CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Laryngorhinootologie 2019; 98(S 01): S197-S219
DOI: 10.1055/a-0803-0218
Referat
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019

Strategies of Digitized Learning

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Tobias Dombrowski
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Halschirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum am St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum (Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. S. Dazert)
,
Stefan Dazert
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Halschirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum am St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum (Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. S. Dazert)
,
Stefan Volkenstein
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Halschirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum am St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum (Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. S. Dazert)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 April 2019 (online)

Abstract

The development of digital strategies in teaching is based on the technological progress of the last decades, but also on the strong motivation to focus a didactic concept on the learning individuals. The available data of German medical faculties indicate that digital teaching concepts currently play a subordinate role in medicine in general and specifically in otorhinolaryngology. By assessing data of our own institution, we could demonstrate that the majority of medical students refer mainly to material handed out by the lecturers as single source of information for learning Otorhinolaryngology. Therefore, the application of sound digital teaching strategies provides special chances, in particular in otorhinolaryngology to cope with the excessive amount of online information from partly unclear sources.

Currently, the possible degree of digital teaching reaches from digital service supply via punctual provision of classic teaching concepts and blended learning up to completely digital curricula. The attractiveness of curricular integration of digital teaching strategies is less based on the utilization of merely technological progress, but rather on the variety of applying innovative curricula and new didactic concepts. Depending on the intended teaching purpose, the flipped classroom and the virtual reality seem to have a particularly high potential, while mobile learning is already established in individual practice. Testing and evaluating digital teaching innovations for concrete scenarios currently belongs to the most important scientific challenges of digital teaching concepts.

Today, the nationwide implementation of digital teaching in Germany is less impeded by technical conditions, but by missing financing because sponsoring is currently mainly performed with reference to concrete projects; in the context of permanent implementation, however, regular costs arise. To support these promising teaching concepts, the sponsoring of institutions for digital teaching with provision of hard- and software solutions at universities could contribute significantly. Establishing cooperation to use such digital platforms might lead to a high efficiency regarding the distribution with simultaneously profiting of savings potential.

 
  • Literatur

  • 1 Nicholson P. A History of E-Learning. In: Computers and Education. Springer; Dordrecht: 2007: 1-11
  • 2 Allen MW. Adressing diversity in (e-)learning. In: Michael Allen’s 2008 e-Learning Annual. Pfeiffer; 2008. S. 30ff
  • 3 Bitzer D, Braunfeld P, Lichtenberger W. PLATO: An Automatic Teaching Device. IRE Trans Educ 1961; 4: 157-161
  • 4 Bitzer DL, Johnson RL, Skaperdas D. A Digitally Addressable Random Access Image Selector and Random Access Audio System. Urbana, Ilinois: Computer-based Education Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; 1970
  • 5 Hagler MO, Marcy WM. The legacy of PLATO and TICCIT for learning with computers. Comput Appl Eng Educ 2000; 8: 127-131
  • 6 Suppes P. Modern Learning Theory and The Elementary-School Curriculum. Am Educ Res J 1964; 1: 79-93
  • 7 Keengwe J, Kidd TT. Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 2010; 6: 9
  • 8 Schmid U, Thom S, Görtz L. Ein Leben lang digital lernen – neue Weiterbildungsmodelle aus Hochschulen. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung; 2016
  • 9 Janoschka O, Friedrich J-D, Rademacher M.Das Hochschulforum. Im Internet: https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/de/wir/hochschulforum
  • 10 Friedrich J-D. Lernen mit digitalen Medien aus Studierendenperspektive. 2016; 45
  • 11 Dombrowski T, Wrobel C, Dazert S, Volkenstein S. Flipped classroom frameworks improve efficacy in undergraduate practical courses – a quasi-randomized pilot study in Otorhinolaryngology. BMC Med Educ 2018; 18: 294
  • 12 von Saß PF, Klenzner T, Scheckenbach K, Chaker A. Einsatz von E-Learning an deutschen Universitäts-HNO-Kliniken. Laryngo-Rhino-Otol 2017; 96: 175-179
  • 13 Christensen CM, Horn MB, Staker H. Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction to the theory of hybrids. The Clayton Christensen Institute. 2013; Im Internet: https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hybrids/
  • 14 Kuhn S, Frankenhauser S, Tolks D. Digitale Lehr- und Lernangebote in der medizinischen Ausbildung. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2018; 201-209
  • 15 Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2013; 88: 1407-1410
  • 16 Themengruppe Curriculum Design & Qualitätsentwicklung. Design digitaler Lehr-, Lern- und Prüfungsangebote. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung;
  • 17 Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Estrada V, Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report. 2015. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium;
  • 18 Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture Halls without Lectures — A Proposal for Medical Education. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1657-1659
  • 19 Ramnanan C, Pound L. Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Adv Med Educ Pract 2017; 8: 63-73
  • 20 Morton DA, Colbert-Getz JM. Measuring the impact of the flipped anatomy classroom: The importance of categorizing an assessment by Bloom’s taxonomy.. Anat Sci Educ 2017; 10: 170-175
  • 21 Whelan A, Leddy JJ, Mindra S, Matthew Hughes JD, El-Bialy S, Ramnanan CJ. Student perceptions of independent versus facilitated small group learning approaches to compressed medical anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 40-51
  • 22 Lew EK. Creating a contemporary clerkship curriculum: the flipped classroom model in emergency medicine. Int J Emerg Med 2016; 9: 25
  • 23 Nelson BP, Hojsak J, Dei Rossi E, Karani R, Narula J. Seeing Is Believing: Evaluating a Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum for 1st-Year Medical Students. Teach Learn Med 2017; 29: 85-92
  • 24 Sharma N, Lau CS, Doherty I, Harbutt D. How we flipped the medical classroom. Med Teach 2015; 37: 327-330
  • 25 Sajid MR, Laheji AF, Abothenain F, Salam Y, AlJayar D, Obeidat A. Can blended learning and the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction in Saudi Arabia?. Int J Med Educ 2016; 7: 281-285
  • 26 Evans KH, Thompson AC, O’Brien C, Bryant M, Basaviah P, Prober C, Popat RA. An Innovative Blended Preclinical Curriculum in Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics: Impact on Student Satisfaction and Performance. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2016; 91: 696-700
  • 27 Grossman E, Grosseman S, Azevedo GD, Figueiró-Filho EA, Mckinley D. Flipped classroom on humanities: medicine, narrative and art. Med Educ 2015; 49: 1142
  • 28 Rose E, Claudius I, Tabatabai R, Kearl L, Behar S, Jhun P. The Flipped Classroom in Emergency Medicine Using Online Videos with Interpolated Questions. J Emerg Med 2016; 51: 284-291.e1
  • 29 Lin Y, Zhu Y, Chen C, Wang W, Chen T, Li T, Li Y, Liu B, Lian Y, Lu L, Zou Y, Liu Y. Facing the challenges in ophthalmology clerkship teaching: Is flipped classroom the answer? PLoS ONE 2017; 12:
  • 30 Bharamgoudar R. Gamification. Clin Teach 2018; 15: 268-269
  • 31 Lewis ZH, Swartz MC, Lyons EJ. What’s the Point?: A Review of Reward Systems Implemented in Gamification Interventions. Games Health J 2016; 5: 93-99
  • 32 Rutledge C, Walsh CM, Swinger N, Auerbach M, Castro D, Dewan M, Khattab M, Rake A, Harwayne-Gidansky I, Raymond TT, Maa T, Chang TP.Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (QCPR) leaderboard investigators of the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE). Gamification in Action: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Medical Educators. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2018
  • 33 Cooper S, Khatib F, Treuille A, Barbero J, Lee J, Beenen M, Leaver-Fay A, Baker D, Popović Z, Players F. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 2010; 466: 756-760
  • 34 Khatib F, DiMaio F, Cooper S, Kazmierczyk M, Gilski M, Krzywda S, Zabranska H, Pichova I, Thompson J, Popovi Z, Jaskolski M, Baker D. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2011; 18: 1175-1177
  • 35 Lamb LC, DiFiori MM, Jayaraman V, Shames BD, Feeney JM. Gamified Twitter Microblogging to Support Resident Preparation for the American Board of Surgery In-Service Training Examination. J Surg Educ 2017; 74: 986-991
  • 36 Wannemacher K, Jungermann I, Scholz J, Tercanli H, Villiez A. Digitale Lernszenarien im Hochschulbereich. Arbeitspapier Nr. 15 Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung; 2016
  • 37 Gorbanev I, Agudelo-Londoño S, González RA, Cortes A, Pomares A, Delgadillo V, Yepes FJ, Muñoz Ó. A systematic review of serious games in medical education: quality of evidence and pedagogical strategy. Med Educ Online 2018; 23: 1438718
  • 38 Cardall S, Krupat E, Ulrich M. Live Lecture Versus Video-Recorded Lecture: Are Students Voting With Their Feet. Acad Med 2008; 83: 1174-1178
  • 39 Bacro TRH, Gebregziabher M, Fitzharris TP. Evaluation of a lecture recording system in a medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 3: 300-308
  • 40 Johnston ANB, Massa H, Burne THJ. Digital lecture recording: a cautionary tale. Nurse Educ Pract 2013; 13: 40-47
  • 41 Gupta A, Saks NS. Exploring medical student decisions regarding attending live lectures and using recorded lectures. Med Teach 2013; 35: 767-771
  • 42 Kwiatkowski AC, Demirbilek M. Investigating Veterinary Medicine Faculty Perceptions of Lecture Capture: Issues, Concerns, and Promises. J Vet Med Educ. 2016;
  • 43 Dombrowski T, Dazert S. Unpublished Results. 2018
  • 44 Gavali MY, Khismatrao DS, Gavali YV, Patil KB. Smartphone, the New Learning Aid amongst Medical Students. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR 2017; 11: JC05-JC08
  • 45 Masters K, Ellaway RH, Topps D, Archibald D, Hogue RJ. Mobile technologies in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 105. Med Teach 2016; 38: 537-549
  • 46 Deutsch K, Gaines JK, Hill JR, Nuss MA. iPad experience during clinical rotations from seven medical schools in the United States: Lessons learned. Med Teach 2016; 38: 1152-1156
  • 47 Chang W-H, Su Y-C, Lin AP-C, Huang M-Y. Using a mobile application to facilitate post-simulation debriefing. Med Educ 49: 1163-1164
  • 48 Hsueh WD, Bent JP, Moskowitz HS. An app to enhance resident education in otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope 2018; 128: 1340-1345
  • 49 Carley S, Beardsell I, May N, Crowe L, Baombe J, Grayson A, Carden R, Liebig A, Gray C, Fisher R, Horner D, Howard L, Body R. Social-media-enabled learning in emergency medicine: a case study of the growth, engagement and impact of a free open access medical education blog. Postgrad Med J 2018; 94: 92-96
  • 50 Junhasavasdikul D, Srisangkaew S, Sukhato K, Dellow A. Cartoons on Facebook: a novel medical education tool. Med Educ 2017; 51: 539-540
  • 51 Nettle M. Social media in medical education: Can you trust it? Yes. Emerg Med Australas 30: 416-417
  • 52 Zucker BE, Kontovounisios C. It is time to improve the quality of medical information distributed to students across social media. Adv Med Educ Pract 2018; 9: 203-205
  • 53 Chan R. Social media in medical education: Can you trust it? No. Emerg Med Australas EMA 2018; 30: 418-419
  • 54 Paterson QS, Thoma B, Milne WK, Lin M, Chan TM. A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis to Determine Quality Indicators forHealth Professions Education Blogs and Podcasts. J Grad Med Educ 2015; 7: 549-554
  • 55 MacNeill H, Telner D, Sparaggis-Agaliotis A, Hanna E. All for one and one for all: understanding health professionals’ experience in individual versus collaborative online learning. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2014; 34: 102-111
  • 56 Saqr M, Fors U, Tedre M. How the study of online collaborative learning can guide teachers and predict students’ performance in a medical course. BMC Med Educ 2018; 18: 24
  • 57 Pratt P, Arora A. Transoral Robotic Surgery: Image Guidance and Augmented Reality. ORL J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Its Relat Spec 2018; 1-9
  • 58 Zahiri M, Nelson CA, Oleynikov D, Siu K-C. Evaluation of Augmented Reality Feedback in Surgical Training Environment. Surg Innov 2018; 25: 81-87
  • 59 Christ R, Guevar J, Poyade M, Rea PM. Proof of concept of a workflow methodology for the creation of basic canine head anatomy veterinary education tool using augmented reality. PloS One 2018; 13: e0195866
  • 60 Küçük S, Kapakin S, Göktaş Y. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load.. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 411-421
  • 61 Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Estrada V, Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report. 2015. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium;
  • 62 Musbahi O, Aydin A, Al Omran Y, Skilbeck CJ, Ahmed K. Current Status of Simulation in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review. J Surg Educ 2017; 74: 203-215
  • 63 Chan M, Carrie S. Training and assessment in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132: 133-137
  • 64 Smith ME, Navaratnam A, Jablenska L, Dimitriadis PA, Sharma R. A randomized controlled trial of simulation-based training for ear, nose, and throat emergencies. The Laryngoscope 2015; 125: 1816-1821
  • 65 Hsu S-D, Chen C-J, Chang W-K, Hu Y-J. An Investigation of the Outcomes of PGY Students’ Cognition of and Persistent Behavior in Learning through the Intervention of the Flipped Classroom in Taiwan. PloS One 2016; 11: e0167598
  • 66 Martinelli SM, Chen F, DiLorenzo AN, Mayer DC, Fairbanks S, Moran K, Ku C, Mitchell JD, Bowe EA, Royal KD, Hendrickse A, VanDyke K, Trawicki MC, Rankin D, Guldan GJ, Hand W, Gallagher C, Jacob Z, Zvara DA, McEvoy MD, Schell RM. Results of a Flipped Classroom Teaching Approach in Anesthesiology Residents. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9: 485-490
  • 67 Lucardie AT, Berkenbosch L, van den Berg J, Busari JO. Flipping the classroom to teach Millennial residents medical leadership: a proof of concept. Adv Med Educ Pract 2017; 8: 57-61
  • 68 Mesko B, Győrffy Z, Kollár J. Digital Literacy in the Medical Curriculum: A Course With Social Media Tools and Gamification. JMIR Med Educ 2015; 1: e6
  • 69 Dini L, Galanski C, Döpfmer S, Gehrke-Beck S, Bayer G, Boeckle M, Micheel I, Novak J, Heintze C. Online Platform as a Tool to Support Postgraduate Training in General Practice - A Case Report. GMS J Med Educ 2017; 34: Doc59
  • 70 Thuy P. Finanzierung digitaler Lehre. Arbeitspapier Nr. 19. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2016 Im Internet: https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/sites/default/files/dateien/HFD_AP_Nr %2019_Finanzierung_digitaler_Lehre.pdf
  • 71 Schmees M, Krüger M. E-Assessments in der Hochschullehre: Einführung, Positionen & Einsatzbeispiele. 1. Aufl. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften; 2013
  • 72 Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. General overview of the theories used in assessment: AMEE Guide No. 57. Med Teach 2011; 33: 783-797
  • 73 Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Galbraith R, Hays R, Kent A, Perrott V, Roberts T. Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach 2011; 33: 206-214
  • 74 Pugh D, Regehr G. Taking the sting out of assessment: is there a role for progress testing?. Med Educ 2016; 50: 721-729
  • 75 Schuwirth LWT, der Vleuten CPMV. Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach 2011; 33: 478-485
  • 76 Osterberg K, Kölbel S, Brauns K. Der Progress Test Medizin. GMS Z Für Med Ausbild 2006; 23: Doc46
  • 77 Burr SA, Chatterjee A, Gibson S, Coombes L, Wilkinson S. Key Points to Facilitate the Adoption of Computer-Based Assessments. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2016; 3:
  • 78 Vogt M, Schneider S, Vogt M, Schneider S. (2009). E-Klausuren an Hochschulen. Koordinationsstelle Multimedia, JLU Gießen, 2009
  • 79 Michel LP, Goertz L, Radomski S, Fritsch T, Baschour L. Digitales Prüfen und Bewerten im Hochschulbereich. Arbeitspapier Nr. 1. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung; 2015
  • 80 Vogt M, Schneider S, Vogt M.Schneider S. (2009). E-Klausuren an Hochschulen. Koordinationsstelle Multimedia, JLU Gießen, 2009
  • 81 Nevin CR, Westfall AO, Rodriguez JM, Dempsey DM, Cherrington A, Roy B, Patel M, Willig JH. Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med J 2014; 90: 685-693
  • 82 Chen F, Lui AM, Martinelli SM. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ 2017; 51: 585-597
  • 83 Chang TP, Kwan KY, Liberman D, Song E, Dao EH, Chung D, Morton I, Festekjian A. Introducing Teamwork Challenges in Simulation Using Game Cards. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc 2015; 10: 223-226