Korean Medical Education Review (의학교육논단)

Yonsei university college of medicine (연세대학교 의과대학)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Future of Flexible Learning and Emerging Technology in Medical Education: Reflections from the COVID-19 Pandemic

포스트 코로나 시대 플렉서블 러닝과 첨단기술 활용 중심의 의학교육 전망과 발전

  • 박지혜 (인디애나 대학교 교수체제공학과)
  • Received : 2021.08.17
  • Accepted : 2021.10.25
  • Published : 2021.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic made it necessary for medical schools to restructure their curriculum by switching from face-to-face instruction to various forms of flexible learning. Flexible learning is a student-centered approach to learning that has received interest in many educational sectors. It is a critical strategy for expanding access to higher education during the pandemic. As flexible learning includes online, blended, hybrid, and hyflex learning options, learners have the opportunity to select an instruction modality based on their needs and interests. The shift to flexible learning in medical education took place rapidly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and learners, instructors, and schools were not prepared for this instructional change. Through the lens of the technology acceptance model, human agency, and a social constructivist perspective, I examine students, instructors, and educational institutions' roles in successfully navigating the digital transformation era. The pandemic has also accelerated the use of advanced information and communication technologies, such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality, in learning. Through a review of the literature, this paper aimed to reflect on current flexible learning practices from the instructional design and educational technology perspective and explore emerging technologies that may be implemented in future medical education.

Keywords

References

  1. Watkins KE, Marsick VJ. Informal and incidental learning in the time of COVID-19. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2020;23(1):88-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320973656
  2. Akkermans J, Richardson J, Kraimer ML. The COVID-19 crisis as a career shock: implications for careers and vocational behavior. J Vocat Behav. 2020;119:103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103434
  3. Goh PS, Sandars J. A vision of the use of technology in medical education after the COVID-19 pandemic. MedEdPublish. 2020 Mar 26 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000049.1.
  4. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):207-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
  5. Zhang K, Aslan AB. AI technologies for education: recent research & future directions. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2021;2:100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
  6. Sargeant J, Curran V, Allen M, Jarvis-Selinger S, Ho K. Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: linking theory and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(2):128-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.61
  7. Huynh R. The role of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(4):430. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001596
  8. Greenhalgh T. Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. BMJ. 2001;322(7277):40-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7277.40
  9. Spataro J. 2 Years of digital transformation in 2 months [Internet]. Redmond (WA): Microsoft Corp.; 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2020/04/30/2-years-digital-transformation-2-months/.
  10. Aziz A, Aamer S, Khan AM, Sabqat M, Sohail M, Majeed F. A bumpy road to online teaching: impact of COVID-19 on medical education. Ann King Edward Med Univ. 2020;26(Special Issue):181-6.
  11. Gearhart D. Understanding flexible learning theory and how it is used in online learning [Internet]. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2008 [cited 2021 Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/30555.
  12. Andrade MS, Alden-Rivers B. Developing a framework for sustainable growth of flexible learning opportunities. High Educ Pedagog. 2019;4(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1564879
  13. Naidu S. How flexible is flexible learning, who is to decide and what are its implications?, Distance Educ. 2017;38(3):269-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1371831
  14. Collis B, Moonen J. Flexible learning in a digital world. Open Learn J Open Distance e-Learn. 2002;17(3):217-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051022000048228
  15. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  16. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  17. Palfrey J, Gasser U. Born digital: how children grow up in a digital age. New York (NY): Basic Books; 2016.
  18. Rosenberg MJ. E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill Education; 2001.
  19. Auster CJ. Blended learning as a potentially winning combination of face-to-face and online learning: an exploratory study. Teach Sociol. 2016;44(1):39-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X15619217
  20. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44(9):1175-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
  21. Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(2):164-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
  22. Park JJ. To speak or not to speak: silence in classrooms [master's thesis]. Montreal: McGill University; 2019.
  23. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian J Soc Psychol. 1999;2(1):21-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024
  24. Saye JW, Brush T. Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2002;50(3):77-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
  25. Liang ZC, Ooi SBS, Wang W. Pandemics and their impact on medical training: lessons from Singapore. Acad Med. 2020;95(9):1359-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003441
  26. Rose S. Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2131-2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5227
  27. Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J. 2019;6(3):181-5. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2019-0036
  28. O'Doherty D, Dromey M, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, McGrath D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education: an integrative review. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0
  29. Pei L, Wu H. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ Online. 2019;24(1):1666538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538
  30. Angadi NB, Kavi A, Shetty K, Hashilkar NK. Effectiveness of flipped classroom as a teaching-learning method among undergraduate medical students: an interventional study. J Educ Health Promot. 2019;8:211.
  31. Beatty BJ. Hybrid-flexible course design: implementing student-directed hybrid classes [Internet]. [place unknown]: EdTech Books; 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 12]. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex.
  32. Hoffmann DS, Kearns K, Bovenmyer KM, Cumming WF, Drane LE, Gonin M, et al. Benefits of a multi-institutional, hybrid approach to teaching course design for graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and leaders. Teach Learn Inq. 2021;9(1):218-40. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.15
  33. Wiecha J, Barrie N. Collaborative online learning: a new approach to distance CME. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):928-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200209000-00031
  34. Edigin E, Eseaton PO, Shaka H, Ojemolon PE, Asemota IR, Akuna E. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on medical postgraduate training in the United States. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1774318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1774318
  35. Han SG, Kim YD, Kong TY, Cho J. Virtual reality-based neurological examination teaching tool(VRNET) versus standardized patient in teaching neurological examinations for the medical students: a randomized, single-blind study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):493. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02920-4