| Literature DB >> 25878518 |
Claudia Kimie Suemoto1, Sherine Ismail2, Paulo César Rodrigues Pinto Corrêa3, Faiza Khawaja4, Teodoro Jerves5, Laura Pesantez5, Ana Claudia Camargo Gonçalves Germani6, Fabio Zaina7, Augusto Cesar Soares Dos Santos8, Ricardo Jorge de Oliveira Ferreira9, Priyamvada Singh10, Judy Vicente Paulo11, Suely Reiko Matsubayashi12, Liliane Pinto Vidor13, Guilherme Andretta14, Rita Tomás15, Ben Mw Illigens16, Felipe Fregni17.
Abstract
The exponential increase in clinical research has profoundly changed medical sciences. Evidence that has accumulated in the past three decades from clinical trials has led to the proposal that clinical care should not be based solely on clinical expertise and patient values, and should integrate robust data from systematic research. As a consequence, clinical research has become more complex and methods have become more rigorous, and evidence is usually not easily translated into clinical practice. Therefore, the instruction of clinical research methods for scientists and clinicians must adapt to this new reality. To address this challenge, a global distance-learning clinical research-training program was developed, based on collaborative learning, the pedagogical goal of which was to develop critical thinking skills in clinical research. We describe and analyze the challenges and possible solutions of this course after 5 years of experience (2008-2012) with this program. Through evaluation by students and faculty, we identified and reviewed the following challenges of our program: 1) student engagement and motivation, 2) impact of heterogeneous audience on learning, 3) learning in large groups, 4) enhancing group learning, 5) enhancing social presence, 6) dropouts, 7) quality control, and 8) course management. We discuss these issues and potential alternatives with regard to our research and background.Entities:
Keywords: biomedical research; critical thinking; distance learning; e-learning; education
Year: 2015 PMID: 25878518 PMCID: PMC4386801 DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S66627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract ISSN: 1179-7258
Figure 1Number of students per year and number of countries where they came from (2008–2012).
Student characteristics in 2012 and distribution of participants per site
| Variables | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Highest degree | ||
| Bachelor | 52 | 15.9 |
| Master | 36 | 11.01 |
| Medical doctor | 180 | 55.05 |
| PhD | 59 | 18.04 |
| Time since graduation | ||
| Mean (SD) | 8.00 | 7.62 |
| Median (IQR) | 5.00 | 3–10 |
| Number of national peer-review publications | ||
| Mean (SD) | 4.38 | 16.03 |
| Median (IQR) | 0 | 0–2.5 |
| Number of international peer-review publications | ||
| Mean (SD) | 4.14 | 13.22 |
| Median (IQR) | 0 | 0–3 |
| Number of approved grants | ||
| Mean (SD) | 0.80 | 3.53 |
| Median (IQR) | 0 | 0 |
| Statistical background | ||
| Beginner | 100 | 30.49 |
| Intermediate | 208 | 63.41 |
| Advanced | 20 | 6.10 |
| Computer expertise | ||
| Beginner | 31 | 9.42 |
| Intermediate | 139 | 42.25 |
| Advanced | 159 | 48.33 |
| Number of previous distance learning courses | ||
| 0 | 197 | 59.88 |
| 1–2 | 99 | 30.09 |
| 3 or more | 33 | 10.03 |
| Use email, phone, text | 301 | 91.49 |
| Download software without help | 295 | 89.67 |
| Sites | ||
| Adobe | 64 | 19.45 |
| Boston | 29 | 8.81 |
| Brazil | 140 | 42.55 |
| Peru | 14 | 4.26 |
| Russia | 12 | 3.65 |
| Colombia | 9 | 2.74 |
| Ecuador | 15 | 4.56 |
| Portugal | 23 | 6.99 |
| Chile | 7 | 2.13 |
| Germany | 10 | 3.04 |
| South Korea | 6 | 1.82 |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.
Major challenges faced in distance-learning courses
| Major challenges |
| • Student engagement and motivation |
| • Impact of heterogeneous audience on learning |
| • Learning in large groups |
| • Enhancing group learning and social presence |
| • Dropouts |
| • Quality control |
| • Course management |
Methods to enhance motivation and engagement and their use in our course
| Methods | Discussion and appropriateness for our course | Already used in our course? |
|---|---|---|
| Use of videos | Short videos with special assignments might motivate and refocus students. | No |
| Case studies involving role-playing | One possibility is to set up a mock journal and have students assume the role of authors, other editors, reviewers, etc. | Yes |
| Asking students to come up with assignments for them during the break | This would increase student’s engagement, as they would be choosing something relevant for them; however, this also requires a level of independence and maturity from students. | No |
| Use of metacognition-teaching techniques | Explore students’ feelings about exams by asking them 1 day before the exam how prepared they feel, and after the exam what the major difficulties were and how their performance was. | No |
| Providing tips from past students who performed well in the course | Section on the website with tips from past students. | Yes |
| Constantly asking participants to answer questions | Quizzes during lectures to increase engagement and motivation. | Yes |
| Acknowledgments in the introduction forum | Students are asked to introduce themselves at the beginning of the course. However, not all students receive responses, which might be a negative factor. TAs could acknowledge all the introductions in the first forum to start developing a relationship between TAs and students. | Yes |
| Students’ expectations | Although we have been asking students to post their expectations at the beginning of the course, we should map them systematically through an entrance survey. | Yes |
| Team charter | To increase participation and interaction, we could ask students how they want to work together. Though not all the methods will be accepted, they could be adapted to improve the team’s work. | No |
| Naming a team | Naming a team (or the group) might be one initial activity to bring the group together. | No |
| Group discussion – nonparticipating students | Having a series of group discussions that focus on how the group will handle or bring back a nonparticipating student. Mapping the reasons of nonparticipation in a continuous process may be interesting, since reasons for nonparticipation may change during the course. | No |
| Real-life examples | Connect the course to everyday life by using more real-life examples. | Yes |
| Students’ questions | Ask students to post questions every week, and have participants discuss their questions. | No |
| Specific tasks | Give different tasks for each group to improve collaboration and motivation across students. | No |
| Promoting intergroup collaboration | Each week, we could assign two groups to work together and vary this across the course to improve the interaction. | Yes |
| Use of simulation games | Simulation games using novel technological methods, like simple statistical games. | No |
| Using different methods to show information | Using a variety of methods, such as visual, kinesthetic, auditory stimulation, may enhance learning. | No |
| Understanding students’ characteristics | Understanding student characteristics better (competitive, collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, independent) may help to develop some specific interventions. | No |
| Selectively use breaks, settling time, and physical exercises | Because our lecture lasts 3 hours, this may be helpful to increase engagement. | Yes |
| Team competition | Divide learners into teams and having teams against teams in a “course-completion competition”. | No |
Abbreviation: TAs, teaching assistants.
Figure 2Countries from where students attended the course in 2012.
Factors to be considered in the redesign of a collaborative learning program
| Factors | Redesign |
|---|---|
| Students’ engagement and motivation | Introduce new methods to enhance motivation in the synchronous and asynchronous discussions. |
| Impact of heterogeneous audience on learning | Promote more interaction to decrease cultural barriers. |
| Learning in large groups | Design a system to moderate questions during lectures. |
| Enhancing group learning | Describe the process of collaborative learning during presentation of the course. Add in an initial questionnaire on group work. |
| Enhancing social presence | Identify characteristics that may increase social presence in the initial course survey. |
| Dropouts | Avoid cognitive overload (prepare students better for the statistical module). |
| Quality control | Adapt questionnaire from Mitton et al. |
| Course management | Manage appropriate time, define clear roles and responsibilities for course staff. |
Abbreviation: TAs, teaching assistants.