The influence of learning styles, enrolment status and gender on academic performance of optometry undergraduates

Purpose: This cross-sectional study was designed to determine whether the academic performance of optometry undergraduates is influenced by enrolment status, learning style or gender. Methods: Three hundred and sixty undergraduates in all 3 years of the optometry degree course at Aston University during 2008–2009 were asked for their informed consent to participate in this study. Enrolment status was known from admissions records. An Index of Learning Styles (http://www4.nscu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Learning-Styles.html) determined learning style preference with respect to four different learning style axes; active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal and sequential-global. The influence of these factors on academic performance was investigated. Results: Two hundred and seventy students agreed to take part (75% of the cohort). 63% of the sample was female. There were 213 home non-graduates (entrants from the UK or European Union without a bachelor’s degree or higher), 14 home graduates (entrants from the UK or European Union with a bachelor’s degree or higher), 28 international non-graduates (entrants from outside the UK or European Union without a bachelor’s degree or higher) and 15 international graduates (entrants from outside the UK or European Union with a bachelor’s degree or higher). The majority of students were balanced learners (between 48% and 64% across four learning style axes). Any preferences were towards active, sensing, visual and sequential learning styles. Of the factors investigated in this study, learning styles were influenced by gender; females expressed a disproportionate preference for the reflective and visual learning styles. Academic performance was influenced by enrolment status; international graduates (95% confidence limits: 64–72%) outperformed all other student groups (home non graduates, 60–62%; international non graduates, 55–63%) apart from home graduates (57–69%). Conclusion: Our research has shown that the majority of optometry students have balanced learning styles and, from the factors studied, academic performance is only influenced by enrolment status. Although learning style questionnaires offer suggestions on how to improve learning efficacy, our findings indicate that current teaching methods do not need to be altered to suit varying learning style preferences as balanced learning styles can easily adapt to any teaching style (Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004).

An update on the characteristics of patients attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic

BACKGROUND: Since 1972, the Australian College of Optometry has worked in partnership with Vision Australia to provide multidisciplinary low-vision care at the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic. In 1999, Wolffsohn and Cochrane reported on the demographic characteristics of patients attending Kooyong. Sixteen years on, the aim of this study is to review the demographics of the Kooyong patient cohort and prescribing patterns. METHODS: Records of all new patients (n = 155) attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic for optometry services between April and September 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Median age was 84.3 years (range 7.7 to 98.1 years) with 59 per cent female. The majority of patients presented with late-onset degenerative pathology, 49 per cent with a primary diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration. Many (47.1 per cent) lived with their families. Mean distance visual acuity was 0.57 ± 0.47 logMAR or approximately 6/24. The median spectacle-corrected near visual acuity was N8 (range N3 to worse than N80). Fifty patients (32.3 per cent) were prescribed new spectacles, 51 (32.9 per cent) low vision aids and five (8.3 per cent) were prescribed electronic magnification devices. Almost two-thirds (63.9 per cent) were referred for occupational therapy management and 12.3 per cent for orientation and mobility services. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of patients presenting for low-vision services at Kooyong is broadly similar to that identified in 1999. Outcomes appear to be similar, aside from an expected increase in electronic devices and technological solutions; however, the nature of services is changing, as treatments for ocular diseases advance and assistive technology develops and becomes more accessible. Alongside the aging population and age-related ocular disease being the predominant cause of low vision in Australia, the health-funding landscape is becoming more restrictive. The challenge for the future will be to provide timely, high-quality care in an economically efficient model.

Do educators need educating?

Actual text: I was recently at the Spanish College of Optometry biennial conference and attended a meeting of contact lens lecturers from around Spain and Portugal. We discussed various ideas, mainly about how to share good practice and improve standards. What came to my mind was ‘is there a blueprint for training trainers?’ Well probably not but there are many things that we need to acknowledge such as the way students learn for example. Many educators themselves were taught by lecturers who would write on a blackboard or use acetate on an overhead projector, then came the 35 mm slide era followed by the Powerpoint era. More recently there is a move towards a much more integrated approach of various teaching methods. At my university our contact lens and anterior eye lectures generally follow a format where a narrated Powerpoint lecture is uploaded onto our internal virtual learning environment. This narrated version of the slides is designed to give the didactic element of the topic. The students listen to that before attending an interactive seminar on that topic. The seminar is also recorded so that students can listen to that afterwards. The seminar is designed to give additional information, such as case reports, or to clarify key points or for live demonstrations. It is a good way of doubling the contact time with the students without imposing further on an already packed formal timetable as the students can work in their own time. One problem that we noticed with this approach was that attendance can vary. If the students feel that they will gain something from the interactive seminar then they are more likely to attend – exam tips usually win them over! At the Spanish meeting the educators decided that they wanted to have regular meetings. The industry colleagues in attendance said that they were happy to help but could not necessarily give money, but they could offer meeting rooms, pay for lunch and evening meals. They even said that that they were happy to host meetings and invite other companies too (except to manufacturing plants). In the UK the British Committee of Contact Lens Educators (BUCCLE) meets for one day on three occasions in the year. The American Optometric Contact Lens Educators (AOCLE) meets annually at a three day event. Both these organisations get some help from industry. BUCCLE usually has one of its meetings at a university, one at a company training centre/manufacturing plant/national headquarters and one meeting the day before the BCLA annual conference. BUCCLE usually has its pre-BCLA meeting in conjunction with the International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE). So when educators meet what would they discuss; well probably the focus should be on education rather than actual contact lens knowledge. For example sharing ideas on how to teach toric lens fitting would be better than discussing the actual topic of toric lenses itself. Most universities will have an education department with an expert who could share ideas on how to use the internet in teaching or how to structure lectures or assessments etc. In the past I have helped with similar training programmes in other countries and sharing good practice in pedagogy is always a popular topic. Anyone who is involved in education in the field of contact lenses should look at the IACLE web page and look out for the IACLE World Congress in 2015 in the days preceding the BCLA. Finally, IACLE, AOCLE and BUCCLE all exist as a result of generous educational grants from contact lens companies and anyone interested in finding out more about should refer to their respective web pages.

An introduction to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with special reference to data from clinical experiments in optometry

This article is aimed primarily at eye care practitioners who are undertaking advanced clinical research, and who wish to apply analysis of variance (ANOVA) to their data. ANOVA is a data analysis method of great utility and flexibility. This article describes why and how ANOVA was developed, the basic logic which underlies the method and the assumptions that the method makes for it to be validly applied to data from clinical experiments in optometry. The application of the method to the analysis of a simple data set is then described. In addition, the methods available for making planned comparisons between treatment means and for making post hoc tests are evaluated. The problem of determining the number of replicates or patients required in a given experimental situation is also discussed. Copyright (C) 2000 The College of Optometrists.

The application of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to different experimental designs in optometry

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most efficient method available for the analysis of experimental data. Analysis of variance is a method of considerable complexity and subtlety, with many different variations, each of which applies in a particular experimental context. Hence, it is possible to apply the wrong type of ANOVA to data and, therefore, to draw an erroneous conclusion from an experiment. This article reviews the types of ANOVA most likely to arise in clinical experiments in optometry including the one-way ANOVA ('fixed' and 'random effect' models), two-way ANOVA in randomised blocks, three-way ANOVA, and factorial experimental designs (including the varieties known as 'split-plot' and 'repeated measures'). For each ANOVA, the appropriate experimental design is described, a statistical model is formulated, and the advantages and limitations of each type of design discussed. In addition, the problems of non-conformity to the statistical model and determination of the number of replications are considered. © 2002 The College of Optometrists.