교수개발을 위한 온라인교육: 문헌 리뷰(Med Teach, 2013)

교수개발을 위한 온라인교육: 문헌 리뷰(Med Teach, 2013)

Online learning for faculty development: A review of the literature

DAVID A. COOK1 & YVONNE STEINERT2

1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, USA, 2McGill University, Canada

도입

Introduction

교수들이 그들의 다양한 역할을 잘 수행하게끔 준비시켜주고 renew시켜주는 FD이니셔티브는 여러가지 형태가 있을 수 있다. 그러나 다양한 방법들은 로지스틱한 문제, 사회적으로 고립social disconectedness된 느낌, 바쁜 임상 및 연구업무 등으로 제한이 되기도 한다

Designed to prepare – and renew – faculty members for their multiple roles (Bland et al. 1990), faculty development initiatives can take many forms. However, such approaches have been limited by logistical issues (scheduling and physical location), perceptions of social disconnectedness, and the workload of a busy clinical or academic practice (Steinert et al. 2009).

온라인 학습은 하나의 혁신이다.

Online learning may constitute one such innovation. (Sherer et al. 2003).

우리의 personal and professional lives에 컴퓨터와 인터넷 기술이 발달하면서 온라인학습이 지난 10년간 드라마틱한 성장을 한 것은 놀랄 일이 아니다. 한 연구결과를 보면 온라인 CME가 모든 CME활동의 절반을 차지할 것을 예상했다.

With the growing presence of computers and Internet technologies in our personal and professional lives, it is no surprise that online learning has shown dramatic growth over the past decade (Cook et al. 2010a). One study suggests that online continuing medical education (CME) may dominate over half of all CME activities by 2017 (Harris et al. 2010).

온라인 학습의 개요

A brief review of online learning

온라인학습은 일부 혹은 전체 학습자료와 활동을 인터넷이나 로컬인트라넷 형태로 전달하는 것이다. 교사들은 온라인 학습활동을 학습자가 정해진 목표를 달성하는데 도움이 되게끔 구조화하고 배열한다. 이 활동들은 다음의 것을 포함할 수 있다. 

Online learning is the process of learning with some or all instructional materials and activities delivered over the Internet or a local intranet. Teachers facilitate online learning by structuring and sequencing online activities to help learners achieve defined objectives. These activities might include

• 교육 자료의 제시 the presentation of instructional materials (e.g. online tutorials) (Cook & Dupras 2004),

• 학습자간 토론 communication among learners (computer-supported collaborative learning) (Sandars et al. 2012), and

• 실제 상황을 컴퓨터로 시뮬레이션 computer simulations of real-life situations (Richman et al. 2001).

 

온라인 기술은 여러가지 장애물을 극복하는데 도움을 주었다.

Online technologies can help to overcome several barriers that confront traditional learning activities (Cook 2007).

• 물리적 거리는 이제 아무런 문제가 되지 않는다.(한 주state 또는 국가 내 등)
  Physical distances become irrelevant with online learning. For example, faculty development courses have enrolled participants at multiple sites across a state (Langlois & Thach 2003), a country (Anshu et al. 2008; Wearne et al. 2011), and the world (McKimm & Swanwick 2010; Ladhani et al. 2011).

• 규모의 경제를 실현해준다.
  Many online course designs permit economies of scale, with expanding enrollment requiring little or no additional instruc- tor time or institutional cost.

• 시간에 따른 참여의 제약이 없다.
  Online learning also allows for flexibility in the timing of participation, as highlighted in the use of online technologies to teach busy surgical faculty (Pernar et al. 2012).

• 교육을 받은 후 교육사이트를 레퍼런스로 활용가능하다.
  In addition, learners can use the site as a reference after the course has ended.

• 필요에 따라 학습속도를 빠르거나 느리게 할 수 있다. 그리고 컴퓨터가 학습자에 대한 정보를 활용하여 학습경험을 최적화할 수 있다.
  Instruction can be individualized as learners control the pace of instruction by slowing down or speeding up as needed, or as the computer uses information about the learner (baseline knowledge, learning style, or motivation to learn) to alter and thus optimize the learning experience (computer-adaptive instruc- tion).

• 맞춤형 피드백
  Online learning facilitates learner assessment and tools tailored feedback.

• 게임/상호작용모델/컴퓨터시뮬레이션/에니메이션/오디오클립, 비디오클립 활용 등 다양한 창의적 교수법 활용가능
  Finally, online can be used to implement creative instructional methods such as games, interactive models, computer simulations, computer anima- tions, and incorporation of audio and video clips.

그러나 이러한 장점에도 불구하고 해결해야 할 문제들도 있다.

However, with these advantages come many challenges.

• 개발하는데 시간과 돈의 투자가 많이 필요하다. 작은 수의 학습자들을 대상으로는 비효율적.
  Online tutorials and simulations typically require a large investment of time and money for development, making them relatively inefficient for small groups of learners (Cook 2007).

• 온라인 토론은 교수자의 시간이 학습자가 늘어날수록 더 많이 필요해지므로 규모의 경제에 해당되지 않는다.
  Economies of scale are also less apparent in online discus- sions, in which demands on instructor time usually increase with each added learner.

• 한 번 만들어진 것은, 기술적인 문제나 교수설계와 같은 것을 온라인에서는 쉽게 바꿀수가 없다irreversibly derail.
  Technical problems or deficient instructional designs can irreversibly derail an online activity, by contrast with a face-to-face course in which a talented instructor can, if needed, improvise and recover.

• 학습자가 자신의 속도에 맞춰서 볼 수 있다고는 하나, 학습의 개별화는 이 정도를 넘지 못한다. Computer-adaptive instruction은 사실상 실현되지 않았으며, 근거도 부족하다.
  While learners can often govern the pace of progress through the course, individualization in an online course rarely goes beyond this; computer-adaptive instruction thus remains at present a largely unrealized possibility, with only sparse evidence evaluating its benefits (Cook et al. 2008a; Landsberg et al. 2012).

• 면대면 접촉이 적어서 고립된 느낌이 있을 수 있다. '온라인 협력'을 포함하다고 해도, 면대면 접촉보다 더 만족socially fulfilling하지는 않을 것이며, 결국 이때문에 engagement와 satisfaction이 낮아진다.
  Finally, the lack of face-to-face interaction can create a sense of isolation, particularly for courses comprised of independent-learning tutorials and simulations. Even in courses involving online collaboration, some learners may find this less socially fulfilling than face-to-face interactions, and this in turn can impair engagement and satisfaction. Several authors have noted this to be an issue with faculty members as learners (Steinert et al. 2002; Dyrbye et al. 2009; Wearne et al. 2011).

이러한 잠재적 장점과 한계에도 불구하고 여러 연구자들은 온라인 학습이 전통적 방법에 비해서 어떤지를 연구해왔다. 이번 연구로부터 얻은 결과는, 평균적으로 보자면, 유의한 차이는 없다는 것이다. 일부 연구는 온라인이 더 낫다고 하고, 어떤 연구는 전통적 방법이 더 낫다고 하나, 평균적으로 보면 기본적으로 형식 간 거의 차이가 없다. 현재까지의 근거를 보면 온라인과 면대면 방식 중에서의 선택은 하나가 다른 하나보다 inherently 우월하기 때문이 아니라, 상대적인 장점 때문이다. 이것은 교육자들에게는 좋은 소식인데, 왜냐하면 우리가 각각의 접근법을 자신감있게 사용할 수 있음을 뜻하기 때문이다.

Given these potential advantages and challenges, numer- ous educators and researchers have attempted to determine whether online learning is better or worse than traditional approaches. The bottom line from this research is that there is, on average, no significant difference. Some studies favored online, others favored traditional, but on average outcomes were essentially the same between formats. Current evidence suggests that the choice between online and face-to-face approaches depends primarily on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach rather than an inherent superiority of one over the other (Cook & McDonald 2008). This is good news for educators, because it means that we can confidently use either approach (or both together in a blended learning course), depending on the needs of the situation.

교수개발의 온라인학습

Online learning for faculty development

온라인학습은 교수개발에 특히 잘 맞는다.

Online learning may be particularly well-suited for faculty development.

• 교수들은 시간과 장소의 제약을 많이 받음
  Faculty members are affected by issues of time and location (Steinert et al. 2009).

• 인터넷에 기반한 수단을 활용해 물리적, 시간적 거리separation를 초월한 실천공동체를 형성할 수 있다.
  Moreover, by bridging physical and temporal separations Internet-based tools can facilitate online communities of practice that would otherwise be impossible (Sherer et al. 2003).

• 필요한 때에just-in-time제공, 규모의 경제 실현, 이수증 서류 등
  Other features such as just-in-time availability of resources, economies of scale, and documentation of completion are also helpful for faculty members (just as they are for other learners).

문헌 고찰

Literature review

온라인FD는 어떤 형태로 도입되어있는가?

How has faculty development been implemented online?

 

다음과 같은 형태

We identified 20 reports of online learning for faculty development These studies employed a wide variety of online modalities and instructional designs (Table 1), including

• 튜토리얼 tutorials;

• 온라인 토론 online discussion via discussion board, chat, and e-mail listserv;

• 컴퓨터 시뮬레이션 computer simulations;

• 비디오 클립 video clips; and

• 원거리에서의 실시간 평가 live assessment of a training subject at a distance.

 

일부 연구는 single location의 참여자를 대상으로 했지만, 대부분은 멀리 떨어진(도시, 주, 국가) 학습자들을 대상으로 했음.

A few studies included partici- pants at a single location, but most enrolled learners separated by large distances – different cities, different provinces, and even different countries.

온라인FD 연구에서 배운 점은?

What do we learn from studies of online faculty development?

 

종합적으로, 온라인FD에 대한 근거는 흩어져있고 insubstantial하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 몇 가지 눈에 띄는 주제들이 있다.

In sum, the evidence base for online faculty development is sparse and insubstantial. Nonetheless, several salient themes emerge from this literature.

 

첫째, 온라인FD는 적어도 전통적인 방식과 비견될 만은 하다. 두 가지 연구가 있었는데, 하나는 작지만 유의하지 않은 차이를, 다른 하나는 유의한 지식의 향상을 보고함.

First, online faculty development appears to be at least comparable to traditional training.

• Two studies made com- parison with traditional classroom training. One found small and non-significant differences (Coma del Corral et al. 2006); the other found significantly improved knowledge and skills for those trained online, perhaps due to increased intensity of the online training (Kobak et al. 2006).

둘째, 온라인FD는 아무런 intervention을 하지 않은 것보다 (늘 그런 것은 아니지만) 더 낫기도 하다. 한 연구에서는 no intervention보다 유의하게 나았다, 또 다른 연구는 전통적 방식에 virtual classroom을 더한 것이 유의한 향상을 가져왔다. 두 개에서는 차이가 없었다.

Second, online faculty development can be, but is not always, effective in comparison with no intervention. One study found that an online journal club was significantly more effective than no intervention (Macrae et al. 2004) while another found that adding a virtual classroom with online assignments to existing face-to-face lectures was associated with significantly improved scores (Dean et al. 2001). However, two studies evaluating the impact of a series of very brief e-mail messages (on topics of institutional review board guidelines [Kotzer & Milton 2007] and teaching effect- iveness [Pernar et al. 2012]) found only negligible differences.

셋째, 이들 비교연구로부터 떠오르는 질문이 있다. 온라인FD가 성공하기 위해서 중요한 특징은 무엇인가? 가장 눈에 띄는 것은 교수참여faculty engagement가 인터벤션간 차이가 크다는 것이다. 비록 일부 연구에서는 매우 효과적 방방법으로 참여를 장려했음에도, 많은 경우에 참여도가 매우 낮았다.

Third, the variability in these comparative studies raises the question: what features of the intervention, topic, and learners are critical to the success (or failure) of online faculty development? Most notably, faculty engagement varied widely for different interventions. Many courses were plagued by low participation, although some managed to effectively encourage faculty involvement.

• 어떤 연구자들은 교수들이 스스로 인지한 니즈need perceived by faculty가 온라인학습과 맞을 때에야만이 시간과 에너지를 온라인코스에 쏟을 것이라고 제안했다.
  Some authors suggested that only when courses successfully meet a need perceived by faculty members will they invest the necessary time and energy to participate in an online course (Steinert et al. 2002).

• 다른 연구자들은 기술적 문제를 잘 organization하고 assistant하는 것이 성공의 길이라고도 했다.
  Others felt that better organization and assistance with technical problems were keys to success (Langlois & Thach 2003; Dyrbye et al. 2009; Ladhani et al. 2011; Wearne et al. 2011).

• 코스를 마치는데 필요한 시간, 명확한 요구(기대), 가까운 미래의 (교육)활동에의 관련성 등이 중요하다
  Yet, others identified that time to complete course activities, clear expectations, and relevance to near-future academic activities (e.g. teaching) were essential (Steinert et al. 2002; Lewis & Baker 2005; Paulus et al. 2010; Wearne et al. 2011).

• FD일반에 대한 연구는 물론  온라인 CPD연구에서 보면, perceived professional need, immediate rele- vance, and institutional expectation and support 등이 중요하다.
  Research from the field of faculty development in general (i.e. not online-specific) confirms that meeting a perceived professional need, immediate rele- vance, and institutional expectation and support all encourage participation (Steinert et al. 2009, 2010) as does evidence from online clinical continuing professional development (Carroll et al. 2009).

커뮤니케이션과 사회적 상호작용social interactions 이 온라인FD의 장기적 성공에 중요하다. 여러 연구에서 사회적 사회작용을 핵심 주제로 도출했다. 온라인 커뮤니티는 (온라인 커뮤니티가 아니었으면 불가능했을) 상호작용을 강화하는 역할을 할 수 있으나, 만약에 온라인 상호작용이 면대면 상호작용을 대체해버리거나, 그 설계가 poorly structured 되어있다면, 오히려 역효과를 낳을 수도 있어서, 흥미나 참여가 떨어질 수도 있다.

Communication and social interactions also appear to be critical to the long-term success of online faculty development activities. Several studies identified social interaction and bonding as key themes: online communities can enhance such interactions if faculty members would not otherwise be able to meet, but if online interaction replaces face-to-face interaction or is poorly structured, it may meet with oppos- ition, disinterest, and lack of engagement (Steinert et al. 2002; Langlois & Thach 2003; Bramson et al. 2007; Anshu et al. 2008; Dyrbye et al. 2009; Anshu et al. 2010; Paulus et al. 2010).

 

토론그룹 사이에서 중재역할을 적극적으로 하는 것Active moderation of discussion groups 이 특히 중요하다. 한 연구에서 참여자들은 온라인토론이 포함된 집단에서 (비록 그것이 면대면 접촉을 대체하기에 매우 적합한 것은 아니었으나not adequately substitute) self-reported understanding이 더 향상되었음을 보고함.

Active moderation of discussion groups may be particularly important (Fox et al. 2001; Anshu et al. 2008; Wearne et al. 2011).

• One randomized trial evaluated an online tutorial with and without enhancement through an online discussion forum and found greater self-reported understanding (albeit statistic- ally non-significant) among the group with online discussion, although participants indicated this ‘‘did not adequately substitute for face-to-face contact.’’ (Fox et al. 2001).

 

커뮤니케이션과 관련된 문제를 지적한 연구가 있었는데, 목소리의 굴절이나 바디랭귀지가 없는 것 때문에 오해가 생기기도 한다. 비-온라인FD에서 연구들은 social connection과 실천공동체의 필요성을 지지한다.

Several studies noted problems with communication, such as the absence of voice inflection or body language, which leads to increased chance of misunderstanding. Again, research from non-online faculty development supports the need for social connections and communities of practice (Steinert et al. 2009, 2010).

마지막으로 (짧은 이메일 메시지, optional한 토론포럼 등과 같이) 매우 짧거나 단차원적인 인터벤션brief or uni-dimensional interventions 은 덜 효과적이다.

Finally, brief or uni-dimensional interventions, such as short e-mail messages (Kotzer & Milton 2007; Pernar et al. 2012) and optional discussion forums (Steinert et al. 2002) seem to be less effective.

Table 2. Lessons learned from 20 studies of online faculty development.

1. Online learning for faculty development has the potential to meet educational objectives, but participation rates are often low. 

2. Perceived advantages

•    Convenience

•    Flexibility

•    Reduced isolation (if faculty cannot otherwise meet)

•    Collaboration across disciplines and distance

•    Experience of being an online student (can enrich subsequent teaching) 

3. Perceived disadvantages

•    Increased isolation (if faculty are accustomed to meeting face-to-face)

•    Communication problems

•    Technical problems; lack of comfort with the technology

•    Costly software development

•    Trade-off between enhanced flexibility and strong sense of community 

4. Features of less effective courses

•    Intervention too brief (e.g. weekly e-mail)

•    Topic not perceived as important

•    Faculty members not engaged

•    Insufficient time to complete activities

•    Lack of interaction

•    Lack of instructors’ expertise in teaching online 

5. Perceived solutions and favorable features

•    Optimize communication, including use of conversational discussion

•    Address a need (i.e. learning deficit); relevance

•    Ensure that course materials are well organized and easy to access

•    Enhance social bonding; work in teams; invite quiet members to participate

•    Optimize time management

•    Set clear expectations, including time commitment
  

 

미래 연구에 대한 함의

Implications for current practice and future research

온라인학습은 다른 방법보다 우월하지도 열등하지도 않고, 그저 어떤 challenges를 극복하기 위한 방법이다. 온라인과 면대면 학습의 구분은 점차 모호해지고 있다. 이미 교사들은 blended experience를 루틴하게 활용중이다.

Online learning in general is neither superior to nor inferior to other approaches, but simply a method that overcomes some challenges while creating others. We expect that the distinction between online and face-to-face learning will increasingly blur, as educators take advantage of the strengths of both approaches to create blended learning experiences. Teachers already routinely create blended experiences – for example, using lecture, PowerPoint, video, small groups, and self-study to optimize learning according to specific objectives. Online learning adds one more tool (or, more accurately, a collection of tools) to the educator’s toolbox.

온라인 실천공동체의 발달을 장려할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 단순히 FD프로그램을 온라인으로 만드는 것 만으로 성공을 담보하지는 못한다. 최고의 계획과 가장 효과적인 프로그램조차 교수들이 능동적으로 학습프로세스에 참여하지 않는다면 실패로 끝날 것이다.

Online learning may be particularly effective in overcoming these barriers and encouraging the development of online communities of practice (Sherer et al. 2003). However, simply building a faculty development program or activity – online or otherwise – will not guarantee success. Even the best-laid plans and most highly-effective programs will come to naught if faculty members do not actively engage in the learning process. While online learning has the potential to overcome barriers results thus far are decidedly mixed.

 

---

Med Teach. 2013 Nov;35(11):930-7. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.827328. Epub 2013 Sep 5.

Online learning for faculty development: a review of the literature.

Cook DA1, Steinert Y.

Author information

• 1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

With the growing presence of computers and Internet technologies in personal and professional lives, it seems prudent to consider how online learning has been and could be harnessed to promote faculty development.

AIMS:

Discuss advantages and disadvantages of online faculty development, synthesize what is known from studies involving health professionsfaculty members, and identify next steps for practice and future research.

METHOD:

We searched MEDLINE for studies describing online instruction for developing teaching, leadership, and research skills among health professions faculty, and synthesized these in a narrative review.

RESULTS:

We found 20 articles describing online faculty development initiatives for health professionals, including seven quantitative comparative studies, four studies utilizing defined qualitative methods, and nine descriptive studies reporting anecdotal lessons learned. These programs addressed diverse topics including clinical teaching, educational assessment, business administration, financial planning, and research skills. Most studies enrolled geographically-distant learners located in different cities, provinces, or countries. Evidence suggests that online faculty developmentis at least comparable to traditional training, but learner engagement and participation is highly variable. It appears that success is more likely when the course addresses a relevant need, facilitates communication and social interaction, and provides time to complete course activities.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although we identified several practical recommendations for success, the evidence base for online faculty development is sparse and insubstantial. Future research should include rigorous, programmatic, qualitative and quantitative investigations to understand the principles that govern faculty member engagement and success.

PMID:

 

24006931

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]