Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Case for Instructional Teams in the New Era of Online Medical Education

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After a period of “emergency remote teaching” precipitated by COVID-19, academic medical centers are moving into a second, more mature phase in online education. This article offers guidance to institutions planning for this second phase. In it, we advocate a reorientation towards “instructional teams;” outline typical roles and skill sets on instructional teams; discuss the hardware, software, and space required to develop high-quality online courses; and describe common pitfalls experienced by instructional teams along with strategies to avoid them. Our objective is to help institutions hoping to develop high-quality, sustainable online programming to set realistic and informed expectations, allocate resources intelligently, hire appropriately, and work productively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stoehr F, Müller L, Brady A, Trilla A, et al. How COVID-19 kick-started online learning in medical education—the DigiMed study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Connell JM, Niec JA, Sharif KF. Reconfiguring medical education. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.10902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rose S. Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond, A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. In Educause Review. 2020. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning. Accessed 22 April.

  5. Carolan C, Davies CL, Crookes P, McGhee S, Rox-Burgh M. COVID-19: disruptive impacts and transformative opportunities in undergraduate nurse education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zalat MM, Hamed MS, Bolbol SA. The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PLoS ONE. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hayden C, Stover S, Parmelee D. Medical educators are techno-stressed: an unforeseen consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Excellence in Coll Teach. 2022;33(3):51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wolf CR. Virtual platforms are helpful tools but can add to our stress. In Psych Today. 2020. Accessed 1 June 2023. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-desk-the-mental-health-lawyer/202005/virtual-platforms-are-helpful-tools-can-add-our-stress.

  9. Lederman D. Faculty confidence in online learning grows. In Inside Higher Ed [Internet]. Accessed Aug 2022. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/10/06/covid-era-experience-strengthens-faculty-belief-value-online#:~:text=The%20answer%20is%20%22first%20and,%2C%22%20and%2031%20percent%20disagreed.

  10. He S, Lai D, Mott S, et al. Remote e-work and distance learning for academic medicine: Best practices and opportunities for the future. J Grad Med Educ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00242.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huynh R. The role of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Norman MK, Lotrecchiano GR. Translating the learning sciences into practice: a primer for clinical and translational educators. J of Clin and Transl Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cornelius F, Glasgow MES. The development and infrastructure needs required for success–one college’s model: online nursing education at Drexel University. TechTrends. 2007;51(6):32–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Halawa A, Sharma A, Bridson JM. Distance learning in clinical transplantation: a successful model in post-graduate education. World J of Ed. 2017;7(3):74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jamieson E. Cardiac physiology: Comparison of an e-learning and classroom-based resource for first-year medical students. J Bio Ed. 2020;54(5):548–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stebbings S, Bhagheri N, Perrie K. Blended learning and curriculum renewal across three medical schools: the rheumatology module at the University of Otago. Australasian J Ed Tech. 2012;28(7):1176–89.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lorenzo-Alvarez R, Rudolphi-Solero T, Ruiz-Gomez M. Game-based learning in virtual worlds: a multiuser online game for medical undergraduate radiology education within Second Life. Anat Sci Ed. 2020;13(5):602–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wieland P, del Pino KD. A surprising navigation: the emergence of the LODEStone model through OCTBR, a creative commons-licensed course development tool for the health sciences. Intl J on E-Learn. 2022;21(1):79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chang C, Kuo S, Hwang G. Chatbot-facilitated nursing education: Incorporating a knowledge-based chatbot system into a nursing training program. Ed Tech & Society. 2022;25(1):15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chen BY, Kern DE, Kearns RM, Thomas PA, Hughes MT, Tackett S. From modules to MOOCs: application of the six-step approach to online curriculum development for medical education. Acad Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahu PK, Dalcik H, Dalcik C, Gupta MM, Chattu V, Umakanthan S. Best practices for effective implementation of online teaching and learning in medical and health professions education: during COVID-19 and beyond. AIMS Publ Health. 2022 Jan 27;9(2):278–292. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2022019. eCollection 2022.

  22. Ruelas DM. Enhancing online learning for public health graduate students. J of Instr Res. 2019;8(2):97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Te Pas E, Waard MW, Blok BS, Pouw H, van Dijk N. Didactic and technical considerations when developing e-learning and CME. Ed & Inf Tech.2016;21(5):991–1005.

  24. Sharp EA, Norman MK, Spagnoletti CL, Miller BG. Optimizing synchronous online teaching sessions: a guide to the “new normal” in medical education. Acad Pediatr. 2021;21(1):11–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Warner DO, Nolan M, Garcia-Marcinkiewicz A. Adaptive instruction and learner interactivity in online learning: a randomized trial. Adv in Health Sci Ed. 2020;25(1):95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutton M, White L, Mbizo J. Assessment in online programs: use in strategic planning for faculty/adjunct development and course instruction to improve faculty and student engagement. Intl J on E-Learning. 2010;9(1):129–45.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hampton D, Culpe-Roche A, Hensley A, Wilson J, Otts JA, Thaxton-Wiggens A, Fruh S, Moser DK. Self-efficacy and satisfaction with teaching in online courses. Nurse Educ. 2020;45(6):302–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jia Y, Gesing P, Jun H-Y. Exploring the impacts of learning modality changes: validation of the learning modality change community of inquiry and self-efficacy scales. Ed & Info Tech. 2023;28(2):1763–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer RE. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Second edition. ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

  30. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory. Vol 1. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media; 2011.

  31. Garrison D, Anderson T, Archer W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(1):5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rose DH, Meyer A. Teaching every student in the digital age: universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2002.

  33. Kim JY, Kim M. Can online learning be a reliable alternative to nursing students’ learning during a pandemic? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tamilmani K, Anithasri A, Gunavathi G. Comparison of academic performance of medical undergraduate students between routine classroom teaching and online assisted teaching in biochemistry during COVID pandemic. Biochem & Mol Bio Educ. 2023;51(1):81–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murray L, McCallum C, Petrosino C. Flipping the classroom experience: a comparison of online learning to traditional lecture. J of Phys Therapy Ed. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-201407000-00006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Christianson L, Tiene D, Luft P. Examining online instruction in undergraduate nursing education. Distance Educ. 2002;23(2):213–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cernusca D, Mallik S. Successful transfer of face-to-face active learning instructional design to online synchronous format during the COVID-19 pandemic. Q Rev of Distance Ed. 2022;23(1):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Neubauer N, Pinto-Zipp G. Exploring health science faculty perceptions regarding their readiness to teach online. J Allied Health. 2023;52(1):e1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Leighton M. The importance of having faculty readiness and technology to transition to a hybrid or a fully online anatomical education in medical schools during Covid‐19 pandemic. FASEB J. 2021;https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.04736.

  40. Lee D, Paulus TM, Loboda I. A faculty development program for nurse educators learning to teach online. TechTrends. 2010;54(6):20–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Blake A, Doherty I. An instructional design course for clinical educators: first iteration design research reflections. J of Learn Design. 2007;2(2):83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Richter S, Idleman L. Online teaching efficacy: a product of professional development and ongoing support. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2017. https://doi.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/ijnes-2016-00.

  43. Saiyad S, Virk A, Mahajan R, Singh T. Online teaching in medical training: establishing good online teaching practices from cumulative experience. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_358_20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Poore J, Herrington A, Hardie L. Redefining health-care simulation facilitator professional development through online learning. Creat Nurs. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1891/CN-2021-0054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoogveld AWM, Paas F, Jochems WM. Application of an instructional systems design approach by teachers in higher education: individual versus team design. Teach Educ. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00055-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McDonald JK, Jackson BD, Hunter MB. Understanding distinctions of worth in the practices of instructional design teams. Edu Technol Res and Dev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09995-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Clapp A, Reynolds A, Bell B. Planning the development and maintenance of online distance learning courses. Online J of Distance Learn Admin. 2019;22(1).

  48. Shell L, Crawford S, Harris P. Aided and embedded: the team approach to instructional design. J Libr Info Serv Dist Learn. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kang Y, Ritzhaupt AD. A job announcement analysis of educational technology professional positions: knowledge, skills, and abilities. J Educ Tech Syst. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515570572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Halupa C. Differentiation of roles: instructional designers and faculty in the creation of online courses. Intl J High Ed. 2019;8(1):55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sugar WA, Luterbach KJ. Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles. Educ Tech Res Dev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Puzziferro M, Shelton K. A model for developing high-quality online courses: integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Online Learn Mag. 2019. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3-4.1688.

  53. Loftus J, Stavraky T, Urquhart BL. Design it yourself (DIY): in-house instructional design for online pharmacology. Adv in Health Sci Ed. 2014;19(5):645–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kadioglu M, Tacgin Z, Sahin N. Instructional design and material development progress to eLearning environments: a sample of obstetrical nursing education. Contemp EdTech. 2020;12(1).

  55. Ryan S, Beck DE. Use of an education specialist team that collaborates with faculty members to efficiently and continuously develop an innovative pharmacy curriculum across multiple campuses. TechTrends. 2018;62(3):230–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gould R, Parker Harris S, Mullin, C. ADA research brief: higher education and the ADA. Chicago, IL: ADA National Network Knowledge Translation Center. 2019. https://adata.org/sites/adata.org/files/files/ADA%20Research%20Brief_Higher%20Education%20and%20the%20ADA_FINAL.pdf. Accessed Sept 2022.

  57. McCoy L, Lewis JH, Dalton D. Gamification and multimedia for medical education: a landscape review. J Amer Osteo Assoc. 2016;116(1):22–34. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2016.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Dzara K, Chen DT, Haidet P, Murray H, Tackett, Chisolm MS. The effective use of videos in medical education. Acad Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003056.

  59. Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology. What is the one button studio? In Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology. 2022. https://onebutton.psu.edu/#:~:text=The%20One%20Button%20Studio%20is,anything%20about%20lights%20and%20cameras. Accessed Sept 2022.

  60. Flip (formerly Flipgrid) [Computer Software]. Version: 13.4.1. Minneapolis, MN: Microsoft; 2023.

  61. Padlet [Computer Software]. Version 5.0.0.0. San Francisco, CA: Padlet; 2023.

  62. Jamboard [Computer Software]. Version 0.2. Mountain View, CA: Google; 2023.

  63. Figma [Computer Software]. Version 116.6.3. San Francisco, CA: Adobe; 2023.

  64. Articulate 360 [Computer Software]. Version: 1.75.30269.O. New York, NY: Articulate; 2023.

  65. Adobe Creative Cloud [Computer Software]. Version: 6. San Jose: CA: Adobe; 2023.

  66. Final Cut Pro [Computer Software]. Version: 10.4.8. Woodland Hills: CA: Apple; 2023.

  67. Da Vinci Resolve [Computer Software]. Version: 18.5. Burbank, CA: Blackmagic Design; 2023.

  68. Zoom [Computer Software]. Version: 15.14.5. San Jose, CA: Zoom Video Communications, Inc; 2023.

  69. Microsoft Teams [Computer Software]. Version: 1.5.00.10369. Redmond, CA: Microsoft; 2023.

  70. Nathan M, Lee N. Cultural diversity, innovation, and entrepreneurship: firm-level evidence from London. Econ Geog. 2013;89(4):367–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hong L, Page S. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. PNAS. 2004;101(46):16385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Emanuel EJ. The inevitable reimagining of medical education. JAMA. 2020;323(12):1127–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is funded by the NCATS UL1 TR001857.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovative Design for Education and Assessment (IDEA) Lab, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Marie K. Norman, Isabel Crevasse & Natalie Vazquez

  2. Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Carla Spagnoletti & Thomas R. Radomski

  3. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Chelsea Proulx

Authors
  1. Marie K. Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carla Spagnoletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chelsea Proulx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isabel Crevasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalie Vazquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas R. Radomski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie K. Norman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Norman, M.K., Spagnoletti, C., Proulx, C. et al. The Case for Instructional Teams in the New Era of Online Medical Education. Med.Sci.Educ. 33, 1231–1238 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01850-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01850-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation