June 2017 – Inquiry E-folio

WISE projects

This week, I read a lot about WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) projects. The project’s creation was motivated by a state and national call for inquiry learning, which the creators found was minimal in the science class room. WISE is based on a knowledge integration framework. Their research indicated that students try to make sense of complex phenomena, but were unable to interconnect these ideas or apply them to new problems or phenomena (Slotta & Linn, 2009). The knowledge integration framework emerged to make sense of ideas that students bring to class with them, make learning of science more efficient (through an inquiry method), and help connect existing ideas with new ideas.

According to Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003), there are 4 tenants of knowledge integration framework:

Make learning accessible
Make thinking visible
Learn from others
Promote autonomy

Each WISE project is created with these tenants in mind. It also follows a general instructional pattern as follows:

elicit repertoire of student ideas
add promising normative ideas to the mix
support process of combining, sorting, organizing, creating and reflecting to improve student understanding

So far in this course, we have been introduced to the Jasper series as well as WISE projects. I believe the main difference between the two is the degree of guidance or scaffolding that is provided. In the Jasper series, a more generative process is desired. Whereas the WISE projects have inquiry maps which provide students with a guide during their inquiry process. I think both approaches are valuable, and one will appeal to some students more than others, and this distinction is based on personal preference, degree of autonomy and level of knowledge. Both strategies are highly adaptable, and the Jasper series could be used in a more guided process, just as the WISE projects can be adapted to provided less guidance.

In terms of how I would use wise, I think it is very similar to case based learning at our institution. I think I would be able to create a WISE project using some of the case based learning integrated with some lecture material to provide normative information. The customization I would perform is only to the inquiry map. As mentioned by Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003), if the inquiry steps are too precise, students fail to engage, but if too broad, students may be easily distracted and not motivated to complete the project. Based on the type of learners I have, I think I can make the inquiry steps a little broader.

References

Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD. WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education. 2003;87(4):517-538. doi:10.1002/sce.10086.

Slotta JD, Linn MC. WISE Science: Inquiry and the Internet in the Science Classroom. Teachers College Press. 2009.

Jasper, anchored instruction and PBL

The theoretical framework that underpins the Jasper series is anchored instruction. Anchored instruction is instruction that is “situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers” (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992). The Jasper series is a video based instruction format that presents students with a complex problem, which requires many subproblems to be generated and solved for the main complex problem to be addressed. It uses an engaging narrative with embedded data to present the students with all the information they may require to engage with the complex problem. This instructional approach promotes several teaching and learning activities that are central to constructivism. This includes generative learning, collaboration, active learning and engagement, and construction of knowledge.

Certainly the Jasper series could be presented without the use of technology. However technology does enhance the teaching and learning activities mentioned above. For example, the use of video could make the material more engaging due to the increased realism afforded by the video format (though it is a little dated now). This notion is supported by several papers, as highlighted by Taylor and Parsons (2011) in their review of the literature on student engagement. It can also be helpful for those students with learning challenges where an audio only narrative or reading only narrative would present a significant barrier.

Medical education has certainly moved in this direction. During the first two years, we have increased exposure of students to real clinical environments where they would learn though clinical encounters in a situated learning environment. In addition to this, their didactic lectures are taught along side problem-based learning activities, which is essentially anchored instruction. Our school currently does not use a video format, but a written digital document is provided to students in small groups, which gives students a clinical scenario. They then discuss the case to figure out what is going on with the patient. In all groups, the members decide on what further knowledge is needed in order to move forward with the case scenario. During this discussion portion, they are not allowed to use any resources other than their own ideas and experiences, which promotes discussion, collaboration and reflection. Once they have established learning objectives for the group, the first session ends and they have 1-2 days to research their learning objectives (either collaboratively or individually, depending on the group). They then reconvene and discuss the learning objectives before more of the clinical scenario is revealed. Typically, each case is discussed over 2-3 group sessions.

I think that in our problem-based learning groups, technology can be used to enhance collaboration and generative learning. For example, concepts maps may be useful to organize the group’s thoughts in a visual manner, adding to collaboration and generation of ideas. The use of something like Google Docs which affords collaboration asynchronously could also be helpful in collaboration outside of the group meetings. A video format could also be helpful to refine students’ observational skills as this is a critical part of the medical assessment, and again help to create an authentic/realistic environment.

References
Cognition, Vanderbilt TGA. The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. ETR&D. 1992;40(1):65-80. doi:10.1007/BF02296707.

Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/

Impressions of the Jasper series

The Jasper series is an instructional tool for mathematics. It presents mathematical problems in a narrative format on video. All of the values and information needed to solve the challenge is presented within the narrative of the video. Some information is presented within the verbal conversations between characters where as others are just visually shown. In addition, there are follow up videos that present “analog” problems, where one parameter is changed and the student is asked to solve a problem. There are also extension videos, which takes a real life scenario (such as a past event) and ties it into the complex problem that was initially presented, asking the students a challenging question.

My initial impression of the series was that, contrary to my impression from the readings, the initial challenge is not generative. The students are presented with the challenge at the very end of the series. However, there are many subproblems that need to be generated to solve the challenge/question that it poses. There is also some scaffolding built in within the series. The series has many similarities with problem based learning that we do in medicine. It makes me wonder whether our problem based learning could also be presented in a similar format to make it more interesting and engaging. Also, this is in video format, which could make finding the specific information needed to solve the problem cumbersome. Would this be any easier in another format? If everyone had access to this video on their own personal devices, would it decrease the collaboration that occurs?

PCK/TPACK and TVT

PCK/TPACK were definitely new terms for me. Though my idea of a “good” teacher was one who had both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge specific to that content, I had never heard of it being described in such a concise manner. Looking at the many physicians that teach, particularly at the clinical level, they are definitely content experts with little or no pedagogical knowledge. Somehow it is presumed that having the content knowledge gives you the ability to teach medicine, which is far from the truth, and I have personally been on the receiving end of this. For example, experienced physicians are able to accomplish tasks in an “unconscious competent” manner. Looking at the diagram below, novice students and residents start at the “unconscious incompetent” stage of this cycle.

They observe an expert accomplish something (such as suturing) and because the expert made it look so easy, presume that it can easily be accomplished. When they are given the opportunity to do the task themselves, they move into the “conscious incompetent” stage, where they begin to understand that it isn’t as easy as it looks and there are a lot of steps that they had not considered upon observation. With repeat practice, reflection, and learning with guidance, they enter the “conscious competent” stage, where they still have to think about each step but can complete the task competently. Clinical teachers facilitate their learners through this cycle, but because many of them are doing tasks in the “unconscious competent” state, sometimes they are unable to identify some of the steps that are automatic for them, and thus are missing the pedagogical knowledge component.

A common procedure that I perform that is difficult to learn is insertion of a device called a TVT. This device is used for the treatment of stress incontinence. It is difficult to learn because it is a relatively blind procedure, with a high bladder injury rate (which increases learner anxiety!) When teaching this procedure, I often break it down into several steps for my residents:
1) Observation – I will have them observe the procedure as I perform it. I will deliberately take my time performing each step, and explain each step as well as the rationale behind my movements.
2) Then I take them over to a pelvic model for simulation (after the observation). Again, I repeat the procedure, performing each step slowly and with explanation. I will also have them slide their hands over mine to feel where I am in relation to the anatomy (because most of it is done blindly).
3) Next, I have the learner verbally repeat the steps while visualizing
4) Then I have them perform the steps, verbalizing each step as perform it (on the model simulator).
5) I will have them repeat this on the model a few times until they are comfortable
6) At the next OR, if this procedure comes up, I will have them verbalized the steps with visualization prior to the case.
7) Finally, I will have them perform the case, while verbalizing each step, and provide guidance as needed. At this point, I gauge their level of comfort and competence and adjust my guidance as needed.

Over the last couple of years that I have been teaching this, I have modified the steps based on the areas that my learners seem to struggle the most. These areas are broken down into smaller steps, with simple instructions so the procedure is easier to understand and perform.

Design of my ideal TELE – minority report?

When I first started in my ETEC journey, my definition of technology was very general. Just as Muffoletto (1994) describes, I thought of it “in terms of gadgets, instruments, machines, and devices” that assist humans in achieving a task. But as I journey through this program, my ideas of technology started to change, particularly in regards to educational technologies. As such, the definition by Jonassen (2000) really resonates with me. I feel in order for something to be considered an educational technology it should have the features of what Jonassen (2000) terms “mind tools”; those tools which help construct knowledge, not just disseminate information to the learner. This leads to a deeper understanding of information and internalization/reorganization within the learner.

In regards to design of my ideal TELE in med ed, it would be a small room that looks like of the picture below from minority report (TV show).
Minority Report

A group of 5-8 students, would work around together around technology enhanced table to do problem based learning. The technology would be used to organize their collaborative thoughts, collect data, communicate ideas between members, and manipulate certain parameters (if appropriate) in order to progress through a medical problem. I think educational technology should be a tool that helps construct knowledge, and the environment should allow for collaboration and team work.

Interview with Dr C – excerpts and analysis

The following are excerpts from my interview with Dr S. She is a maternal fetal medicine specialist and an associate professor at the University of Alberta. She has been teaching for 14 years. On the left, you will find the interview excerpts and on the right will be my reflections based on the responses.

How have you integrated technology into your teaching activities? I am interested in trying to keep update with technology and have been trying to be enthusiastic adopter. However, I do feel that I am sort of a luddite. I mostly use PowerPoint or film. I have also tried blended learning, but this is difficult for didactic sessions because it requires students to allocate extra time for them to prepare for blended learning environment to be successful. I have recently started exploring use of whiteboard technology and do YouTube videos to incorporate that type of technology to teaching but it is still in the fetal stage of development.	Examining Dr C’s response, it highlights that the use of technology in medical education, at least at the undergraduate level is quite limited. A lot of it is still passive learning, where the students just listen to the instructor, though technology has allowed a variety in the medium that this information is delivered. Blended learning, in principle, does incorporate some active learning, but she has identified some challenges with it. It makes me wonder if we need to expand our minds a little bit and stop confining ourselves to the traditional “lecture theatre”.
What has been the impact on both yourself as well as your learners, of integrating technology into teaching activities? I feel that there hasn’t been much of an impact. This is because the technology that I have been using has been around for a long time. I have made some of my PowerPoint lectures into Vodcast format and the feedback has been mixed. I have tried to make it interactive by having worksheets that they can fill in as they follow along and again the feedback has been mixed. I feel that it is learner dependent on whether they prefer that format versus a person physically there talking to them the whole lecture. And that’s the only feedback I have gotten on the technologies I have used.	It seems to me that Dr C is a little frustrated at the current situation. But the lack of positive feedback could be attributed to the fact that besides the medium, the way knowledge is acquired is not any different. The information is still delivered in a linear fashion, from teacher to student. This is a very knowledge-centred method of teaching and learning
What kind of challenges have you encountered while integrating technology into your teaching, and how did you or do you plan to overcome these challenges? My main challenge is time. I’m a very busy clinician and the patient practice sometimes makes it difficult to coordinate time to learn some of the new technologies. I think the other barrier is the geographic separation of our department from the main teaching site in our city.	Dr C identified two challenges for her in regards to integrating tech into her teaching, which were time and geographical separation from the main teaching site. One solution would be for some of the faculty development on tech and learning to be offered via online modules or with the use of other elearning modalities that are independent of time and location. There is definitely room for improvement in this regard.
Can you elaborate on how you think technology could actually enhance learning? I think there’s a lot of information to cover in a short amount of time. If you could have them review some of the concepts, and you can have a mixed bag of how you provide that content, I think if they could do that ahead of time, you aren’t starting from zero when introducing or doing a topic. I think that’s one way that technology can enhance learning. Things like vodcasts can enhance learning, as people learn in different ways. Some people are auditory learners some people are visual learners, so for those individuals who are auditory learners being able to hear someone explaining the concepts and doing it at their own pace does enhance their learning	Dr C concentrates on delivering information using different media to accommodate student learning differences. But in my opinion it is still very knowledge-centred as opposed to learner-centred, with minimal use of active learning strategies. Can this really lead to deeper level of understanding? I think in these cases, we are underutilizing technology.
When you decide to integrate technology, what are your main goals? My main goals are to make it interesting and to make it in a format that maybe the learners more used to learning from. So I think sometimes just learning material without any extra visuals or examples or other types of technology can make it maybe not so exciting to learn. And maybe easier concepts to be embedded if could anchor them with a particular symbol or particular examples.	Again, Dr C uses technology to represent information in different formats, but this use of technology is still very knowledge-centred.

I had a few more questions I asked but due to word count limitations, I will stop at the above. The interview highlighted to me that use of technology in large medical school classes is limited in terms of active learning and constructivist strategies. I would like to further explore how technology could be used more effectively in the large class setting, to promote a greater degree of active learning. Similar to many of my peers in this class, time commitment to learn new technologies is highlighted during my interview. Another area to explore would be faculty development in these areas and how it could be improved to help educators with e-tech integration and use.