Advertisement

Foundational Elements of School-Specific Augmented Medical Education

  • David P. GreenEmail author
Commentary
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Recent efforts to enrich the medical education experience recommended interinstitutional and collaborative efforts. Within this context, the author describes a model for school-specific augmented medical education. The evidence-backed conceptual model is composed of six foundational elements, which include the following: technology-enriched learning environments, analytics to drive instructional interventions, cognitive neuroscience and educational psychology research (the Science of Learning), self-regulated learning strategies, competency-based approaches, and blended learning instructional design. Harnessing the creativity of our leadership, medical educators, and learners is fundamental to improving the learning experience for all. This model could be used to meaningfully guide implementation processes.

Keywords

Medical education Blended learning Educational technologies Cognitive neuroscience Instructional design Faculty development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Melora Sundt, Kenneth Yates, Monique Datta, and Kathy Hanson. Additionally, conversations with Charles Prober aided with streamlining and improving this manuscript. Importantly, the author wishes to thank the Educational Development Office’s Division of Innovations in Medical Education at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine for support and assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Garrison D, Vaughan N. Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garrison D, Vaughan N. Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. Inter High Edu. 2013;18:24–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green DP. A Gap Analysis of Course Directors’ Effective Implementation of Technology-enriched Course Designs: An Innovation Study [dissertation]. Los Angeles, Ca: University of Southern California. 2018. Retrieved from the University of Southern California Digital Library: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll40/id/462270. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  4. 4.
    VanDerLinden K. Blended learning as transformational institutional learning. New Dir High Edu. 2014;165:75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20085.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le TT, Prober CG. A proposal for a shared medical school curricular ecosystem. Acad Med. 2018;93:1125–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002194.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song HS, Kalet AL, Plass JL. Assessing medical students’ self-regulation as aptitude in computer-based learning. Adv Health Sci Edu. 2011;16(1):97–107.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen HC, van den Broek WS, ten Cate O. The case for use of entrustable professional activities in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(4):431–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000586.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, Stoller JK. Just imagine: new paradigms for medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1418–23.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a36a07.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller BM, Moore DE Jr, Stead WW, Balser JR. Beyond Flexner: a new model for continuous learning in the health professions. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):266–72.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c859fb.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1407–10.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a368bd.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Touchie C, Cate O. The promise, perils, problems and progress of competency-based medical education. Med Edu. 2016;50(1):93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12839.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark RE, Estes F. Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. In: Inc; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurtubise L, Hall E, Sheridan L, Han H. The flipped classroom in medical education: engaging students to build competency. J Med Edu Curr Dev. 2015;2:35–43.  https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S23895.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures--a proposal for medical education. NEJM. 2012;366(18):1657–9.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1202451.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aronson ID, Plass JL, Bania T. Optimizing educational video through comparative trials in clinical environments. Edu Tech Res Dev. 2012;60(3):469–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9231-4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010;85(5):909–22.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d6c319.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grunwald T, Corsbie-Massay C. Guidelines for cognitively efficient multimedia learning tools: educational strategies, cognitive load, and interface design. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):213–23.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee JE, Recker M. What do studies of learning analytics reveal about learning and instruction? A systematic literature review. Learn, des, and tech: intl comp theory, res, prac, and pol. 2018;2018:1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_116-1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan T, Sebok-Syer S, Thoma B, Wise A, Sherbino J, Pusic M. Learning analytics in medical education assessment: the past, the present, and the future. AEM Edu and Train. 2018;2(2):178–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10087.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cirigliano MM, Guthrie C, Pusic MV, Cianciolo AT, Lim-Dunham JE, Spickard A III, et al. Yes, and … exploring the future of learning analytics in medical education. Teach and Learn in Med. 2017;29(4):368–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1384731.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kredell M. “CHARIOT begins testing wearable technology”. 2018. Summer. Retrieved October 7, 2018, from: https://www.rossier.usc.edu/magazine/ss2018/chariot-begins-testing-wearable-technology/. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  22. 22.
    Immordino-Yang MH, Christodoulou JA, Singh V. Rest is not idleness: Implications of the brain's default mode for human development and education Perspec on. Psy Sci: Assoc for Psy Sci. 2012;7(4):352–64.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447308.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taub M, Azevedo R, Bouchet F, Khosravifar B. Can the use of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments. Comp Edu. 2014;39(October):356–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.018.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, Al-Hashimi O, Faraji F, Janowich J, et al. Video game multitasking training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature. 2013;501(September):97–101.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12486.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berman NB, Fall LH, Maloney CG, Levine DA. Computer-assisted instruction in clinical education: a roadmap to increasing CAI implementation. Adv in Health Sci Edu. 2008;13(3):373–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9041-3.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Edu. 2010;44(6):543–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03624.x.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dembo MH, Seli H. Academic self-regulation. In: Dembo MH, Seli H, editors. Motivation and learning strategies for college success: a focus on self-regulated learning. 5th ed. New York, N.Y: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, Inc; 2016. p. 3–27.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zimmerman BJ. Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Edu Psy. 1998;33(2):73–86.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pettepher CC, Lomis KD, Osheroff N. From theory to practice: utilizing competency-based milestones to assess professional growth and development in the foundational science blocks of a pre-clerkship medical school curriculum. Med Sci Edu. 2016;26(3):491–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0262-7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Englander R, Cameron T, Ballard AJ, Dodge J, Bull J, Aschenbrener CA. Toward a common taxonomy of competency-based domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88(8):1088–94.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829a3b2b.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hawkins RE, Welcher CM, Holmboe ES, Kirk LM, Norcini JJ, Simons KB, et al. Implementation of competency-based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges? Med Edu. 2015;49(11):1086–102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12831.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levine MF, Shorten G. Competency-based medical education: its time has arrived. Can J Anes. 2016;63(7):802–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-016-0638-6.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Green DP. Next generation medical education: facilitating student-centered learning environments. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Brief. 2016; 1–6. Retrieved from: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/3/next-generation-medical-education. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  35. 35.
    Morton CE, Saleh SN, Smith SF, Hemani A, Ameen A, Bennie TD, et al. Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement? BMC Med Edu. 2016;16(1):195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Connor EE, Fried J, McNulty N, Shah P, Hogg JP, Lewis P, et al. Flipping radiology education right side up. Acad Rad. 2016;23(7):810–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.011.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wood ML, Forgie SE. A first step to blended delivery: introducing an online component to an infectious diseases course using a photography-based social media platform. Med Sci Edu. 2015;25(2):101–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0103-0.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kalet AL, Song HS, Sarpel U, Schwartz R, Brenner J, Ark TK, et al. Just enough, but not too much interactivity leads to better clinical skills performance after a computer assisted learning module. Med Tea. 2012;34(10):833–9.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.706727.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song SH, Pusic M, Nick MW, Sarpel U, Plass JL, Kalet AL. The cognitive impact of interactive design features for learning complex materials in medical education. Comp Edu. 2014;71(February):198–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.017.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Immordino-Yang MH, Singh V. Perspectives from social and affective neuroscience on the design of digital learning technologies. In: Immordino-Yang MH, editor. Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affective neuroscience. New York, N.Y: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc; 2016. p. 181–90.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eccles J. Expectancy value motivational theory. In: Anderman EM, Anderman LH, editors. Psychology of Classroom Learning, vol. 1. Macmillan Reference USA: Detroit; 2006. p. 390–3. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3027800112&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=usocal_main&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=6ab39823387b6b715067288033f65e7c. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  42. 42.
    Pintrich PR. A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Edu Psy. 2003;95(4):667–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elmore RF. Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. 2002. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achievement. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  44. 44.
    Hentschke GC, Wohlstetter P. Cracking the code of accountability. Univ S Calif Urban Educ. 2004;2004(Spring/Summer):17–9.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Graham CR, Woodfield W, Harrison JB. A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Inter High Edu. 2013;18:4–14.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Porter WW, Graham CR, Bodily RG, Sandberg DS. A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. Inter High Edu. 2016;28:17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Innovations in Medical Education for the Educational Development OfficeUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations