JMIR Publications

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Advertisement

Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 10.12.14 in Vol 16, No 12 (2014): December

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Review

    Educational Technologies in Problem-Based Learning in Health Sciences Education: A Systematic Review

    1Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    2Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning/Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Corresponding Author:

    Susan M Bridges, BA, Dip Ed, GradCert(TESOL), MA (AppLing), EdD

    Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning/Faculty of Education

    The University of Hong Kong

    Pokfulam

    Hong Kong,

    China

    Phone: 86 39174771

    Fax:86 25409941

    Email:


    ABSTRACT

    Background: As a modern pedagogical philosophy, problem-based learning (PBL) is increasingly being recognized as a major research area in student learning and pedagogical innovation in health sciences education. A new area of research interest has been the role of emerging educational technologies in PBL. Although this field is growing, no systematic reviews of studies of the usage and effects of educational technologies in PBL in health sciences education have been conducted to date.

    Objective: The aim of this paper is to review new and emerging educational technologies in problem-based curricula, with a specific focus on 3 cognate clinical disciplines: medicine, dentistry, and speech and hearing sciences. Analysis of the studies reviewed focused on the effects of educational technologies in PBL contexts while addressing the particular issue of scaffolding of student learning.

    Methods: A comprehensive computerized database search of full-text articles published in English from 1996 to 2014 was carried out using 3 databases: ProQuest, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. Eligibility criteria for selection of studies for review were also determined in light of the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) guidelines. The population was limited to postsecondary education, specifically in dentistry, medicine, and speech and hearing sciences, in which PBL was the key educational pedagogy and curriculum design. Three types of educational technologies were identified as interventions used to support student inquiry: learning software and digital learning objects; interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and plasma screens; and learning management systems (LMSs).

    Results: Of 470 studies, 28 were selected for analysis. Most studies examined the effects of learning software and digital learning objects (n=20) with integration of IWB (n=5) and LMS (n=3) for PBL receiving relatively less attention. The educational technologies examined in these studies were seen as potentially fit for problem-based health sciences education. Positive outcomes for student learning included providing rich, authentic problems and/or case contexts for learning; supporting student development of medical expertise through the accessing and structuring of expert knowledge and skills; making disciplinary thinking and strategies explicit; providing a platform to elicit articulation, collaboration, and reflection; and reducing perceived cognitive load. Limitations included cumbersome scenarios, infrastructure requirements, and the need for staff and student support in light of the technological demands of new affordances.

    Conclusions: This literature review demonstrates the generally positive effect of educational technologies in PBL. Further research into the various applications of educational technology in PBL curricula is needed to fully realize its potential to enhance problem-based approaches in health sciences education.

    J Med Internet Res 2014;16(12):e251

    doi:10.2196/jmir.3240

    KEYWORDS



    Introduction

    As a modern pedagogical philosophy, problem-based learning (PBL) is increasingly being recognized as a major research area in student learning and pedagogical innovation in health sciences education. In contrast to traditional lecture-dominant teaching and learning approaches, inquiry-based approaches such as PBL prompt students to actively engage in knowledge construction and develop competencies across multiple contexts [1,2]. This review focuses on PBL instead of other distinct inquiry-based pedagogical approaches, such as discovery learning, experiential learning, and project-based learning. Given the high level of technological engagement of 21st century learners, a new area of research interest is examining the role of emerging educational technologies in PBL [3-5]. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to review new and emerging educational technologies in problem-based curricula with a specific focus on 3 cognate disciplines: medicine, dentistry, and speech and hearing sciences. The selection of these 3 related health sciences curricula is based on their level of current activity in the development and research of PBL [6-8]. Of particular interest to this review are studies investigating the role of such technologies in achieving PBL-related student learning outcomes of flexible knowledge, effective problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaborative teamwork skills, and intrinsic motivation [9,10].

    Included studies are ones in which educational technologies have been adopted to support problem-based approaches to learning in both undergraduate and postgraduate programs. The types of technological innovations identified encompass such affordances as learning management system (LMS), specialist learning software (eg, CMapTools), immersive virtual environments (eg, SecondLife), and resources such as 3-dimensional (3D) anatomy models. Also of interest was the use of new hardware, such as interactive whiteboards (IWBs), and how these are combined to reshape new forms of learning in both synchronous, face-to-face “PBL 2.0” [3,11]. Additional studies are exploring the potential to initiate asynchronous models of PBL drawing on distance education needs and modes of delivery [12]. Such innovations draw on the potential of new technologies to provide a rich learning context with access to well-structured information and new spaces for knowledge collaboration [13]. However, although the field is growing and a few reviews have focused on e-learning innovation in health sciences and education [14,15], to date there is no existing systematic review of empirical studies on the usage of educational technologies in PBL in health sciences education.

    We have identified 8 roles for technology in learning in the educational literature [16] relevant to identifying studies for inclusion in this review:

    1. Access to and structuring of information
    2. Curriculum platform
    3. Communications media
    4. Thinking tools
    5. Rich contexts for learning
    6. Collaboration spaces
    7. A perspective toolkit
    8. Scaffolding

    The latter issue of scaffolding refers to situations in which experts offer assistance to learners in carrying out new tasks that learners would not be able to complete without support [17]. This issue has been debated in recent PBL and inquiry learning scholarship [18,19] with detractors indicating concerns that PBL does not provide sufficient scaffolding and that the open nature of the problems may add to cognitive load [18]. Proponents argue that PBL is highly scaffolded through strategies such as making disciplinary thinking and strategies explicit, embedding expert guidance, and structuring complex tasks thereby reducing cognitive load [19]. Open to further debate is whether the inclusion of technological affordances such as iPads, laptops, and simulations or variations of synchronous and asynchronous technology-rich delivery of PBL will support or detract from the scaffolding of learning.

    Analysis of the studies reviewed will, therefore, focus on the effects of educational technologies in the PBL cycle while addressing the issue of scaffolding of student learning in particular both in face-to-face tutorials and during self-directed learning. The overarching goal is to provide new insights on how learners synthesize information from the multiple technologies employed in PBL at a time of pronounced educational innovation [13,20].


    Methods

    Focus Questions

    Inspired by Cook and West’s approach [20] to conducting systematic reviews in medical education and existing review papers [21-24], the screening and classification process conducted is presented subsequently.

    The focused questions addressed the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) model as recommended by Cook and West [20]. In addressing the issues above, the research questions addressed in this review are:

    1. What effects of educational technologies on students and tutors have been identified in PBL-based applications?
    2. How can educational technologies support digitally enhanced and interactive PBL in health sciences education?

    Eligibility Criteria

    Eligibility criteria for the selection of studies for review were also determined in light of the PICO guidelines. The population was limited to postsecondary education, specifically in dentistry, medicine, and speech and hearing sciences, in which PBL was the key educational pedagogy and curricula. Three types of educational technologies were identified as interventions used to support PBL: learning software and digital learning objects (video/3D models), IWBs and plasma screens, and LMSs. Three types of technologies were selected based on their relatively frequent implementation and innovations as indicated in on-site visitations and communications with health sciences PBL curricula across the globe. Regarding comparisons, although studies adopting experimental designs were included, this was not considered an exclusive criterion given that much educational research in the field is case-based. Finally, included studies indicated outcomes of the effects, both positive and negative, of the use of educational technologies on student learning and staff engagement in PBL. Evidence was determined from both databases and the grey literature.

    Selection of Publications

    A comprehensive computerized database search of full-text articles published in English from 1996 to 2014 was carried out using 3 education databases: ProQuest, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. Initial search terms were (“educational technologies” OR “learning technologies”) AND (“problem-based learning” OR “problem based learning” OR “PBL”) AND (“clinical” OR “dent*” OR “med*” OR “speech and hearing”). To narrow down the number of studies retrieved in each database, search terms in title/keywords/abstracts were selected in the initial search stage. The titles and abstracts of retrieved papers were first screened and rated for inclusion based on the PICO inclusion criteria. Additional cross-referencing uncovered grey literature in the form of articles and book chapters. Reviews and commentaries were excluded. The review flowchart (Figure 1) indicates the educational database search method and criteria as well as the final number of studies yielded for analysis (N=28). Search results indicate 3 types of educational technologies, learning software and digital learning objects, IWB (Figure 2 and plasma screens, and LMS, were investigated. Given that LMS combines a range of course or subject management and pedagogical tools to offer a means of designing, building, and delivering online learning environments [25], LMS in the search process includes examples of what are also termed course management systems or CMS (eg, WebCT/Blackboard, Angel, Sakai, and Moodle). Following Cook and West’s approach [20], key information (ie, author, year, research design, research purpose, findings) for each article were included. The results were then analyzed and synthesized by narrative or quantitative pooling, exploring effects of educational technologies in PBL-based applications.

    Figure 1. Flowchart of the search process.
    View this figure
    Figure 2. Photo of an interactive whiteboard.
    View this figure

    Results

    Overview

    Educational technologies have been increasingly used in health sciences education to support or substitute traditional didactic approaches to teaching and learning with inquiry-based approaches. Of the final 28 studies, 20 examined applications of various software and digital learning objects, 5 studies examined the application of IWBs and plasma screens, and 3 explored the application of LMSs in PBL across the 3 clinical disciplines.

    Learning Software and Digital Learning Objects

    Table 1 indicates studies that have implemented, evaluated, or explored a variety of software and digital learning objects in problem-based clinical education. Software included an interactive distance learning program in obstetrics and gynecology [26], concept mapping [27], 3D visualization [28], CD-ROM (ErgoROM [29]), a text and image database on CD-ROM [30], a Web-based learning portfolio (SkillsBase [31]), online virtual/simulated patients [32-36], video case(s) [37,38], online cases [39,40], an online resource simulating surgical clinical decision making (SURGENT [41]), Interactive Case-based Online Network [42], virtual PBL [43], and computer-based software [44,45]. The majority of these studies analyzed questionnaire data to investigate user perceptions of the efficacy of the various software and digital learning objects that were piloted, implemented, or developed as learning innovations. The purpose of integrating these software and digital learning objects in PBL were reported variously as an aid/supplement [39] or a replacement [34] for traditional formats, such as lectures, dissection, and clinical practice; or for the development of innovative approaches, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical practice [29]; or for facilitating collaboration outside of the classroom [42]. Additional implementation goals were the reinforcement of knowledge construction and supporting decision-making processes [33,41], as well as the advancement of teaching and learning [35].

    Perceived positive educational impact was seen in providing a more authentic learner environment [33]; conveying and facilitating understanding of information and complex phenomena [28,41]; facilitating enhanced knowledge [35]; improving cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and overall learning processes or outcomes in PBL [37,38]; having a positive impact on active learning [29,34] and critical thinking [29]; a reflective aid to learning clinical skills [31]; providing a suitable environment for collaboration and communication [33,43]; permitting reduced laboratory time; and increasing small-group activity with less reliance on staff [43]. Although the majority were positively disposed toward learning technologies in PBL, 1 study was more critical [32] finding the PBL video scenario to be cumbersome and not imitating real life; therefore, it was seen to be of little educational value.

    The key implications include the importance of the modality of the scenario presentation [32] and the need for guiding principles and a direct facilitator connected to the use of 3D visualizations [28]. Hege et al [39] indicated integration of a computer-based learning tool into the curriculum is as important as the optimization of the software itself and concluded that a few aspects or strategies needed to be considered in integration of software into curriculum (eg, the software should be easy-to-use, highly accessible, and should support user evaluation, the delivering of content, user support, and case maintenance). Jha and Duffy [26] proposed 10 “golden rules” from an evaluation of a CD-ROM program in continuing medical education.

    Table 1. Studies examining the application of learning software and digital learning objects.
    View this table

    Interactive Whiteboards

    Table 2 indicates that the use of IWBs is a new phenomenon in clinical education with 4 studies of IWBs in PBL curricula [3,11,46,47] arising in the past 7 years in addition to 1 study on the use of plasma screens [48] in 2005. Kerfoot [48] indicated that the introduction of computers and plasma screens had a positive impact on PBL tutorials. Bridges and her colleagues [11] adopted an interactional ethnographic methodology to analyze student engagement with digital materials through the use of an IWB and found that “the integration of face-to-face and virtual modalities through the single PBL group’s use of an IWB across tutorials and self-study was seamless and supported whole-group engagement in the process.” In another study in undergraduate dentistry, Bridges and her colleagues [3] noted that the use of different texts and tools in one problem cycle supported a discursive shift from stimulus for hypothesizing to evidence for final hypotheses. Lu’s 2 studies in medical education [46,47] compared a traditional whiteboard group with an IWB group . One study [47] described that nature of scaffolding of collaborative problem solving under the 2 conditions and concluded that educational technology such as IWB can help by expanding the scaffolding choices. The other study [46] identified relationships between learners’ collaborative decision making and communicative discourse when engaged in a simulated medical emergency. Group differences were found in that IWB group participants engaged in more adaptive decision-making behavior earlier than the traditional whiteboard group, which led to shared understandings and subsequently to more effective patient management [46]. They also found more productive argumentation in the type of collaborative discourse produced in IWB medical student groups [46]. There are limited studies to show the relative advantages or disadvantages of using IWBs in health sciences education. More studies, therefore, are encouraged to explore both the impact of using IWBs for large-screen visualization and collaboration.

    Table 2. Studies examining the application of interactive whiteboards and plasma screens.
    View this table

    Learning Management Systems

    Table 3 lists studies that adopted various LMSs to support problem-based approaches. These included the application of WebCT [49], VMS Portal [50] to manage inquiry-based materials and activities for PBL curricula, and iSUS for self-directed learning [51].

    A few studies noted the positive effects of using LMS in PBL curricula [49-51]. In Dornan’s study [51], a Web-based LMS-ISUS helped to provide practical guidance about what to learn and how to learn, helped access appropriate experiences and manage time, gave feedback on students’ accumulated real patient learning, provided peer comparison, and helped self-management. The authors argued that ISUS can provide the motivational jigsaw to fill the gap between PBL and placement learning. McLean [49] found students perceived that LMS are the most useful means of communication and resource delivery for PBL in medicine. His study also highlighted limitations in that insufficient support, resources, and training might result in less successful implementation of educational technologies.

    With regard to the question of scaffolding, some of the previous studies noted that monitoring, support, and development are important for efficient and positive implementation of an LMS in PBL curricula. In the VMS Portal project [50], medical students were involved in website development to help, consolidate, integrate, and develop Web resources for their peers. Critical to successful scaffolding in PBL are tutor facilitation strategies [10]. In online environments, tutor presence, ongoing engagement, and timely feedback become factors in facilitating students’ problem solving, self-directed learning, and collaboration in health sciences education.

    Table 3. Studies examining the application of learning management systems.
    View this table

    Discussion

    Principal Findings

    The journal articles and book chapters examined in this systematic review indicate the generally positive effect of the thoughtful implementation of educational technologies in PBL. This is particularly the case where such technologies support scaffolding thereby reducing cognitive load and allowing students to learn in complex domains [19]. Firstly, when considering resource development, educational technologies enable provision of rich, authentic problems and/or case contexts accessible on demand in virtual spaces. Online virtual/simulated patients, video case(s), and online cases [33-41] convey complex phenomena in a more authentic learning environment. Secondly, educational technologies provide not only access to engagement in the problem-based inquiry, but also structure information by embedding expert knowledge and skills. This may be in the form of problem-relevant videos and simulations made available during self-directed learning [3] demonstrating case reports independent of time and place. Thirdly, educational technologies support students and their facilitators in making disciplinary thinking explicit. Dedicated software can help learners to construct explanations, structure tasks, and make them more manageable [19]. Adaptations of standard LMS as well as dedicated inquiry-based LMS can provide a platform to elicit articulation, collaboration, and reflection [52]. Technological resources, such as different software and 3D models, LMS, and IWB, can assist students engage in problem-solving processes.

    Although generally positive, a limited number of studies have indicated the adverse effects of educational technologies or their methods of implementation. In this review paper, the less successful implementations may be attributable to the content or delivery of the video scenario [32]. Additional cognitive burden due to higher levels of complexity was seen as a possible limitation to their effective implementation; however, in highly positive cases, technologies were seen as providing an additional supportive scaffold for student learning. In terms of infrastructure and staff development, insufficient support, resources, and training [49,53] were seen as disabling. Adopting and/or adapting functionalities from software or LMS with limited staff-student and/or student-student interactivity and limited student feedback processes were seen as shortcomings in cases where this occurred. This would indicate that thoughtful instructional design approaches need to be applied when adapting more traditional systems or when designing new programs for inquiry-based learning [54]. Well-designed empirical research studies are needed to establish best practices for technological hardware and software in enhancing teaching and learning productivity and building stronger learning communities [55].

    Although the major forms of educational technologies presented in these studies look very promising and are potentially fit for educational purpose in many problem-based health sciences education settings, there is a need for support and training in light of the ever-changing nature of both technical knowledge of teaching staff and the technological affordances themselves. The power of computers and Internet, merging with multimedia and interactive spaces, appear to allow a high degree of flexibility and accessibility to digital instructional content in health sciences education [56]. These affordances may enable integration of technologies into the curriculum and support staff development by encouraging interactive teaching and learning. However, the often-false assumption is the “sink or swim” approach in which faculty may assume students’ prior technological skills or knowledge. Where new affordances are introduced or even old affordances with new inquiry-based purposes, additional hands-on tutorials and training are helpful to facilitate student adaptation to the technology and ensure optimal benefit [49,57]. Successful multimedia teaching and learning relies not only on the proper use of information technology, but also on a clear implementation strategy [58]. Implications also arise in considering Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge [59] with regard to disciplinary influences on the ways that educational technologies are incorporated into the curriculum. Guidance and support should be tailored to meet the needs of each user including learner, facilitators, and curriculum developers to be at its most effective.

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, this literature review indicates a generally positive effect from the adoption of various educational technologies in PBL. Positive outcomes for student learning included providing rich, authentic problems and/or case contexts for learning; supporting student development of medical expertise through the accessing and structuring of expert knowledge and skills; making disciplinary thinking and strategies explicit; providing a platform to elicit articulation, collaboration, and reflection; and reducing perceived cognitive load. Insufficient technical support, infrastructure, and resources were seen as impacting negatively on uptake and learning outcomes. Staff and student induction and ongoing training in the use of educational technologies for learning in inquiry-based contexts such as PBL is recommended.

    Although educational technologies have been increasingly used in health sciences education, it has been questioned whether they can completely substitute traditional teaching methods [60]. The rise of Massive Online Open Courses in all fields, including health sciences, has been seen as positive, particularly for continuous medical education and public health literacy [15]. In considering undergraduate inquiry-based curricula, this review supports Hmelo-Silver [19] and Bridges et al’s [61] predictions that technology can play an important but synergistic role with other components of PBL. Further research into the various applications of educational technologies in PBL curricula is needed to fully realize their potential in enhancing inquiry-based approaches in health sciences education. In an increasingly digital, networked world, convergence of educational technologies is increasingly apparent. This has given rise to understandings that learners are positioned within digital ecosystems. Consequently, it is possible that a learner might engage with the merging of distinct educational technologies. The effects of learning in a digital ecosystem need to be identified and explored in further research.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was partially funded by The University of Hong Kong Sciences of Learning Strategic Research Theme. Research assistance provided by Ms Rita PC Suen, Ms Jenny Lee, and Dr Alexandra Chong Boon Hor was greatly appreciated. The authors particularly acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor Tara Whitehill to the foundation of this project and dedicate this paper to her memory.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    References

    1. Prosser M, Sze D. Problem-based learning: student learning experiences and outcomes. Clin Linguist Phon 2014 Jan;28(1-2):131-142. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Walker A, Leary H. A problem based learning meta analysis: differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 2009 Mar 24;3(1):12-43. [CrossRef]
    3. Bridges SM, Botelho MG, Green J, Chau ACM. Multimodality in problem-based learning (PBL): an interactional ethnography. In: Bridges SM, McGrath CP, Whitehill T, editors. Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: the Next Generation. Netherlands: Springer; 2012:99-120.
    4. Bridges S, Green J, Botelho MG, Tsang PCS. Blended learning and PBL: An interactional ethnographic approach to understanding knowledge construction in-situ. In: Walker A, Leary H, Hmelo-Silver C, Ertmer PA, editors. Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press; 2015.
    5. Lu J, Bridges S, Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning. In: Sawyer K, editor. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
    6. Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EH. The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education 2011;45(8):792-806. [CrossRef]
    7. Shuler CF. Comparisons in basic science learning outcomes between students in PBL and traditional dental curricula at the same dental school. In: Bridges S, McGrath C, Whitehill TL, editors. Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: The Next Generation. Netherlands: Springer; 2012.
    8. Whitehill TL, Bridges S, Chan K. Problem-based learning (PBL) and speech-language pathology: a tutorial. Clin Linguist Phon 2014 Jan;28(1-2):5-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 2004 Sep;16(3):235-266. [CrossRef]
    10. Hmelo-Silver CE, Barrows HS. Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 2006 May 22;1(1):21-39. [CrossRef]
    11. Bridges SM, Botelho MG, Tsang PCS. PBL.2.0: Blended learning for an interactive, problem-based pedagogy. Medical Education 2010;44(11):1131. [CrossRef]
    12. Ng ML, Bridges S, Law SP, Whitehill T. Designing, implementing and evaluating an online problem-based learning (PBL) environment--a pilot study. Clin Linguist Phon 2014 Jan;28(1-2):117-130. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Hmelo-Silver CE, Eberbach C. Learning theories and problem-based learning. In: Bridges SM, McGrath CP, Whitehill T, editors. Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: The Next Generation. Netherlands: Springer; 2012:3-17.
    14. Hansen MM. Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: a review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2008;10(3):e26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Liyanagunawardena TR, Williams SA. Massive open online courses on health and medicine: Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(8):e191. [CrossRef]
    16. Goldman‐Segall R, Maxwell JW. Computers, the Internet, and new media for learning. In: Reynolds WM, Miller GE, editors. Handbook of Psychology. Volume 7: Educational Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002:393-427.
    17. Rogoff B, Gardner WP. Adult guidance of cognitive development. In: Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984:95-116.
    18. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 2006 Jun;41(2):75-86. [CrossRef]
    19. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist 2007 Apr 26;42(2):99-107. [CrossRef]
    20. Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 2012 Oct;46(10):943-952. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2002;29(s3):6-9. [CrossRef]
    22. Steinert Y, Mann KV. Faculty development: principles and practices. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2011 Feb 10;33(3):317-324. [CrossRef]
    23. Kuijpers W, Groen WG, Aaronson NK, van Harten WH. A systematic review of web-based interventions for patient empowerment and physical activity in chronic diseases: relevance for cancer survivors. J Med Internet Res 2013 Feb;15(2):e37 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013 Apr;15(4):e85 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Sleator RD. The evolution of eLearning background, blends and blackboard. Sci Prog 2010;93(Pt 3):319-334. [Medline]
    26. Jha V, Duffy S. 'Ten golden rules' for designing software in medical education: results from a formative evaluation of DIALOG. Med Teach 2002 Jul;24(4):417-421. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Bridges SM, Dyson JE, Corbet EF. Blended learning, knowledge co-construction and undergraduate group work. Medical Education 2009;43(5):490-491. [CrossRef]
    28. Silén C, Wirell S, Kvist J, Nylander E, Smedby O. Advanced 3D visualization in student-centred medical education. Med Teach 2008 Jun;30(5):e115-e124. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. August-Dalfen S, Snider L. A multimedia case based approach to the study of office ergonomics. Work 2003;20(1):3-11. [Medline]
    30. Andrew SM, Benbow EW. Conversion of a traditional image archive into an image resource on compact disc. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1997 Jul 01;50(7):544-547. [CrossRef]
    31. Dornan T, Maredia N, Hosie L, Lee C, Stopford A. A web-based presentation of an undergraduate clinical skills curriculum. Med Educ 2003 Jun;37(6):500-508. [CrossRef]
    32. Rampling J, O'Brien A, Hindhaugh K, Woodham L, Kavia S. Use of an online virtual environment in psychiatric problem-based learning. The Psychiatrist 2012 Oct 01;36(10):391-396. [CrossRef]
    33. 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]
    34. Poulton T, Conradi E, Kavia S, Round J, Hilton S. The replacement of ‘paper’ cases by interactive online virtual patients in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher 2009;31(8):752-758. [CrossRef]
    35. Schwarz D, Štourač P, Komenda M, Harazim H, Kosinová M, Gregor J, et al. Interactive algorithms for teaching and learning acute medicine in the network of medical faculties MEFANET. J Med Internet Res 2013 Jul;15(7):e135 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Antoniou PE, Athanasopoulou CA, Dafli E, Bamidis PD. Exploring design requirements for repurposing dental virtual patients from the web to second life: a focus group study. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(6):e151 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Chi DL, Pickrell JE, Riedy CA. Student learning outcomes associated with video vs. paper cases in a public health dentistry course. J Dent Educ 2014 Jan;78(1):24-30. [Medline]
    38. Balslev T, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ. Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem-based learning format. Med Educ 2005 Nov;39(11):1086-1092. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Hege I, Ropp V, Adler M, Radon K, Mäsch G, Lyon H, et al. Experiences with different integration strategies of case-based e-learning. Med Teach 2007 Oct;29(8):791-797. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Sibbald D. A student assessment of the virutal interactive case tool for asynchronous learning (VITAL) and other self-directed learning formats. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2004;68(1):1-7.
    41. Corrigan M, Reardon M, Shields C, Redmond H. "SURGENT" -- student e-learning for reality: the application of interactive visual images to problem-based learning in undergraduate surgery. J Surg Educ 2008 Mar;65(2):120-125. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Nathoo AN, Goldhoff P, Quattrochi JJ. Evaluation of an Interactive Case-based Online Network (ICON) in a problem based learning environment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2005 Aug;10(3):215-230. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Bowdish B, Chauvin SW, Kreisman N, Britt M. Travels towards problem based learning in medical education (VPBL). Instructional Science 2003;31(4):231-253. [CrossRef]
    44. Levine MG, Stempak J, Conyers G, Walters JA. Implementing and integrating computer-based activities into a problem-based gross anatomy curriculum. Clinical Anatomy 1999;12(3):191-198. [CrossRef]
    45. Hudson JN. Computer-aided learning in the real world of medical education: does the quality of interaction with the computer affect student learning? Med Educ 2004 Aug;38(8):887-895. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Lu J, Lajoie SP. Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2008;33(3):425-442. [CrossRef]
    47. Lu J, Lajoie SP, Wiseman J. Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. Computer Supported Learning 2010 Jul 10;5(3):283-298. [CrossRef]
    48. Kerfoot BP, Masser BA, Hafler JP. Influence of new educational technology on problem-based learning at Harvard Medical School. Med Educ 2005 Apr;39(4):380-387. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. McLean M, Murrell K. WebCT: integrating computer-mediated communication and resource delivery into a new problem-based curriculum. J Audiov Media Med 2002 Mar;25(1):8-15. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Rosenbaum BP, Gorrindo TL, Patel SG, McTigue MP, Rodgers SM, Miller BM. Medical student involvement in website development. Med Teach 2009 Jul;31(7):627-633. [Medline]
    51. Dornan T, Hadfield J, Brown M, Boshuizen H, Scherpbier A. How can medical students learn in a self-directed way in the clinical environment? Design-based research. Med Educ 2005 Apr;39(4):356-364. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG, et al. A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004 Jul;13(3):337-386. [CrossRef]
    53. Reynolds PA, Eaton KA, Mason R. Supporting the learner and teacher online. Br Dent J 2008 Jun 14;204(11):625-629. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Dørup J. Experience and attitudes towards information technology among first-year medical students in Denmark: longitudinal questionnaire survey. J Med Internet Res 2004 Mar 5;6(1):e10 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Kamel Boulos M, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Info Libr J 2007 Mar;24(1):2-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Mattheos N, Schoonheim-Klein M, Walmsley AD, Chapple IL. Innovative educational methods and technologies applicable to continuing professional development in periodontology. Eur J Dent Educ 2010 May;14 Suppl 1:43-52. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Crowe P, Howie C, Thorpe M. Self-reported computer literacy of medical students and staff: good facilities are not enough. Med Teach 1998 Jan;20(3):264-265. [CrossRef]
    58. Yip HK, Barnes IE. Information technology: information technology in dental education. Br Dent J 1999 Sep 25;187(6):327-332. [CrossRef]
    59. Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 2006;108(6):1017-1054.
    60. Venail F, Deveze A, Lallemant B, Guevara N, Mondain M. Enhancement of temporal bone anatomy learning with computer 3D rendered imaging software. Med Teach 2010 Jul;32(7):e282-e288. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Bridges SM, McGrath C, Whitehill T. The next generation: research directions in PBL. In: Bridges SM, McGrath C, Whitehill T, editors. Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: The Next Generation. Netherlands: Springer; 2012:225-231.


    Abbreviations

    3D: 3-dimensional
    CAL: computer-aided learning
    CMS: course management systems
    DIALOG: Distance Interactive Learning in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
    IWB: interactive whiteboard
    LMS: learning management system
    PBL: problem-based learning
    PICO: population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes
    VP: virtual patient
    VPBL: virtual problem-based learning


    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 12.01.14; peer-reviewed by G Finger, T Klobučar; comments to author 26.04.14; revised version received 16.06.14; accepted 17.08.14; published 10.12.14

    ©Jun Jin, Susan M Bridges. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 10.12.2014.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.