A 9-Step Theory- and Evidence-Based Postgraduate Medical Digital Education Development Model: Empirical Development and Validation.
design model
distance education
e-learning
education, distance
education, medical
instructional design
models, educational
postgraduate medical e-learning
Journal
JMIR medical education
ISSN: 2369-3762
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Educ
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101684518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2019
22 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
02
12
2018
accepted:
23
04
2019
revised:
03
04
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital education tools (e-learning, technology-enhanced learning) can be defined as any educational intervention that is electronically mediated. Decveloping and applying such tools and interventions for postgraduate medical professionals who work and learn after graduation can be called postgraduate medical digital education (PGMDE), which is increasingly being used and evaluated. However, evaluation has focused mainly on reaching the learning goals and little on the design. Design models for digital education (instructional design models) help educators create a digital education curriculum, but none have been aimed at PGMDE. Studies show the need for efficient, motivating, useful, and satisfactory digital education. Our objective was (1) to create an empirical instructional design model for PGMDE founded in evidence and theory, with postgraduate medical professionals who work and learn after graduation as the target audience, and (2) to compare our model with existing models used to evaluate and create PGMDE. Previously we performed an integrative literature review, focus group discussions, and a Delphi procedure to determine which building blocks for such a model would be relevant according to experts and users. This resulted in 37 relevant items. We then used those 37 items and arranged them into chronological steps. After we created the initial 9-step plan, we compared these steps with other models reported in the literature. The final 9 steps were (1) describe who, why, what, (2) select educational strategies, (3) translate to the real world, (4) choose the technology, (5) complete the team, (6) plan the budget, (7) plan the timing and timeline, (8) implement the project, and (9) evaluate continuously. On comparing this 9-step model with other models, we found that no other was as complete, nor were any of the other models aimed at PGMDE. Our 9-step model is the first, to our knowledge, to be based on evidence and theory building blocks aimed at PGMDE. We have described a complete set of evidence-based steps, expanding a 3-domain model (motivate, learn, and apply) to an instructional design model that can help every educator in creating efficient, motivating, useful, and satisfactory PGMDE. Although certain steps are more robust and have a deeper theoretical background in current research (such as education), others (such as budget) have been barely touched upon and should be investigated more thoroughly in order that proper guidelines may also be provided for them.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Digital education tools (e-learning, technology-enhanced learning) can be defined as any educational intervention that is electronically mediated. Decveloping and applying such tools and interventions for postgraduate medical professionals who work and learn after graduation can be called postgraduate medical digital education (PGMDE), which is increasingly being used and evaluated. However, evaluation has focused mainly on reaching the learning goals and little on the design. Design models for digital education (instructional design models) help educators create a digital education curriculum, but none have been aimed at PGMDE. Studies show the need for efficient, motivating, useful, and satisfactory digital education.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was (1) to create an empirical instructional design model for PGMDE founded in evidence and theory, with postgraduate medical professionals who work and learn after graduation as the target audience, and (2) to compare our model with existing models used to evaluate and create PGMDE.
METHODS
METHODS
Previously we performed an integrative literature review, focus group discussions, and a Delphi procedure to determine which building blocks for such a model would be relevant according to experts and users. This resulted in 37 relevant items. We then used those 37 items and arranged them into chronological steps. After we created the initial 9-step plan, we compared these steps with other models reported in the literature.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The final 9 steps were (1) describe who, why, what, (2) select educational strategies, (3) translate to the real world, (4) choose the technology, (5) complete the team, (6) plan the budget, (7) plan the timing and timeline, (8) implement the project, and (9) evaluate continuously. On comparing this 9-step model with other models, we found that no other was as complete, nor were any of the other models aimed at PGMDE.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our 9-step model is the first, to our knowledge, to be based on evidence and theory building blocks aimed at PGMDE. We have described a complete set of evidence-based steps, expanding a 3-domain model (motivate, learn, and apply) to an instructional design model that can help every educator in creating efficient, motivating, useful, and satisfactory PGMDE. Although certain steps are more robust and have a deeper theoretical background in current research (such as education), others (such as budget) have been barely touched upon and should be investigated more thoroughly in order that proper guidelines may also be provided for them.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31333194
pii: v5i2e13004
doi: 10.2196/13004
pmc: PMC6876560
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13004Informations de copyright
©Robert de Leeuw, Fedde Scheele, Kieran Walsh, Michiel Westerman. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (http://mededu.jmir.org), 22.07.2019.
Références
Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:175-180
pubmed: 27182457
Med Teach. 2016;38(2):150-61
pubmed: 25665626
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 21;1:CD011736
pubmed: 29355907
Ann Surg. 2015 May;261(5):846-53
pubmed: 25243562
J Nurs Manag. 2018 Jul;26(5):571-578
pubmed: 29250892
JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Jul 05;6(7):e128
pubmed: 28679491
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):85-93
pubmed: 20078759
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jul 08;16:168
pubmed: 27390843
Clin Med (Lond). 2016 Aug;16(4):311-4
pubmed: 27481371
Int J Med Educ. 2017 Apr 27;8:153-162
pubmed: 28456781
Med Educ. 2014 Apr;48(4):347-8
pubmed: 24606617
Med Educ. 2007 Aug;41(8):763-70
pubmed: 17661884
J Radiol Case Rep. 2014 Jan 01;8(1):47-8
pubmed: 24967014
Med Educ. 2010 Jun;44(6):543-9
pubmed: 20604850
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Apr;25(4):292-3
pubmed: 25899197
Adv Physiol Educ. 2016 Mar;40(1):17-25
pubmed: 26847253
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 30;12(8):e0183884
pubmed: 28854205
Br J Surg. 2016 Oct;103(11):1428-37
pubmed: 27537708
Acad Med. 2010 Dec;85(12):1914-9
pubmed: 20978429
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Feb;60(2):157-65
pubmed: 24522680
Acad Psychiatry. 2006 Nov-Dec;30(6):491-7
pubmed: 17139020
JMIR Med Educ. 2018 Apr 26;4(1):e13
pubmed: 29699970
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):107-115
pubmed: 29536581
Health Educ Behav. 1998 Oct;25(5):545-63
pubmed: 9768376
J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Feb;9(1):18-32
pubmed: 28261391
JMIR Med Educ. 2019 Apr 05;5(1):e13128
pubmed: 30950805
Adv Physiol Educ. 2016 Jun;40(2):147-56
pubmed: 27068989
Med Teach. 2018 Aug;40(8):813-819
pubmed: 30106597
Med Teach. 2014 May;36(5):371-84
pubmed: 24593808