Teaching and cognitive outcomes in A-levels and Advanced GNVQ's: Case studies from Science and Business Studies Classrooms

The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate how a research diary methodology, designed to analyse A-level and GNVQ classrooms, can be a powerful tool for examining pedagogy and quality of learning at the level of case study. Two subject areas, science and business studies, are presented as cases. Twelve teachers and thirty-four students were studied over a four-week period in May 1997 and contrasts were drawn between lessons from three A-level physics teachers/three Advanced GNVQ science teachers and two A-level business/economics teachers/four Advanced GNVQ business teachers. Lessons were analysed within a cognitive framework which distinguishes between conceptual and procedural learning and emphasizes the importance of metacognition and epistemological beliefs. Two dimensions of lessons were identified: pedagogical activities (e.g. teacher-led explanation, teacher-led guidance on a task, question/answer sessions, group discussions, working with IT) and cognitive outcomes (e.g. structuring and memorizing facts, understanding concepts and arguments, critical thinking, problem-solving, learning core skills, identifying values). Immediately after each lesson, teachers and students (three per class) completed structured research diaries with respect to the above dimensions. Data from the diaries reveal general and unique features of the lessons. Time-ofyear effects were evident (examinations pending in May), particularly in A-level classrooms. Students in business studies classes reported a wider range of learning activities and greater variety in cognitive outcomes than did students in science classes. Science students self-rating of their ability to manage and direct their own learning was generally low. The phenomenological aspects of the classrooms were consistently linked to teachers' lesson plans and what their teaching objectives were for those particular students at that particular time of the year.

A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace

Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer’s perspective.

Methods: Employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates.

Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer’s perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable “business model” which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.