Virtual patients as activities: exploring the research implications of an activity theoretical stance

Perspectives on Medical Education

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 266-277

  Ellaway, Rachel H ^a  

^a NORTHERN ONTARIO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activity; Activity theory; E learning; Educational technology; Medical education; Research; Scholarship; Virtual patient

Indexed keywords

EID: 84914707935     PISSN: 22122761     EISSN: 2212277X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40037-014-0134-z     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Harless WG, Drennon GG, Marxer JJ, Root JA, Miller GE. CASE: a computer-aided simulation of the clinical encounter. J Med Educ. 1971;46:443–8.
2. van Meer E. PLATO: from computer-based education to corporate social responsibility. Iterations—an interdisciplinary journal of software. Minneapolis: The Charles Babbage Institute for the History of Information Technology; 2003.
3. Ellaway RH, Poulton T, Smothers T, Greene P. Virtual patients come of age. Med Teach. 2009;31(8):683–4.
4. Kononowicz AA, Hege I. Virtual patients as a practical realisation of the e-learning idea in medicine. In: Soomro S, editor. E-learning experiences and future. Rijeka: InTech; 2010. http://www.intechopen.com/books/e-learning-experiences-and-future/virtual-patients-as-a-practical-realisation-of-the-e-learning-idea-in-medicine. Accessed 17 Dec 2013.
5. Huwendiek S, de Leng B, Zary N, Ruiz J, Ellaway R. Towards a typology of virtual patients. Med Teach. 2009;31(8):743–8.
6. Huwendiek S, Reichert F, Bosse HM, et al. Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Med Educ. 2009;43(6):580–8.
7. Posel N, Fleiszer D, Shore BM. 12 tips: guidelines for authoring virtual patient cases. Med Teach. 2009;31(8):701–8.
8. Poulton T, Conradi E, Kavia S, Round J. The replacement of ‘paper’ cases by interactive online virtual patients in problem-based learning (PBL). Med Teach. 2009;31(8):752–8.
9. Berman N, Fall LH, Smith S, et al. Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships. Acad Med. 2009;84(7):942–9.
10. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):303–11.
11. Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1990.
12. Leont’ev A. Activity and consciousness. In: Philosophy in the USSR, problems of dialectical materialism. Moscow: Progress Publishers; 1977. pp. 180–202. http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm. Accessed 31 Dec 2013.
13. Ellaway R, Davies D. Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient activities. Med Teach. 2011;33(4):303–10.
14. Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit; 1987.
15. Engeström Y. From teams to knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
16. Ellaway R, Pusic M, Yavner S, Kalet A. Context matters: emergent variability in an effectiveness trial of online teaching modules. Med Educ. 2014;48(4):386–96.
17. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 222–4.
18. Issenberg S, McGaghie W. Assessing knowledge and skills in the health professions: a continuum of simulation fidelity. In: Tekian A, McGuire C, McGaghie W, editors. Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence: from paper and pencil to virtual reality. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago; 1999. p. 125–46.
19. Colvin Clark R. Scenario-based learning: evidence-based guidelines for online workforce e-learning. San Francisco: Wiley; 2013.
20. Huwendiek S, Duncker C, Reichert F, et al. Learner preferences regarding integrating, sequencing and aligning virtual patients with other activities in the undergraduate medical curriculum: a focus group study. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):920–9.
21. Clauser BE, Margolis MJ, Swanson DB. An examination of the contribution of computer based case simulations to the USMLE step 3 examination. Acad Med. 2002;77(10):S80–2.
22. Ellaway R, Kneebone R, Lachapelle K, Topps D. Practica continua: connecting and combining simulation modalities for integrated teaching, learning and assessment. Med Teach. 2009;31(8):725–31.
23. Ellaway R. Activity designs for professional learning. In: Beetham H, Sharpe R, editors. Design for learning: rethinking pedagogy for the digital age. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 188–203.
24. Ellaway R. Educational methods, educational systems. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):428–30.
25. Schunk DH. Learning theories: an educational perspective. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Merrill; 2000.
26. Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EHJ. The process of problem-based learning: what works and why. Med Educ. 2011;45(8):792–806.
27. Dormans J: Beyond iconic simulation. In: IADIS gaming conference. 2008. http://www.jorisdormans.nl/article.php?ref=beyondiconicsimulation. Accessed 22 July 2014.
28. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Oxford: Prentice-Hall; 1977.
29. Douglass MA, Casale JP, Skirvin JA, DiVall MV. A virtual patient software program to improve pharmacy student learning in a comprehensive disease management course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(8):172.
30. Bediang G, Franck C, Raetzo MA, et al. Developing clinical skills using a virtual patient simulator in a resource-limited setting. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:102–6.
31. Harris JM, Sun H. A randomized trial of two e-learning strategies for teaching substance abuse management skills to physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1357–62.
32. Edelbring S, Broström O, Henriksson P, et al. Integrating virtual patients into courses: follow-up seminars and perceived benefit. Med Educ. 2012;46(4):417–25.
33. Frambach J, Driessen E, Chan L, van der Vleuten C. Rethinking the globalisation of problem-based learning: how culture challenges self-directed learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):738–47.
34. MacLeod A. Six ways problem-based learning cases can sabotage patient-centered medical education. Acad Med. 2011;86(7):818–25.
35. Dewhurst D, Borgstein E, Grant ME, Begg M. Online virtual patients—A driver for change in medical and healthcare professional education in developing countries? Med Teach. 2009;31(8):721–4.
36. Bearman M. Is virtual the same as real? medical students’ experiences of a virtual patient. Acad Med. 2003;78(5):538–45.
37. Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: SAGE; 2013.
38. Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educ Res. 2012;41(1):16–25.
39. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):312–9.
40. Rees CE, Monrouxe LV. Theory in medical education research: how do we get there? Med Educ. 2010;44(4):334–9.
41. Monrouxe LV, Rees CE. Picking up the gauntlet: constructing medical education as a social science. Med Educ. 2009;43(3):196–8.
42. Mann KV. Theoretical perspectives in medical education: past experience and future possibilities. Med Educ. 2011;45(1):60–8.
43. Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44(4):358–66.
44. Ellaway R. Evaluating a virtual learning environment in medical education. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh; 2006. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/885/1/Ellaway_thesis.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2014.
45. Edelbring S, Dastmalchi M, Hult H, Lundberg IE, Dahlgren LO. Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011;16(3):331–45.