Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 934854, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/934854
Research Article

A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Educational Impact of E-Learning Tools on Griffith University Pharmacy Students’ Level of Understanding Using Bloom’s and SOLO Taxonomies

1School of Pharmacy, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia
2School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia
3School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia

Received 27 August 2014; Revised 10 November 2014; Accepted 24 November 2014; Published 9 December 2014

Academic Editor: Angela M. O’Donnell

Copyright © 2014 Abdullah Karaksha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. Buckridge, K.-L. Krause, and H. Alexander, Scholarship of Learning and Teaching 2010, 2010, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/119467/SOLT-GPG.pdf.
  2. E. L. Boyer, “Highlights of the carnegie report: the scholarship of teaching from “scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate”,” College Teaching, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 11–13, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  3. L. Grauerholz and J. F. Zipp, “How to do the scholarship of teaching and learning,” Teaching Sociology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 87–94, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. C. Michel, A. Bischoff, and K. H. Jakobs, “Comparison of problem- and lecture-based pharmacology teaching,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 168–170, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. Wang, X. Hu, and J. Xi, “Cooperative learning with role play in Chinese pharmacology education,” Indian Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 253–256, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. K. Badyal, S. Bala, and P. Kathuria, “Student evaluation of teaching and assessment methods in pharmacology,” Indian Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 87–89, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. C. Halliday, I. M. Devonshire, S. A. Greenfield, and E. J. Dommett, “Teaching medical students basic neurotransmitter pharmacology using primary research resources,” The American Journal of Physiology—Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 205–212, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. C. Candler, M. Ihnat, and G. Huang, “Pharmacology education in undergraduate and graduate medical education in the United States,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 134–137, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. T. Walley, J. Bligh, M. Orme, and A. Breckenridge, “II. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in undergraduate medical education in the UK: the future,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 137–143, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. O'Shaughnessy, I. Haq, S. Maxwell, and M. Llewelyn, “Teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in UK medical schools: current status in 2009,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 143–148, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. MacLean, K. Scott, T. Marshall, and P. Asperen, “Evaluation of an e-learning teaching resource: what is the medical student perspective?” ANZAHPE, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 53–63, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  12. N. B. Berman, L. H. Fall, C. G. Maloney, and D. A. Levine, “Computer-assisted instruction in clinical education: a roadmap to increasing CAI implementation,” Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 373–383, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. K. Masters and R. Ellaway, “e-Learning in medical education guide 32 part 2: technology, management and design,” Medical Teacher, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 474–489, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. N. Yelland, S. Tsembas, and L. Hall, “E learning: issues of pedagogy and practice for the information age,” in Introduction—Learning and The Learner: Exploring Learning for New Times, P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, and G. Vogyl, Eds., pp. 95–111, University of Wollongong, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  15. M. Miclea, S. Miclea, and A. Ciuca, “Computer-supported psychotherapy should pay attention to E-learning,” Cognitie, Creier, Comportament/Cognition, Brain, Behavior, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 131, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  16. S.-H. Liu, H.-L. Liao, and J. A. Pratt, “Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance,” Computers & Education, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 599–607, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. E. Clark, “Media will never influence learning,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 21–29, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. B. Kozma, “Learning with media,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  19. T. Mayes and S. de Freitas, “e-learning models desk study,” JISC Report 15, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  20. J.-H. Wu, R. D. Tennyson, and T.-L. Hsia, “A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment,” Computers and Education, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 155–164, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Z. Akyol and D. R. Garrison, “Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 233–250, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. Y. Chyung and D. Stepich, “Applying the “congruence” principle of Bloom's taxonomy to designing online instruction,” Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 317–330, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  23. L. A. Halawi, S. Pires, and R. V. McCarthy, “An evaluation of e-learning on the basis of bloom's taxonomy: an exploratory study,” Journal of Education for Business, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 374–380, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. C. C. Chan, M. S. Tsui, M. Y. C. Chan, and J. H. Hong, “Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student's learning outcomes: An empirical study,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 511–527, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. Taylor, M. Peat, R. Quinnell, and E. May, “Does the new biology syllabus encourage students to think differently about their biology knowledge?” Teaching Science, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 23–27, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  26. C. Taylor and C. Cope, “Are there educationally critical aspects in the concept of evolution?” in Proceedings of the Symposium Science Teaching and Learning Research, UniServe Science, Sydney, Australia, 2007.
  27. K. Holmes, “Analysis of asynchronous online discussion using the SOLO taxonomy,” Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 117–127, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
  29. A. Karaksha, G. Grant, A. K. Davey, and S. Anoopkumar-Dukie, “Development and evaluation of computer-assisted learning (CAL) teaching tools compared to the conventional didactic lecture in pharmacology education,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN '11), Barcelona, Spain, July 2011.
  30. L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, and B. S. Bloom, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, 2001.
  31. A. Amer, “Reflections on bloom's revised taxonomy,” Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 213–230, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  32. J. Biggs and C. Tang, “Designing intended learning outcomes,” in Teaching for Quality Learning at University, pp. 113–133, Open University Press (McGraw-Hill Education), Berkshire, UK, 4th edition, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  33. T. Bhattacharyya, B. Bhattacharya, and T. Mitra, “Impact of SOLO taxonomy in computer aided instruction to qualitative outcome of learning for secondary school children,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 4th International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E '12), pp. 54–59, IEEE, Hyderabad, India, July 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. P. Shea, M. Gozza-Cohen, S. Uzuner et al., “The community of inquiry framework meets the SOLO taxonomy: a process-product model of online learning,” Educational Media International, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 101–113, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. Karaksha, G. Grant, A. Davey, S. Anoopkumar-Dukie, and S. Nirthanan, “Educational benefit of an embedded animation used as supplement to didactic lectures in nursing pharmacology courses,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED '13), Valencia, Spain, 2013.
  36. “Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [computer program],” 2006.
  37. I. Padiotis and T. A. Mikropoulos, “Using Solo to evaluate an educational virtual environment in a technology education setting,” Educational Technology and Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 233–245, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. L. J. Ausburn, J. Martens, A. Washington, D. Steele, and E. Washburn, “A cross-case analysis of gender issues in desktop virtual Reality learning environments,” Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 51–89, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  39. R. D. Johnson, “Gender differences in e-learning: communication, social presence, and learning outcomes,” Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 79–94, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. T. Willey, S. Edwards, and V. Gondhalekar, “Predictors of performance in an online financial management simulation,” Journal of Business Case Studies, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 35–42, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  41. G. Sonnert and M. F. Fox, “Women, men, and academic performance in science and engineering: the gender difference in undergraduate grade point averages,” Journal of Higher Education, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 73–101, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. A. Karaksha, G. Grant, S. Anoopkumar-Dukie, S. N. Nirthanan, and A. K. Davey, “Student engagement in pharmacology courses using online learning tools,” The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 77, no. 6, article 125, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. G. L. Nieder, N. J. Borges, and J. C. Pearson, “Medical student use of online lectures: exam performance, learning styles, achievement motivation and gender,” The Journal of the International Association of Medical Science Educators, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 222–228, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. L. Norton, “Assessing students learning,” in A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S. Marshall, Eds., pp. 132–149, Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 2009. View at Google Scholar