developing health sciences students’ information skills through online self-paced learning: an...
DESCRIPTION
Sarah Gallagher, Trish Leishman and Richard German - University of Otago Health Sciences Library StudySmart is a self-paced online course originally designed for second year medical students at the University of Otago by the Health Sciences liaison librarians.(1) The course replaced in-class information skills labs and was piloted with this cohort in 2012.(3) In 2013, with support (2) from the Schools, StudySmart was rolled out to second year Dentistry, Pharmacy and Physiotherapy students. By the end of 2013 StudySmart was accepted as a Terms requirement within the Medical, Pharmacy and Physiotherapy curricula. The content comprises learning objects developed in-house (4) as well as appropriate Open Educational Resources (OERs) from external sources. It comprises a series of topics, tasks and quizzes which are built within the extant Learning Management Systems (LMS) - Moodle and Blackboard. Academics are able to select topics that meet their students’ needs from a pool that is edited or added to as required. We will report on qualitative and quantitative evaluation data which demonstrate the students’ level of knowledge and understanding after completing StudySmart, as well as reporting on what the students believed were the most valuable and least valuable aspects of the course. The majority of students who completed the course reported an increase in knowledge of, and understanding about, the topics covered and were positively disposed to the value of the online course.(5, 6) This paper will also report on some of the challenges that we faced and how the course has developed within the programmes for 2014. This paper builds on a short talk given at Spotlight on Teaching & Learning at the University of Otago on 27th August 2013.TRANSCRIPT
Sarah Gallagher | @sarahlibrarinaTrish Leishman & Richard German
University of Otago Health Sciences Library
Developing Health Sciences students’ information skills through online self-paced learning : an update
ANZAHPE 2014
What is it?
• StudySmart is an online course designed by the Health Sciences Library staff
• It is designed to develop students information literacy skills
Dunedin School of Medicine
Early Learning in Medicine (ELM) 2nd and 3rd year students
CHCH DUN WGN
Why this relevant to staff?
• Meets requirements of the University’s Graduate Attributes
• Integrated into the curriculum
• Terms requirement / grade
Why this relevant to students?
• Timed to help students develop skills required for their assignments
• Designed to help students develop skills for lifelong learning
4 x 2hr labs in Medicine
4 x 2hr labs in Pharmacy
4 x 2hr labs in Physio’
= 24 hrs teaching
4 core topics xtra topics
xtra topics
How we did it• Approached academic staff• Presented idea at undergrad committees• Results of the pilot provided evidential
basis• Chose appropriate topics with the
lecturers• Discussed assessment / terms
requirements
How does it work?
• Course is open for an agreed period of time• Students do it in self-directed learning time• (4-6) topics • (4-6) quizzes–Pass the quizzes by 80% to progress to
next topic–Complete the evaluation
EXAMPLE: Topic (Moodle)
EXAMPLE: Task (Blackboard)
Instructions & resources
Video
Evaluation
• Students were asked to complete an online evaluation form
• Likert Scale measured perceived increase in knowledge and understanding
• Qualitative feedback identified the most valuable and least valuable aspects of the course
Cohort Assessment N students partial
completion
N students completion
% students completion
N students evaluation
% students evaluation
2013 MEDI Terms requirement
n=285/286 n=273/286 95 n=86/286 30
2013 PHCY Workshop n=5/155 n=145/155 93 n=93/155 60
2013 PHTY Terms requirement
n= 0/105 n=97/105 92 n=70/105 66
2014 MEDI Terms requirement
2014 PHCY Terms requirement
n=0/145 n=145/145 100 n=71/145 49
2014 PHTY Terms requirement(*)
n=105/116 n=95/116 91 n=61/116 53
Table: mode of assessment, numbers of students completion rate of the course, and numbers of students completion of the evaluation
Cohorts evaluated
Graph: Students’ own perceived increase in knowledge and understanding of the topic
1 2 3 4 50%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Combined responses across Topic 4
PHTYPHCYELM2
"Scale: 1= no gain 5= great gain"
Resp
onse
s
Content
Form
at
Librar
y Reso
urces &
Servi
ces
Researc
h skills Tim
e
Prior k
nowledge
No Them
e
Negati
ve / P
ositive
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Thematic analysis of qualitative feedback 2013
Most valuable Least valuable
Num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
acr
oss t
hree
coho
rts
You can please some …
• The videos accompanying the verbal and written descriptions were very useful.
• The video format of the tutorials was great, very clear & easy to understand.
• Some of the videos were short, effective, and a joy to watch
What did you find most valuable about StudySmart?
…but you can’t please them all
• Some of the videos were way to long and boring
• There were some videos that were pretty long and confusing
• although the videos were really helpful with good information, perhaps just having it written would be better as we would be able to look and find the information quicker if we want to review
What did you find least valuable about StudySmart?
CC BY Tulane Public Relations http://www.flickr.com/photos/tulanesally/3231921034
Some thoughts about StudySmart
“Showing us how to use the databases is a VERY good idea I believe as this is an important skill, especially for the lifelong learning in medicine and being able to access respected journals readily.”
© University of Otago : used with permission
Some thoughts about StudySmart
“It was easy to follow, didn't take too long to do, exposed me to different search strategies that I wasn't aware of through the library website.”
© University of Otago : used with permission
“I have never had to cite anything in a research sense, and was not fully aware of copyright laws.
This was really helpful to show me why and when I need to cite and then how also to do this.”
Some thoughts about StudySmart
© University of Otago : used with permission
“Very well organised, covers everything, makes you feel welcomed to ask for help if need be, medical library is a cosy library, was nice to have so much time to complete studysmart.”
Some thoughts about StudySmart
Some thoughts about StudySmart
“Already had previous experience using the library so didn’t find that this tool was useful for myself however if I had never used the library I believe that it would be of great assistance.”
Critical factors
• Academic support for compulsory / terms requirement to ensure student buy-in
• Cohorts need examples that are relevant to them in the tasks
• Needs to be relevant and tied to in course assessment to optimise learning (eg essay / report)
• Recognition that some students have prior knowledge & the course may be a refresher only for them
Kaizen!constant improvement
References• Ajayi, NA. 2004. "Library Use and Information-Seeking Behavior of Medical Students."
Anthropologist no. 6 (3):209-213.• Annie, Armstrong, and Georgas Helen. 2006. "Using interactive technology to teach
information literacy concepts to undergraduate students." Reference Services Review no. 34 (4):491-497. doi: 10.1108/00907320610716396.
• Brettle, Alison. 2003. "Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature*." Health Information & Libraries Journal no. 20:3-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2532.20.s1.3.x.
• Harker, Emily. 2009. "Developing the Library Curriculum." Health Information & Libraries Journal no. 26 (4):331-335. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00869.x.
• Romanov, K., and A. Nevgi. 2007. "Do medical students watch video clips in eLearning and do these facilitate learning?" Medical Teacher no. 29 (5):490-494. doi: 10.1080/01421590701542119.
• Newton Miller, Laura. 2014. "First Year Medical Students Use Library Resources Emphasized During Instruction Sessions." Evidence Based Library and Informaiton Practice no. 9 (1).
• Weiner, Sharon A. 2014. "Who Teaches Information Literacy Competencies? Report of a Study of Faculty." College Teaching no. 62 (1):5-12. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2013.803949.
Thank you!Sarah Gallagher @sarahlibrarina
(Trish Leishman & Richard German)
We’d like to acknowledge our colleagues:Mrs Sue Weddell | Mrs Judy Fisher
Dr Phil Blyth | Dr Tony Barrett | Associate Professor Grant Butt