From: <abstracts@gsm

AUDITORIUM PRESENTATION

Effects of Utilization of Pharmacology CBT Programs on Performance in Tests

KL Franson, EA Dubois, JMA van Gerven, JH Bolk, AC Cohen

Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT:

Self-study computer programs primarily teach pharmacology and pharmacotherapy at the Leiden University Medical Center. In 2001, we started with the TRC Pharmacology database (http://coo.lumc.nl/TRC): a database program containing information on mechanisms of action of drugs as they pertain to physiology and pathophysiology. The programs contain schematic graphics using a unique icon language, explanation texts and questions with feedback. Nearly each block of the curriculum has a chapter of the TRC database offered for self-study together with self-study assignments in the block. In 2002, a program for practicing writing a therapeutic plan (ITEP: Individual Therapy Evaluation and Plan) was initiated via Blackboard. The students receive information about how to write a plan and can practice with specific cases and receive feedback via model answers. On final exams, students use their knowledge learned from the practice case to either 1) answer questions based on the therapeutic plan or 2) write a follow-up therapeutic plan based on new information presented in the case.

Since using the computer programs is not compulsory, it is interesting to know whether students who do practice with the computer programs do better on the exam questions regarding pharmacotherapy. By comparing the students log-in data of the computer programs and the exam grades, we can determine whether structural studying and practicing on the computer programs leads to good results on the exams. As an example of the data available, we have reviewed the scores of students on the pharmacotherapy portion of their gastroenterology final exam and compared these to 1) their log-in data to the practice case and 2) their participation in a computer practicum set aside for using the TRC database.

Two hundred and sixty-eight students participated in the course and achieved an average score on the final of 3 out of 5. The average amount of log-ins to the practice case before the exam was 33 times and ranged from 0 to 125. As expected for a non-compulsory activity, better students (ones that had achieved a score higher than the average) logged-in to the practice case more frequently than students who scored less than the average on the final pharmacology question. In addition, students who scored below the average score of 3.0 were more likely to log-in during the last week (suggesting cramming). As far as attendance at the computer practicum, it is interesting to note that of the 10 students who received a score of zero or 1, only one had attended the practicum. Otherwise, 86% of the students scoring above average attended the practicum, versus the 73% that scored less. Since the academic year is currently still running, a complete review of our system is not possible. However, a year of results will be available by conference time, and thus, we will be able to present these and our conclusions.

BENEFIT TO PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING SESSION:

Determining the effectiveness of a new teaching intervention is a difficult task. Computers provide us the opportunity to build in backend databases to see if, when and where the students use the teaching intervention for studying. In this presentation we will review our data collected over the current school year for many different courses and attempt to conclude which interventions were most successful.

Kari L. Franson

Centre for Human Drug Research

Zernikedreef 10

2333 CL Leiden

the Netherlands

Phone: +31 71 5246462

Fax: +31 71 5246499

Email: mailto:kfranson@chdr.nl

Phone: +31.71.5246462

Fax: +31.71.5246499

CO-AUTHORS:

Eline Dubois^