LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Roshier, Amanda L; Foster, Neil; Jones, Michael A (2011)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Journal: BMC Medical Education
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Special aspects of education, Research Article, Education, Medicine(all), LC8-6691

Abstract

Background

The purpose of our study was to use a student-centred approach to develop an online video learning resource (called 'Moo Tube') at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, UK and also to provide guidance for other academics in the School wishing to develop a similar resource in the future.

Methods

A focus group in the format of the nominal group technique was used to garner the opinions of 12 undergraduate students (3 from year-1, 4 from year-2 and 5 from year-3). Students generated lists of items in response to key questions, these responses were thematically analysed to generate key themes which were compared between the different year groups. The number of visits to 'Moo Tube' before and after an objective structured practical examination (OSPE) was also analysed to provide data on video usage.

Results

Students highlighted a number of strengths of video resources which can be grouped into four overarching themes: (1) teaching enhancement, (2) accessibility, (3) technical quality and (4) video content. Of these themes, students rated teaching enhancement and accessibility most highly. Video usage was seen to significantly increase (P < 0.05) prior to an examination and significantly decrease (P < 0.05) following the examination.

Conclusions

The students had a positive perception of video usage in higher education. Video usage increases prior to practical examinations. Image quality was a greater concern with year-3 students than with either year-1 or 2 students but all groups highlighted the following as important issues: i) good sound quality, ii) accessibility, including location of videos within electronic libraries, and iii) video content. Based on the findings from this study, guidelines are suggested for those developing undergraduate veterinary videos. We believe that many aspects of our list will have resonance in other areas of medicine education and higher education.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Chapman HM, Taylor EG, Buddle JR, Murphy DJ: Student training in largeanimal handling at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, Australia. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2007, 34(5):576-582.
    • 2. MacLeay JM: Large-animal handling at the Colorado state university college of veterinary medicine. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2007, 34(5):550-553.
    • 3. Reid M, Burn A, Parker D: Evaluation Report of the Becta Digital Video Pilot Project (2002). [http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/ research/dvreport_241002.pdf].
    • 4. Andrews M: Using reflection to develop clinical expertise. British Journal of Nursing 1996, 5:508-513.
    • 5. Baharav E: Students' Use of Video Clip Technology in Clinical Education. Topics in Language Disorders 2008, 28:286-298.
    • 6. Hawkins EC, Hansen B, Bunch BL: Use of animation enhanced video clips for teaching abnormal breathing patterns. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2003, 30(1):73-77.
    • 7. Gul YA, Wan ACT, Darzi A: Undergraduate surgical teaching utilizing telemedicine. Medical Education 1999, 33:596-599.
    • 8. Seddon J: Vets and videos: student learning from context-based assessment in a pre-clinical science course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2008, 33:559-566.
    • 9. Nilsen S, Baerheim A: Feedback on video recorded consultations in medical teaching: why students loathe and love it - a focus-group based qualitative study. BMC Medical Education 2005, 5:28.
    • 10. Parkin A, Dogra N: Making videos for medical undergraduate teaching in child psychiatry: the development, use and perceived effectiveness of structured videotapes of clinical material for use by medical students in child psychiatry. Medical Teaching 2000, 22(6):568-571.
    • 11. Paul S, Dawson KP, Lanphear JH, Cheema MY: Video recording feedback: a feasible and effective approach to teaching history taking and physical examination skills in undergraduate paediatric medicine. Medical Education 1998, 32:332-336.
    • 12. Brown GA: How to make and use videos in teaching. Medical Teacher 1985, 7(2):139-149.
    • 13. Biggs J: Teaching for quality learning at university. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham; 1999.
    • 14. Bloom BS: Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goods. Handbook 1: cognitive domains. McKay, New York; 1956.
    • 15. Piaget J: Development and learning. In Reading in child behavior and development. Edited by: Lavattelly CS, Stendler. Hartcourt Brace Janovich, New York; 1972.
    • 16. Siegford JM, Bernardo TN, Malinowski RP, Laughlin K, Zanella AJ: Integrating animal welfare into veterinary education: using an online, interactive course. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2005, 32(4):497-503.
    • 17. Ackerman MJ: The video disc in medical education. Radiographics 1992, 12(1):121-122.
    • 18. Matthew IR, Pollard DJ, Frame JW: Development and evaluation of computer-aided learning package for minor oral surgery. Medical Education 1998, 32:89-94.
    • 19. Saxena V, Natarajan P, O'Sullivan PS, Jain S: Effect of the use of instructional anatomy videos on student performance. Anatomical Sciences Education 2008, 1:159-165.
    • 20. Hunt NCA, James DJ, Bull AD: The still video camera: a suitable and convenient method of demonstrating post mortem findings. Medical Education 1997, 31:386-389.
    • 21. Ellaway R, Pettigrew G, Rhind S, Dewhurst D: The Edinburgh electronic veterinary curriculum: an online program-wide learning and support environment for veterinary education. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2005, 32(1):38-46.
    • 22. McGreevy P, Shaw T, Burn D, Miller N: OLIVER: An online library of images for veterinary education and research. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2007, 34(4):510-516.
    • 23. Cockram MS, Altchison K, Colle DDS, Goodman G, Murray JA: Animalhandling teaching at the royal (DICK) school of veterinary studies, University of Edinburgh. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2007, 34(5):554-560.
    • 24. Balslev T, DeGrave WS, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier AJJ: Comparison of text and video cases in postgraduate problem-based learning. Medical Education 2005, 39:1086-1092.
    • 25. Lee MT, Jacobs JL, Kamin CS: Video-enhanced problem-based learning to teach clinical skills. Medical Education 2006, 40:459-460.
    • 26. WebCT (Course Tools): owned by Blackboard Inc., Washington D.C.. .
    • 27. You Tube: subsidiary company of Google Inc., California USA. [http://www.youtube.com].
    • 28. Kitzinger J: Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 1995, 311:299-302.
    • 29. Watts M, Ebbutt D: More than the sum of the parts: research methods in group interviewing. British Educational Research Journal 1987, 13:25-34.
    • 30. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH: A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behaviour Science 1971, 7940:467-493.
    • 31. Chapple M, Murphy R: The nominal group technique: extending the evaluation of students' teaching and learning experiences. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 1996, 21(2):147-158.
    • 32. Lloyd-Jones G, Fowell S, Bligh JG: The use of the nominal group technique as an evaluative tool in medical undergraduate education. Medical Education 1999, 33:8-13.
    • 33. Powney J: Structured eavesdropping. Research Intelligence (Journal of the British Educational Research Foundation) 1988, 28:10-12.
    • 34. BERA: Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British Educational Research Association; 2004.
    • 35. Perry J, Linsley S: The use of the nominal group technique as an evaluative tool in the teaching and summative assessment of the interpersonal skills of student mental health nurses. Nurse Education Today 2006, 26:346-353.
    • 36. Denwood M, Dale HM, Yarn P: Development and evaluation of an online computer-aided learning (CAL) package to promote small-animal welfare. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2008, 35(2):318-324.
    • 37. Howe LM, Boothe HW jnr, Hartsfield SM: Student assessment of the educational benefits of using CD-ROM for instruction of basic surgical skills. Journal Veterinary Medical Education 2005, 32(1):138-143.
    • 38. Rae A: Self-paced learning with video for undergraduate: a multi media Keller plan. British Journal of Education Technology 1993, 24(1):43-51.
    • 39. Wojtas O: 'The e-learning revolution: myth or reality?'. The Times Higher Education Supplement 2001.
    • 40. Prensky M: 'Digital natives, digital immigrants'. On the Horizon 2001, 9(5) [http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,% 20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf].
    • 41. Ertmer PA: Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 1999, 47(4):47-61.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article