Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 6, pp 1301–1335 | Cite as

Advancing virtual patient simulations through design research and interPLAY: part II—integration and field test

  • Atsusi Hirumi
  • Teresa Johnson
  • Ramsamooj Javier Reyes
  • Benjamin Lok
  • Kyle Johnsen
  • Diego J. Rivera-Gutierrez
  • Kenneth Bogert
  • Stacey Kubovec
  • Michael Eakins
  • Andrea Kleinsmith
  • Michael Bellew
  • Juan Cendan
Development Article

Abstract

In Part I of this two-part series, we examined the design and development of NERVE: A virtual patient simulation created to give medical students standardized experiences in interviewing, examining, and diagnosing virtual patients with cranial nerve disorders. We illustrated key design features and discussed how design-based research studies improved the total learning experience, including the virtual patient (VP) simulations and the instructional features incorporated with the simulations. In Part II, we examine the efficacy of NERVE and the strategy used to integrate the system into the medical school curriculum by field-testing it with 119 s-year medical students, and measuring students’ use, reactions, learning, and transfer. We report findings and reflect on lessons learned from the field-test to posit recommendations for improvement and guide the future research and development of virtual patient simulations.

Keywords

Virtual patient simulations Instructional design Design-based research Integration Implementation Field-test 

References

  1. Ahmed, M., Sevdalis, N., Paige, J., Paragi-Gururaja, R., Nestel, D., & Arora, S. (2012). Association for Surgical Education: Identifying best practice guidelines for debriefing in surgery: a tri-continental study. The American Journal of Surgery, 203, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, N., Fall, L., Smith, S., Levine, D. A., Maloney, C. G., Potts, M., et al. (2009). Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships. Academic Medicine, 84(7), 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botezatu, M., Hult, H., Kassaye Tessma, M., & Fors, U. G. (2010). As time goes by: Stakeholder opinions on the implementation and use of a virtual patient simulation system. Medical Teacher, 32(11), e509–e516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cendan, J., & Lok, B. (2012). The use of virtual patients in medical school curricula. Advances in Physiology Education, 36(1), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, R. E. (2004). Design Document for a Guided Experiential Learning Course. Submitted to satisfy contract DAAD 19-99-D-0046-0004 from TRADOC to the Institute for Creative Technologies and the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  7. Consorti, F., Mancuso, R., Nocioni, M., & Piccolo, A. (2012). Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1001–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, D. A. (2014). How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta-analysis of outcomes of simulation-based education. Medical Education, 48(8), 750–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, D. A., Erwin, P. J., & Triola, M. M. (2010). Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85, 1589–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M. (2009). Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Medical Education, 43(4), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Edelbring, S. (2010). A three-fold framework for relating to innovations and technology in education: learning from, with and about technology. In A. Bromage, L. Clouder, J. Thistlethwaite, & F. Gordon (Eds.), Interprofessional E-learning and collaborative work: Practices and technologies (pp. 23–33). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edelbring, S., Broström, O., Henriksson, P., Vassiliou, D., Spaak, J., Dahlgren, L. O., & Zary, N. (2012). Integrating virtual patients into courses: follow-up seminars and perceived benefit. Medical Education, 46(4), 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edelbring, S., Dastmalchi, M., Hult, H., Lundberg, I. E., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2011). Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(3), 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, M., Hege, I., Hörnlein, A., Puppe, F., Tönshoff, B., & Huwendiek, S. (2007). Virtual patients in medical education: a comparison of various strategies for curricular integration. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 102(10), 648–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haag, M., Singer, R., Bauch, M., Heid, J., Hess, F., & Leven, F. (2007). Challenges and perspectives of computer-assisted instruction in medical education. Lessons learned from seven years of experience with the CAMPUS system. Methods of Information in Medicine, 46(1), 67.Google Scholar
  17. Halan, S., Rossen, B., Cendan, J., & Lok, B. (2010). High score! - motivation strategies for user participation in virtual human development. Intelligent Virtual, 9783642158919, 482. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirumi, A., Johnson, T. & Reyes, R. J. (2015). Field-testing Strategies to Improve the Integration of Virtual Patient Simulations into Medical School Curriculum. Concurrent session presented the annual Association for Educational Communication and Technology conference, Indianapolis, IN. November 4–6.Google Scholar
  19. Hirumi, A., Kleinsmith, A., Johnsen, K., Kubovec, S., Eakins, M., Bogert, K., et al. (2016). Advancing virtual patient simulations through design research and interplay: Part I: Design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development,. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9429-6.Google Scholar
  20. Huwendiek, S., & De Leng, B. A. (2010). Virtual patient design and curricular integration evaluation toolkit. Medical Education, 44(5), 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huwendiek, S., Duncker, C., Reichert, F., De Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Tönshoff, B. (2013). Learner preferences regarding integrating, sequencing and aligning virtual patients with other activities in the undergraduate medical curriculum: A focus group study. Medical Teacher, 35(11), 920–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huwendiek, S., Reichert, F., Bosse, H. M., De Leng, B. A., van der Vleuten, C. P., Haag, M., & Tönshoff, B. (2009). Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Medical Education, 43(6), 580–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E., Gordon, D. L., & Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivation design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Levett-Jones, T., & Lapkin, S. (2014). The effectiveness of debriefing in simulation-based learning for health professionals: A systematic review (Protocol). JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 9, S81–S96.Google Scholar
  29. Lindsey, L., & Berger, N. (2009). Experiential approach to instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3, pp. 117–142)., Building a common knowledge based New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Maran, N. J., & Glavin, R. J. (2003). Low-to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? Medical Education, 37(1), 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGaghie, W., Issenberg, S., Cohen, E., Barsuk, J., & Wayne, D. (2011). Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 706–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Medical Educator, 44, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paige, J. T., Arora, S., Fernandez, G., & Seymour, N. (2015). Debriefing 101: Training faculty to promote learning in simulation-based training. The American Journal of Surgery, 209(1), 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (1975). Introduction to the structured experiences section. In J. E. Jones & J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1975 annual handbook for group facilitators. La Jolla: University Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Salem-Schatz, S., Ordin, D., & Mittman, B. (2010). Guide to the after action review v1.1. Accessed 27 September 2014 from http://as.vanderbilt.edu/overview/faculty/facultycouncil/archive/sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/cHpJCw/Guide%20to%20the%20After%20Action%20Review.pdf
  36. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 161–179). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Stapleton, C., & Hirumi, A. (2011). Interplay instructional strategy: Learning by engaging interactive entertainment conventions. In M. Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (Eds.), Pedagogical models: The discipline of online teaching (pp. 183–211). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Stapleton, C., & Hirumi, A. (2014). Designing InterPLAY learning landscapes to evoke emotions, spark the imagination, and promote creative problem solving. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Grounded designs for online and hybrid learning: Practical guidelines for educators and instructional designers (pp. 159–190). Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsusi Hirumi
    • 1
    • 8
  • Teresa Johnson
    • 2
  • Ramsamooj Javier Reyes
    • 1
  • Benjamin Lok
    • 3
  • Kyle Johnsen
    • 4
  • Diego J. Rivera-Gutierrez
    • 3
  • Kenneth Bogert
    • 4
  • Stacey Kubovec
    • 5
  • Michael Eakins
    • 6
  • Andrea Kleinsmith
    • 7
  • Michael Bellew
    • 5
  • Juan Cendan
    • 5
  1. 1.College of Education & Human PerformanceUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.School of MedicineJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.College of EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.College of EngineeringUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  5. 5.College of MedicineUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  6. 6.Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  7. 7.College of Engineering and Information TechnologyUMBCBaltimoreUSA
  8. 8.Instructional Design & Technology Program, Department of Education and Human SciencesUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations