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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher. 2007;29(1):38–42.
Ertmer P. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technol Res Dev. 2005;53(4):25–39.
Applied Research Laboratory (1996) Definitions of instructional design http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html. Accessed May 19 2017.
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.
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.
Dall'Alba G, Barnacle R. Embodied knowing in online environments. Educ Philos Theory. 2005;37(5):719–44.
Lendrum A, Humphrey N. The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings. Oxf Rev Educ. 2012;38(5):635–52.
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.
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.
The Design-Based Reserach Collective. Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educ Res. 2003;32(1):5–8.
Dick W, Carey L, Carey JO. The systematic design of instruction. New York: Longman; 2001.
Tharp R, Gallimore R. Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
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.
Cohen DK, Ball DL. Relations between policy and practice: a commentary. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1990;12(3):331–8.
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.
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.
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.
Boyle T, Ravenscroft A. Context and deep learning design. Comput Educ. 2012;59
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.
Wiggins G, McTighe J. In: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, editor. Understanding by design. Virginia: Alexandria; 2005.
Coles R. The moral education of medical students. Acad Med: J Assoc Am Med Coll. 1998;73(1):55–7.
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.
Smith SM. Theoretical principles of context-dependent memory. In: Morris PE, Gruneberg M, editors. Theoretical aspects of memory, vol. 168–195. London: Routledge; 1994.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017–54.
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.
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. PT standards and required elements. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2016.
Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM. Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books; 1997.
Perry WG. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. Rinehart and Winston, Inc, New York: Holt; 1970.
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.
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.
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.
Cooke M, Irby DM, O'Brien BC. Educating physicians: a call for reform of medical school and residency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Worksheet for Analysis of Educational Innovation
Worksheet for Analysis of Educational Innovation
This worksheet guides the application of the framework for analysis and adaptation of educational innovation from one setting to another.
Source/Reference for Original Tool/Innovation
Brief Description of the Original Tool/Innovation
Learning Goals for your class (why are you using this tool/innovation?)
About this article
Cite this article
Gilliland, S., Wyatt, T.R. A Framework for Thinking About Transferring Teaching Innovations into New Settings. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 785–791 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0468-3
- Learning theory
- Faculty development
- Educational innovation
- Design-based research
- Mutual adaptation