusion: 6. Conclusion Overall successful, but the reason behind the exercises must be clearer in order to increase value.