Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5."— Presentation transcript:

1 An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon Keele University Innovation Project

2 The PBL process in medicine  Groups of 8-12 students with a facilitator  A rotating Chair and Scribe  3 one-hour meetings per case, per week  Process: Definitions Cues – in three groups Links – between cues and their explanation Learning objectives – questions to answer  All currently recorded on a whiteboard and then lost, unless on a flipchart

3 The IAW and its use  Promethean Activboard Physical board plus ‘flipchart’ software  Print the electronic flipcharts?  Distribution of files? By or Web?  Types of files to distribute? As ‘flipcharts’? students did not have software Export to Office.doc or.ppt

4 The project  To help learning by students creating a shared, electronic, editable record of the PBL process  2 yr1 groups and 2 yr2 groups, in both semesters  4 facilitators, who swapped groups in semester 2 (and one new facilitator)  Software ActivStudio flipchart software semantic net software – planned but not done not planned: PowerPoint 2003  Evaluation: Questionnaire to IAW groups and traditional whiteboard/flipchart groups, plus observation. Focus groups?

5 First semester results  Many groups typing to hand writing, which can isolate the scribe: we tried a radio keyboard and mouse, then used cable extensions  Printer not used – no time!  s generally sent but variable  Semantic net software not used – flipchart software was difficult enough  Questionnaire given before Christmas: 40 responses, 22 without IAW from 6 yr1 groups 18 with IAW from 2 yr1 groups and 1 yr2 group

6 Semester 1 Evaluation Traditional technology is helpful …  Flipcharts a permanent record (9 responses) “We could take flipchart paper with us”  Easy to use (6) “Quick and easy to use”  Plenty of writing space (4) “Large boards”  Visual quality (4) “Can use different coloured pens”  And 15 responses about any shared writing

7 Semester 1 evaluation Traditional technology is unhelpful …  No record of work to share (9 responses) “Not a permanent record.”  Visual quality poor (6) “not everyone able to get a good view”  Practical difficulties (6) “Pens that didn't work “  Writing space limited (3) “Often ran out of space”  Slow (2) “Sometimes slowed the discussion down”

8 Semester 1 evaluation The IAW is helpful…  Distributing notes (12 comments) “Allowed everyone in the group to have a copy of the same notes.”  The visual quality (6) “Nice, neat, readable notes.”  Storing, retrieving, editing (5) “Access to previous notes quickly and accurately”  Not having to write notes in sessions (4)  Other reasons (8)

9 Semester 1 evaluation The IAW is unhelpful…  Unreliable (15 comments) “Crashes a lot.”  Slow (9) “Too time consuming, slowed down our work.”  Visual clarity (6) “sometimes couldn't read hand writing”  Familiarity/training (3)  Damaged group process (2)

10 Semester 1 Overall helpful vs unhelpful 0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful N = 146 n = 40 Response rate: 27% Number of respondents who used IAW = 18

11 Semester 2

12  PowerPoint 2003 instead of ActivStudio Annotate with mouse or pen on IAW Annotations can be saved No conversion to Office files needed Cases ready in a prepared slideshow for highlighting and linking  Web access instead of ing – web spaces with passwords for PBL groups  Simpler process, more familiar software, fewer risks

13

14 Semester 2 evaluation PowerPoint/IAW is helpful … “A lot better now using Powerpoint. Easy to read and quick to use Interactive whiteboard“  Helps group process, saves time, notes are more readable (16 comments)  Remote access to a permanent copy (9)  Ease of use (5)  Continuity between sessions (4)  Web access during session (4)

15 Semester 2 evaluation PowerPoint/IAW is unhelpful …  Slower (14 comments) “Takes too long to work with”  Handwriting, drawing is difficult (10) “Difficult to draw diagrams”; “much cleaner if typed out”  Technical problems, crashes (rare) (7) “System occasionally crashed”  Needs training (3)  Other (3)

16 Semester 2 evaluation Overall helpful vs unhelpful 0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful Sem 2 IAW yr2 gp6 IAW yr1 gp8 IAW yr 1 gp1 Median7.581 N = 146 students Number of respondents who used IAW = 18

17 Semester 2 evaluation YesNo Enough training? 124 Previous experience of IAW? 313

18 Challenges in using the IAW  Using the software. Powerpoint much easier thean software last semester  Slows down our work too much. Too much time is spent trying to figure out how to work it. Disucssions are constantly interupted because of this.  It slowed down the recording process of the groups thoughts. But then again sometimes recording thoughts were quicker e.g. highlighting cues.  It is very difficult to be able to draw diagrams as the pen does not write smoothly enough. But we have managed to tackle this by using the whiteboard, although it is a shame that the pictures cannot be saved with the other work.  Nothing apart from getting used to typing faster amd beomg able to spell.  Trying to write with the pen in a way that would make your handwriting legible.

19 Next year …  Initial student training in PowerPoint 2003 as part of IT skills, emphasizing Ink Annotations  PowerPoint 2003 in all PBL rooms, for use with/without an IAW  Prepared cases on PowerPoint in web spaces  Let PBL groups mix traditional whiteboards and flipcharts with PowerPoint/web/IAW  Auto-login to web spaces for editing case files, to reduce dependence on facilitators


Download ppt "An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google