Distributed Learning Anita Singh MD, CCFP Tamara Bahr B.A, B.Ed Chi Ming Chow MD, MSc, FRCPC.
-
Upload
silas-parrish -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Distributed Learning Anita Singh MD, CCFP Tamara Bahr B.A, B.Ed Chi Ming Chow MD, MSc, FRCPC.
Distributed Learning
Anita Singh MD, CCFP
Tamara Bahr B.A, B.Ed
Chi Ming Chow MD, MSc, FRCPC
Objectives
1. Define and describe the components of Distributed Learning
2. Describe the current evidence for the efficacy of Distributed Learning
3. Demonstrate some of different mediums for delivering educational material
Objectives
4. Review the challenges and limitations of distributed learning
5. Look at opportunities in your own universities for distributed learning and for collaboration
Distributed Learning
• Distributed learning is an instructional model that involves using various information technologies to help students learn. Also known as computer-mediated instruction, it encompasses technologies such as video or audio conferencing, satellite broadcasting, and Web-based multimedia formats.
Distributed Learning
Distributed learning comes from the concept of
distributed resources.
Terms Used:
• E-learning
• Distance learning
• Online learning
Is Distributed Learning better than traditional forms of
teaching??
Efficacy of Distributed Learning
There is no significant difference in outcomes with traditional curriculum and
distributed learning
So Why Do It??
Does Distributed Learning add value to the learning experience?
Advantages
• Ease of access to and interrogation of high volumes of diverse, learning resources
Advantages
• Opportunities for working live or asynchronous in collaboration with others from any where in the world
Advantages
• Choice of learning styles within the same package according to need of the learner
• Multiple levels of engagement to different depths of understanding
• Logging or tracking of activities
Advantages
• Education transcends time and space barriers, and takes place at a pace set by the students themselves.
• Distributed learning gives learners greater responsibility for managing their own learning
Pedagogy should drive your technology
7 Principles of PedagogyIMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES:
Technology as Lever
by Arthur W. Chickering and Stephen C. Ehrmann
4. Provide Prompt Feedback
5. Emphasize time on task
6. Communicate High Expectations Expecting learners to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning
1. Encourage contact between learners and faculty
2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among learners – “Learning is social – not competitive and isolated”
3. Use active learning techniques. Better information recall when student interacts with content
Application of the Seven Principles of Pedagogy and
Technology
Principle 1
Encourage contact between learners and faculty
Technology/Strategies
Asynchronous
• Email, • Bulletin boards
Synchronous
• Live Chat• Skype,MSN Audio/Video Conferencing • Arranging for one-on-one communications • Note: Small class size or small groups helps this to be more successful
Principle 1 Encourage contact between learners and faculty
• Engage in deeper dialogue over time • Accommodates different schedules/ places • Collective knowledge shared/ distributed • Increased opportunity for collaboration• More thoughtful contributions (Because users
are more conscious of their work)
Benefits
Examples of Use
• Standard tools in LMS • No special software or skills necessary • Setback: Some students are hesitant to
post publicly• http://portal.utoronto.ca
Principle 2
Develop reciprocity and cooperation among learners – “Learning is social – not
competitive and isolated”
Technology/Strategies• Online Community Chat forums• Instant messaging• Blogging• Resource pooling/sharing • Online community sites and resources
Collaborative projects (web development, Community of Practice…)
Benefits
• Learner to learner interaction
• Collaboration among students separated by geography and time is enhanced using Internet tools to create a sense of community
Example of Use
• End of Life Care Distance Learning Program– http://icarus.med.utoronto.ca/eolCare/index.htm
Principle 3
Use active learning techniques. Better information recall when student
interacts with content
Technology/Strategies
Simulations and contextual anchoring
• Contextual anchoring – provide learner with realistic scenarios As in the Palliative Care E-Learning Program
• Require student interaction to generate outcomes
Examples of Use
– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/module2/06.htm– http://link.library.utoronto.ca/MyUTL/guides/
index.cfm?guide=palliativecare
Principle 4
Provide Prompt Feedback
Technology/Strategies
• **Provide immediate feedback via discussion boards (for discourse models)
• Rubrics - Learners need help in assessing their existing knowledge and competence
• Monitor academic progress - e-portfolio can be used for peer review, self assessment, and instructor graded
Example of Use
• E-portfolio tool is built into many LMS’– http://portal.utoronto.ca
Principle 5
Emphasize time on task
Technology/Strategies
Flexible and Intuitive Course Design
• Provide completion timelines where possible• Keep units structured the same as much as
possible• Use course calendar tool• Course announcements
Examples of Use
• Dynamic course calendar and announcements
• Structured modules
– http://portal.utoronto.ca
Principle 6
Communicate High Expectations Expecting learners to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy
Technology/Strategies
Publishing for a Global Audience – Many learners 'feel stimulated by knowing
their finished work will be "published." If they know other learners will see their work, learners usually set higher goals for themselves.
Examples of Use– Wiki sites http://www.wikimedia.org/– Blog sites http://blogspot.com– E-portfolio and peer review: tools are built into
many LMS’ and there are websites that facilitate this too
Principle 7
Respect diverse talents and ways of learning
Technology/ Strategies
• Multimedia Content: Video/ Audio • Learners prefer high media to text ratio• Encourages development of visual recognition/
auditory skills needed in clinical practice• Learn from modeling of professional behaviour• Provide alternative formats
• Custom PowerPoint with audio• Flash objects
– http://www.edheads.org/activities/knee/• Learning Object Repositories
– HEAL www.healcentral.org/
– MERLOT http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
1. There are many rapid development tools on the market Captivate, Articulate, Producer, Flash to name a few. All come with a learning curve
Examples of Use
Resources
1. IMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES: Technology as Lever http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html
2. Discovery Commons www.discoverycommons.ca
3. E-Learning in Palliative care– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/module2/06.htm– http://link.library.utoronto.ca/MyUTL/guides/
index.cfm?guide=palliativecare
References Continued
1. http://www.edheads.org/activities/knee2. Wikis http://www.wikimedia.org/3. Blogs http://blogspot.com4. Learning Objects
• Health Education Assets Library (HEAL) free digital resources for health sciences educators (peer reviewed) www.healcentral.org/
• Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching MERLOT http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
Tips On Doing This Successfully
1. Know your audience
2. Identify your learning outcomes
3. Identify What you can and can’t do
Tips On Doing This Successfully
4. Know your technology and what is available
5. Pedagogy should drive technology
6. Know your limitations human and financial
Challenges
• Time
• Money– Grants
• Expertise– i.e. Summer Student Project
THE ENDTHE END
Six-Year Trends In The Evaluation Outcomes Of Slice Of Life
Presentations (2001-2006) Using The Kirkpatrick’s Model For Summative
Evaluation
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto
Background
• Evaluation of the outcomes and impact is an important component of the e-learning projects
• Over five hundred presentations were made in the last six annual SOL meetings (2001-6).
• However, little is known about:• Overall trends in the project types• Presence of evaluation description • Evaluation methods employed in these e-learning projects.
Objective
We sought to retrospectively classify the presentations identify the trends in the evaluation outcomes of the E-learning projects presented over the past six years (2001-2006) using the
modified Kirkpatrick’s levels of evaluation
Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation
Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation
• For assessing training effectiveness
• Each successive evaluation level is built on information provided by the lower level (1994)
• Measures how participants react to it•Did they like it?
• Was the material relevant to their work?
• “Smilesheet”, “Happiness factor”
• Positive reaction does not guarantee learning• Negative reaction reduce possibility
KP Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions
KP Level 2 Evaluation - Learning
•Attempts to assess the extent students have advanced their skills, knowledge, or attitude
• Pre-test & post-test to determine amount learning that has occurred
KP Level 3 Evaluation - Transfer
• Attempts to measure the transfer that has occurred in learners’ behaviour due to the training program
• Are the newly acquired skills, knowledge, or attitude being used in the everyday environment of the learner?
• Medical -> Change practice
KP Level 4 Evaluation - Results
• Measures the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance
• For example,•increased production• Improved quality• Decreased costs•Increased sales •Higher profits or return on investment
KP Level 4 Evaluation - Results
• In medical terms……does it change Patient/medical outcomes i.e.
• Reduce Death
• Reduce complication
• Lower cholesterol level
• Lower BP in practice population
Methods
• Reviewed 509 published abstracts of the SOL meetings from 2001-2006
• Exclusion– Incomplete abstract descriptions– Abstracts that focused on describing general
educational theories or technological methods
Methods
• Modified Kirkpatrick’s model for summative evaluation is used:
Level 1: Learner usage or satisfaction
Level 2: Learning outcomes
Level 3: Performance improvement
Level 4: Patient/health outcomes
Results
509: abstracts were identified141: abstracts were excluded
(33.8%)337: abstracts were reviewed
(66.2%)
Years
E-L
earn
ing P
roje
cts
Revie
wed
Number of E-Learning Projects at SOL by Year
Num
ber
of
E-L
earn
ing
Pro
ject
sTrends in the Format Type of E-Learning Tools at
SOL
Percentage of Projects With Evaluation Described
Perc
enta
ge o
f E-L
earn
ing
Pro
ject
s Evalu
ate
d (
%)
Levels of Evaluation Using the Modified Kirkpatrick’s Model Among Projects
with Evaluation described
Perc
enta
ge o
f E-L
earn
ing P
roje
cts
(%)
Limitations
Retrospective
Abstracts may not described the details of the evaluation that was subsequently done/presented
Conclusion
Web-based program out-numbered PC-based program by 2:1.
Very few PDA-based programs
% of projects with evaluation increased over the years
Conclusion
Most projects described level 1 and 2 evaluation
Level 3 and 4 evaluation is rare
Highlight the need to examine in greater detail the nature and characteristics of e-learning projects that are most effective in enhancing practice change