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 Pedagogy
IMPLEMENTING 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
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
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)
Principle 1 Encourage contact between learners and faculty
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
Examples of Use
•
•
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
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.cf
m?guide=palliativecare
References Continued
1.
http://www.edheads.org/activities/knee
2. Wikis http://www.wikimedia.org/
3. Blogs http://blogspot.com
4.
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
THE
END
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 Elearning 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)
KP Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions
• 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 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 identified
141: abstracts were excluded
(33.8%)
337: abstracts were reviewed
(66.2%)
E-Learning Projects Reviewed
Number of E-Learning Projects at SOL by Year
Number of E-Learning Projects
Trends in the Format Type of E-Learning Tools at SOL
Percentage of E-Learning
Projects Evaluated (%)
Percentage of Projects With Evaluation Described
Percentage of E-Learning Projects (%)
Levels of Evaluation Using the
Modified Kirkpatrick’s Model Among Projects
with Evaluation described
Limitations
Retrospective
Abstracts may not described the details
of the evaluation that was subsequently
done/presented
Conclusion
Web-based program out-numbered PCbased 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 elearning projects that are most effective in
enhancing practice change