Evaluation of three educational use cases for using Virtual Patients in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): a Delphi study

• Autorzy: Stathakarou N. , Zary N. , Kononowicz A. A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/bams-2015-0007

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) extended with Virtual Patients (VPs) may foster specific medical skills. In particular, three educational use cases have been proposed to enable interactivity and foster clinical reasoning skills training: collective evaluation of decision making in the context of uncertainty, collective repurposing of cases with division of discussion into subgroups, and computational models in short cases for flexible selection and adaptive learning with VPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational strengths and weaknesses of the proposed use cases. Methods: We went through a two-round modified Delphi process. A panel of experts was formed and asked with open-ended questions to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each use case. The obtained responses were categorized thematically; four specific aspects of the use cases were isolated. In the second phase, the panel was asked to read the collected, categorized responses and prioritize the use cases focusing on each of the four identified aspects. Results: Six experts participated in the process. According to their opinion, decision making in uncertain context was the most feasible in implementation and in fostering clinical reasoning skills training; cultural repurposing was judged to leverage the MOOC potential the most; and computational models in short cases were considered the most interesting use case for the learners. Conclusions: The use cases were validated and prioritized; the Delphi approach brought insights into the use cases’ potential benefits, threats, and challenges.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

clinical reasoning; massive open online courses; medical education; Virtual Patients

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum ; Index Copernicus Sp. z o.o.
• Czasopismo: Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 11, no. 2
• Strony: 113--119
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz., wykr., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Stathakarou N.

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Learning Informatics Management and Ethics, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden, Phone: [phone]

autor

Zary N.

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Learning Informatics Management and Ethics, Stockholm, Sweden

autor

Kononowicz A. A.

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Learning Informatics Management and Ethics, Stockholm, Sweden
• Department of Bioinformatics Telemedicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Grunewald F, Meinel C, Totschnig M, Willems C. Designing MOOCs for the support of multiple learning styles. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2013;8095:371–82.
• 2. Siemens G. MOOCs are really a platform. Elearnspace: learning, networks, knowledge, technology, community 2012. Available at: http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-reallya-platform/. Accessed: 16 February, 2015.
• 3. Grover S, Franz P, Schneider E, Pea R. The MOOC as distributed intelligence: dimensions of a framework & evaluation of MOOCs. In: Proceedings CSCL 2013, vol. 2; Madison, USA, 2011:42–5.
• 4. Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, Stoller JK. Just imagine: new paradigms for medical education. Acad Med 2013;88:1418–23.
• 5. Liyanagunawardena TR, Williams SA. Massive open online courses on health and medicine: review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e191.
• 6. Volandes AE, Kennedy WJ, Davis AD, Gillick MR, Paasche-Orlow MK. The new tools: what 21st century education can teach us. Healthcare 2013;1:79–81.
• 7. Harder B. Are MOOCs the future of medical education? Br Med J 2013;346:f2666.
• 8. Reich J. Rebooting MOOC research. Science 2015;347:34–5.
• 9. Guo PJ, Juho K, Rubin R. How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference. ACM, 2014:41–50.
• 10. Stathakarou N, Zary N, Kononowicz AA. Virtual patients in massive open online courses–design implications and integration strategies. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014;205:793–7.
• 11. Stathakarou N, Zary N, Kononowicz AA. Beyond xMOOCs in healthcare education: study of the feasibility in integrating virtual patient systems and MOOC platforms. Peer J 2014;2:e672.
• 12. Ellaway R, Candler C, Greene P, Smothers V. An architectural model for MedBiquitous virtual patients. Technical Report. Baltimore: MedBiquitous, 2006.
• 13. Kononowicz AA, Zary N, Edelbring S, Corral J, Hege I. Virtual patients – what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:11.
• 14. Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 1994;19:180–6.
• 15. Stewart J, O’Halloran C, Harrigan P, Spencer JA, Barton JR, Singleton SJ. Identifying appropriate tasks for the preregistration year: modified Delphi technique. Br Med J 1999;319:224–9.
• 16. Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 1987;12:729–34.
• 17. Franklin KK, Hart JK. Idea generation and exploration: benefits and limitations of the policy Delphi research method. Innov Higher Educ 2007;31:237–46.
• 18. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Methodological issues in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2002;41:376–82.
• 19. Limesurvey [Internet] Available at: http://www.limesurvey.org. Accessed: 12 March, 2015.
• 20. Taylor-Powell E, Renner M. Analyzing qualitative data [Internet] Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension 2013. Available at: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3658-12.pdf. Accessed: 16 February, 2015.
• 21. Lubarsky S, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Scoring the script concordance test: not a black and white issue. Med Educ 2013;47: 1159–61.
• 22. Esteves, JE, Bennison M. Thomson OP. Script concordance test: insights from the literature and early stages of its implementation in osteopathy. Int J Osteop Med 2013;16:231–9.
• 23. Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educ Res Rev 2014;12:45–58.
• 24. Zutshi S, O’Hare S, Rodafinos A. Experiences in MOOCs: the perspective of students. Am J Dist Educ 2013;27:218–27.
• 25. Kononowicz AA, Narracott AJ, Manini S, Bayley M, Lawford PV, McCormack K, et al. A framework for different levels of integration of computational models into web-based virtual patients. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e23.