An Instructional Seminar for Online Case-Based Discussions
Jaclyn M. LeBlanc, PharmD,
a,b Maria C. Pruchnicki, PharmD,a Stephanie V. Rohdieck, MSW,a
Anand Khurma MAa and Joseph F. Dasta, MSca
aCollege of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University
bCollege of Pharmacy, University of Oklahoma*
Submitted November 21, 2006; accepted January 21, 2007; published June 15, 2007.
Objective.
discussions.To assess a training seminar developed to prepare pharmacy instructors to facilitate online
Design.
online case-based discussions. A preseminar survey instrument was distributed to potential attendees
and a postseminar survey instrument was given to those who attended the seminar.A 2-part seminar was developed to train faculty members and teaching assistants to facilitate
Assessment.
instructors attended at least 1 session of the seminar and indicated that the didactic and/or application
portions were either ‘‘helpful’’ or ‘‘very helpful.’’ These faculty members and teaching assistants also
completed the postseminar survey instrument and conveyed a significant increase in level of comfort in
their ability to facilitate online case-based discussions (
barriers to online teaching remained consistent despite training or teaching experience.Twenty (91%) instructors completed the preseminar survey instrument. Eleven of thesep50.004). The 3 most frequently perceived
Conclusions.
comfort level in their ability to teach online increased. Further study of the impact of faculty
development programs on teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction with online pharmacy education
is warranted.After attending a training seminar and/or facilitating an online case discussion, participants’
Keywords:distance education, Internet, educational technology, faculty development
INTRODUCTION
Distance education and online-learning, collectively
known as ‘‘e-learning,’’ are becoming increasingly used
in higher education. In 2005, over 64,000 Ohio students
were reported to have enrolled in an e-learning course.1
Nationally, online enrollment increased to 3.2 million
students from 2.3 million in 2004, and the majority of
higher education institutions offering face-to-face undergraduate
and/or graduate courses also offered courses
online.
as part of their long-term education strategy, and penetration
of online courses in health science professions
approximates that of programs in business, computer
and information sciences, and education.2 Sixty percent of institutions identified e-learning2
E-learning can broadly include courses delivered in
a variety of formats, including all online (
with no face-to-face interactions), blended/hybrid
(30%-79% online with some face-to-face activities), and
Web-facilitated (1%-29% online, usually to organize or
supplement activities in a face-to-face class).
technologies include an array of tools, including course
management systems, internal Web pages, and methods
to deliver content through media and unidirectional conferencing.
However, the introduction of Internet-based
conferencing software in 1997 heralded a new generation
of online education in which participants are part of a
social learning community. Identified as one of the key
‘‘near-horizon’’ trends in teaching and learning, contemporary
desktop conferencing systems allow synchronous
(real-time) class interactions without the limitations of
physical space and geographic distance.$80% online,2 Educational3
Since many instructors began their teaching careers
before educational technologies were widely available, or
have been unable or unwilling to participate in online
education regardless of experience, barriers related to
competence in the area of online facilitation are likely
to exist. Recent review articles have evaluated the status
Corresponding author:
West 12th Ave. Columbus, OH 43210-1291. Tel: 614-292-
1363. Fax: 614-292-1335. E-mail: pruchnicki.1@osu.edu
*Dr. LeBlanc’s current affiliation. At the time the project was
undertaken, Dr. LeBlanc was a Critical Care Pharmacy
Research Fellow and Graduate Teaching Fellow with The
Ohio State University.Maria C. Pruchnicki. Address: 500
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
1
of e-learning in health sciences (medical, dental, and
nursing) education.
instructional technique/pedagogy were cited as factors
influencing students’ satisfactionwith e-learning. Furthermore,
individual faculty members’ facility with educational
technology, including computer skills and software, are
clearly associated with perceptions of learners’ satisfaction.4-6 In these, both interactivity and
5
with interactive online continuing education
(CE) programs compared to face-to-face CE programs
found that the ‘‘social comfort’’ of participants and the
facilitators’ skills to create an active and encouraging
classroom were 2 of 3 main themes elicited from the
participant perspective (the third being the educational
value of program).
healthcare field most experienced in distance education
practices, focus groups and surveys from the educator
perspective have identified faculty development and online
training as key requirements for effective e-learning.A 2004 report describing Canadian physicians’ experience7 In nursing, which is arguably the8,9
Defining (or redefining) the faculty role, acquiring
technology skills, and faculty mentoring were included
in their top-ranked training needs.
Although similar studies identifying students’ and/or
instructors’ perceptions and needs in pharmacy education
have not been published, both a 2003 American Association
of Colleges of Pharmacy White Paper entitled
‘‘Assuring Excellence in Distance Pharmaceutical
Education’’ and the newest accreditation standards for
doctor of pharmacy education, released in February
2006 by the Accreditation Council on Pharmacy Education,
highlight the necessity of faculty training in distance
learning methods.
members should receive training in educational technologies
available at their institution, technical assistance,
exposure to so-called ‘‘best practices’’ in e-learning, peer
mentoring, and strategies to improve the social and interpersonal
dimensions in a distance environment.10,11 At a minimum, individual faculty11,12
Additional supports could include recognition of faculty
members for participation and innovation in online teaching,
as well as institutional support for e-learning as an
area of research and scholarship.11
At The Ohio State University (OSU) College of
Pharmacy, we have offered an online Non-Traditional
PharmD (NTPD) program since 2000, to provide a means
for baccalaureate-level pharmacists (those with a bachelor
of science degree in pharmacy) to earn their terminal degree
on a part-time basis. Our NTPD program includes
42 credits hours of online didactic course work, including
drug information, pharmacokinetics, and a 6 trimester
pathophysiology and therapeutics sequence. Technological
innovations, particularly the use of Web-conferencing
software as a ‘‘virtual’’ classroom, have been used to
support faculty-student and student-student interactions.
Courses typically meet biweekly in the online classroom
to review problem-based learning exercises and case discussions.
Although 2 to 3 core faculty members serve as
primary coordinators of NTPD courses each year, an ad
hoc committee assigned to review the program at its
5 year anniversary identified a need to increase NTPD
student interactions with non-NTPD faculty members,
practitioners, and ‘‘content experts’’ for various therapeutic
areas. Subsequently, many of the guest instructors
recruited for online workshops are novices in online
teaching, while others may participate only once or twice
per year. The purpose of this research was to assess a training
seminar developed to prepare pharmacy instructors
to facilitate online discussions, including the impact of
training on teachers’ comfort level with the technology
and discussion techniques.
DESIGN
A training seminar was developed to prepare College
of Pharmacy instructors, consisting of both faculty
members and postgraduate teaching assistants, to facilitate
case-based discussions in an online format. These
workshops were conducted via Elluminate Live! eLearning
Platform (Elluminate, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, www.
elluminate.com) a commercial desktopWeb-conferencing
software equipped with 2-way audio, chat, shared whiteboards,
presentation capabilities, breakout rooms, a built-in
graphing calculator, and application sharing. Preseminar
and postseminar survey instruments were developed to
collect data for assessing the impact of the seminar. The
primary outcome measuredwas change in the comfort level
of instructors to facilitate an online case-based discussion.
The survey instruments also explored perceived challenges/
fears of online facilitation, comfort with the discussion
structure and technical aspects of the online classroom,
and perceptions after facilitating a case discussion.
The training seminar was developed as a project with
the Ohio State Teaching Enhancement Programs
(OSTEP) Graduate Teaching Fellows Program, which is
administrated through the Department of Faculty and
Teaching Assistant Development (FTAD) at OSU. The
main objective of the seminar was to enable pharmacy
practice residents, postgraduate fellows, and College faculty
members to effectively facilitate an online casebased
discussion. The training seminar was hosted on
campus and designed in 2 parts. Appendix 1 shows an
outline of each part of the seminar, which incorporated
the overall topic points of technology demonstration and
tools, ‘‘pearls’’ for facilitating an online workshop, planning
for an online workshop, keeping students engaged,
identifying online resources, and benefits/challenges to
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
2
teaching in an online environment. These components
were identified and designed by 2 pharmacy faculty members
and 2 educational consultants with experience in distance
education. FTAD consultants serving as mentors
and other participants in theOSTEP programalso reviewed
the content of the seminar and provided suggestions.
A baseline (preseminar) survey instrument was developed
to collect data from participants, including information
on demographics, prior teaching and distance
education experiences, perceptions of previous online
teaching experiences, comfort levels with technical and
communication aspects of the Elluminate classroom, and
fears of teaching online. A follow-up survey (‘‘postsurvey’’)
was created to evaluate satisfaction with the individual
seminar components (including suggestions for
improvement), perceptions of post-seminar online facilitation
experience, comfort levels with technical and communication
aspects of the Elluminate classroom software,
and comfort level in teaching online. The survey instrument
consisted of open answer, multiple choice, and
Likert-type questions. Both surveys were evaluated for
face validity, then uploaded to Zoomerang (Market Tools,
Inc, San Francisco, Calif, www.zoomerang.com), an online
survey web site, and pilot-tested by 3 pharmacists and
2 educational consultants. Minor revisions were made to
the questions online before the survey instruments were
made available to study participants.
After InstitutionalReviewBoard approval, invitations
to complete the preseminar survey instrument were
e-mailed to all instructors within the College of Pharmacy
who would potentially be facilitating an online case-based
discussion for the NTPD program during the 2005-2006
year. The invitations included a description of the purpose
of the survey as well as a web link to Zoomerang where
the survey instrument could be completed. Posters were
used to advertise the seminar and personal invitations
were distributed via the College of Pharmacy e-mail lists.
Postseminar survey invitations were e-mailed to faculty
members and teaching assistants who had attended at least
1 of the 2 seminar sessions and had subsequently facilitated
an online discussion. An invitation was sent 1 to
2 weeks after their online teaching experience, which occurred
throughout the academic year (September through
June). If participants taught more than one session during
the year, the postseminar survey instrument was sent after
the session closest in time to the seminar.
Responses from the online survey instrument were
downloaded into Microsoft Excel. Data analysis was completed
both via Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 14.0
(SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). Descriptive statistics were used
in the analysis where appropriate. Differences in preseminar
and postseminar survey data, including the primary
outcome measure in change of comfort level in teaching
online, were compared using the paired student
continuous data. A student’s
means fromgroups, and theWilcoxon signed rank test was
used for Likert scale data. All statistical tests were 2-tailed
tests, and thet test fort test was used to comparep value was established at 0.05 a priori.
ASSESSMENT
Twenty-two instructors received the preseminar survey
instrument, with a 91% (n
1 demonstrates the breakdown of the respondents with
regard to previous online teaching experience and attendance
at the seminar. Those who responded were pharmacy
practice residents (n
regular faculty members (n
(n
teaching experience: no teaching experience (n
year (n
(n
case discussions in a ‘‘traditional’’ or on-campus
classroom, while only 8 (40%) had previously facilitated
an online case discussion using Web-conferencing technology.
Of the 12 respondents who had never facilitated
an online case discussion, 50% had little or no prior teaching
experience (either no experience, n
1 year, n
experience (3-5 years, n
years, n
The 12 novice online instructors (those who had
never facilitated an online discussion) were asked what
they anticipated would be different about teaching or
facilitating classes online as opposed to traditional teaching.
Common responses included missing visual cues
and/or not being able to see the students, getting used to
the technology, and multitasking within the software520) response rate. Figure56), research fellows (n52),59), or adjunct faculty members5 3). Overall, respondents represented a range of5 4), ,152), 1-2 years (n52), 3-5 years (n53), 6-10 years5 3), and .10 years (n 5 6). Fifteen (75%) had facilitated5 3; or less than5 3), while the others had variable levels of5 1; 6-10 years, n 5 2; or .105 3, teaching experience).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of Pre- and Post-survey
Respondents
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
3
features of the online classroom. Respondents indicated
there were multiple issues they desired to learn from those
who had taught in this format previously including how to
manage the technology, interact with/engage the students,
control disruptive behavior, and prepare and use various
formats for the discussion. Figure 2 rates respondents’
concerns about teaching in an online environment.
Of those seminar participants who had the opportunity
to teach an online class after the seminar took place
(n
only the first session, and 1 attended only the second
session. One teaching assistant attended only the first
session of the seminar, but did not have the opportunity
to complete his online teaching session before the end of
the academic year. Of the 10 individuals who taught an
online case discussion after the seminar, 6 were novices
and 4 had taught at least 1 online case discussion.
The 11 respondents indicated that the didactic portion
of the seminar was either ‘‘helpful’’ (n
(n
was reported as being either ‘‘helpful’’ (n
‘‘very helpful’’ (n
respondents did not attend the application portion of the
seminar and gave no response to this question. Things that
participants liked about the seminar were the numerous
examples shared about constructing a facilitation session,
sharing of experiences from experienced faculty members,
and having hands-on training. Recommendations
for improvement included: increasing the time allotted
for the seminar overall and spending more time on the
application portion. The respondents’ perceived values
of individual session topics are shown in Figure 3.5 10), 6 attended both seminar sessions, 3 attended55) or ‘‘very helpful’’56). Similarly, the application portion of the seminar5 3) or5 5); 3 of the postseminar survey
Comparison of Preseminar
and Postseminar Responses
For the 11 postseminar survey respondents, the overall
level of comfort (assessed on a scale of ‘‘very
uncomfortable,’’ ‘‘uncomfortable,’’ ‘‘somewhat uncomfortable,’’
‘‘comfortable,’’ to ‘‘very comfortable’’) in
their ability to teach in an online case-based discussion
increased significantly (
ranks test) (Figure 4). There were no selections of ‘‘very
uncomfortable’’ and ‘‘uncomfortable’’ by respondents after
they attended the seminar. For the 6 novices, the level
of comfort preseminar and prior to teaching was very
uncomfortable (n
uncomfortable (n
increased after attending the seminar and/or teaching,
with 1 reporting improvement to ‘‘somewhat uncomfortable’’
and 5 reporting an improvement to ‘‘comfortable.’’
This group had a median (range) change of
as compared to the 4 individuals who had taught before
who had a median change of
scale.
Comfort levels with both the technical and teaching
aspects of the Elluminate classroom all significantly improved
postseminar, with the exception of teaching students
with a different first language/cultural background
(Table 1). Based on preseminar and postseminar survey
instruments, the 3 most frequently perceived barriers by
the faculty members and teaching assistants remained
consistent despite training or teaching experience: lack
of feeling ‘‘connected’’ to the students, multitasking with
the technology, and students not answering questions.
After the online class, 9 (56%) instructors had studentsp 5 0.004, Wilcoxon signed54), uncomfortable (n51), and somewhat51). All of the individuals’ scores13 (1-3),11 (0-1) level on the Likert
Figure 2. Respondents’ rating of concerns about teaching online. Respondents who had not taught in an online case-based format
(n
on a scale of 1
minimum, maximum and median scores are presented above.5 12) were asked in the pre-survey to rate their concerns about various aspects of the teaching environment. Fears were rated5 very concerned, 2 5 moderately concerned, 3 5 mildly concerned, 4 5 neutral, 5 5 not concerned, and the
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
4
contact them for the purposes of contesting grades,
clarification of and follow-up on issues brought up during
the discussion, and obtaining information on supplemental
materials.
Online Teaching Experiences
Overall perceptions of online teaching experiences
were explored from the 8 experienced instructors in the
preseminar survey and the 6 novices in the postseminar
survey. Six of the experienced instructors felt that their
prior expectations of the experiencewere realistic,while
2 did not. Of the latter, 1 described the experience to be
more enjoyable than anticipated, while the other was
surprised by the ‘‘nonthreatening environment’’ and
user-friendly technology. From the postseminar survey,
of the 6 respondents who had recently experienced their
first online teaching experience postseminar, only 2 felt
their expectations were not met. One perceived the
teaching to be more interactive than he or she had previously
thought, while the other felt the experience was
‘‘better than anticipated.’’ Two others expressed that
their expectations had been met, but they had somewhat
negative comments about their first online teaching experience,
including feeling itwas odd speaking to a computer
and it was difficult getting students to participate in
the session.
Survey respondents were asked to give impressions of
the most recent online case discussion they had actually
facilitated, focusing on what went well and what did not.
The 8 instructors who had previously taught online most
frequently indicated that students participated extensively
in the session, they were able to have a good discussion,
and the students seemed engaged in the
discussion. The novice instructors indicated they had no
problems with the technology, they were able to have
a good discussion, and they were comfortable with the
content material. Interestingly, both the experienced and
Figure 3. Perceived value of individual seminar components. Respondents who attended the seminar (n
the various components of the seminar sessions; only 10 persons responded to the specific topic of ‘‘identifying online
resources’’. Sessions were rated on a scale of 1
5
Figure 4. Level of comfort with teaching online pre- and
post training (n
seminar were asked to rate their level of comfort with
teaching in this type of environment both pre and post
training;
was rated on a scale of 1
3
55 11) were asked to rate5 not helpful, 2 5 a little bit helpful, 3 5 somewhat helpful, 4 5 helpful,5 very helpful.5 11). Respondents who had attended thep 5 0.004 (Wilcoxon signed rank test). Comfort5 very uncomfortable, 2 5 uncomfortable,5 somewhat comfortable, 4 5 comfortable,5 very comfortable.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
5
novice participants described that their main difficulty
was that they were unable to gauge the students’ reactions
because they could not see facial expressions. Openended
comments soliciting technology problems or teaching
strategies that ‘‘did not go well’’ included having
difficulty working within the time allotted, trouble using
the computer microphone, and having only a few students
participate in the discussion. Preparation time, including
review of content, technical training, and development of
timeline and questions for discussion, was similar for both
novice and experienced instructors, at 4.0
5.063.0 hours and6 2.4 hours, respectively (p 5 0.51, independent
t
in the Elluminate classroom prior to the seminar
(n
anticipated (
felt that the discussion during the case workshop was
good (n
advice that experienced faculty members and teaching
assistants offered for ‘‘first timers’’ to consider before
they facilitate an online case discussion included: learn
how to use the technology, practice with the technology
before the workshop, have a class roster and class pictures
available, learn how to engage non-participating students,
and use the students as a resource for answering each
others’ questions.test). Those who had not facilitated a case-based discussion5 6) spent just 0.3 6 0.2 hours more than they hadp50.67, paired samples t test). The respondents55), very good (n57), or excellent (n52).Common
DISCUSSION
Many educators advocate training for all faculty
members to develop their skills as teachers in distance
education environments.
and implemented at our institution to prepare residential
instructors to teach in distance education courses. Findings
from the assessment were positive, as both novice
and experienced instructors had an increased overall level
of comfort after the seminar and/or teaching in the online
environment at least once. All components of the training
seminar were considered at least ‘‘somewhat helpful’’ in
preparing participants to teach online.
For the respondents who had not previously taught in
an online environment, one of the biggest apprehensions
was not being able to use the technology. This issue is
frequently identified, as a previous survey of 81 distance
learning instructors indicated that 41%had issues with their
own competency, and many indicated they had concerns
related to technology reliability (80%) and support
(58%).
participants’ comfort levelwith using educational technology
and improve the outcomes related to using software
tools in the Elluminate classroom, and both of these goals
were accomplished. For the 6 respondentswho attended the
seminar and taught their first online case discussion, only
1 indicated he/she a difficult time using the technology.
From the survey by Perreault et al, fostering communication
with the students was also found to be a main
concern among distance educators.
were also uneasy about their students not participating
in the session and finding methods to foster communication
between students. The seminar included instruction
on the various aspects of facilitating an online case discussion,
and the comfort levels with these topics increased
postseminar. Strategies for increasing student13 Thus, a seminar was designed14 This seminarwas specificallydesigned to increase14 Our instructors
Table 1. Pharmacy Instructors’ Median Comfort Level* With Aspects of Elluminate Live! Classroom
Aspect Preseminar Score Postseminar Score
Technical Aspects
Polling function
Instant text message function
Power point slides
Microphone
White board
Calling on a student
Multitask with the interface
Teaching Aspects
Encouraging student participation in an online environment
Teaching students with a different first language/cultural background 2 4
Lack of feeling ‘‘connected’’ to the students
Teaching students that may have extensive clinical knowledgez 2 4z 2 4z 4 5z 3 5z 2 3y 2 4z 2 4z 3 4y 2 3y 3 4
*Rating Scale: 1 5 very uncomfortable, 5 5 very comfortable
yp#0.01 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test)
zp#0.05 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test)
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
6
participation in the online classroom were specifically
discussed during training, leading to a significant increase
in the comfort levels of participants. Another barrier identified
in the preseminar survey was not being able to gauge
students’ reactions because they were unable to see students’
facial expressions. This was also cited as an ongoing
issue for postseminar survey respondents who had
facilitated at least 1 online case discussion. Participants
stated they would miss visual cues from students regarding
understanding of the material being taught. This barrier
has been identified by other researchers, and Bower
suggested that the lack of interpersonal contact is difficult
as most faculty members are trained as ‘‘hand to hand’’
teachers, observing their students to gauge their understanding.
15
difficult for some faculty members and may require them
to restructure interpersonal relationships with students
when teaching from a distance.
a limitation with the technology and practices adopted by
OSU, there was discussion during the seminar to help
prepare instructors and prospectively identify the impact
upon the session facilitator. Strategies for encouraging
student participation were discussed and more experienced
faculty members shared their perceptions and
pearls to enhance student interactions. According to the
postseminar survey, instructors perceived the overall
quality of student discussions during online teaching session
as very good, despite the lack of a visual connection.
In the future, incorporation of video conferencing technology
into Web-conference ‘‘classrooms’’ whereby
instructors and students can view each other may help
instructors in overcoming this perceived barrier.
When examining those dimensions that faculty members
identified as having gone well during their online
case discussions, it was interesting that experienced faculty
members and teaching assistants cited issues related
to communication, whereas novices related issues primarily
about technology and content. This may suggest that
the experienced teachers were already comfortable with
the technology and able to focus on higher-level interactivity
skills, including communication. This group also
had more teaching experience overall, and thus may have
been more comfortable with teaching in general.
Overall, the participants’ assessment of the seminar
and the individual components was positive. Improvements
have been made in subsequent offerings to increase
the amount of time spent in the application portion of the
seminar and to allow multiple attendees to practice being
designated as the facilitator of the discussion. The first
participants had commented on technical problems with
the wireless laptops that were used for the session, and
these issues have since been resolved. Quality benchmarks
for excellence in distance education have been developed
by the Institute for Higher Education Policy,
which include that faculty members be trained in pertinent
technologies.
in many formats. Other institutions have utilized informal
and formal presentations; part-day, full-day, and multiday
workshops; and both didactic and application-based
presentations.
the most effective in educating distance education faculty
members, group workshops are another alternative and
give attendees an opportunity for sharing ideas.The inability to interact at this level can be15 Although this remains12 Faculty training could be structured16-20 Although one-on-one training may be21
For our seminar, we had multiple-group interactive discussions
and a group activity specifically using the
Elluminate classroom technology. Our seminar included
techniques for encouraging student participation, technology
and its impact on the student, availability of support
services, practical tips, varying the instructional mix, and
a ‘‘behind the scenes look at [the] student perspective.’’21
Due to time constraints at our institution, we opted for a
2-part seminar for a total of 3 hours contact time.
Comfort levels in the ability to teach online increased
significantly after the seminar and teaching an online
class. It was interesting that the barriers perceived by
respondents about teaching online did not change from
the preseminar to postseminar survey period, despite increased
comfort in their ability to teach. This suggests that
exposure to and practicing with the technology in a ‘‘safe’’
environment prior to teaching are important in preparing
faculty members to teach online, despite anticipated or
actual limitations associated with educational technology.
Although not tested, we also believe an increase in comfort
level allows instructors to enjoy the experience more,
and may increase their willingness to participate in other
distance-teaching opportunities. This theory is supported
by recent work by Lee and Busch who demonstrated that
instructors’ willingness to teach in an online course was
correlated to having received training that prepared them
to teach in the specialized environment (r
being comfortable in their ability (r5 0.39) and5 0.69).22
Although some individuals were already comfortable
with Web-conferencing by virtue of prior experience in
other venues, the increase in comfort levels for all of the
technical aspects associated with the online classroom
were significant. Furthermore, comfort increased in all
aspects of teaching, with only the ‘‘teaching of students
with different first language/cultural background’’ not
reaching statistical significance. This may have been the
result of having prior experience with culturally diverse
students in our entry-level PharmD program. Overall,
these results suggest that the aim of the seminar in increasing
the comfort of the attendees with these aspects
of the online classroom was successful.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
7
Although we attempted to assess the impact of the
seminar on individuals’ comfort level in teaching online,
we did not assess the impact on teaching effectiveness
from either the instructor or student point of view. This
type of educational assessment is difficult given the
multiple confounders inherent in this type of research;
however, it should be explored as distance education
pathways in pharmacy education continue to expand.
CONCLUSION
This study describes the positive impact that a training
seminar and/or online teaching experience has
on instructors’ comfort level in their ability to teach in
a distance education environment. Consisting of both
didactic and online experiential foundations, the individual
seminar components were viewed positively by
attendees. As distance education initiatives and opportunities
to participate in this mode expand, institutions
must ensure that instructional staff members are adequately
trained in newer media and up-to-date technologies,
as well as the appropriate teaching strategies to
facilitate student interaction and support learning in this
unique environment. Further study of the impact of faculty
development programs on teaching effectiveness
and student satisfaction in online pharmacy education
is warranted.
REFERENCES
1. The Ohio Learning Network. Expanding Delivery: e-Learning in
Ohio. Annual Report of the Ohio Learning Network. Columbus, OH:
Ohio Learning Network; 2006. Available at: www.oln.org/about_oln/
pdf/Expanding_Delivery.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2007.
2. The Sloan Consortium (2006). Making the grade: online education
in the United States. Available at: http://www.sloan-c.org/
publications/survey/index.asp. Accessed March 15, 2007.
3. The 2006 horizon report. In:
Calif: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative; 2006.
4. Chulmley-Jones H, Dobbie A, Alford C. Web-based learning:
sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation
literature.
5. Murray T, Belgrave L, Robinson V. Nursing faculty members
competence of web-based course development systems directly
influences students’ satisfaction.The New Media Consortium. Stanford,Acad Med. 2002;77:S86-93.Assoc Black Nurs Faculty J.
2006;17:100-2.
6. Ruiz J, Mintzer M, Leipzig R. The impact of e-learning in medical
education.
7. Sargeant J, Curran V, Jarvis-Selinger S, et al. Interactive on-line
continuing medical education: Physicians’ perceptions and
experiences.
8. Ali N, Hodson-Carlton K, Ryan M, Flowers J, Rose M, Wayda V.
Online education: Needs assessment for faculty development.Acad Med. 2006;81:207-12.J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24:227-36.
J Contin Educ Nurs.
9. Ryan M, Carlton K, Ali N. Reflections on the role of faculty in
distance learning and changing pedagogies.2005;36:32-8.Nurs Educ Perspect.
2004;25:73-80.
10. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation
Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy
Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree. Chicago, Ill:
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education; 2006. Available at:
http://www.acpe-accredit.org/deans/standards.asp. Accessed
October 20, 2006.
11. Hunter T, Deziel-Evans L, Marsh W. Assuring excellence in
distance pharmaceutical education.
12. Institute for Higher Education Policy (2006). Quality on the line:
Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education.
Available at: www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf. Accessed:
January 11, 2007.
13. Milheim W. Faculty and administrative strategies for the effective
implementation of distance education.Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67:1-25.Br J Educ Technol.
2001;32:535-42.
14. Perreault H, Waldman L, Alexander M, Zhao J. Overcoming
barriers to successful delivery of distance-learning courses.
Business.
15. Bower B. Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge.
Available at: www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer42/
bower42.html. Accessed: January 11, 2007.
16. Auh Y. Developing online instructors requires more than
workshops.
17. Rinear K. ‘‘Quick-start’’ Training puts instructors online
fast.
18. Barber Parker E, Riza L, Tierney S, Barrett A. Interdisciplinary
collaboration: An effective approach for developing web-based
courses.
19. Baldwin C, Niebuhr V, Sullivan B. Meeting the computer
technology needs of community faculty: building new models for
faculty development.
20. Kidney G. When the cows come home: A proven path of
professional development for faculty pursuing e-learning.
Journal.
21. Clay M. Development of training and support programs for
distance education instructors. Available at: http://www.westga.edu/J Educ2002;77:313-8.Distance Educ Rep. 2004;8:4-7.Distance Educ Rep. 2003;7:1-3.Comput Inform Nurs. 2005;23:308-13.Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4:113-6.THE2004;31:12-20.
;
22. Lee J, Busch P. Factors related to instructors’ willingness to
participate in distance education.distance/clay23.html. Accessed January 11, 2007.J Educ Res. 2005;99:109-15.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
8
Appendix 1. Outline of Seminar Series
1st session: (1 hour)
sTechnology Demonstration and Tools
jintroduction to technology (a 5 minute taped piece of an online workshop)
sFacilitating an Online Workshop
jdiscussion of who has/hasn’t taught in this format
jgoals of teaching in this format
sKeeping Students Engaged
jwho these students are and differences in:
dlearning style
dmotivation
dlife
dclinical experiences
sBenefits/Challenges
jBenefits/Challenges to this format (interactive group discussion)
sIdentifying Online Resources
j
2nd session: (2 hours)discussion of resources available online with a prepared handout for reference
sTechnology Demonstration and Tools
joverview of the technology (by the Education Technology Manager)
sFacilitating an Online Workshop/Keeping Students Engaged/Planning For a Workshop
jpresentation on styles of online case facilitation/discussion
dcase
dcase 1 mini cases
dcase (minimal time) 1 extra discussion
dasynchronous discussions
sPlanning For a Workshop
jplanning activity
dplanning discussion (focusing on content, logistics, and facilitation of the case-discussions)
sgroups of 2-3, with a break out session for 10 minutes
sreturn to main group and discuss
jgrading of assignments (by the Therapeutics Coordinator of NTPD Program)
sTechnology Demonstration and Tools
jtechnology demonstration (using wireless laptops)
dmock case discussion (using hypertension cases)
d
10-15 minutes; everyone brought back to the main classroom to discuss as a large group,
with 1 attendee designated as the Facilitator of the discussionattendees split into break out groups within the online classroom to discuss the case for
sFacilitating an Online Workshop
jcommunication online/etiquette (by the Education Technology Manager)
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education2007; 71 (3) Article 42.
9