Foundational Elements of School-Specific Augmented Medical Education
- 34 Downloads
Recent efforts to enrich the medical education experience recommended interinstitutional and collaborative efforts. Within this context, the author describes a model for school-specific augmented medical education. The evidence-backed conceptual model is composed of six foundational elements, which include the following: technology-enriched learning environments, analytics to drive instructional interventions, cognitive neuroscience and educational psychology research (the Science of Learning), self-regulated learning strategies, competency-based approaches, and blended learning instructional design. Harnessing the creativity of our leadership, medical educators, and learners is fundamental to improving the learning experience for all. This model could be used to meaningfully guide implementation processes.
KeywordsMedical education Blended learning Educational technologies Cognitive neuroscience Instructional design Faculty development
The author wishes to thank Melora Sundt, Kenneth Yates, Monique Datta, and Kathy Hanson. Additionally, conversations with Charles Prober aided with streamlining and improving this manuscript. Importantly, the author wishes to thank the Educational Development Office’s Division of Innovations in Medical Education at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine for support and assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- 1.Garrison D, Vaughan N. Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.Google Scholar
- 2.Garrison D, Vaughan N. Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. Inter High Edu. 2013;18:24–8.Google Scholar
- 3.Green DP. A Gap Analysis of Course Directors’ Effective Implementation of Technology-enriched Course Designs: An Innovation Study [dissertation]. Los Angeles, Ca: University of Southern California. 2018. Retrieved from the University of Southern California Digital Library: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll40/id/462270. Accessed 30 May 2018.
- 6.Song HS, Kalet AL, Plass JL. Assessing medical students’ self-regulation as aptitude in computer-based learning. Adv Health Sci Edu. 2011;16(1):97–107.Google Scholar
- 12.Clark RE, Estes F. Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. In: Inc; 2008.Google Scholar
- 21.Kredell M. “CHARIOT begins testing wearable technology”. 2018. Summer. Retrieved October 7, 2018, from: https://www.rossier.usc.edu/magazine/ss2018/chariot-begins-testing-wearable-technology/. Accessed 30 May 2018.
- 23.Taub M, Azevedo R, Bouchet F, Khosravifar B. Can the use of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments. Comp Edu. 2014;39(October):356–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.018.Google Scholar
- 27.Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education; 2011.Google Scholar
- 28.Dembo MH, Seli H. Academic self-regulation. In: Dembo MH, Seli H, editors. Motivation and learning strategies for college success: a focus on self-regulated learning. 5th ed. New York, N.Y: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, Inc; 2016. p. 3–27.Google Scholar
- 29.Zimmerman BJ. Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Edu Psy. 1998;33(2):73–86.Google Scholar
- 30.Pettepher CC, Lomis KD, Osheroff N. From theory to practice: utilizing competency-based milestones to assess professional growth and development in the foundational science blocks of a pre-clerkship medical school curriculum. Med Sci Edu. 2016;26(3):491–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0262-7.Google Scholar
- 34.Green DP. Next generation medical education: facilitating student-centered learning environments. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Brief. 2016; 1–6. Retrieved from: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/3/next-generation-medical-education. Accessed 30 May 2018.
- 40.Immordino-Yang MH, Singh V. Perspectives from social and affective neuroscience on the design of digital learning technologies. In: Immordino-Yang MH, editor. Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affective neuroscience. New York, N.Y: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc; 2016. p. 181–90.Google Scholar
- 41.Eccles J. Expectancy value motivational theory. In: Anderman EM, Anderman LH, editors. Psychology of Classroom Learning, vol. 1. Macmillan Reference USA: Detroit; 2006. p. 390–3. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3027800112&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=usocal_main&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=6ab39823387b6b715067288033f65e7c. Accessed 30 May 2018.
- 43.Elmore RF. Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. 2002. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achievement. Accessed 30 May 2018.
- 44.Hentschke GC, Wohlstetter P. Cracking the code of accountability. Univ S Calif Urban Educ. 2004;2004(Spring/Summer):17–9.Google Scholar
- 45.Graham CR, Woodfield W, Harrison JB. A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Inter High Edu. 2013;18:4–14.Google Scholar