IVIMEDS: a short report on an evaluation of the cardiovascular system learning module

Abstract

Background: On-line learning technology can be used to present curricular material in a variety of formats to stimulate and support student learning in both content and potentially skills-based areas in medicine. In 2005, second-year medical students at the University of Queensland evaluated the IVIMEDS’ cardiovascular module, and were given access to all learning objects in the module.

Aim: The study aimed to determine the value to students of the IVIMEDS’ Cardio-vascular System (CVS) module compared with existing CVS learning resources.

Method: Research and control groups (n = 50 respectively) completed a 16-item questionnaire relating either to the IVIMEDS’ CVS module or to the existing CVS resources. Responses were analysed for common themes, and the performance of the control and research groups on the mid-year summative assessment results was compared.

Results: Thirty-five students in the research group completed the IVIMEDS evaluation. Thirty-one-percent had difficulty learning to navigate the software, and 17% felt that they would have derived greater benefit with prior training. Students in the research group scored significantly higher on one question in the summative assessment than did students in the control group (F(66) = 2.1, p < 0.5). Qualitative data suggest that for students to fully accept the IVIMEDS’ material, it will be essential to ensure that students are fully aware of its place in the medical program so they are confident that by using it, they will be able to achieve the set learning objectives.

Conclusions: The students appreciated the potential of the IVIMEDS’ cardiovascular module, but a full evaluation of the package would require that the module be presented at an appropriate time using an easily navigable system, after training in use of the software package.

Notes

Notes

¹ As a consequence, a number of students gave written comments, but felt unable to give anything but a ‘neutral’ score for the module, or felt they could not comment at all.

1. As a consequence, a number of students gave written comments, but felt unable to give anything but a ‘neutral’ score for the module, or felt they could not comment at all.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patricia Régo

PATRICIA Régo BA, MHSc, PGDipAssessEval is the Evaluation Officer in the Centre for Medical Education at The University of Queensland and a PhD candidate in medical education. She has a special interest in medical students’ acquisition of and competence in clinical skills.

Ieva Ozolins

DR IEVA OZOLINS was the former Head of the Years 1 & 2 MBBS Program, University of Queensland, and works in general practice in Ferny Grove, Brisbane. Her interests are in workforce planning, particularly the social and educational influences on career choice, and in the development of clinical reasoning by medical students.