The UK MPharm (1) - are we over reliant on traditional teaching methods?

Introduction-The design of the UK MPharm curriculum is driven by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) accreditation process and the EU directive (85/432/EEC).[1] Although the RPSGB is informed about teaching activity in UK Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs), there is no database which aggregates information to provide the whole picture of pharmacy education within the UK. The aim of the teaching, learning and assessment study [2] was to document and map current programmes in the 16 established SOPs. Recent developments in programme delivery have resulted in a focus on deep learning (for example, through problem based learning approaches) and on being more student centred and less didactic through lectures. The specific objectives of this part of the study were (a) to quantify the content and modes of delivery of material as described in course documentation and (b) having categorised the range of teaching methods, ask students to rate how important they perceived each one for their own learning (using a three point Likert scale: very important, fairly important or not important). Material and methods-The study design compared three datasets: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. All 16 SOPs provided a set of their undergraduate course documentation for the year 2003/4. The documentation variables were entered into Excel tables. A self-completion questionnaire was administered to all year four undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods, (n=1847) in 15 SOPs within Great Britain. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion-Interviews showed that individual teachers and course module leaders determine the choice of teaching methods used. Content review of the documentary evidence showed that 51% of the taught element of the course was delivered using lectures, 31% using practicals (includes computer aided learning) and 18% small group or interactive teaching. There was high uniformity across the schools for the first three years; variation in the final year was due to the project. The average number of hours per year across 15 schools (data for one school were not available) was: year 1: 408 hours; year 2: 401 hours; year 3: 387 hours; year 4: 401 hours. The survey showed that students perceived lectures to be the most important method of teaching after dispensing or clinical practicals. Taking the very important rating only: 94% (n=694) dispensing or clinical practicals; 75% (n=558) lectures; 52% (n=386) workshops, 50% (n=369) tutorials, 43% (n=318) directed study. Scientific laboratory practices were rated very important by only 31% (n=227). The study shows that teaching of pharmacy to undergraduates in the UK is still essentially didactic through a high proportion of formal lectures and with high levels of staff-student contact. Schools consider lectures still to be the most cost effective means of delivering the core syllabus to large cohorts of students. However, this does limit the scope for any optionality within teaching, the scope for small group work is reduced as is the opportunity to develop multi-professional learning or practice placements. Although novel teaching and learning techniques such as e-learning have expanded considerably over the past decade, schools of pharmacy have concentrated on lectures as the best way of coping with the huge expansion in student numbers. References [1] Council Directive. Concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy. Official Journal of the European Communities 1985;85/432/EEC. [2] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.

Developing critical understanding in HRM students:using innovative teaching methods to encourage deep approaches to study

Purpose – This paper aims to focus on developing critical understanding in human resource management (HRM) students in Aston Business School, UK. The paper reveals that innovative teaching methods encourage deep approaches to study, an indicator of students reaching their own understanding of material and ideas. This improves student employability and satisfies employer need. Design/methodology/approach – Student response to two second year business modules, matched for high student approval rating, was collected through focus group discussion. One module was taught using EBL and the story method, whilst the other used traditional teaching methods. Transcripts were analysed and compared using the structure of the ASSIST measure. Findings – Critical understanding and transformative learning can be developed through the innovative teaching methods of enquiry-based learning (EBL) and the story method. Research limitations/implications – The limitation is that this is a single case study comparing and contrasting two business modules. The implication is that the study should be replicated and developed in different learning settings, so that there are multiple data sets to confirm the research finding. Practical implications – Future curriculum development, especially in terms of HE, still needs to encourage students and lecturers to understand more about the nature of knowledge and how to learn. The application of EBL and the story method is described in a module case study – “Strategy for Future Leaders”. Originality/value – This is a systematic and comparative study to improve understanding of how students and lecturers learn and of the context in which the learning takes place.

The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning

Social software is increasingly being used in higher and further education to support teaching and learning processes. These applications provide students with social and cognitive stimulation and also add to the interaction between students and educators. However, in addition to the benefits the introduction of social software into a course environment can also have adverse implications on students, educators and the education institution as a whole, a phenomenon which has received much less attention in the literature. In this study we explore the various implications of introducing social software into a course environment in order to identify the associated benefits, but also the potential drawbacks. We draw on data from 20 social software initiatives in UK based higher and further education institutions to identify the diverse experiences and concerns of students and educators. The findings are presented in form of a SWOT analysis, which allows us to better understand the otherwise ambiguous implications of social software in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. From the analysis we have derived concrete recommendations for the use of social software as a teaching and learning tool.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching and learning support and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. We have again changed our approach for this 2006/07 edition (our fourth) of the Aston Business School Good Practice Guide. As before, some contributions were selected from those identifying interesting best practice on their Annual Module reflection forms in 2005/2006. Other contributors received HELM (Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management) small research grants in 2005/2006. Part of the conditions were for them to write an article for this publication. We have also been less tight on the length of the articles this year. Some contributions are, therefore, on the way to being journal articles. HELM will be working with these authors to help develop these for publication. The themes covered in this year?s articles are all central to the issues faced by those providing HE teaching and learning opportunities in the 21st Century. Specifically this is providing support and feedback to students in large classes, embracing new uses of technology to encourage active learning and addressing cultural issues in a diverse student population. Michael Grojean and Yves Guillaume used Blackboard™ to give a more interactive learning experience and improve feedback to students. It would be easy for other staff to adopt this approach. Patrick Tissington and Qin Zhou (HELM small research grant holders) were keen to improve the efficiency of student support, as does Roger McDermott. Celine Chew shares her action learning project, completed as part of the Aston University PG Certificate in Teaching and Learning. Her use of Blackboard™ puts emphasis on the learner having to do something to help them meet the learning outcomes. This is what learning should be like, but many of our students seem used to a more passive learning experience, so much needs to be done on changing expectations and cultures about learning. Regina Herzfeldt also looks at cultures. She was awarded a HELM small research grant and carried out some significant new research on cultural diversity in ABS and what it means for developing teaching methods. Her results fit in with what many of us are experiencing in practice. Gina leaves us with some challenges for the future. Her paper certainly needs to be published. This volume finishes with Stuart Cooper and Matt Davies reflecting on how to keep students busy in lectures and Pavel Albores working with students on podcasting. Pavel?s work, which was the result of another HELM small research grant, will also be prepared for publication as a journal article. The students learnt more from this work that any formal lecture and Pavel will be using the approach again this year. Some staff have been awarded HELM small research grants in 2006/07 and these will be published in the next Good Practice Guide. In the second volume we mentioned the launch of the School?s Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM). Since then HELM has stimulated a lot of activity across the School (and University) particularly linking research and teaching. A list of the HELM seminars for 2006/2007 is listed as Appendix 1 of this publication. Further details can be obtained from Catherine Foster (c.s.foster@aston.ac.uk), who coordinates the HELM seminars. For 2006 and 2005 HELM listed, 20 refereed journal articles, 7 book chapters, 1 published conference papers, 20 conference presentations, two official reports, nine working papers and £71,535 of grant money produced in this research area across the School. I hope that this shows that reflection on learning is alive and well in ABS. We have also been working on a list of target journals to guide ABS staff who wish to publish in this area. These are included as Appendix 2 of this publication. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles and to Julie Green, the Quality Manager, for putting the varying diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form and for agreeing to fund the printing of this volume.