Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 785–791 | Cite as

A Framework for Thinking About Transferring Teaching Innovations into New Settings

  • Sarah GillilandEmail author
  • Tasha R. Wyatt
Monograph

Abstract

As a result of health science educators’ shift to more active formats of teaching and learning, many educators are implementing innovative teaching strategies that were designed in other educational contexts. In some cases, this transfer from one context to another is smooth and unproblematic, but in others, educators must make informed decisions about how to adjust the innovation or incoming context to fit their needs. This paper presents a framework that draws on principles of design-based research to guide educators in analyzing and adapting teaching tools to fit new contexts.

Keywords

Learning theory Faculty development Educational innovation Design-based research Mutual adaptation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Mylopoulos M, Regehr G. How student models of expertise and innovation impact the development of adaptive expertise in medicine. Med Educ. 2009;43(2):127–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03254.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher. 2007;29(1):38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ertmer P. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technol Res Dev. 2005;53(4):25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Applied Research Laboratory (1996) Definitions of instructional design http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html. Accessed May 19 2017.
  5. 5.
    Dolmans DH, Tigelaar D. Building bridges between theory and practice in medical education using a design-based research approach: AMEE Guide No. 60. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins A, Joseph D, Bielaczyc K. Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. J Learn Sci. 2004;13(1):15–42.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dall'Alba G, Barnacle R. Embodied knowing in online environments. Educ Philos Theory. 2005;37(5):719–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lendrum A, Humphrey N. The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings. Oxf Rev Educ. 2012;38(5):635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Donnell C. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(33):33–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fishman B, Marx DW, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, Soloway E. Creating a framework for research on systematic technology innovations. J Learn Sci. 2004;13(1):43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Design-Based Reserach Collective. Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educ Res. 2003;32(1):5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dick W, Carey L, Carey JO. The systematic design of instruction. New York: Longman; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tharp R, Gallimore R. Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Penuel WR, Fishman B, Cheng BH, Sabelli N. Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educ Res. 2011;40(7):331–7.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen DK, Ball DL. Relations between policy and practice: a commentary. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1990;12(3):331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark CM, Peterson PL. Teachers’ thought processes. In: Wittrock MC, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company; 1986. p. 255–96.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yerrick R, Parke H, Nugent J. Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: the “filtering effect” of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of science. Sci Educ. 1997;81:137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLaughlin J, Roth M, Glatt D, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson C, Griffin L, et al. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med. 2014;89(2):236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyle T, Ravenscroft A. Context and deep learning design. Comput Educ. 2012;59Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Conole G, Dyke M, Oliver M, Seale J. Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Comput Educ. 2004;43:17–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiggins G, McTighe J. In: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, editor. Understanding by design. Virginia: Alexandria; 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coles R. The moral education of medical students. Acad Med: J Assoc Am Med Coll. 1998;73(1):55–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson B, Searle N, Gruppen L, Hatem C, Nelson E (2011) A national survey of medical education fellowships. Medical Education Online 16. doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.5642.
  24. 24.
    Smith SM. Theoretical principles of context-dependent memory. In: Morris PE, Gruneberg M, editors. Theoretical aspects of memory, vol. 168–195. London: Routledge; 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eva KW, Nev AJ, Norman GR. Exploring the aetiology of content specificity: factors influencing analogic transfer and problem solving. Acad Med. 1998;73(10):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cleland J, Nicholson S, Kelly N, Moffat M. Taking context seriously: explaining widening access policy enactments in UK medical schools. Med Educ. 2015;49(1):25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berland LK, McNeill KL. A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Sci Educ. 2010;94:765–93.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trigwell K, Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. High Educ. 1991;22(3):251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson S, Shulman LS, Richert A. 150 different ways’ of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In: Calderhead J, editor. Exploring teachers’ thinking. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1987. p. 104–23.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. PT standards and required elements. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM. Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books; 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perry WG. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. Rinehart and Winston, Inc, New York: Holt; 1970.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brown AL, Campione JC. Psychological theory and the design of learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In: Schauble L, Glaser R, editors. Innovation in learning: new environments in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996. p. 289–326.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG, et al. A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J Learn Sci. 2004;13(3):337–86.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schumacher DJ, Englander R, Carraccio C. Developing the master learner: applying learning theory to the learner, the teacher, and the learning environment. Acad Med: J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2013;88(11):1635–45.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a6e8f8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cooke M, Irby DM, O'Brien BC. Educating physicians: a call for reform of medical school and residency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(6):e421–44.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ellaway RH, Poulton T, Jivram T. Decision PBL: a 4-year retrospective case study of the use of virtual patients in problem-based learning. Med Teach. 2015;37(10):926–34.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.970627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med: J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2011;86(6):706–11.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):50–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Therapy, Crean College of Health and Behavioral SciencesChapman UniversityIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Educational Innovation Institute (EII) & Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Georgia Augusta UniversityAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations