article/article.tpl

Pharmacy student perceptions of educational media tools

Matthew J. Ingram, Letitia A. Sagoe, Michael H. Sosabowski, Alison J. Long, Gary P. Moss

Abstract

User perception is an important consideration when assessing the educational value of multimedia resources. A media tool may be proven educationally, but if the users (normally the students) perceive it as anything less than helpful, they are unlikely to obtain maximum utility from it. The aim of this study is to assess the perceived educational value of multimedia tools currently available to MPharm students (i.e. DVD, CD-ROM, handouts/practical schedules and internet resources, including streaming video media) and the factors that influenced students’ perception. MPharm students from all four cohorts of the Brighton MPharm degree pathway participated in this study. Respondents identified handouts and schedules for workshops and laboratory classes as the most useful resource, followed by internet-based resources and DVD/CD-ROM resources. Printed resources were perceived as more reliable and trustworthy compared to multimedia resources. DVD-based resources were perceived to captivate attention and maintain focus more than other resources and respondents favoured a combination of printed and electronic resources to be available. Generally, although electronic resources (particularly those which are internet-based) were positively perceived, the use of printed media, such as laboratory schedules and lecture notes, was preferred in conjunction with multimedia resources.


Keywords

Educational media tools, multimedia, pharmacy, pharmacy education, pharmacy students, MPharm


Full Text:

PDF

References

Bruskiewitz, R. H., & De Muth, J. E. (2005). Availability and acceptability of distance learning delivery systems for continuing pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharmacy Education, 69, 169–175.

Clark, I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 169–177.

Collingwood, V., & Hughes, D. C. (1972). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 4–31.

Cunningham, M., Harris, S., Kerr, K., & McEune, R. (2003). New technologies supporting teaching and learning. Slough, Berkshire: National Foundation of Educational Research.

Davis, M., & Hult, R. E. (1997). Effects of writing summaries as a generative learning activity during note-taking. Teaching Psycho- logy, 24, 47–49.

Davis, R., Shekhar, M., & Van Auken, S. (2000). Relating pedagogical preference of marketing seniors and alumni to attitude toward the major. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 147 – 154.

Diercks-O’Brien, G., & Sharratt, R. (2002). Collaborative multi- media development teams in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 1, 81–85.

Hamer, L. O. (2000). The additive effects of semi structured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 25–34.

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russel, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ingram, M. J., Edmonds, H., Moss, G. P., Long, A. J., Sosabowski, M. H., & McLennan, M. W. (2004). The role of handouts in the M.Pharm degree pathway differentiating between the inquisitive and the acquisitive. Pharmacy Education, 4, 7–12.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40, 21–25.

Langley, C. A., Marriot, J. F., & Belcher, D. (2004). The attitudes of students and academic staff towards electronic course support— are we convergent? Pharmacy Education, 4, 57–61.

MacLean, J. R., McShane, P., & Etchason, J. (2001). Distance learning in undergraduate education: Methods, opportunities, and challenges for institutions and educators. Medical Principles and Practice, 10, 61–72.

McLennan, M. W., & Isaacs, G. (2002). The role of handouts, note taking and overhead transparencies in veterinary science lectures. Australian Veterinary Journal, 80, 626–629.

Means, B., Blando, J., Olsen, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Zorfass, J., & Remz, R. A. (Updated 2001) Using technology to support education reform, US Department of Education, Publications Website: Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/ chap1a.htm.

Strauss, D. T., & Frost, R. D. (1999). Selecting instructional technology media for the marketing classroom. Marketing Education Review, 9, 11–20.

Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods and student behaviour. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 130–142.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
article/comments.tpl article/footer.tpl