| Literature DB >> 25017028 |
Tiago Taveira-Gomes1, Areo Saffarzadeh, Milton Severo, M Jorge Guimarães, Maria Amélia Ferreira.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing complexity of medical curricula would benefit from adaptive computer supported collaborative learning systems that support study management using instructional design and learning object principles. However, to our knowledge, there are scarce reports regarding applications developed to meet this goal and encompass the complete medical curriculum. The aim of ths study was to develop and assess the usability of an adaptive computer supported collaborative learning system for medical students to manage study sessions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25017028 PMCID: PMC4131539 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Figure 1Simplified Entity relationship UML diagram. A simple UML diagram that specifies relationships between the main application objects. Multiple Notebooks belong to a Group, and multiple Groups belong to an institution. An institution has multiple topics and Flashcards. A Notebook may hold multiple topics that are associated to multiple Flashcards. Multiple topics can also belong to a broader topic. A Flashcard can be composed of one or two facts, up to two description items, up to four images and one to eight questions. Multiple questions can be associated to a Fact, Description or Image.
Variables measured by the system
| Study session count | The number of times a | The |
| | session count for the | |
| Time spent studying | Each | |
| | button is pressed, the time lapse since a previous click in any other | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | to the global |
| Perception of knowledge | The student self perception of knowledge | The student is presented an open ended question that requires recalling the |
| | regarding a | knowledge to answer it. After recalling the question the student can see the |
| | | answer and assess the quality of his recall using a 4-point likert scale. |
| | | |
| | | per Topic. It is represented as a percentage of the best possible |
Implementation of learning object principles
| Stand alone | Learners can use a single learning object to | Each |
| | achieve a specified learning outcome. | |
| Reusability | Learning objects can be used by diverse groups | |
| | of learners in a variety of educational situations. | |
| Interactivity | Each learning object requires an interactive | |
| | response from the learner. | assess their knowledge using features of the |
| Aggregation | Learning objects can be linked into larger collections | |
| | to form lessons, modules, or courses. | can be linked into larger collections by using |
| Interoperability | A learning object can be used with appropriate | |
| | “plug-ins” by multiple software applications and on | the mobile application for the iPhone. The application interface that allows |
| | a variety of computers and e-learning platforms. | communication with the iPhone also allows integration with external |
| | | applications. |
| Accessibility | A learning object must be tagged with standardized | |
| | indexing information (metadata) that allows it to be | application by using these terms. |
| | easily found by course designers, educators, | |
| learners, and evaluators. |
Descriptions are adapted from Ruiz et al. [23].
Implementation of instructional design principles
| Coherence principle: eliminate extraneous material | Splitting of content into facts and description components. Ability to hide tools in |
| | Ability to resume from where last study session was left. |
| Signaling principle: highlight essential material | Bold typeface for facts. Text marker feature. |
| | on learner |
| Pre-training principle: provide pre-training in names | |
| characteristics of key concepts | |
| | Introductory |
| Segmenting principle: break lessons into | |
| learner-controlled segments | |
| Multimedia principle: present words and pictures | |
| rather than words alone |
Principles enumerated from Mayer et al. [46].
Figure 2User screen. A list of Groups for a given user is displayed.
Figure 3User . A list of the Notebooks for a given user is displayed.
Figure 4Dashboard. The sunburst chart represents the topic and Flashcard distribution. The toggle button switches the configuration between Flashcard size (given by the number of characters) and Time spent studying on a Notebook. The bar chart on the left depicts Perception of knowledge per topic, for the user and its peers. The line chart on the right is represents Perception of knowledge per quiz session for the user and its peers.
Figure 5editor. Topics can be browsed on the left column on the search tab. Checked topics become part of the Notebook and become available on the notebook tab. The center column displays Flashcards for the selected topic. Checked Flashcards become part of the Notebook. New Flashcards can be created on any topic. On the right MeSH relationships between topics are represented using a graph that can be used to navigate topics.
Figure 6. The left column with circles represent the Notebook topic index. The blue circle represents the topic currently displayed. The top bar houses the content filters and progress status. Timers are also available but not shown. The bar in the right side is the actions bar, that houses Flashcard flipping, text marker, filter and timer toggle, pause mode, keyboard shortcuts list, print view and shortcut to statistics buttons. The third Flashcard displayed is flipped, showing questions and an answer.
Figure 7. A question card is represented along with the answer. Perception of knowledge is graded using the set of four buttons shown. The rightmost button reporting of errors to the Notebook owner. The column on the right tracks student progress.
System usability and tool usefulness survey
| 1 | It was easy to study using the computer | 3.21 (0.69) | 3.38 (0.61) | 0.04 |
| 2 | The | 3.68 (0.52) | 3.81 (0.40) | 0.06 |
| 3 | The division of content using topics and | |||
| | 3.64 (0.53) | 3.68 (0.47) | 0.60 | |
| 4 | The division of | |||
| | Images and Questions was easy to understand | 3.60 (0.58) | 3.77 (0.43) | 0.04 |
| 5 | The division of | |||
| | and Questions helped to understand the key | |||
| | information to memorize | 3.43 (0.58) | 3.45 (0.72) | 0.84 |
| 6 | The information on the | 3.62 (0.49) | 3.60 (0.54) | 0.80 |
| 7 | The | |||
| | that facilitates learning | 3.34 (0.67) | 3.43 (0.65) | 0.29 |
| 8 | It was easy to find the | |||
| | the | 3.38 (0.61) | 3.38 (0.61) | 1.00 |
| 9 | The highlighter and the notes are useful features | 3.66 (0.64) | 3.72 (0.54) | 0.41 |
| 10 | The Questions on the | 3.34 (0.73) | 3.45 (0.65) | 0.37 |
| 11 | The Questions were helpful to help me assess my knowledge about each subject | 3.62 (0.61) | 3.62 (0.53) | 1.00 |
| 12 | I could easily find the matching Answer to the Question in the | 3.53 (0.58) | 3.55 (0.48) | 0.20 |
| 13 | The order in which the Questions were presented did not affect my focus on answering | 3.34 (0.90) | 3.32 (0.69) | 0.86 |
| 14 | Without these tools I would not be able to obtain a similar acquired knowledge result | 3.30 (0.81) | 3.00 (0.83) | 0.02 |
S1 and S2 refer to session 1 and session 2. The tasks performed were the same on both sessions. For columns S1 and S2 the values represent mean and standard deviation. Student agreement to each of the items was assessed using a 4-point likert scale: 1 - full disagreement; 2 - partial disagreement; 3 - partial agreement; 4 - full agreement. p values denote differences differences between each session mean.
Willingness to adopt the system as a reference tool
| 15 | I think this system could be used in other basic science subjects | 3.77 | 0.43 |
| 16 | I think this system could be used in clinical science subjects | 3.32 | 0.75 |
| 17 | I see an advantage in using this system as a tool in my daily study | 3.26 | 0.71 |
| 18 | I think this system would allow me to obtain results similar or better than my average results while investing less time studying | 2.96 | 0.83 |
| 19 | I wish this system would encompass the content in the way I am taught at school | 3.51 | 0.62 |
| 20 | I would like to create content to take advantage of it using this system | 3.40 | 0.71 |
| 21 | I would like to collaborate in real time with my colleagues to build useful content fast | 2.94 | 0.63 |
| 22 | I would like to be able to print the notebooks from the system | 3.74 | 0.57 |
| 23 | I would rather use this system instead of my regular notebooks provided all the required content is available | 3.11 | 0.84 |
| 24 | I would rather use this system instead of lecture materials provided all the required content is available | 3.19 | 0.80 |
| 25 | I would rather use this system instead of the recommended bibliography provided all the required content is available | 3.11 | 0.89 |
| 26 | I would recommend this system to my colleagues | 3.66 | 0.52 |
SD - Standard deviation. Student agreement to each of the items was assessed using a 4-point likert scale: 1 - full disagreement; 2 - partial disagreement; 3 - partial agreement; 4 - full agreement.