The highlight of doing the CGUT for me has been the interaction with other UND colleagues.

It has added a broader perspective on the challenges of university education, interesting insights and wisdom born of different experiences and a warm feeling of being part of a large, motivated, inspiring  and gifted group  of professionals.

This unit has been no exception. Hence, for me , the opportunity to read others blogs has been a  particularily wonderful part of this unit

I have always held the view that we have much to learn from each other: our neighbours, work colleagues and those from other cultures and countries. 

I have had the good fortune to travel widely: 

I may not like what others eat (eg fried tarantulas in Cambodia) but I do know that we all generally enjoy eating.  It is clear that human beings will always have more in common than not

One of the many ideas that have run through my mind this course has been using blogs/wikis etc for Notre Dame medical students to share their experiences with medical students from an underdeveloped country, such as East Timor or Ghana or India. Sort of like the old pen friend idea: I imagine the exchange of ideas and worlds would enrich understanding and appreciation and promote professional exchange of ideas and needs. Wonderful stuff:

Could it genuinely foster?

1.     Gratitude for the opportunities available to us in Australia

2.     Respect for those from different cultures

3.     Learning from others mistakes, strengths weaknesses, bias and violence

4.     Collaborative problem solving?

Hence I really enjoyed reading through Morgan’s Digital Natives blog.  http://morgannquilty.blogspot.com.au/

She gives a unique perspective, not just from a librarian’s viewpoint, but also from her experiences of on line education in the USA and as a cusp digital native.

I was heartened to read that she is convinced that on-line teaching, despite being well established in parts of the USA, will never completely replace face-to-face teaching. I agree entirely with her view that the social aspects of education are vital.  It fits beautifully with the Catholic understanding of university as a place where the ‘whole person’ is developed.

 A whole education ideally helps individuals develop relationship skills, the ability to work effectively with others, dialogue respectfully, gain an appreciation of every persons unique gifts as well as developing critical thinking and vocational skills.  

The goal must be set to use technology to enhance a whole education not to usurp it

I am grateful to Angela for sharing her discovery of adaptive e learning in her ICT Current Trends Blog.  http://angelaannowens.blogspot.com.au/

The concept is so simple and yet powerful.  Prensky (2003) cites studies that show one to one teaching is most effective for any sort of learning .

Adaptive learning has the potential to be an online version of this.  It aims to allow students to learn at their own pace,  access  instant feedback , and be led through  appropriately increasingly levels of  learning complexity.

I wonder if the concept of   adaptive e learning   was extrapolated from   video games, which have long been utilizing the idea of taking players through increasing levels of gaming difficulty? 

I have recently experienced a small version of on line learning in my professional development as a hospital doctor. A multiple choice question is emailed each week, further information is given, I choose an answer, instant feedback is given with explanations and then the whole question is resent every few months to reinforce long term memory retention. A forum allows comments on the question to be posted and shared with colleagues

I enjoy it. It is time efficient. It is relevant. It  gives a sense of achievement . I learn from others.

The more sophisticated  adaptive e- learning  tools has great potential.

I want it now!

I relate to Greg’s comment in his blog on Vark/Learning preferences that the most difficult aspect of being part of a student -centred learning environment is learning how being a facilitator rather than a lecturer/resource provider.   http://drgmac.blogspot.com.au/  I too, am still acquiring the  skills that  encourage students to be  self -directed learners. It is difficult having never experienced this type of teaching myself.

VARK learning concepts are less useful in my role as  facilitator  than  other learning theorists  such  as Felder and Solomon who introduce the idea of reflective vs active learners.  felder and solomon  This idea explores students who learn well in small groups as opposed to those who will struggle.  We place such high value on small group cooperative learning at ND School of Medicine that this understanding adds padding to learning style theories for small group educators. 

I smiled when I read Jane’s reflection on WEB2.0 Blog.http://drjaneit101.blogspot.com.au/ I was at the retreat when she presented the item she mentioned. It raised a long discussion amongst tutors as to the lack of our own ability as educators to critically analyse the credibility of  internet sources and  indeed  to know how to effectively  utilize the  credible ones within PBL learning . This is a vital skill, and as Greg and Morgan pointed out in their blogs on the same topic it seems  the students are also none the wiser . I followed George’s link to a medscape article designed for patients to discern the credibility of health websites and then found further links to other sites addressing this issue.  http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/    http://www.vtstutorials.co.uk/

They were quite useful, but  this issue of credibility in a world of easily accessible information is one I consider to be  the biggest challenges of WEB2.0 within an educational arena.

Prensky, M. (2003) “e-Nough” On the Horizon 11(1), section Herding para 4  Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1074-8121

 Bloom, B.S.  (1984)   The Two Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, (13)6  pp 4-16,

1.  Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World

What does the changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world mean to me?

Initial thoughts revolve around

1.   Inevitability

2.   Curiosity:

 How can I use these new technologies to improve my time management as I am already time poor. How will my time investment in learning and implementing Web 2.0 technologies pay dividends

a.  Improve my students learning

b.  To streamline my preparation time for learning sessions

3.   Caution

a. How could web 2.0 detract from students learning: balance the need for students to learn to interact in the real world face to face, which is the substance of clinical medicine.

b. EVIDENCE based medicine: how do we critically analyze information that is shared: how do we maintain quality and accuracy

c. How can we prevent ‘cyber bullying’?

4.   Analysis

How will I assess if implemented ICT changes in my learning environments prove effective?

5.   Creativity

I like the idea of incorporating tools that utilise visual auditory and tactile tools

Analysis of VARK Learning styles questionnaire and ICT and implications for teaching

VARK learning questionnaire (designed by Neil Fleming, New Zealand,) :

TRY IT :  http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire

MY PROFILE

• Visual: 8
• Aural: 7
• Read/Write: 8
• Kinesthetic: 12

l have a multimodal (VARK) learning preference.

This is the preference held by the majority of  people who take the questionnaire.

I have a Vark Type 2 or “whole sense approach”,  again the majority sub group

This score and its implications for learning does fit with my own understanding/experience  of my learning preferences

 I like to use all my senses when I try to learn new material or skills. I often find it difficult to  feel I really ‘know’ something unless I use at least  two or three modalities …and therefore it  can take longer for me to learn  and to make decisions (although there are obviously  other factors involved ).  I do often feel like I only half learn things, due to a lack of being able to experience learning through  all 4 senses.

In  his  website article “multimodality”, the  Neil Fleming explains that

“Another clue to multimodality might be in the order in which people gather information. …This may indicate that within their VARK multimodality, there is a primary mode and that they use the others only as support. They should redo the VARK questionnaire and select only one answer per question”

Hence I redid the test:

• Visual: 2
• Aural: 2
• Read/Write: 4
• Kinesthetic: 8 = my primary mode.

This surprised me somewhat. I’ve always thought of myself as a strong visual/auditory learner  and I don’t prioritise learning in a kinaesthetic way.

This is probably because  of my formation as an academic  learner flooded with  read/write/listen teaching

...................................................................................................................................................................................

My ANALYSIS

There are many different theories of learning:  Felder –Silver learning style model, Myers- Briggs type indicator and Kolb’s learning styles are but to name a few of the other main ones. I suspect they all have some value: looking at learning from different perspectives.  It would be interesting to do a wider learning assessment: Would this add to an individual’s metacognitive insights or create confusion?

As a stand-alone tool, the VARK questionnaire and associated information is a quick, useful tool to encourage learners to think about their learning. It gave me some new insights.  The site importantly  offers  practical suggestions as to how to change learning activities according to your preferences

The biggest gap in VARK theory is one that seems ignored by most learning theorists.

Prensky (2000) points out that we don’t often hear about learning in the context of what type of material is being learnt. 

Do people learn facts in a different way to how they learn physical skills or theory or analysis or creative problem solving?  Prensky suggests, for example, that we learn facts through questions, associations, drill, memorization

We learn skills (physical and mental) through imitation feedback continuous practice and increasing challenges.

I suspect that thinking about what I am trying to learn is just as important as how I prefer to learn when applied to a given task.

So how does my own learning style affect my teaching style?

I naturally aim to present material using as many modalities as possible

However, this is often restricted by

·       the type of material involved,

·       my role in the learning environment and

·       my access/awareness  of diverse resources.

I have had comments from students that I am a “hands on teacher”, which they find very helpful when I am teaching clinical skills.

 I would have assumed multimodal teaching was generally a good thing and so l was surprised to read from the VARK websites  ‘FAQ’ page:

  ‘Q If I use all four modes in my teaching will that improve learning for all my students? .

A Not necessarily! It may confuse some learners who might prefer that Read/write modes were used more often or some learners might want a bigger emphasis on Visual teaching strategies. Learners like variety to prevent boredom but using all four modes in a brief learning session can be counter-productive. Using variety within several sessions is helpful. ‘

This seems rather a minor point, given that the majority are multimodal learners and as Fleming himself points out “Learners are adept at using their preferred modes to adapt incoming messages to suit their strategies”

 I shall continue to teach aiming to use all 4 modalities as much as possible. I shall also think more about techniques appropriate to what is being learnt.

I think it would be useful to incorporate the VARK questionnaire with my students at the beginning of each teaching year. In my experience thus far students are still largely unfamiliar with metacognitive practices.

As I teach the same small group all year, it could also benefit me to have some sense of each students preferred style.

As for online learning it seems obvious that online courses should aim to utilize tools that allow learning in all 4 modalities: images, graphs, audio and video podcasts interactive sites, real stories and images as well as the traditional read and write formats

A study I came across looked at on- line learning and learner preferences (based on the Felder and Solomon theory of learning):

“Our results suggest that active learners, who enjoy brain- storming and gathering input from various sources, were more likely to use the online materials than reflective learners, who prefer to work independently. Intuitive learners, who prefer to seek out relationships within topics and concepts (consistent with the intent of the materials) were also more likely to use the online study aids. Visual learners also preferred the online materials, which were largely diagrams and flow charts, when compared to verbal learners.

In summary, student learning style assessment enables pre- clinical educators to devise learning algorithms and resources that target all learning styles reflected in their students and assists students in selecting those learning resources that best suit their preferred style:”

                                                      References

    

Halbert C., Kriebel R., Cuzzolino R., Coughling P., & Fresa-Dillon K. (2011) Self-assessed learning style correlates to use of supplemental learning materials in an online course management system,  Medical teacher 33 (4) 331-333

DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.542209

Prensky, M. (2003) “e-Nough” On the Horizon 11(1) Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1074-8121

To taste  some virtual reality
....this is a sample of the virtual reality tool  used for nurses learning triage skills. It comes from a study comparing two groups of trainees : one using the VR and the other using previous training tool using cards. Assessment revealed higher scores in the group trained with VR

Knight JF, Carley S, Tregunna B, Jarvis S, Smithies R, de Freitas S, Dunwell I, Mackway-Jones K., (2010), Serious Gaming technology in major incident triage training., Resuscitation, 81(9), 1175-9 retrieved from http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/

ICT CURRENT TRENDS: Article reflection

I spent some time doing a pub med search using the terms ‘gaming medical education’.  I was surprised to find a large number of interesting articles outlining and assessing the use of virtual reality and gaming in medical and nursing education.  I was also interested in the international experience, which I find is not used enough in Australian discussion.

Almost all the articles I viewed, reported significant gains in student’s learning and enjoyment of their learning, both objectively measured by assessment and subjectively in user feedback.

There were quite a few articles that assessed the benefit of video gaming experience and acquisition of endoscopic surgical skills, most finding positive correlations.

There was ubiquitous acknowledgment of the need for further assessment/trials to assess long-term retention of ICT learning and its effectiveness in real life application.  Assessing potential pitfalls and challenges is another area needing further exploration.

There was an interesting article addressing this in the journal MEDICAL TEACHER  (accessible through ND library). It ran a special edition looking at e learning.  The article emphasized the need to make e learning cognitively effective i.e. ‘brain friendly’ by using cognitive neuroscientific understandings of how the brain works. The aim is to optimize learning by using correct mental representations that will be remembered long term and applied in real practice  (Itiel, Schmidt, & O’Connor, 2011,  p291-296)

However, I chose a 2008 review article examining the international use of 3-D virtual worlds or virtual reality (VR) in medical education  (Hanson, 2008)

It outlined some international examples of the use of Second Life/ virtual reality systems currently being used in medical education.  Some examples are included below:

Advanced Learning and Immersive Virtual Environment (ALIVE) at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) The underlying goal of the ALIVE team is to provide educators the opportunity to develop learning content, which is brought to life in 3-D virtual worlds. The ALIVE team provides YouTube video clips on how to use ALIVE Classmate, an online virtual classroom

.Another example of a medical school using SL is St. George’s Medical School in London. The technology enables students to interact with patient avatars in a simulated world and, moreover, students from around the globe may listen to invited guest lecturers in SL.

the Ann Myers Medical Center in SL is an environment where medical students may practice conducting physical exams and analyse radiological films, as well as learn how to detect heart defect

The development and use of 3-D virtual worlds in nursing education is increasing. For example, students may learn how to provide step-by-step care for a patient suffering from chest pain via SL [1]. According to Miller [1], students build SL “objects” to show what they have learned. Furthermore, students collaborate with other students from different countries and other medical professionals. Miller uses “Centralia” island in SL as a place to teach nursing students Objects representing lungs connected to large airway objects illustrate various lung disorders for student learning. Miller claims the 3-D objects, representing body parts, are easy to create. Learning objectives are provided for the students visiting “Centralia”, and critical-thinking questions are posed along with the anatomical objects. The student’s avatar may walk on different electrocardiogram (ECG) tracings on a 3-D floor and then names the represented rhythm. This is an example of immersive interactive learning. The site allows students to view objects in SL together and discuss different medical conditions in a team approach.  (Hanson,  2008, section Healthcare Professional Education Examples)

How do the characteristics of my students affect how they learn and what might an ideal environment look like to them.

I agree with the general class discussion last week that today's students, indeed today’s human beings, are intrinsically the same in their fundamental needs and desires. This is why concepts such as Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' is still included in current pedagogy.

However, modern students  who grow up with  new technologies as a part of their intrinsic social mileu, are meeting these needs using different technological tools.

They are becoming used to information and communication being packaged differently to when I was growing up.

The need for educational environments to utilise these new tools is common sense to me.

The medical students I engage with are totally comfortable using wikispaces and u-tube presentations to compile and enhance their groups learning. Familiarising myself with wikispaces these last few days has allowed me to see its value. I   would like to explore with my students, whether a more “ideal” learning environment for them would include me, as moderator, interacting  with their wikispaces.

It could allow me to provide timely feedback, assist with dilemmas and challenge clinical thinking out of face to face time. Rules would have to be incorporated as to how often I would be available on line given that I am a part time academic tutor.  An internal discussion board could also provide this function…and I think this is underutilised by current students and staff.

As to other characteristics of an ideal learning environment I found myself nodding as I read most of  Kemi Jona's article, Rethinking the Design of Online Courses (2000). I resonated with her premise that modern education needs to heed the principles  of “natural learning”.  She argues that “Natural learning” is based on 3 basic  concepts

Natural  learning is

1.   goal directed, 

2.   case based and 

3.   driven by “expectation failure”

I noted that her ideas resonated  with the foundational principles of education I explored in the Early Childhood Studies  I completed last year (early childhood development and learning is one of my enduring fascinations).  Young children are surely some of our greatest learners and we can learn much from them!

Child care providers are now expected to be trained educators of young children. Their official pedagogy, called the Early Years Learning Framework incorporates all the concepts of natural learning. “Children learn by playing” is a fundamental concept. We were taught to make observations of young children at play, note their natural interests, strengths and weaknesses and design individual programs to guide and enhance each child’s early learning through play. Surely the principles of adult learning, despite the seriousness and responsibilities of adulthood are parallel.

I do feel that the Notre Dame medical course, being small group and problem/case based, incorporates these concepts well.

It is so much more relevant, engaging, motivating and indeed challenging  than the traditional lecture and rote learning  format I endured during medical school in the late 1980’s/early 90’s.

However there are three final points I would like to explore more in my discussion with students re creating a more ideal learning environment.

1.   The use of games in learning….an interesting idea and one I am open to. Of course medicine is a serious business and we must avoid giving the impression that we can treat medicine as a game.

2.   The importance of failure as one of our greatest teachers! Doctors and medical students are not at all comfortable with failure…it obviously could have dire consequences. But  I take  Kemi Jona’s point that “Once learners have come upon the limits of their knowledge, as evidenced by making a mistake or not knowing how to proceed, they are ready and motivated  to acquire the missing knowledge or skills. And thus, a key feature of effective learning environments is that they must provide learners with a safe environment in which to learn from their own mistakes”.

As tutors we play a crucial role in  creating an environment where students can view mistakes as intrinsic to learning  and not necessarily  a source of embarrassment, shame and discouragement ?

3.    Multitasking : Prensky argues that there it is likely young people  brains are changed by processing information differently, and that we need to change teaching to accommodate and respect this  But this  is still an evolving debate and a case for investigation.  See my wikispace for a video  and some ideas exploring the debate over young peoples ability to multitask   http://purplesock.wikispaces.com/

a weekend spent more on-line than off!

I have spent much of  the weekend exploring the readings, wikispaces, blogs and u-tubes on line.

I have come across some interesting sites and ideas…It has been time consuming but insightful to taste the multitude of interactive and thoughtful resources addressing modern education and information technology.

One  website I particularily enjoyed was that of  James Cook University. They have an online orientation service. They include  interactive tools for students to explore  the concept of  learning styles and link students to a site where a neuroscientist (David Willingham) argues that there is no good evidence that learning styles should influence our teaching.

I think Notre Dame has things to learn!

Visit http://www.jcu.edu.au/learningskills/resources/lsonline/index.htm

http://www.danielwillingham.com to learn more.