Korean journal of medical education

The Korean Society of Medical Education (한국의학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improving a newly adapted teaching and learning approach: Collaborative Learning Cases using an action research

  • Lee, Shuh Shing (Centre for Medical Education, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore) ;
  • Hooi, Shing Chuan (Department of Physiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore) ;
  • Pan, Terry (Department of Anaesthesiology, National University Health, National University Health System) ;
  • Fong, Chong Hui Ann (Centre for Medical Education, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore) ;
  • Samarasekera, Dujeepa D. (Centre for Medical Education, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore)
  • Received : 2018.09.05
  • Accepted : 2018.10.09
  • Published : 2018.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Although medical curricula are now better structured for integration of biomedical sciences and clinical training, most teaching and learning activities still follow the older teacher-centric discipline-specific formats. A newer pedagogical approach, known as Collaborative Learning Cases (CLCs), was adopted in the medical school to facilitate integration and collaborative learning. Before incorporating CLCs into the curriculum of year 1 students, two pilot runs using the action research method was carried out to improve the design of CLCs. Methods: We employed the four-phase Kemmis and McTaggart's action research spiral in two cycles to improve the design of CLCs. A class of 300 first-year medical students (for both cycles), 11 tutors (first cycle), and 16 tutors (second cycle) were involved in this research. Data was collected using the 5-points Likert scale survey, open-ended questionnaire, and observation. Results: From the data collected, we learned that more effort was required to train the tutors to understand the principles of CLCs and their role in the CLCs sessions. Although action research enables the faculty to improve the design of CLCs, finding the right technology tools to support collaboration and enhance learning during the CLCs remains a challenge. Conclusion: The two cycles of action research was effective in helping us design a better learning environment during the CLCs by clarifying tutors' roles, improving group and time management, and meaningful use of technology.

Keywords

References

  1. Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada. Washington, USA: Science and Health Publications; 1910.
  2. World Health Organization. Reorientation of medical education: guidelines for developing national plans for action. http://apps.searo.who.int/pds_docs/B0086.pdf. Published 1991. Accessed May 11, 2016.
  3. Zou L, King A, Soman S, et al. Medical students' preferences in radiology education a comparison between the Socratic and didactic methods utilizing PowerPoint features in radiology education. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(2):253-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.09.005
  4. World Health Organization. Global health workforce shortage to reach 12.9 million in coming decades. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/health-wor kforce-shortage/en/. Published 2013. Accessed May 11, 2016.
  5. Barrow M, McKimm J, Samarasekera DD. Strategies for planning and designing medical curricula and clinical teaching. South East Asian J Med Educ. 2010;4(1):2-8.
  6. Gwee MC. Problem-based learning: a strategic learning system design for the education of healthcare professionals in the 21st century. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25(5):231-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70067-1
  7. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol. 2006;41(2):75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  8. Kershner R, Mercer N, Warwick P, Staarman JK. Can the interactive whiteboard support young children's collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? Int J Comput Support Collab Learn. 2010;5(4):359-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2
  9. Warwick P, Mercer N, Kershner R, Staarman JK. In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil's learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Comput Educ. 2010;55(1):350-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001
  10. Mueller J, Wood E, Willoughby T, Ross C, Specht J. Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Comput Educ. 2008;51(4):1523-1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
  11. Tondeur J, van Braak J, Valcke M. Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. J Comput Assist Learn. 2007;23(3):197-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00205.x
  12. Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J Res Technol Educ. 2010;42(3):255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  13. Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT, Sadik O, Sendurur E, Sendurur P. Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Comput Educ. 2012;59(2):423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
  14. Kemmis S, McTaggart R. Participatory action research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage; 2000:567-606.
  15. Ozkan S, Koseler R. Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: an empirical investigation. Comput Educ. 2009; 53(4):1285-1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011
  16. Hodgson Y, Benson R, Brack C. Using action research to improve student engagement in a peer-assisted learning programme. Educ Action Res. 2013;21(3):359-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.813399
  17. Belbin RM. Management teams: why they succeed or fail. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann;2004.
  18. Hardiman PT, Pollatsek A, Well AD. Learning to understand the balance beam. Cogn Instr. 1986;3(1):63-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0301_3
  19. Brown A, Campione J. Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: McGilly K, ed. Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press; 1994:229-270.
  20. Yang I. What makes an effective team?: the role of trust (dis)confirmation in team development. Eur Manag J. 2014;32(6):858-869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.04.001
  21. Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63(6):384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
  22. Angeli C, Valanides N. Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. J Comput Assist Learn. 2005;21(4):292-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x
  23. Koehler M, Mishra P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ. 2009;9(1):60-70.
  24. Margerum-Leys J, Marx RW. Teacher knowledge of educational technology: a case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. J Educ Comput Res. 2002;26(4):427-462. https://doi.org/10.2190/JXBR-2G0G-1E4T-7T4M
  25. Niess ML. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach Teach Educ. 2005;21(5):509-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
  26. McCain T. Teaching for tomorrow: teaching content and problem-solving skills. Thousand Oaks, USA: Corwin;2005.