Roles of innovation in education delivery

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Volumn 73, Issue 8, 2009, Pages

  Blouin, Robert A ^a   Riffee, William H ^b   Robinson, Evan T ^c   Beck, Diane E ^b   Green, Charles ^d   Joyner, Pamela U ^a   Persky, Adam M ^a   Pollack, Gary M ^a  

^a UNC Hamner Institute for Drug Safety Sciences   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HEALTH   (United States)

^c WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Blended learning; Distance education; e learning; Learning environment; Online learning

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MASS COMMUNICATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW; SCHOOL; TEACHING;

COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EDUCATION, DISTANCE; EDUCATION, PHARMACY; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; SCHOOLS, PHARMACY; TEACHING;

EID: 74749101782     PISSN: 00029459     EISSN: 15536467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5688/aj7308154     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. Bradberry JC, Droege M, Evans RL, et al. Curricula then and now-an environmental scan and recommendations since the Commission to Implement Change in Pharmaceutical Education: report of the 2006-2007 Academic Affairs Committee. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article S10.
2. Bauerlein M. The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin; 2008.
3. Howe N, Strauss W. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books; 2000.
4. Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL, eds. Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, Colo: EDUCAUSE; 2005.
5. Clayton M, Brinthaupt T, Draude B. Serving students by helping faculty: encouraging instructional technology integration. Acad Leader. 2008;24(3):5-6.
6. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part I. On the Horizon. 2001;9(5):1-6.
7. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: do they really think differently? On the Horizon. 2001;9(6):1-6.
8. Wells BG, Beck DE, Draugalis JR, et al. Report of the 2007-2008 Argus Commission: what future awaits beyond pharmaceutical care? Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(Supp):Article S8.
9. Hammer DP, Berger BA, Beardsley RS, Easton MR. Student professionalism. Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67(3):Article 96.
10. th Annual Meeting, July 10-14, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(2):Article 54.
11. th Annual Meeting, July 10-14, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(2): Article 54.
12. Nesler M, Hanner M, Melburg V, McGowan S. Professional socialization of baccalaureate nursing students: can students in distance nursing programs become socialized? J Nurs Educ. 2001;40(7):293-302.
13. Research Brief Number 8: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions - Academic Year 2006-07: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
14. Accreditation Statistics. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. http://www.acpe-accredit.org/students/faqs.asp. Accessed November 17, 2009.
15. Beardsley R, Matzke GR, Rospond R, et al. Factors influencing the pharmacy faculty workforce. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008; 72(2):Article 34.
16. Moore MG. Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan D, ed. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. London, England: Routledge; 2000: 20-35.
17. stcentury: a shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2000;1(1):1-17.
18. Larreamendy-Joerns J, Leinhardt G. Going the distance with online education. Rev Educ Res. 2006;76(4):567-605.
19. Saba F. Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology: a pragmatic paradigm. In: Moore MG, Anderson WG, eds. Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003: 3-20.
20. Witherspoon JP. Distance Education: A Planner's Casebook. Boulder, Colo: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education; 1996.
21. Chisholm MA, Miller AW, Spruill WJ, et al. Influence of interactive videoconferencing on the performance of pharmacy students and instructors. Am J Pharm Educ. 2000;64(2):152-158.
22. MacLaughlin EJ, Supernaw RB, Howard KA. Impact of distance learning using videoconferencing technology on student performance. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(3):Article 58.
23. Malone PM, Glynn GE, Stohs SJ. The development and structure of a web-based entry-level doctor of pharmacy pathway at Creighton University Medical Center. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(2):Article 46.
24. Ried LD, McKenzie M. A preliminary report on the academic performance of pharmacy students in a distance education program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(3):Article 65.
25. Lenz TL, Monaghan MS, Wilson AF, Tilleman JA, Jones RM, Hayes MM. Using performance-based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70(4):90.
26. Faulkner TP, Christoff JJ, Sweeny MA, Oliver N. Pilot study of a distance-learning methodology used on campus for first professional degree pharmacy students in an integrated therapeutics module. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005;69(1):Article 7.
27. Moridani M. Asynchronous video streaming vs. synchronous videoconferencing for teaching a pharmacogenetic pharmacotherapy course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(1):16.
28. Saba F. Research in distance education: a status report. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learning. 2000;1(1):1-9.
29. Russell TL. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon: A Comparative Research Annotated Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education. 5th ed. Littleton, Colo: Arello; 1999.
30. Oblinger DG, Hawkins BL. The myth about no significant difference: "Using technology produces no significant difference". EDUCAUSE Review. 2006;41(6):14-15.
31. Twigg CA. Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 2001.
32. Garrison DR, Vaughan ND. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2008.
33. Jensen EP. Brain-Based Learning: The New Paradigm of Teaching. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press; 2008.
34. Clark RC, Mayer RE. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif: John Wiley and Sons; 2008.
35. Bransford J. National Research Council (US) Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council (US) Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
36. Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.; 1991.
37. The National Center for Academic Transformation. www.thencat.org. Accessed November 29, 2009.
38. Visible Knowledge Project: A collaborative investigation of learning, inquiry, and technology. Georgetown University. https://digitalcommons. georgetown.edu/blogs/vkp/. Accessed September 22, 2009.
39. Iiyoshi T, Kumar MSV, eds. Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press; 2008.
40. Hammer DP, Sauer KA, Fielding DW, Skau KA. White paper on Best Evidence Pharmacy Education (BEPE). Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(1):Article 24.
41. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, Weber RJ, Matthews HW, Das SK. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(5):91.
42. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):303-311.
43. Moore JC. The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars. Newburyport, Mass: The Sloan Consortium; 2005.
44. Fink LD. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
45. Parry J, Mathers J, Thomas H, Lilford R, Stevens A, Spurgeon P. More students, less capacity? An assessment of the competing demands on academic medical staff. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1155-1165.
46. Wright M. Always at odds? Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a research university. Journal of Higher Education. 2005;76(3):331.
47. Blumberg P. Practical tools to help faculty use learner-centered approaches. In: Nilson LB, Miller JE, eds. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development. Vol 27. Boston, Mass: Anker Publishing Company; 2008.
48. Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorehead-Rosenberg L, Zonia S, Henry R. Curricular change in medical schools: how to succeed. Acad Med. 2000;75(6):575-594.
49. Theall M. Motivation from Within: Approaches for Encouraging Faculty and Students to Excel. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1999.
50. Bligh DA. What's the Use of Lectures?. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
51. Wadsworth EC, Hilsen LR, Gillespie KH, eds. A Guide to Faculty Development: Practical Advice, Examples, and Resources. San Francisco, Calif: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.; 2002.
52. Goodyear P, Ellis RA. University students' approaches to learning: rethinking the place of technology. Distance Educ. 2008;29(2):141-152.
53. The TLT Group: Teaching, Learning, and Technology. www.tltgroup.org/. Accessed November 17, 2009.