Medical student and tutor perceptions of video versus text in an interactive online virtual patient for problem-based learning: A pilot study

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2015, Pages e151-

  Woodham, Luke A ^a,b   Ellaway, Rachel H ^c   Round, Jonathan ^a,d   Vaughan, Sophie ^a,d   Poulton, Terry ^a   Zary, Nabil ^b  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c NORTHERN ONTARIO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Canada)

^d ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audiovisual aids; Educational technology; Internet; Multimedia; Problem based learning

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STUDENT; PERCEPTION; PILOT STUDY; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; THINKING; VIDEORECORDING;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; FACULTY, MEDICAL; HUMANS; LEARNING; PERCEPTION; PILOT PROJECTS; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; THINKING; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84936771164     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3922     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ellaway R, Candler C, Greene P, Smothers V. An Architectural Model for MedBiquitous Virtual Patients. 2006. URL: http://groups.medbiq.org/medbiq/display/VPWG/MedBiquitous+Virtual+Patient+Architecture [accessed 2014-10-06] [WebCite Cache ID 6T87kiIw9]
2. Round J, Conradi E, Poulton T. Improving assessment with virtual patients. Med Teach 2009 Aug;31(8):759-763. [Medline: 19811215]
3. Poulton T, Balasubramaniam C. Virtual patients: a year of change. Med Teach 2011;33(11):933-937. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.613501] [Medline: 22022903]
4. Georg C, Zary N. Web-based virtual patients in nursing education: development and validation of theory-anchored design and activity models. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(4):e105 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2556] [Medline: 24727709]
5. Salminen H, Zary N, Björklund K, Toth-Pal E, Leanderson C. Virtual patients in primary care: developing a reusable model that fosters reflective practice and clinical reasoning. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(1):e3 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2616] [Medline: 24394603]
6. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009 Apr;43(4):303-311. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x] [Medline: 19335571]
7. Huwendiek S, De leng BA, Zary N, Fischer MR, Ruiz JG, Ellaway R. Towards a typology of virtual patients. Med Teach 2009 Aug;31(8):743-748. [Medline: 19811212]
8. Ellaway RH, Poulton T, Smothers V, Greene P. Virtual patients come of age. Med Teach 2009 Aug;31(8):683-684. [Medline: 19811203]
9. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ 2010 Jan;44(1):50-63. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x] [Medline: 20078756]
10. Issenberg SB. The scope of simulation-based healthcare education. Simul Healthc 2006;1(4):203-208. [doi: 10.1097/01.SIH.0000246607.36504.5a] [Medline: 19088590]
11. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee GD, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2005 Jan;27(1):10-28. [doi: 10.1080/01421590500046924] [Medline: 16147767]
12. Huwendiek S, Reichert F, Bosse H, de Leng BA, van der Vleuten CPM, Haag M, et al. Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Med Educ 2009 Jun;43(6):580-588. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03369.x] [Medline: 19493183]
13. Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ 2012 Jul;46(7):636-647. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04243.x] [Medline: 22616789]
14. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation - a continuum of medical education? Med Educ 2003 Nov;37 Suppl 1:22-28. [Medline: 14641635]
15. Poulton T, Ellaway RH, Round J, Jivram T, Kavia S, Hilton S. Exploring the efficacy of replacing linear paper-based patient cases in problem-based learning with dynamic Web-based virtual patients: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(11):e240 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.3748] [Medline: 25373314]
16. Poulton T, Conradi E, Kavia S, Round J, Hilton S. The replacement of 'paper' cases by interactive online virtual patients in problem-based learning. Med Teach 2009 Aug;31(8):752-758. [Medline: 19811214]
17. Ellaway RH, Poulton T, Jivram T. Decision PBL: A 4-year retrospective case study of the use of virtual patients in problem-based learning. Med Teach 2014 Oct 14:1-9. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970627] [Medline: 25313934]
18. Bakrania T, Poulton T, Beaumont C. G4-JISC Final Report. 2010. URL: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/curriculumdelivery/G4-Final-Reportv2.pdf [accessed 2014-10-06] [WebCite Cache ID 6T88lKXia]
19. Dolmans DHJM, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IHAP, van der Vleuten CPM. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ 2005 Jul;39(7):732-741. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x] [Medline: 15960794]
20. Phillips RA, McNaught C, Kennedy G. Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework. In: ED-MEDIA. 2010 Presented at: 22nd annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications; June 29, 2010; Toronto, Canada p. 2495-2504.
21. Ellaway RH. Virtual patients as activities: exploring the research implications of an activity theoretical stance. Perspect Med Educ 2014 Sep;3(4):266-277 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1007/s40037-014-0134-z] [Medline: 25082311]
22. Sandars J. It appeared to be a good idea at the time but ? A few steps closer to understanding how technology can enhance teaching and learning in medical education. Med Teach 2011;33(4):265-267. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.550972] [Medline: 21456982]
23. Ellaway RH, Davies D. Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient activities. Med Teach 2011;33(4):303-310. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.550969] [Medline: 21456988]
24. Balslev T, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier AJJA. Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem-based learning format. Med Educ 2005 Nov;39(11):1086-1092. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02314.x] [Medline: 16262803]
25. Basu RR, McMahon GT. Video-based cases disrupt deep critical thinking in problem-based learning. Med Educ 2012 Apr;46(4):426-435. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04197.x] [Medline: 22429179]
26. Ghanchi NK, Khan S, Afridi A, Sajid S, Afzal S, Ahmed I, et al. Video or paper for delivery of problem-based learning cases? Med Educ 2013 Nov;47(11):1131. [doi: 10.1111/medu.12353] [Medline: 24117575]
27. de Leng B, Dolmans D, van de Wiel M, Muijtjens A, van der Vleuten CPM. How video cases should be used as authentic stimuli in problem-based medical education. Med Educ 2007 Feb;41(2):181-188. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02671.x] [Medline: 17269952]
28. Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2217-2225. [doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054782] [Medline: 17124019]
29. Kamin C, O'Sullivan P, Deterding R, Younger M. A comparison of critical thinking in groups of third-year medical students in text, video, and virtual PBL case modalities. Acad Med 2003 Feb;78(2):204-211. [Medline: 12584102]
30. Bateman J, Hariman C, Nassrally M. Virtual patients can be used to teach clinical reasoning. Clin Teach 2012 Apr;9(2):133-134. [doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00546.x] [Medline: 22405376]
31. Posel N, Mcgee JB, Fleiszer DM. Twelve tips to support the development of clinical reasoning skills using virtual patient cases. Med Teach 2014 Dec 19:1-6. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.993951] [Medline: 25523009]
32. Creswell J. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2002.
33. Creswell J, Clark V. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2010.
34. SMART Technologies. SMART Interactive Solutions for Education, Business and Government. URL: http://www.smarttech.com/Home%20Page/Landing%20Page [accessed 2014-10-06] [WebCite Cache ID 6T89brb4g]
35. De Leng B, Huwendiek S, Donkers J. eViP Deliverable 5.2: Published evaluation instrument for Virtual Patients and for learning and teaching activities with Virtual Patients. 2009. URL: http://www.virtualpatients.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/evip-deliverable-5.2-final-3.pdf [accessed 2014-10-06] [WebCite Cache ID 6T89mam0W]
36. Huwendiek S, De Leng BA, Kononowicz AA, Kunzmann R, Muijtjens AMM, Van Der Vleuten CPM, et al. Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning. Med Teach 2014 Oct 14:1-8. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970622] [Medline: 25313931]
37. eViP Electronic Virtual Patients. URL: http://www.virtualpatients.eu/ [accessed 2014-07-15] [WebCite Cache ID 6R5DlYHBd]
38. SurveyMonkey: Free online survey software & questionnaire tool. URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/ [accessed 2014-07-15] [WebCite Cache ID 6R5DbsDxv]
39. Conradi E, Kavia S, Burden D, Rice A, Woodham L, Beaumont C, et al. Virtual patients in a virtual world: Training paramedic students for practice. Med Teach 2009 Aug;31(8):713-720. [Medline: 19811207]
40. Morse JM. The implications of interview type and structure in mixed-method designs. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein J, Marvasti AB, McKinney KD, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2012:193-204.
41. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006 Jan;3(2):77-101. [doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
42. ATLAS.ti: The Qualitative Data Analysis & Research Software. URL: http://www.atlasti.com/index.html [accessed 2014-07-15] [WebCite Cache ID 6R5DE2nd3]
43. Watling CJ, Lingard L. Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70. Med Teach 2012;34(10):850-861. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439] [Medline: 22913519]
44. Kennedy TJT, Lingard LA. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 2006 Feb;40(2):101-108. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02378.x] [Medline: 16451236]
45. Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures-a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med 2012 May 3;366(18):1657-1659. [doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1202451] [Medline: 22551125]
46. Sobral DT. What kind of motivation drives medical students' learning quests? Med Educ 2004 Sep;38(9):950-957. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01913.x] [Medline: 15327676]
47. Young JQ, Van MJ, Durning S, Ten CO. Cognitive Load Theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach 2014 May;36(5):371-384. [doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290] [Medline: 24593808]
48. Ellaway RH, Pusic M, Yavner S, Kalet AL. Context matters: emergent variability in an effectiveness trial of online teaching modules. Med Educ 2014 Apr;48(4):386-396. [doi: 10.1111/medu.12389] [Medline: 24606622]
49. Shaffer DW, Resnick M. "Thick" authenticity: new media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 1999;10(2):195-215.
50. Mayer R. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
51. Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001;93(1):187-198. [doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187]
52. Norman GR, Schmidt HG. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of the evidence. Acad Med 1992 Sep;67(9):557-565. [Medline: 1520409]
53. Norman G. Problem-based learning makes a difference. But why? CMAJ 2008 Jan 1;178(1):61-62 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071590] [Medline: 18166733]