Lessons Learned from Blending in Health Sciences

1. 11th Annual Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference Lessons Learned from Blending in Health Sciences Crafting a Course Model for Student Success Paige L. McDonald, EdD Laurie B. Lyons, MA Howard Straker, MPH, PA-C Elizabeth Ruckert, PT, DPT, NCS,GCS Bryan Walker, MHS, PA-C Linda Cotton, MA

2. Workshop Objectives • Discuss selection of blended models in PA and PT based on pedagogical goals • Review lessons learned from research/evaluation of blending in Health Science • Review best practices on course design derived from research and practice • Apply best practices to develop a blended model

3. Challenges in Health Sciences Education • Need for more health professionals • Expanding curricula • Emphasis on problem- and case-based learning • Emphasis on improved learning outcomes related to future practice

4. Our Approach • Evidence-based (QM) • Faculty/Instructional designer pair • Structure related to pedagogy • Multidimensional assessment

5. Enhanced vs Blended Web-Enhanced Augmenting a traditional FTF course with online technology (Allen & Seaman, 2013) for a specific pedagogical purpose with no reduction in class time Blended Integrating online activities with traditional FTF class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner while reducing FTF class time (Picciano, 2009)

6. Course Enhancement in Physical Therapy • Pedagogical goals • Increase student engagement in class discussion • Encourage critical thinking and clinical decision-making • Apply knowledge learned earlier in the curriculum at a higher level

7. Taxonomy of Thinking

8. Priming Activity Design • Structured around patient cases (but don’t have to be) • Required reading and/or review from prior coursework • Integrate aspects of clinical PT practice • Incorporated elements of reflection • Students completed and submitted prior to class • Applied content immediately during in-class session

9. Why Technology? • Appeals to Millennial learners • Increases learner accountability • Improves primer accessibility (more time efficient) • Increases learner engagement (visual and auditory components)

11. Example #1

13. Assessing Outcomes • Learner • Blackboard submission • Student participation in-class • Grading of primers • Summative assessments (exam, practical) • Instructor • Formative assessment • End-of-course evaluations

14. Lessons Learned • Design must hold the students accountable • Classroom discussion should be at “just the right” level for students to value completion • Less is more! • 2-3 key objectives are more than enough • If designed well, students like them :-)

15. Learner Outcomes

16. Use of Technology for Clinical Skills CLASS Center

17. Pedagogical Goals • Promote learning of clinical skills with a large cohort of students (68), and limited time and faculty resources • Increase interaction (Bandura, 1986; Illeris, 2003; McDonald, 2012) • Support higher levels of learning (Illeris, 2003; McDonald, 2012)

18. How technology can meet these goals and challenges • Promotes asynchronous learning • Encourages self-directed learning • Allows for personal reflection on own time • Alleviates faculty time and space burden • Grading can be done electronically and or remotely • Eases space constraints • Enables more authentic assessment

19. Example: Oral Case Presentations • Oral communication is an essential professional competency • Mastery requires practice and reflection

20. Example: Oral Case Presentations • Video recorded standardized patient encounter • Video recorded case presentation • Self-evaluation • Faculty feedback • Reflection

21. Example: Oral Case Presentations

22. Evaluation • Focus group • Post activity survey • End of course evaluation

23. Lessons Learned • Consider students’ prior experiences with the activity (especially before a graded assignment) • Carefully consider the activity when combining multiple skills • If engaging other faculty, make sure the expectations are clear

24. Fully Blended: A Challenging Experiment

25. Pedagogical Goals • Promote reflective practice (Schon, 1987) • Increase interaction (Bandura, 1986; Illeris, 2003; McDonald, 2012) • Support higher levels of learning (Illeris, 2003; McDonald, 2012) • Support communities of inquiry (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2003)

26. Reflection, Interaction & Application

27. Example • Pre- class discussion Prior to our FTF class session, in your group discussion boards, define your assigned “ism” and using the “Gardener’s Tale” discuss the 3 levels of the assigned ism. • FTF class activity In your new assigned group a) give a summary of your team’s discussion, b) discuss how a patient’s intersection of these “isms” may affect their care and c) we as clinicians, may do about them. • Journal entry Reflect upon the readings, lecture, and face-to-face discussion on gender versus sex. In your journal entry, discuss how they informed your previous conceptualizations of gender and sex. Then, describe health care challenges of the sexual minorities including LGBT health disparities. How might your understanding of these challenges influence your future practice?

28. Assessment of Student Learning

29. Assessment of the Blended Format

30. Lessons Learned from Fully Blended Course • Never enough structure • Adoption of technology must align with other courses in program and student experience • Don’t overwhelm with varieties of technology • Ensure actual application in F2F sessions • Don’t tell students they are doing something new • Ensure students see the relationship between online and face-to-face activities

31. Workshop/Worksheet Review

32. Breakout Session (30 min) Interesting ideas to share? Questions that arose?

33. Wrap Up

34. References • Allen, I. E.,& Seaman J. (2013). “Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States, 2013. Babson Survey Research Group, Pearson and the Sloan Consortium. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013 • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105 • Graham, C.R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning adoption in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14. • Illeris, K. (2003, July-August). Toward a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406. • McDonald, P. L. (2012). Adult learners and blended learning: A phenomenographic study of variation in adult learners’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. George Washington University, Washington, DC, in partial fulfillment of Doctor of Education degree, Department of Human and Organizational Learning, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. • Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with a purpose: The multi-modal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 1-9. • Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.