GOOGLE DRIVE as an

IMPLEMENTATION PLATFORM for

PHT403

Dr Tania Steyl

Physiotherapy Department

UWC

Framing of the case• Feedback form external examiners: final

year PT students lack reasoning and critical reasoning in clinical examinations

• Initiated the change from didactic → theoretically informed blended approach to T & L

• 2014: PHT403 module had to be changed to accommodate this change in teaching approach

Background• PHT403: theoretical and practical

component• pathology, clinical presentation and

therapeutic management of conditions seen in the adult and paediatric ICU

• Previously: course readers and a predominantly lecture-based format

• lack of critical thinking and reasoning reported during clinical exams

• case-based, blended approach to teaching Applied Physiotherapy implemented in 2012

• Had to adapt PHT403 for 2014.

Intended outcomes

• To have a platform where students could work collaboratively and become critical thinkers.

• To give the students the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding their understanding of the content.

• To allow students to view knowledge as a set of tools for problem solving in a process of learning.

• To improve communication which could enhance the learning process through meaningful discussion

• To give the students feedback timeously on a regular basis and guide them if the headed in the wrong direction.

Intended outcomes cont.

• To allow lecturers and fellow students to give constructive feedback so that the final product is of good quality.

• To give students the opportunity to re-think their answers and brainstorm the concepts collaboratively

• To allow students to see other groups’ case notes and compare it to their own notes (could further assist with ‘critical thinking’ as students could think why are the other group directing towards those specific thoughts while our group are steering towards another way of answering the question)

The challenge• Clinical cases had to be developed.• Although students were familiar with the use of Google

Drive/Docs, the format of PHT403 was different to what they were used to (PHT203 and PHT303: a case ran over 3 weeks; PHT403: a case ran over 2 days due to time constraints)

• There is not enough engagement and contribution from ALL students when doing the clinical cases.

• I would like to see the contribution from each student towards the task and also guide them in the right direction.

• The students should also be able to give constructive feedback to each other’s contributions.

Established practice

• PHT403 has a theoretical and practical component.

• It includes the pathology, clinical presentation and therapeutic management of conditions seen in the adult and paediatric ICU.

• Students received course readers • A predominantly lecture-based format

was employed in teaching.

Impact / affordances of emerging technologies

• Although a change in the understanding of how learning happens, emphasise still on the transmission of content (Graffam, 2007)

• = the teacher-centered approach to learning • Didactic methods of teaching:

** ≠ opportunity to voice opinions regarding understanding

of the content

** separates knowledge from context

** resulting in students viewing knowledge as a product of

learning, rather than seeing knowledge as a set of tools for

problem solving in a process of learning (Herrington & Oliver, 2000)

• Lecturer should assist the student in how to think, and not only teaching students what to know and what to do (Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001).

• Authentic learning is a style of learning that could be employed to encourage students to become critical thinkers. One of the nine principles of authentic learning, according to Herrington (2006) is: Support collaborative construction of knowledge

• The social constructivist paradigm is associated with student-centered learning.

• Encourages students to actively seek new information in order to construct new knowledge (Hallas, 2000).

• An approach based on development and associated with students taking a deep approach to learning (Ramsden, 2003).

• Lecturer’s role changes from communication knowledge to facilitating and supporting students in developing metacognitive processes (Torrisi & Davis, 2000).

• It allows students to engage with real life tasks and to create a product that they can share with fellow classmates (Herrington & Oliver, 2000).

• Digital technology could improve communication which could enhance the learning process through meaningful discussion (Veletsianos, 2011).

• NB! that students learn with technology to change from knowledge users (teacher-centered learning) to knowledge constructors (student-centered learning) (Jonassen, 2000)

= constructivist approach to learning

• Collaboration = a process where two or more people work together by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus to reach a common goal (Chu & Kennedy, 2011).

• Affordances = the ability to match your teaching and learning tasks with appropriate educational technologies (Bower, 2008).

= a way of focussing on the strengths and weaknesses of

technologies with respect to the possibilities they offer the

people that might use them (Gaver, 1991).

• Must keep in mind how the chosen technology will support the learning task and how the students will experience the use of it (Beetham, 2007).

• Google Drive = free web-based tool that enables multiple persons to work together in real time.

• It enables concurrent document editing and collaboration in constructing knowledge by multiple users and thus could potentially enhance the learning experience of students (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013; Chu & Kennedy, 2011).

• As an implementation platform, applied in the PT curriculum recently: “led to the transformation of student learning practices, altered power relationships in the classroom and facilitated the development of critical attitudes towards knowledge and authority” (Rowe et al., 2013).

Google Drive was chosen as implementation platform because of the following ‘affordances’:

• Allows for the development of the clinical cases for PHT403 collaboratively• allows for students to work on the group’s case notes collaboratively • have access to case notes of the other groups• can be used in addition to face-to-face contact time, e.g. in class for the

creation of content (case notes) as well as afterwards when lecturers give feedback on the case notes.

• Feedback can be given immediately / timeously• enables the facilitators to ask questions regarding the students’ developed

case notes at any stage to guide the students in the right direction.• Students can ask questions to clarify any uncertainties regarding the

feedback or their understanding of the concepts.• The instant messenger feature allows students and staff to discuss aspects

of the case notes while at different locations.• Critical thinking can be stimulated as comments from the lecturers and peers

can be structured in such a way that the students have to reflect on their assumptions and reasoning.

• Because each group’s case notes will be different from the other groups, it will teach the students that there are multiple solutions, rather than one single answer to the tasks.

Description of intervention

thhopp60 students 3 facilitators

divided into 12 groups

4 groups per facilitator

Learning intervention

3 weeks; beginning of term 1

6-7 hours per day; work in small groups

2 days per case

Process: Case development

Each facilitators developed 2 clinical

case guides

Shared on Google Drive

Other facilitators scrutinized case

guides (formative evaluation)

Recommended changes made

collaboratively on Google Drive

Example of case

Objectives for Case 2

By the end of this case student should be able to:• Define terminology related to multiple fractures, the respiratory

system organs in the perineum and lower abdominal cavity.• Describe the pathologies of the conditions presented in the case.• Identify relevant concepts and the relationships between those

concepts• Identify and prioritise problems as a result of the condition(s)

presented in the case• Describe the holistic and multi-disciplinary management of a patient

with the described condition• Identify potential internal (e.g. damaged structures) and external

(e.g. socio-economic) factors that might impact on the patient outcomes

• Identify gaps in their own knowledge through self-assessment and to be able to design a strategy to improve their understanding

Steps to follow• Step 1: Clarify Terms

• Step 2: Define the problem/s the patient have, according to the ICF

• Step 3: Brainstorming (list reason & implications of problems)

• Step 4: Structuring and hypothesis (Must be based on evidence from the case)

• Step 5: Formulating learning outcomes. In your small groups, identify questions you need to answer based on the information you have. The questions should start you thinking about what information you need to gather in order to solve the problems you identified in Step 2.

• Step 6: Gathering Information (Information regarding pathology, surgery and possible complications)

Process: Implementation• received a hardcopy of the case and it was available of

Google Drive.

• creation of case notes collaboratively in Google Drive

• Received feedback (comments and questions) from any facilitators and peers from the same group to encourage reflecting on their answer and reasoning

• Students had to respond and ask questions to clarify their understanding

• Complete and upload at a specific time• further feedback from facilitators • Students had to address the comments timeously to

improve the content of the case notes• Thereafter shared with the rest of the class• Before new case commence; upload of facilitators

guide and student information of completed case

Key points for effective practiceGoogle Docs allowed for: (Bower, 2008)

• easy navigation (accessibility) and it enhanced the learning process in a more exciting way (read-ability; write-ability)

• greater participation, engagement and collaborative construction of knowledge

• Students could focus on areas they found challenging and needed support (highlight-ability)

• allows for editing to be in the form of a discussion (revise- ability)

• The access control of Google Docs allowed for students to only share (share-ability) the final ‘revised product’ with other class mates

• Moved towards authentic learning (Herrington, 2006)

• students learn with technology to change from knowledge users (teacher-centered learning) to knowledge constructors (student-centered learning) (Jonassen, 2000)

Conclusions• Google Drive allows the students to take ownership of and

responsibility for their own construction of knowledge and learning (Rowe, et al., 2013).

• It afforded the students the opportunity to collaborate and engage with each others’ work.

• The read-ability and write-ability (it allows for easy access and quick response / comments), focus-ability (e.g. the aspects that they did not understand or found challenging) and highlight-ability (e.g. they could highlight the areas where they need more assistance / guidance) affordances, as identified by Bower (2008) all contributed to a positive experience by the students.

Recommendations

• Students to choose their own groups• Or have a session regarding group dynamics (after

the 1st case) • Include a session on ‘constructive feedback’ • Individual assessment (better monitoring)

**rubric for constructive feedback to at

least 2-3 other groups

**rubric for responding to the feedback

References• Abrams, Z. (2005). Asynchronous CMC, collaboration and the

development of critical thinking in a graduate seminar in applied linguistics. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31, 23-47.

• Beetham, H. (2007). An approach to learning activity design. In: Beetham & Sharpe: Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e-learning. Routledge: Taylor & Francis group.

• Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3 – 15.

• Chu, S.K.W. & Kennedy, D.M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581-597.

• Fraser, S.W. & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Coping with complexity: educating for capability. British Medical Journal, 323, 799-803.

• Graffam, B. (2007). Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning education. Medical Teacher, 29(1), 38-42.

• Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Chesapeake, Va

References cont.

• Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

• Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Engaging critical thinking. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Pearson Education.

• Rowe, M., Bozalek, V. & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594-606.

• Torrisi, G., & Davis, G. (2000). Online Learning as a catalyst for reshaping practice - The experiences of some academics developing online learning materials. The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 166-176.

• Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46.