Keele University Innovation Project 2004-5

An interactive whiteboard in PBL groups Stephen Bostock, Paula Roberts, Lindsay Bashford, Mike Mahon

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

The IAW and its use  Promethean Activboard • Physical board plus ‘flipchart’ software

 Print the electronic flipcharts?  Distribution of files? • By email or Web?

 Types of files to distribute? • As ‘flipcharts’? students did not have software • Export to Office .doc or .ppt

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?

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!  Emails 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

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

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”

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)

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)

Semester 1 Overall helpful vs unhelpful 0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful

Sem 1 medians

yr2 IAW 3

yr1 IAW yr1 tradit. 8 6

N = 146 n = 40 Response rate: 27% Number of respondents who used IAW = 18

Semester 2

Semester 2  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 emailing – web spaces with passwords for PBL groups  Simpler process, more familiar software, fewer risks

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)

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)

Semester 2 evaluation Overall helpful vs unhelpful 0= very unhelpful,10= very helpful Sem 1 medians

Sem 2

yr2 IAW 3

IAW yr2 gp6

Median N = 146 students

7.5

yr1 IAW yr1 tradit. 8 6

IAW yr1 gp8

IAW yr 1 gp1 8

Number of respondents who used IAW = 18

1

Semester 2 evaluation Yes

No

Enough training?

12

4

Previous experience of IAW?

3

13

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.

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