Informaticopia

Sunday, November 23, 2008

E-learning in health and social care study day

On Friday I attended (and help to organise/run) a study day of the Higher Education Academy, Health Sciences & Practice e-learning special interest group at the Glenside Campus of the University of the West of England.




Dr Pam Moule opened the day and gave the first presentation about the work we had undertaken for the HEA HS&P "Scoping e-learning: use and development in health sciences and practice" over the last two years. She set out the aims of the study and the two phase data collection with a survey and then case studies which had identified 5 themes:
* Facilitating factors
* Inhibiting factors
* Innovative technologies
* Pedagogy
* Training

She then led a discussion of the findings of the study and their implications for practice.


The second speaker was Dr Heather Wharrad from the University of Nottingham, School of Nursing Educational Technology Group (SONET) who entitled her presentation RLO's are good for Health: Community based approaches. She described the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for RLOs before giving descriptions of the characteristics of a reusable learning object and their approach to their production and use. The key points were illustrated with a case study from Nottingham's Non-Medical Prescribing Course, and outlined the positive evaluation from students.


The next two speakers were from Coventry University. The first was Imran Ali who described the myriad of innovative technologies being used within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences. Of particular interest to me and many in the audience was Echo 360 which they are currently implementing for lecture capture.


Imran's presentation was followed by Elinor Clarke who moved the innovative technologies forward with a discussion of Web 2.0 technlogies in use within the faculty, particularly InterProfessional Learning Objects and touched on Second Life (under the banner of Second Learning) to support their pedagogical aims.


After lunch Anne Smith described the "Reading Experience" with the E-learning framework in use at the University of Reading and the real life considerations which impinge on elearning use with her students. She particularly highlighted issues around the impact of e-learning on the assessment process.

Following Anne's presentation the attendees broke into smaller facilitated groups to identify examples of good (and bad) practice in relation to e-learning to aid wider sharing as an outcome of the HEA HS&P project, and gave comments on the draft "Guidance for e-learning implementation". Pam closed the day by thanking all participants and giving an outline of future activities within the HEA HS&P e-learning SIG.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Open access - how well do our areas do?

We've discussed quite a few aspects of open access on this blog over the years, so a recent email from BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com) lead me to looking into our areas of interest - nursing, health informatics, e-learning, etc. - to see how well we scored in the open access stakes.

The 'Open Access Quotient' (OAQ) was introduced on the BioMed Central blog in July 2007 (>>>); the OAQ aims "to quantify just how open a particular research field is – i.e. what fraction of the research in that area is available with open access immediately following publication". It does this through a search of PubMed citations from the past 60 days - a metric you can argue with, but maybe as good as any other.

At the time, I did a quick look on nursing and found it then had an OAQ of only 2.55% - not a very good score, and well below the PubMed average of 6.8% at the time. Well, nursing, as many other areas (>>>), has improved a bit in the past 12 months - it now scores 4.3% - but only, I suspect, due to the effect of the increasing number of BioMed central journals, rather than any conversion to the open access model or philosophy by other publishers.

A comparison with some other subject areas of interest shows:
health informatics = 9.64%
medical informatics = 19.44%
e-learning = 26.67%

However, when 'nursing informatics' returns a result of 66.67%, then I start to suspect the reliability of the algorithm - although it is on a sample of 3 articles.

Labels: , , ,