1. Incorporating Virtual Slides into Web-based Learning Modules and Laboratory Exercises Haviva M. Goldman, Ph.D. Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine

2. Introduction Use of histological slides and microscopy in undergraduate medical education –Microanatomy - 1st year –Pathology -2nd year Interdisciplinary Laboratories –Students work in groups –Shared microscopes, monitors, videodisk players

3. Two curricula Traditional (IFM) –Integrated, modular, symptoms-based curriculum –Microanatomy course taught over an 8 month period, integrated with several other courses Problem based (PIL) –Microanatomy taught as part of an anatomy block –3 month intensive period, integrated with case vignettes –Fewer hours of scheduled laboratory sessions

4. Towards Virtual Microscopy Requirements –Web-based; Wireless Access –Flexible and Customizable Ability to tailor slides and annotations towards either curriculum Began digitizing current slide collection (200+ slides) in 2004 –MBF Bioscience Virtual Slice Module for Stereoinvestigator –MBF Bioscience Neuroinformatica server Open Source.jsp/.asp –Server also houses University of Iowa’s (Dr. Fred Dee) collection

5. Integrate into current laboratory manual and website –Dreamweaver –Html and active server pages (ASP)

6. Challenge: Integrate virtual slides into the microanatomy course without losing independent learning component Towards Virtual Microscopy

7. Introducing virtual microscopy: IFM 2005: Two trial labs; work our way backwards Currently 2/3 of the course available as virtual laboratories; Complete next academic year. Microscopes and glass slides still available; Usage encouraged. –scavenger hunts –Exams Organization of laboratory remains the same: –Students work in groups of 5 with instructor available for guidance.

8. The Virtual Microscope

9. The Virtual Microscope Web Interface

10. Virtual Microscope

14. Slide Orientation

15. Gross-anatomy correlates

16. Introduce new imaging modalities

17. Focus Questions

18. Embedded Annotated Review Questions

19. Mystery Slides

20. Results - IFM Overwhelmingly positive student feedback Individual students chose to use the resource in different ways –preview vs. review Performance on exams unchanged

24. “The virtual microscope was amazing. It actually encouraged our group to regularly attend MA labs because we were reassured that we’d have time to get together and pool the resources of the tangible slides, videodisks, virtual microscope, and a professor…It didn’t replace our use of the actual slides, but supplemented and reinforced what we were learning.” “The virtual slides are very nice to learn from, but I feel like there is something sacrificed in the process. I’m not quite sure if it’s what you gain from searching the slide yourself, which has more of a problem solving aspect to it.”

25. Virtual Microscopy in PBL Virtual slides (some annotated/some not) available from the beginning of the course Self-study modules

26. Case-based Microanatomy web page

27. Self-Study Modules

28. Practice Practical Exams

29. Example: Bone Formation Laboratory

30. Results Students overwhelmingly prefer virtual slides But, with virtual slides introduced at the beginning of the course: –Lab attendance dropped –Laboratory groups splintered –“group learning” diminished

31. Need more flexibility –Allow student to choose annotation level (no annotation, hyperlinks, full annotation); rollovers; quiz-mode –Students make their own annotations –Randomize slides for studying Facilitated review sessions rather than facilitated laboratories –Student’s present structures –New, mystery slides –Review quizzes Need more virtual slides –File format issues Future

32. Different solutions for different curricula –For PBL students, integrate microanatomy into their cases –For IFM students, integrate microanatomy with other courses (e.g. physiology, gross anatomy) and preview for 2nd year pathology Encourage use of glass slides? –Scavenger hunts –Examinations include glass slides –FUTURE: checklist/passport on glass slides Future

33. Acknowledgements Collaborators –Dr. Janet Smith, Neurobiology & Anatomy, DUCOM –Dr. Judy Churchill, Neurobiology & Anatomy, DUCOM –Dr. Arnold Smolen, Technology in Medical Education, DUCOM Support –Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Drexel –Drexel Professional Enrichment and Growth Award, 2007-2008 Additional assistance –Drexel Co-op students: Derek Rosensweig, Matt Snyder, Saad Masood –The folks at MBF Bioscience, especially Doug Hoppes