Evaluation of a distance-learning immunology and pathology module in a postgraduate biomedical science course

British Journal of Biomedical Science, 2005 by Ryan, M T, Mulholland, C W

Content

Students responded more positively to the layout of the pathology notes. This may have been because the pathology section was written in a style more conducive to distance learning. The pathology section contained three of the five features outlined by King17 for encouraging cognitiv0e engagement, and these were Chucking (grouping or categorisation of information); Advance organiser (a bridging strategy between one part of a course and the next); Rehearsal (a strategy to promote recall and comprehension).

Chucking was an aspect clearly evident in the pathology section of the application, with information divided into clearly defined categories (grouped mainly by organ type and concept); the aims and objectives of a particular section were outlined clearly at the beginning (advance organiser); and the MCQs at the end of each section were designed to allow the users to test their comprehension and recall (rehearsal).

Students responded positively to the inclusion of MCQs in the pathology section, which they felt helped them with their revision. This preference for MCQs has been demonstrated in previous studies of pathology teaching,18 and further research shows that MCQs can be used to increase recall and enhance deep learning.19

Trends were apparent in the qualitative information supplied. This was particularly evident in the immunology section, many aspects of which the students did not like. Generally, the students found the content, structure and many of the diagrams confusing. One comment highlights this quite well: "In general I found the CD for the pathology helpful, I found the immunology confusing and did not like the approach to the topic, I preferred to study immunology from a book."

Students were not given an introduction to the sections in the immunology module (i.e., their purpose or objectives), but instead were given broad objectives for the course (in line with the face-to-face lecture format). It is possible that this approach is not suited to the distance-learning environment.

Learning outcome

No significant difference was found between continuous assessment or examination marks when the on-campus group was compared with the distance-learning group (Table 6). Although the numbers in the study were small it appears possible to tentatively conclude that students who studied by distance learning (in this subject area) are not disadvantaged. However, distance-learning students scored significantly lower (P

The above results are difficult to interpret as a result of several confounding factors that might have influenced outcomes. For example, students who chose to study by distance learning were a self-selected group and perhaps had a preference for self-directed learning over the traditional lecture format. Ethically, it was not possible to assign students randomly to a mode of study at the beginning of the evaluation.

Scope for improvement

In view of the clear preference for the presentation format used for the pathology section, it was felt that this could form the basis for future designs. Furthermore, qualitative data from users gave more precise indication of areas that could be improved. One such improvement would be to provide users with past examination questions and tailored feedback on specific areas that were highlighted as confusing. Also, being more explicit on additional reading requirements might improve learning outcomes.