Distributed Learning

Anita Singh MD, CCFP

Tamara Bahr B.A, B.Ed

Chi Ming Chow MD, MSc, FRCPC

Objectives

1. Define and describe the components of Distributed Learning

2. Describe the current evidence for the efficacy of Distributed Learning

3. Demonstrate some of different mediums for delivering educational material

Objectives

4. Review the challenges and limitations of distributed learning

5. Look at opportunities in your own universities for distributed learning and for collaboration

Distributed Learning

• Distributed learning is an instructional model that involves using various information technologies to help students learn. Also known as computer-mediated instruction, it encompasses technologies such as video or audio conferencing, satellite broadcasting, and Web-based multimedia formats.

Distributed Learning

Distributed learning comes from the concept of

distributed resources.

Terms Used:

• E-learning

• Distance learning

• Online learning

Is Distributed Learning better than traditional forms of

teaching??

Efficacy of Distributed Learning

There is no significant difference in outcomes with traditional curriculum and

distributed learning

So Why Do It??

Does Distributed Learning add value to the learning experience?

Advantages

• Ease of access to and interrogation of high volumes of diverse, learning resources

Advantages

• Opportunities for working live or asynchronous in collaboration with others from any where in the world

Advantages

• Choice of learning styles within the same package according to need of the learner

• Multiple levels of engagement to different depths of understanding

• Logging or tracking of activities

Advantages

• Education transcends time and space barriers, and takes place at a pace set by the students themselves.

• Distributed learning gives learners greater responsibility for managing their own learning

Pedagogy should drive your technology

7 Principles of PedagogyIMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES:

Technology as Lever

by Arthur W. Chickering and Stephen C. Ehrmann

4. Provide Prompt Feedback

5. Emphasize time on task

6. Communicate High Expectations Expecting learners to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning

1. Encourage contact between learners and faculty

2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among learners – “Learning is social – not competitive and isolated”

3. Use active learning techniques. Better information recall when student interacts with content

Application of the Seven Principles of Pedagogy and

Technology

Principle 1

Encourage contact between learners and faculty

Technology/Strategies

Asynchronous

• Email, • Bulletin boards

Synchronous

• Live Chat• Skype,MSN Audio/Video Conferencing • Arranging for one-on-one communications • Note: Small class size or small groups helps this to be more successful

Principle 1 Encourage contact between learners and faculty

• Engage in deeper dialogue over time • Accommodates different schedules/ places • Collective knowledge shared/ distributed • Increased opportunity for collaboration• More thoughtful contributions (Because users

are more conscious of their work)

Benefits

Examples of Use

• Standard tools in LMS • No special software or skills necessary • Setback: Some students are hesitant to

post publicly• http://portal.utoronto.ca

Principle 2

Develop reciprocity and cooperation among learners – “Learning is social – not

competitive and isolated”

Technology/Strategies• Online Community Chat forums• Instant messaging• Blogging• Resource pooling/sharing • Online community sites and resources

Collaborative projects (web development, Community of Practice…)

Benefits

• Learner to learner interaction

• Collaboration among students separated by geography and time is enhanced using Internet tools to create a sense of community

Example of Use

• End of Life Care Distance Learning Program– http://icarus.med.utoronto.ca/eolCare/index.htm

Principle 3

Use active learning techniques. Better information recall when student

interacts with content

Technology/Strategies

Simulations and contextual anchoring

• Contextual anchoring – provide learner with realistic scenarios As in the Palliative Care E-Learning Program

• Require student interaction to generate outcomes

Examples of Use

– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/module2/06.htm– http://link.library.utoronto.ca/MyUTL/guides/

index.cfm?guide=palliativecare

Principle 4

Provide Prompt Feedback

Technology/Strategies

• **Provide immediate feedback via discussion boards (for discourse models)

• Rubrics - Learners need help in assessing their existing knowledge and competence

• Monitor academic progress - e-portfolio can be used for peer review, self assessment, and instructor graded

Example of Use

• E-portfolio tool is built into many LMS’– http://portal.utoronto.ca

Principle 5

Emphasize time on task

Technology/Strategies

Flexible and Intuitive Course Design

• Provide completion timelines where possible• Keep units structured the same as much as

possible• Use course calendar tool• Course announcements

Examples of Use

• Dynamic course calendar and announcements

• Structured modules

– http://portal.utoronto.ca

Principle 6

Communicate High Expectations Expecting learners to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy

Technology/Strategies

Publishing for a Global Audience – Many learners 'feel stimulated by knowing

their finished work will be "published." If they know other learners will see their work, learners usually set higher goals for themselves.

Examples of Use– Wiki sites http://www.wikimedia.org/– Blog sites http://blogspot.com– E-portfolio and peer review: tools are built into

many LMS’ and there are websites that facilitate this too

Principle 7

Respect diverse talents and ways of learning

Technology/ Strategies

• Multimedia Content: Video/ Audio • Learners prefer high media to text ratio• Encourages development of visual recognition/

auditory skills needed in clinical practice• Learn from modeling of professional behaviour• Provide alternative formats

• Custom PowerPoint with audio• Flash objects

– http://www.edheads.org/activities/knee/• Learning Object Repositories

– HEAL www.healcentral.org/

– MERLOT http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm

1. There are many rapid development tools on the market Captivate, Articulate, Producer, Flash to name a few. All come with a learning curve

Examples of Use

Resources

1. IMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES: Technology as Lever http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html

2. Discovery Commons www.discoverycommons.ca

3. E-Learning in Palliative care– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/– http://palliative.utorontoeit.com/module2/06.htm– http://link.library.utoronto.ca/MyUTL/guides/

index.cfm?guide=palliativecare

References Continued

1. http://www.edheads.org/activities/knee2. Wikis http://www.wikimedia.org/3. Blogs http://blogspot.com4. Learning Objects

• Health Education Assets Library (HEAL) free digital resources for health sciences educators (peer reviewed) www.healcentral.org/

• Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching MERLOT http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm

Tips On Doing This Successfully

1. Know your audience

2. Identify your learning outcomes

3. Identify What you can and can’t do

Tips On Doing This Successfully

4. Know your technology and what is available

5. Pedagogy should drive technology

6. Know your limitations human and financial

Challenges

• Time

• Money– Grants

• Expertise– i.e. Summer Student Project

THE ENDTHE END

Six-Year Trends In The Evaluation Outcomes Of Slice Of Life

Presentations (2001-2006) Using The Kirkpatrick’s Model For Summative

Evaluation

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto

Background

• Evaluation of the outcomes and impact is an important component of the e-learning projects

• Over five hundred presentations were made in the last six annual SOL meetings (2001-6).

• However, little is known about:• Overall trends in the project types• Presence of evaluation description • Evaluation methods employed in these e-learning projects.

Objective

We sought to retrospectively classify the presentations identify the trends in the evaluation outcomes of the E-learning projects presented over the past six years (2001-2006) using the

modified Kirkpatrick’s levels of evaluation

Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation

Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation

• For assessing training effectiveness

• Each successive evaluation level is built on information provided by the lower level (1994)

• Measures how participants react to it•Did they like it?

• Was the material relevant to their work?

• “Smilesheet”, “Happiness factor”

• Positive reaction does not guarantee learning• Negative reaction reduce possibility

KP Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions

KP Level 2 Evaluation - Learning

•Attempts to assess the extent students have advanced their skills, knowledge, or attitude

• Pre-test & post-test to determine amount learning that has occurred

KP Level 3 Evaluation - Transfer

• Attempts to measure the transfer that has occurred in learners’ behaviour due to the training program

• Are the newly acquired skills, knowledge, or attitude being used in the everyday environment of the learner?

• Medical -> Change practice

KP Level 4 Evaluation - Results

• Measures the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance

• For example,•increased production• Improved quality• Decreased costs•Increased sales •Higher profits or return on investment

KP Level 4 Evaluation - Results

• In medical terms……does it change Patient/medical outcomes i.e.

• Reduce Death

• Reduce complication

• Lower cholesterol level

• Lower BP in practice population

Methods

• Reviewed 509 published abstracts of the SOL meetings from 2001-2006

• Exclusion– Incomplete abstract descriptions– Abstracts that focused on describing general

educational theories or technological methods

Methods

• Modified Kirkpatrick’s model for summative evaluation is used:

Level 1: Learner usage or satisfaction

Level 2: Learning outcomes

Level 3: Performance improvement

Level 4: Patient/health outcomes

Results

509: abstracts were identified141: abstracts were excluded

(33.8%)337: abstracts were reviewed

(66.2%)

Years

E-L

earn

ing P

roje

cts

Revie

wed

Number of E-Learning Projects at SOL by Year

Num

ber

of

E-L

earn

ing

Pro

ject

sTrends in the Format Type of E-Learning Tools at

SOL

Percentage of Projects With Evaluation Described

Perc

enta

ge o

f E-L

earn

ing

Pro

ject

s Evalu

ate

d (

%)

Levels of Evaluation Using the Modified Kirkpatrick’s Model Among Projects

with Evaluation described

Perc

enta

ge o

f E-L

earn

ing P

roje

cts

(%)

Limitations

Retrospective

Abstracts may not described the details of the evaluation that was subsequently done/presented

Conclusion

Web-based program out-numbered PC-based program by 2:1.

Very few PDA-based programs

% of projects with evaluation increased over the years

Conclusion

Most projects described level 1 and 2 evaluation

Level 3 and 4 evaluation is rare

Highlight the need to examine in greater detail the nature and characteristics of e-learning projects that are most effective in enhancing practice change