Student and tutor perceptions of computer assisted learning in clinical and health studies

This research focused on tutors and first and third year cohorts of undergraduate students within a department of clinical and health studies. The aims of the study were to explore tutor and student perceptions of the advantages of, and barriers to, computer-assisted learning (CAL) and perceived influence of CAL on reflection and reasoning skills. Two questionnaires were developed, to survey the two populations of participants, involving 197 students and 31 tutors. Illuminative follow-up semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 students and 13 tutors. The questionnaire datasets were analysed descriptively, and inferentially using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney procedure, to test for differences between age groups, gender and year of training The interview transcripts were thematically analysed and inductively coded. Member checking by transcript checking, and by discussion of emergent themes by four participant focus groups was undertaken. The student and tutor questionnaires and interviews resulted in common perceived advantages of CAL. These included a perception of CAL as an adjunct or support tool rather than a primary approach to teaching and learning. CAL was seen as a tool for improving work presentation, facilitating communication, enabling formative assessment, helping organise notes and as an information source. It was also perceived as giving flexibility to learning in any place, at any pace and any time. CAL was seen as able to save time, and induce positive emotions when things went well. Common barriers to CAL were lack of time to develop or use CAL and time wastage, limited computer literacy/skill level, negative emotions, inadequate training and support, access issues, cost and lack of portability. Loss of face-to-face contact with CAL was also a barrier to its use. CAL was not the preferred means of engendering reflection and reasoning skills. Emergent theory was identified and the study concludes with recommendations on training and support

Capturing 'what works' in complex process evaluation research: the use of calendar instruments

Calendar or timeline techniques have developed in parallel and are used in life course research, and health behaviour and treatment studies. Both types of research seek to reconstruct histories or events in order to understand phenomena. Unsurprisingly a research strategy that seeks to represent events from memory is fraught with recall error thereby influencing consistency, completeness, and accuracy of data. Strategies can be employed to improve data quality so informants can more accurately access long term memory. One such strategy involves producing a graphical timeframe against which historical information can be represented. This is said to stimulate memory facilitating accuracy of recall and fidelity of data. There are minor variations in the application of calendar techniques, unsurprising given the different methodological heritage, nevertheless there are common characteristics. These include: graphical display of the dimension of time, use of one or more thematic axis (representing the data domains) and event or landmark cues that temporally bound the research. The Department of Health (England) in 2008 funded a series of public health initiatives in nine ‘Healthy Towns’. These initiatives were targeted on facilitating healthier lifestyles in local populations and importantly learning from projects about “what works”. One “Healthy Town” – Healthy Halifax – funded ten embedded project streams all designed to encourage adoption of health lifestyles by the population living in four wards with poorest health outcomes. The challenge presented to the local evaluation team was capturing which, if any, of the projects made a difference to health lifestyles of local populations. Calendar technique were incorporated in research design to accurately represent the life history of each project and capture the antecedents, attributes and consequences of project delivery that might illuminate ‘what works’. This presentation will offer a critical appraisal of the utility of calendar technique as a methodological approach for capturing process evaluation

The reliability of the Leeds Movement Performance Index (LMPI): a new tool for neurological physiotherapy

Background: Measuring movement performance in people with neurological damage requires a tool that reflects physiotherapy assessment and clinical reasoning. The Leeds Movement Performance Index (LMPI) was previously developed by a group of neurological physiotherapists to fulfill these requirements. Objective: To assess the reliability of the LMPI for use in neurological physiotherapy practice. Methods: Twelve senior neurological physiotherapists were trained to use the LMPI and then asked to measure the movement performance of five patients whose movement had been previously video-recorded for this purpose. A retest session was completed after two weeks. Data were analysed to establish internal and external reliability. Results: Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, applied to the entire scale (0.862) and to each item (range 0.795–0.892). External (inter-rater) reliability was assessed by a calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for scores awarded by multiple raters (0.959), with individual item reliability ranging from 0.874 to 0.968. External (test–retest) reliability was assessed by calculating the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between scores obtained on two testing occasions (0.792) with values of individual items ranging from 0.397 to 0.674. A variance components analysis partitioned variance into components arising from between-patient variability (55.2%) between-therapist variability (7.8%) and between-testing variability (2.8%). Conclusions: Results indicate that the LMPI is a reliable measurement tool when used by senior neurological physiotherapists Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09593985.2014.92976

Making the transition: disabled students in Higher Education

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, (Department for Education and Skills (DES) 2001) gave education providers in the UK legal responsibility to ensure disabled students are not disadvantaged in or excluded from education. The more recent Disability Discrimination Act (Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) 2005) stipulates that public bodies, including universities, need to eliminate discrimination and harassment whilst ensuring that their policies meet the needs of disabled people, promoting equal opportunities. In addition universities are now mandated to embed these regulations in all aspects of their work. Inclusive practice should be anticipatory and should be evident in every aspect of academic life for students (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2009a). Against this backdrop a three year project was undertaken through the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) at the University of Huddersfield. The project aims were to evaluate perceived satisfaction with the level of support received by disabled students and to improve provision through staff development and dissemination of best practice. This entailed a review of the literature; the design and administration of a self completion questionnaire and face to face interviews with disabled students; a staff survey of knowledge, skills and attitudes in relation to disability; the development of staff development activities and resources and a national conference ‘Degrees of Independence’ which was jointly hosted with the University of Huddersfield Student Union. Full details of the project can be found at http://www.hud.ac.uk/tqef/1d.html. This report offers a discussion of the analysis of data from student questionnaires and interviews. Difficulties conducting research with this particular student group emerged whilst attempting to reach a sample of disabled students. Disabled students may choose not to declare their disability to the university and students may have a disability that is unknown to them. We therefore concluded that it was not possible to identify with any certainty the full population of disabled students in the School. Despite these and other challenges three themes emerged as worthy of note and further development: 1. The gap between identification of a disability and the provision of support 2. The unintentional discrimination that may occur where university staff are unaware of the disabled students’ need 3. Preparation for professional practice. Reflection on this project leads to a philosophical re-examination of ‘disability’ in Higher Education