IAIMS Education Focus Area Group
Final Report
Process
Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion
Process
(Top of the Page)
The Education Focus Area Group was formed during the time that planning
grant re-submission was in final stages of work. The charge to the group
was to: 1) identify the current status of technology in education at the
WVU Health Sciences Center; 2) determine future needs for integration of
technology in education; and 3) make recommendations regarding how best
to meet those needs.
Members
The appointed group was as follows:
School of Medicine: MaryBeth Mandich, PT, PhD Professional/Undergraduate
Programs
Dennis Overman, PhD Department of Anatomy
Karen Douglas, PhD Community Health Promotion
Sandra Magnetti, DrPH Public Health
School of Pharmacy: Marie Abate, PharmD Clinical Pharmacy
School of Nursing: Karen Miles, EdD Assoc. Dean; Health Restoration
School of Dentistry: Robert Howell, DDS Oral Pathology
Health Sciences: Alex Yohn WV Consult, Jean Siebert HSC Library
The group first met on November 17, 1997 from 3:45-5:00 pm with Ms.
Ann Olsen. At that first meeting, group members worked on Education Function
Categories that defined the roles and responsibilities of the higher education
faculty member in health sciences. Categories identified were:
1. Prepare for Instruction;
-
Deliver Instruction;
-
Evaluate Instruction;
-
Support Technology;
-
Manage Curriculum;
-
Participate in Professional Development Activities;
-
Advise and Consult Professionals;
-
Student Advisement; and
-
Recruitment and Admissions.
Some group members then participated in the working dinner session with
Ms. Olsen
Meetings
Subsequent meetings were held on the following dates:
January 23, 1998
February 20, 1998
March 20, 1998
April 17, 1998 (canceled)
May 8, 1998
Information Collected
The group decided that one problem that they had to overcome was the
lack of central communication regarding technology initiatives in education.
The current status is such that word of mouth is largely used for sharing
teaching advances, innovations, etc. Therefore, one recommendation of the
group was to survey select administrators and key faculty across all Health
Sciences education programs to try to get a read on the current status.
The group developed the questionnaire and employed the services of a research
assistant to refine the questionnaire. The questionnaire should also be
posted on the web. The document may be found in the Appendix to this report;
however, resultant information is not yet available. Target for completion
is August 31, 1998.
Jean Siebert also did a search and compiled an Instructional Technology
Bibliography.
Alex Yohn provided a report on Health Sciences Center Computer Resources.
Presentations
Members of the Education Focus Area Group attended a presentation/workshop
with an extramural consultant on technology in education, Dr. Susanne Stensaas
on February 26, 1998 from 4:00-5:00 pm.
Jean Siebert presented a flow sheet outlining the obtaining of information
using technology from the student perspective on March 20, 1998
Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations
A-1. Education Focus Area Group: Facilities and Systems Support
Across all school and all education programs in Health Sciences, there
is an awareness that the future of higher education of health professionals
will inherently demand increasing use of technology in the education program.
In order to define technology, the following definitions apply:
-
Medical Doctors Television (MDTV)
-
Satellite courses
-
Instructional materials on the Web
-
E-mail for communication with instructors, students
-
Entire electronic courses
-
Classroom presentations utilizing computer projections and presentation
software
-
Use of educational software for instruction and evaluation
-
Use of data bases and software for student admission, registration, advising
All programs have concerns about financial resources.
A-2. Conclusion
Administration needs to be aware that faculty and students rely upon the
provision of resources such as wired classrooms, adequate hardware and
software including access to all resources, if not 24 hours per day, at
least 18 hours per day, seven days per week. There is currently a lack
of conviction that such resources will be forthcoming in the near future.
A-3. Recommendation
Administration makes clearly communicated commitments to address facilities
and equipment issues. There needs to be some policy upgrades of hardware
and software in order to maintain consistent compatibility.
B-1. Faculty/Student Development and Support
Faculty are unaware of how to obtain support for hardware, software
and instructional design issues. There are several groups that faculty
may seek out for assistance including:
Instructional Technology
Systems Support
HSC Reference Librarians
HELP desk
There are currently no campus wide policies or standards for software;
and no policies for faculty and students. Faculty are unclear about copyright,
license, and ethical issues affecting instructional design.
B-2. Conclusion
Lack of awareness of how to get timely and efficient assistance makes faculty
unsure about how to initiate technology changes.
The field is growing so rapidly that even those heavily involved don’t
have all the answers. Faculty and students have some vague awareness of
issue, but don’t know specific regulations and law.
B-3. Recommendation
The HSC needs to clearly delineate responsibilities with respect to
assistance of faculty and students with instructional technology. The group
suggests publication, both written and web-based, of a directory with phone
and e-mail numbers to help direct faculty and students who have problems
or questions. Such a directory should be user-friendly and should give
examples of types of issues to be directed towards each group.
The Health Sciences Center should develop appropriate policies and procedures
and disseminate faculty and student handbooks. In any planning, such as
single point of access (described below), confidentiality and appropriate
assignment of access levels and codes must be developed.
C-1. Facilitation of Use of Technology
Students and faculty currently have to go through a maze, which may involve
several computers, servers and geographic locations from origination of
a question to finally printing the results of an information gathering
strategy. There is frustration with incompatibility at various sites.
Everyone acknowledges that the initiatives to increase use of technology
in instruction will change the nature of the Health Sciences Center Library
and how both facilities and personnel are used. However, individuals are
unclear as to exactly the role that the library can and should take to
support such initiatives.
C-2. Conclusion
Time-consuming and frustrating tasks are often avoided. Therefore, elimination
of this "maze" is essential to assure fully integrated technology.
The library should play a key role in initiatives to integrate technology
into instruction.
C-3. Recommendation
Commitment is made to the "Single Point of Access" concept for students,
faculty, and outside users with appropriate attention to security. A directory
that adequately defines how to access information should be posted.
The HS Library will probably need more and different kinds of staff.
Massive facility upgrades are necessary. The library should be represented
at the decision making level in all initiatives for technology in instruction.
The library should have compatibility with other key student/faculty usage
areas, such as the CBLC.
D-1. Communication
There is currently a lack of Health Sciences Center-wide communication
on "Who’s Doing What?" This means that valuable (and sometimes costly)
initiatives undertaken by one unit are unknown to those in another unit
who might be replicating this initiative. This includes tangible initiatives
such as purchase of software and intangibles, such as expertise, knowledge
and experience.
D-2. Conclusion
If this lack of communication persists, there will be expensive redundancy
of purchase, training and development initiatives
D-3. Recommendation
-
Obtain data about all initiatives across all programs in Health Sciences,
as well as the Hospital. Try to get a photograph of what is going on today
and what is planned for the future. To address this need, the group has
developed a questionnaire which should be sent to a limited group and posted
on the web for broad response in order to establish communication about
what is happening
-
The Health Sciences Center should make a commitment to hire an education
program consultant. That consultant, on the Suzanne Stensaas model, would
be available to consult with individual faculty or programs about technology
initiatives.
-
The program consultant, as defined above, should have as a responsibility
coordinating initiatives across schools, programs and facilities and should
establish and run a representative council that meets regularly and is
responsible for maintaining communication.
Conclusion
The Education Focus Group concludes that the following descriptors should
be applied to any plan for incorporating technology into education:
-
Appropriate
-
Enriches learning experience
-
Capable of supporting diverse learning objectives and curricula
