Abstract
Objective. To develop a searchable database of educational technologies used at schools and colleges of pharmacy.
Methods. A cross-sectional survey design was used to determine what educational technologies were being used and to identify an individual at each institution who could serve as an information resource for peer-to-peer questions.
Results. Eighty-nine survey instruments were returned for a response rate of 75.4%. The resulting data illustrated the almost ubiquitous presence of educational technology. The most frequently used technology was course management systems and the least frequently used technology was microblogging.
Conclusions. Educational technology use is trending toward fee-based products for enterprise-level applications and free, open-source products for collaboration and presentation. Educational technology is allowing educators to restructure classroom time for something other than simple transmission of factual information and to adopt an evidence-based approach to instructional innovation and reform.
INTRODUCTION
Efficient and effective use of technology is often a vital component for success in education. Although many criticize what they perceive as an overreliance on technology to improve teaching,1 there have been substantial investments in the human and technical infrastructure necessary to implement these technologies on college campuses. More than a decade has passed since the last published study of technology use in pharmacy education.2 Because technology changes at such a rapid pace, this study is no longer relevant and new information is needed. The 2000-2001 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Academic Affairs Committee supported the development and use of computer-based technology for learning that is educationally sound and cost effective.3 One of the goals of the AACP Technology in Pharmacy Education and Learning (TiPEL) Special Interest Group (SIG) is to help member institutions develop and integrate educational technologies that positively impact teaching, learning, and assessment. An important aspect of meeting this goal is to establish baseline information of the current technologies used by pharmacy programs so that further inquiry into the effectiveness of their use can be made. Although some may view incorporation of technology into teaching and learning as primarily a task for instructional design and technology specialists, pharmacy faculty members should ultimately drive the development and adoption of such technologies. Therefore, an overall awareness of the instructional technologies being used at other institutions is necessary for them to make informed decisions.
This study examined several different areas pertaining to technology use in colleges and schools of pharmacy. One new and evolving area of research pertains to the use of social media for educational purposes.4 Described in this paper as social communications software, online tools such as blogs,5 microblogs,6 wikis,7 virtual worlds,8 and social networking9 are newer technologies that were not included in the previous study. Likewise, new experiential education requirements necessitate the use of software to manage the experiential process and create and maintain portfolios.10 There also have been advancements since the last study in technology used for lecture capture, audience response, and online learning management.11-13 The types of instructional hardware used in pharmacy education (eg, cameras, laptop computers) and the types of technology support provided were examined as well because these areas have evolved due to increased computing demands and mobile computing.14-16
This study was developed by members of the TiPEL SIG for 3 primary reasons: (1) to provide a resource for AACP members to identify the hardware and software products being employed, (2) to provide contact information so that faculty members can learn and possibly collaborate with others regarding technology use, and (3) to inform pharmacy faculty members of the various technologies that can be incorporated into teaching and learning and/or that can be studied within the context of education research. It was beyond the scope of this study to determine the effectiveness of the technologies. However, the results may familiarize faculty members with the various types of technologies available, which then may encourage further incorporation of technology into the teaching and learning process. Another tangible outcome of this study was the development of a searchable database of the educational technologies employed by colleges and schools of pharmacy, along with a contact person who could elaborate regarding their institution's experience with implementing and using various technologies.
METHODS
A cross-sectional survey was designed to identify the educational technologies used by colleges and schools of pharmacy and an individual at each institution who could serve as a resource for peer-to-peer questions regarding the technology employed and related experience. Using a survey instrument on technology use developed by the Council of Ohio Colleges of Pharmacy as a guideline, 38 survey items specific to this study were created. (The survey instrument is available from the author upon request.) A list of specifications (Table 1) was used to define the domains and the respective item sampling process. Educational technology domains included software used for instruction, hardware used for instruction, software used for communication, technology requirements for experiential education, and technology support. Where applicable, the respondent was asked to specify whether the software and/or hardware was the primary system used or only one of the technologies in use.
Specifications for the Technology Survey
The survey was pilot tested by 1 psychometrician and 3 pharmacy educators from across the country with experience in survey development and educational technology, respectively. The purpose of this pilot phase was to test the adequacy of the instrument to meet the stated goals and to improve the internal validity of the survey. The pilot group identified ambiguities and difficult questions; determined the time required to complete the survey and whether this timeframe was reasonable; and assessed whether each question gave an adequate range of responses. Pilot data were used: to confirm that the survey items provided the information sought; to discard unnecessary, difficult, or ambiguous questions; and to reword questions that were not answered as expected. Changes made as a result of pilot testing included survey format (limiting the amount of scrolling required to complete the survey), question format (adding the terms “in use” and “primary”), and item content (clarifying whether items referred to student or faculty e-mail systems/software).
The survey was administered during the 2010 spring semester to a convenience sample of 118 TiPEL members representing programs deemed to be at a level of development sufficient to have employed educational technology (ie, fully accredited programs). Survey instruments were disseminated electronically and electronic reminders were sent periodically to nonresponders until the end of the 2010 spring semester. For programs with 2 distinct campuses, the survey request was sent to each campus. Responses were exported to an Excel spreadsheet before analysis via IBM SPSS Statistics, version 18.0.2 (IBM SPSS, Chicago, IL). Descriptive analyses were conducted on the data. The study was approved by Creighton University's Institutional Review Board.
RESULTS
Instructional Software
Eighty-nine survey instruments were returned for a response rate of 75.4%. The software used by the responding colleges and schools for course content management, classroom capture, and lecture capture on individual faculty computers is presented in Table 2. One hundred percent of respondents used a course management system for content delivery. Approximately 70% used software to capture the classroom environment for later viewing. Software used to capture lectures on the computers of individual faculty members was employed by 57.3% of respondents. Only a minority of programs used iTunes (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) to make lecture audio and/or video recordings available to students (10.1% provided audio only and 14.6% furnished both audio and video content). Other audio/video delivery modes were employed by 14.6% of respondents.
Software for Instructional Use, N=89
Web conferencing was used by a majority (74.2%) of colleges and schools (Table 3). Fifty-five (61.8%) indicated they also use interactive video conferencing. Only 7 programs (7.9%) had used Web conferencing to proctor an examination.
Web Conferencing and Interactive Video Conferencing Software in Use, N= 89
Audience response systems were used by 88.8% of programs (Table 4). Electronic testing was employed by 79.8% of respondents, 29.2% of which required students to use a secured browser.
Current Use of Audience Response Systems and Electronic Testing, N=89
Table 5 lists responses regarding the use of blogging, microblogging, and document collaboration solutions by colleges and schools of pharmacy. Approximately 60% of programs reported that a blogging tool was used. Only 35.9% of respondents stated that their pharmacy program used a microblogging tool. Document collaboration applications were used by 66.3% of the programs. The survey instrument also asked whether the program used software to create simulation environments or “virtual worlds.” Eight (6.8%) responded that they employed simulation environments in the educational arena.
Software Use for Blogging, Microblogging, and Document Collaboration, N=89
Sixty-six percent of participants reported their program uses wiki tools. Blackboard and Wikipedia comprised 42.7% of the systems used. Almost all programs (98.9%) incorporated classroom presentation software into their educational lectures. PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and Google Apps (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA), 85.4% and 15.7%, respectively, were the programs most frequently reported.
Software for managing electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) had been implemented in approximately 85% of programs. Most of the e-portfolio tools used were part of an educational software package or a course management system. For example, 31.5% used E*Value (Advanced Informatics, Minneapolis, MN), 14.6% used RXportfolio (RXinsider LTD, West Warwick, RI), and 10.1% used Blackboard (Blackboard Inc., Washington, DC).
Approximately 98% of respondents reported hosting and supporting program-wide electronic mail (e-mail) systems for students. Microsoft Exchange/Outlook (37.1%) and Google (24.7%) were the most common systems used. Eighty-eight percent of the programs required students to use the program-wide e-mail system. Approximately 98% of programs had e-mail systems for faculty members, with Microsoft Exchange/Outlook (52.8%) and Google (18.0%) the most commonly employed. Subtle differences in system use were apparent between students and faculty members; faculty members were more likely to use Microsoft Exchange Server/Outlook than students, most likely due to the calendaring (meeting requests, etc.) capabilities.
Instructional Hardware
Seventy-five percent of pharmacy programs used presentation hardware for course instruction. SMART Board (31.5%) (SMART Technologies, Calgary, Alberta, Canada), tablet personal computers (PCs) (29.2%), and Sympodium (23.6%) (SMART Technologies) were the major systems employed.
More than half (53.9%) of the pharmacy programs required students to have a computer (Table 6). Of those requiring a computer, approximately 56% specified the type of computer the students must have. The most frequently required computers were laptops (laptop PCs, tablet PCs, or MacBooks). Most of the programs that required computers did not provide them and 47% specified what software the students must have on the computer.
Computer Requirements for Programmatic Instruction, N=89
Social Media Communication Software
Approximately 53% of pharmacy programs used social media in some form (Table 7). At some institutions, course management system communication tools were used, when necessary, in place of social media software. Other institutions acknowledged that no official use of the media existed, but use did occur inside and outside of courses, including by professional organizations. In addition, social media was used to share video and/or photos by 44% of the colleges and schools.
Social Media Use for Communication with Students, N=89
Experiential Software
Experiential education programs have software requirements in a majority (58.4%) of programs (Table 8) to administrate experiential education, at least from the student interface perspective. Nineteen programs (36.5%) used either E*Value (Advanced Informatics, Minneapolis, MN) or RXpreceptor applications (RXinsider LTD, West Warwick, RI), while 63.5% used other applications including “home grown” or in-house systems. Several respondents stated that changes in software vendors were occurring at the time of the study. Personal digital assistants (PDAs) or smart phones were required by only 11.2% of programs.
Experiential Education Software Requirements, N=89
Instructional Technology Support
Approximately 60% of responding programs had their own instructional technology unit separate from the institution's central instructional technology unit, employing a median of 2 full-time employees (Table 9). In order of responsibility, these units supported computer hardware and software, aided in the classroom, supported educational technology, offered technology training, provided server support, and created and maintained Web sites. New technology endeavors within programs were generally supported via college/school or department budgets (70.8%), with maintenance costs funded the same way (65.2%).
Survey Responses Regarding Instructional Technology Support, N=89
DISCUSSION
In this report, we provide a baseline of educational technology use and related support structures that exist among US colleges and schools of pharmacy. The data illustrate an almost ubiquitous presence of at least some form of educational technology among the colleges and schools responding. The most frequently used technology was course management systems (100% of respondents) and the least frequently used technology was microblogging (36% of respondents). Almost all institutions were using some type of technology to present information to students (lecture capture, 69.6%; presentation software, 98.9%; presentation hardware, 75.3%). Furthermore, most programs were using technologies to actively engage students (Web conferencing, 74.2%; interactive videoconferencing, 61.8%; audience response systems, 88.8%; blogging/microblogging, 59.5%; document collaboration, 66.3%; wiki tools, 66.3%). Although the use of these technologies may be assumed to promote active engagement of students, further investigation is needed to determine whether this is actually the case. A larger majority of pharmacy programs reported using technology to assess student learning (electronic testing, 79.8%; e-portfolios, 85.4%). If use of audience response systems is categorized as assessment of student learning, the rate of technology use for assessment purposes increases to 88.8%. The high percentage of programs requiring students to use the institution's e-mail system (87.6%) suggests technology is routinely used by faculty and staff members to communicate with students.
Educational technology use is trending toward fee-based products for enterprise-level applications (eg, learning management systems, lecture capture systems, Web and videoconferencing, e-portfolios, and e-mail) and free, cloud-based or open source products for collaboration and presentation (eg, blogging, wikis, document collaboration, and presentation software). Such information may be helpful as new and existing programs make decisions regarding the purchase of educational technology.
As technology is increasingly implemented in pharmacy education, appropriate infrastructure should be developed in parallel to promote its success. To this end, more than half of respondents reported having their own technology support personnel. The majority (70.8%) of these positions are funded by college/school or department budgets. Such decentralized instructional technology units often exist to serve the unique needs of an academic program—functions a centralized instructional technology unit may be unable or unwilling to do. The advantages of having instructional technology support personnel who are focused on programmatic needs and responsiveness to faculty and staff members and students require assessment and justification, particularly in the current economic environment that may favor a cheaper, more centralized instructional technology support structure.
Perhaps the greatest impact educational technology has on the classroom and learning, at least in primary and secondary education, is pedagogical. Even as early as the mid 1990s, technology's influence was obviously more on learning activities and outcomes than on routine fact-oriented learning.17 Technology requires teachers to define what they want to accomplish and question how best to accomplish this outcome. Educational technology stimulates change in the learning environment that fosters student-centered learning. Students take more responsibility for their own learning and teachers work more as mentors and less as presenters of information.18 Therefore, educational technology in itself has not directly caused improvements in education; rather technology has indirectly influenced positive changes in teaching practice. These changes in pedagogy have generated the success of technology in education.17
The academy has been challenged to restructure classroom time for something other than simple transmission of factual information and to adopt an evidence-based approach to instructional innovation and reform.19 Educational technology can help with the former. Some programs have employed technology (specifically, lecture capture technology) to shift the time and space in which teaching and learning occur. Students’ first exposure to new content then can take place outside of the classroom, thereby reserving classroom time for actively engaging students in applying the new concepts and information. Others are employing technologies to encourage collaboration among students. However, as noted by several respondents, little formal assessment has been conducted on the impact technology has on students’ achievement of learning outcomes. Given the costs of implementing and maintaining educational technology, as well as the faculty time required to gain fluency with the use of such technologies, development of an evidence-based approach to the incorporation of technology is imperative. One respondent said it best: “Since lecture capture began this past fall with lectures placed on iTunesU, students have expressed that this has helped them learn and study; however, no formal assessment of this has taken place yet.” The data presented herein may aid faculty members and administrators in making decisions about the adoption of educational technologies. However, a concerted effort is needed to assess the objective benefits on student learning, especially in postsecondary and professional education, as little data exist outside of primary and secondary education.
How can the information we present be useful to the average faculty member? The database used to generate this report is provided as a searchable database (http://edtech-pharmacy.creighton.edu). The database can be searched by technology category, state (region of the country), or product name. A personal contact from each pharmacy program is also provided to facilitate the sharing of experience. We hope that this database will foster the implementation of educational technology throughout the academy by providing contacts who can aid in choosing technologies and share their experiences in implementing them.
This study gathered information regarding the use of educational technologies in schools and colleges of pharmacy. Yet, information regarding the availability of resources to assist faculty members in the selection of technologies and preparation of faculty members for using technologies was not specifically collected. AACP has noted preparation and support for teaching activities is imperative to help ensure the success of faculty academic career advancement.20 Therefore, additional research is warranted to understand faculty support needs and effective support practices for the use of IT in pharmacy education.
This study had some limitations. The reliability of survey data may be limited by the accuracy and knowledge of the respondents. For example, 32 respondents stated that their institution employed a microblogging tool but only 26 could name the product (Table 5). Also, only 10 respondents stated that PDAs were required by their experiential programs, but 25 respondents provided funding data that included/reflected the cost of PDAs for their program (Table 8). Therefore, the data may not be a completely accurate reflection of current educational technology use at each institution. An additional limitation is that an answer of “yes” to a question regarding technology use did not necessarily mean widespread use of the technology across the entire curriculum. Moreover, Google Wave (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA) was included in one of the survey items, but is no longer being actively developed. This illustrates that some educational technologies are still emerging; thus, their use by pharmacy programs may fluctuate and be impossible to determine or to define accurately. Finally, without a 100% response rate, our data do not represent all baseline educational technology use in pharmacy programs.
CONCLUSIONS
Colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States use a variety of education technology solutions. The information provided herein and in the searchable database is intended to serve as resources that foster collaboration and identification of optimal technology-based solutions for enhancing student learning in pharmacy programs.
- Received January 5, 2011.
- Accepted April 13, 2011.
- © 2011 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
In this issue
Jump to section
Similar AJPE Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.