Author Archives: momoe

Mobile devices and Med Ed

Medical education is still in its infancy when it comes to use of mobile devices in the classroom. There’s no rule against the use of mobile technologies, but I can’t say that it is promoted either. Students are free to bring whatever device they see fit for their learning. I’ve seen many iPads and other tablets as well as smartphones. Some lecturers use polling through smartphone but its few and far between. In the hospital, point of care apps, medication apps, and pregnancy wheel apps are often used. Some apps are provided for free to students and residents through our library. However, these are not usually used for direct teaching purposes. It’s more for self directed learning.

At this point I guess you could say that mobile technologies are usually used to access reference materials. But could they be used for other purposes in medical education? Could it be used as a teaching device? Absolutely! We, as instructors are likely the greatest barrier to its implementation. It’s our lack of knowledge and experience regarding the use of mobile technology as a learning tool. If we were comfortable and knew that students would be more engaged and thus active in their learning, I think we would embrace it.

I don’t personally have a success story regarding the use of mobile devices in the classroom. But I know of a general surgeon at our university who started making podcasts for students and residents and these are used not only by our own students but students across the globe. Many access it with their mobile devices to help them learn during their rotation. Here’s a great article summarizing his work.

Mobile devices makes a big difference in accessibility. As mentioned by Ciampa (2013), being able to learn “anytime, anywhere” engages students, promotes self-directed and self-paced learning. I think they are a highly effective media if used correctly. The challenge is to use them in such a way that it incorporates the six aspects of successful learning systems; challenge, control, curiosity, recognition, cooperation, and competition (Ciampa, 2013). In the article, it appeared that they were using educational apps that were already developed. But what happens when you can’t find one that’s applicable? I don’t have the technical skill to make something like that nor do I have the time to learn. I would need a team to help me develop a course that uses mobile devices successfully. Does my university have the resources necessary for this? What will my time commitment be? Or is there something that’s already developed that I don’t know about? I don’t have the answers to these questions but as I make my way through this program and my career progresses as I take on more teaching responsibilities at my University, I am confident I will find them along the way.

Reference

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf

Assignment 1 – Reflection

Last week I attended a workshop about teamwork as a part of our department retreat. The purpose of this workshop was to understand group development, personalities and roles within a group and learn how groups evolve and improve. During the workshop we learned about the different stages of group/team formation based on the Tuckman model (Tuckman, 1965). The stages are forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. I found it fascinating to observe our group in this context while we worked on our assignment.

The first stage is forming. This is when individuals are not clear on what they are supposed to do and the mission is not owned by the group. We certainly began this way. We were unfamiliar with each other, not sure how to best communicate, and we were a little lost. I found communication to be a major issue for me during this first stage. I started off writing on the group discussion board, others sent messages through the blackboard system. Unfortunately, I didn’t get these messages. I looked at my spam box yesterday and was surprised to find all the messages from Blackboard in there. Apparently there was something in the message that made it default into this box. There were so many different methods to use for asynchronous communication, but because we were unfamiliar with each other and our preferences were different, it lead to lack of communication, especially on my part.

The second stage is storming. This is when roles and responsibilities are established, and there may be some conflict, competition may be high, and some push for position and power. As our group began to work on the google doc, we started to move from the first stage into the second stage. I find that the movement through these stages are slower with asynchronous communication. I think one of the aspects that helped us move from forming to storming was the ability to synchronously communicate on the google doc through its chat function. We tried to arrange a google hangout meeting but due to schedules and time differences, this was not possible. However, some of us were working on the google doc at the same time, allowing us to chat. We were able to clarify ideas, bounce stuff off of each other and start to trust one another. With asynchronous communication, this exchange is a lot slower so I find our development as a group to also be slower.

The third stage is norming. This is when success occurs, the purpose is well defined and team confidence is high. As a group, we were able to accomplish our goal of creating a rubric and justifying our choices, but I’m not sure that we were all on the same page so I’m not confident to say that we truly reached this stage. We all come from different backgrounds and experiences, and its not surprising that our ideas are not perfectly cohesive. But given time, more opportunities to communicate, exchange ideas and understand each other’s perspective, we could evolve to become a more cohesive and effective group. Again, I think the challenge is in communication. Technology has made it possible for us to work together from different time zones and locations, but this convenience comes at a cost. From this group experience, I feel that it takes a greater level of communication to progress through Tuckman’s stages, particularly if communication is asynchronous. Especially with a deadline, though we try to exchange ideas, we end up working as individuals in a group rather than group members with well defined roles, responsibilities and expectations. I think we were still hesitant to challenge each other and create conflict, but according to Tuckman (1965) conflict is necessary to progress through the stages. If we had the opportunity to meet with google hangout, our outcome may have been different. With these online courses, I think group work is challenging but also very rewarding. I enjoy group work as it gives me an opportunity to get to know my peers better, and I feel that it is a more personal interaction than through class discussions. I think if we worked with the same group for a number of projects, giving us more opportunities to communicate, we could become a highly effective group and make it to the performing stage.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.

Lenora’s options

So to summarize Lenora’s situation:

Audience
- aboriginal educators/band teachers
Content
- online anti-bullying resource for band teachers
Features
- offer support and suggestions from other aboriginal educators and their allies
  - to me, this requires a forum or discussion where exchange of ideas and issues can occur
  - this can be either synchronous or asynchronous.
Limitations
- dial up only web access (low bandwidth, 40-50kbps at most)
- no experience with website creation
- minimal time

Given the above, I have one of two suggestions for Lenora. The first would be to create a website offline. I have never done this but according to a quick google search this is a potential option.

Google search for offline website creation – screen shot by MH

Apparently, the necessary software can be downloaded for free onto a CD or USB and used on another computer. So Lenora could download these onto a CD at school where the connection is faster, then work on her website offline, and upload at a later date. The only issue with this is that she will still need to learn how to create a website which could be time consuming.

The second option I came up with is an email listserv. I think the important part of this initiative is communication regarding anti-bullying among band teachers. She already has a community of people who would be interested in this topic through her Cradleboard Teaching Project Teacher’s Circle. She could create a listserv, place important content and links in the email and then open it up to discussion. This does not require a lot of bandwidth or experience in website creation. Unlike websites or social media, many people access their email on a daily basis and this approach will reach the relevant audience directly. The only drawback is limitation to access. If there are teachers or other allies that would benefit from this information but are missed in the listserv, they will miss this information. One way to get around it would be to advertise the existence of a listserv on relevant websites and add people as requests arise. I have been on a listserv for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery and I am constantly learning from the discussions that are occurring and I find it very convenient because it comes right into my inbox. Also, I find this method is ideal when discussing sensitive issues such as unique cases or complications because of how private it is. I’m not sure if the same kind of discussions would occur in a less secure environment such as a website. In conclusion, I think I would suggest that Lenora use an email listserv to achieve her goal of creating an online anti-bullying resource for band teachers.

If I were Benoît . . . .

There are so many questions to consider when converting a F2F course into an online course, but I think the main question is “what online tools does Benoît think he will need to make his F2F course into an online course that meets the course objectives?” I think this the most important question to ask in deciding between the two platforms. Embedded within this question are many others. How does he want to communicate with students? How will his students communicate with each other? Does this course require collaboration? How will this take place? How does he want to assess the students? Does he want to incorporate social media? How does he want to organize his course? What resources does he want to make available to the students?

The reason why I think this is the most important question is based on the SECTIONS model by Bates (2014). Presumably the Students that will want to take this course will be similar between his F2F and the online course, though the online course may be a more diverse group given the increase in accessibility. I am going to assume that accessibility is not going to be an issues as these students are voluntarily signing up for this online course. As for Ease of use, both platforms have been used by students in higher education, and thus usability will only differ slightly and may vary by individual, with some preferring Moodle while other Blackboard. As for Benoît, he has never worked with Blackboard or Moodle so there will be a learning curve regardless. At this point, I have too little information to determine which is easier to use for Benoît and his background. As for Cost, I will consider it equivalent for Benoît as the university already uses Blackboard and Moodle. Teaching functions, Interactions, Organization issues and Networking will be the distinguishing factors between the two systems. And this is why the answer to the above question on online tools becomes important. By knowing what he wants his course to look like in the end, it will help him compare the two systems to see which better enables him to create his “ideal” online course. As for Security and privacy, I’m going to assume that both systems comply with university policies given that they are already being used.

Development time is a hard question for me. I’m not sure how much time is needed to make a course to begin with. But here goes. Assuming that he has 5 hours a week to work on this course:

Think about/brain storm what he wants his course to look like and what kinds of tools he wants to use – 1 week
Compare both Moodle and Blackboard and decide which one is better suited for his course – 1 week
Become familiar with chosen platform – 1 week
Start to convert F2F course into online format (13 week course) – 13 weeks
Testing of online course – 2 weeks

So the total I come up with is 18 weeks. But I feel that this may be a gross overestimate. Assuming some things don’t take a whole week, I will say 16 weeks, give or take a couple of weeks. Final answer.

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

Mo’s flight path

Have you ever been in a situation where all of sudden you feel you aren’t qualified for your job? You work hard for many years to get to a position or land a job and realize that you’ve missed a vital component of the job description? This is where I was before I started MET. I was in my last year of residency, studying hard for my royal college exam. I had a two year fellowship lined up in British Columbia after which I would come back to Edmonton and start my career as a urogynecologist and academic. . . academic? What did that even mean? All I knew was that a large proportion of my time would be dedicated to education. I had studied four years in undergrad to prepare myself for medical school, four years in medical school to prepare for residency, and five years in residency to become a fully qualified OBGYN, and then planning another two years to sub specialize in urogynecology. What had I done to prepare myself to be an educator? Besides working with some clinicians who were also academics, I was essentially unqualified. This realization did not sit well with me as you can well imagine.

In a frantic hurry, I looked for something I could do during my fellowship that would start my path to becoming “qualified” as an educator. That’s when I discovered the MET program. My goal at the start of the program was to become an effective medical educator of the 21st century. Looking back, I chuckle at how simplistic my ideas were back then. I hadn’t even defined what an “effective” medical educator was. How would I measure even that?

Email concept with paper planes

As I started the program, my seemingly simplistic goal started to crumble, but not in a bad way. I guess break apart and take off in different directions is a better way to describe it. I started to realize that being an effective educator wasn’t a straightforward formula where you put A + B + C + D together and obtain an effective educator at the end. It’s constantly changing because the variables are also changing. I now feel that the most important skills I am honing with these courses are flexibility, adaptability, a sense of curiosity, the ability to see things from different perspectives, analysis and the grit to keep going when all I want to do is throw my laptop off of my balcony in frustration.

Specific to this course, my goals are to:

1) learn about LMS

2) develop my own expectations of LMS

3) create a course/module using LMS

4) use the tools and skills I learned in this course to build online modes specific to my area of practice for both students and residents

I believe that by achieving these goals, I will further the skills I mentioned previously.

According to International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards, to be an effective teacher, I need to meet certain standards, the first of which is to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity (ISTE, 2008). I believe I use technology effectively to inspire learning, but creativity is an area that I need to work on. I was always taught in a traditional system where education is most often unidirectional. This leaves little room for creativity. I believe aspects of this course, such as the ability to explore the LMS and interactions with my peers will inspire me to create such an environment for my students through the effective use of LMS.

The second standard is to design and develop digital age learning experiences and assessments. I am severely lacking in this respect. I have minimal experience in using, let alone designing such learning experiences. Through the assignments and readings in this course, I hope to appropriate these skills and apply them to my teaching. I also think I will learn a great deal from seeing what my peers will for their assignments.

The third standard is to model digital age work and learning. I use technology in my everyday clinical life and model this to my students. Using online resources, websites as well as an electronic medical record for patient care demonstrates my familiarity with this technology. However, outside of the clinical environment my teaching is limited to powerpoint slides, online resources, email, and video. I hope to expand this repertoire through this course and thus serve as a better model for my students.

Overall I think my greatest resource will be my peers in this course. The discussions are priceless. They are full of useful information, experiences and perspective. I am looking forward to seeing everyone’s ideas through their discussion and their assignments. I am a true believer in Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development (Kozalin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller, 2003). The knowledge I gain from my peers are far beyond what I can achieve on my own, even if I spent years reading and teaching on my own. I am excited to be an active participant in this community and to learn from everyone! Thanks for joining me in my journey.

References

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers

Kozalin, A., Gindis, B., Vladamir, A.S., & Miller, S.M. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.