Thoughts on research methodology

No article review today.  As directed, I shall instead discuss how my assigned reading this week led me to a realization about research methodology.  A few points:

• Though I was previously unaware of the appropriate names for them, I see now that I have been engaged in the process of evaluating studies and claims against the absolutes of reliability and validity for years.  I have made a habit (almost a fetish) of looking for the story-behind-the-story, the hidden flaw in the reasoning, or in the methodology, that made a conclusion ill-founded.  Reading these chapters, however, makes me realize that no study instrument can hope to be purely valid and reliable.  All we can strive for is minimization of the error, since we are indirectly looking at the absolute truth.
• What mechanisms are in place in the qualitative methodology to prevent reading one's own biases into the theory?  Although one could argue that the developed theory will be quantitatively-evaluated in future studies, and thus biases will be removed from the theory in time, the lag of time between these two events seems dangerous to me.  As an observer of culture and politics, I have seen first-hand the problems that can arise when a theory is proposed that takes hold of the public consciousness, is accepted as fact, and then acted upon, before its assertions can be quantitatively tested.  And so, money and effort are spent on a seemingly accurate theory that has all of its basis on the interpretation of one learned researcher.  Surely, then, it behooves the wise and honest researcher to limit his biases on the front end, creating the most objective theory possible.  So what is done to assure this?
• While reading the chapter in Leedy & Ormrod (2013), I was struck with an unusual association: Quantitative research : Qualitative research :: Traditional journalism : "New" journalism (a la Wolfe) ::  Perhaps not very insightful, but just a thought.
• My personal activity (as stated above) has been qualitative in most informal matters.  Yet, when it comes to research, I always look for quantitative data (as befits my scientific training).  Would I be better off if my personal activities become more regimented; and my professional, more free-ranging?
• Finally, the most robust response I had to these chapters was the stringency that goes into appropriate qualitative research.  I had always had a poor view of such research, thinking it a mere "soft science.'  I begin to understand, however, that, done well, it can teach us much about the world around us.

----------------------

Work Cited

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical Research: Planning and Design (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Work Consulted

Lunenburg, F. C. & Irby, B. J. (2008). Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Learner centred approaches in medical education

Last post, I reviewed an article that described the use of new technology in the anatomy laboratory, and the mixed results that were obtained.  This article referenced the Adult Learning theories of Malcolm Knowles.  I looked into these, and found that he posited his theories in a seminal book, "The Adult Learner: a Neglected Species."

I have put this on my "must-read" list.  However, searching for this source led me to a nice review of learner-centered educational techniques that are used in medical education, published in the British Medical Journal in 1999 by Spencer and Jordan.

This article speaks directly to the challenge that I find myself in: the traditional method of course presentation has presented large quantities of information in an abbreviated, rapid manner, leaving students in a "no-win" situation where they must learn shallowly in order to survive.  In the past, I have personally resisted attempts by my administration and colleagues toward moving away from such techniques, because my experiences as a student in student-centered environments had been fraught with such confusion and uncertainty.  However, realizing that my personal experiences are not authoritative, I attempt to bypass my biases and give student-centered learning another look.

The authors mention--relatively early on--that learner-centered approaches toward education are often poorly implemented and may even take on the form of a mere "veneer," which does nothing but give a new-looking facade to the same old content.  This gives me a slight flicker of hope that there is more to Learner-centered education than the half-hearted course design I had seen in the past.

Self-directed learning appears to be the key, which leads to deeper learning experiences.  The first example that is presented is problem-based learning, which is the technique I have had so little success with in the past.  As they present it, it seems a fine idea: give the students problems to solve, and guide the process of solving so that students will better understand the core material that it is based upon.

It seems a nice system.  However, the list of negatives that have been identified (eg. inefficiency, difficulty implementing in large courses, and poor learning of the basic sciences, et al.) fill me with concern.  The authors conclude the section by mentioning that there is no evidence yet to support the assertion that problem-based education makes better clinicians.

Realizing these limitations, the mixed approach (Guided Discovery Learning) is presented.  Here, the "best of both worlds" are used: a traditional knowledge transfer system is used to assure all learners achieve a common base of information.  Study aids are designed using Learner Centered approaches to help the students use what they have learned immediately, cementing the newly-acquired knowledge and helping learners to see its clinical relevance.

Here is a method that seems to strive for depth of understanding, while realizing the realities of standardized testing and basic science core requirements that must be met.  I recognize that, without consciously doing so, I have been using a mixed approach in my own classes.  However, they have been mostly lecture courses, and so I could perhaps add more study aids to them, particularly when trying to express a clinical correlate.

APA Citation:
Spencer J.A., & Jordan R.K. (1999). Learner centred approaches in medical education. BMJ, 318(7193), 1280-1283.

Innovative Technology in Anatomy Lab

I found this article in the Summer 2013 edition of Optometric Education (pp. 100-105), in which the author had implemented the use of a variety of iPad anatomy apps in her Anatomy Laboratory among first-year optometry students, while simultaneously withholding them from a single lab group, to act as a control.  The results showed no statistical difference between the control group and the lab groups who were given iPads with apps to use in lab.  They found that students liked the iPads, but preferred increased instructor involvement to the programs.

This was fascinating to me, because I also teach anatomy laboratory in an Optometry school, to first-year optometry students.  Being a traditionalist by temperament, I am hesitant to embrace updated technology in the lab unless I can see the benefit of it.  After my predecessor removed microscopes from the lab, for example, I returned them the following year, to help my students get used to discovery and control of microscopy (important points in an eye examination).

That the students who were given the iPad apps gave some feedback implying that they would prefer a more structured lab was very interesting to me--in my experience, students often want to be led by the hand.  Part of the point of the Optometric curriculum, however, must be to train students to venture out on their own.  Thus, I don't find the students' distaste for their digitally-based independence to be a major concern, on its own.

More concerning to me is the lack of improved understanding, as measured by post lab quizzes.  The great promise I have heard is that technology use will revolutionize the classroom and lab.  However, the apps the students were using appeared to use rather traditional teaching methods (eg. rote memorization, flashcards, and manipulation of models--albeit virtual ones, etc.), merely repackaging them in a digital context (see Table 1, reproduced below). Students complained that the time spent learning the new technology took away from their lab time as well.

While an interesting premise, this study only seems to reinforce that what is needed to improve instruction is not a digital version of existing resources, but newly-designed resources that take advantage of the unique opportunities that mobile technology brings.  Purchasing new tech may not be so useful without improved instructional methods.

Going forward, I'd like to look into educational software design theory--how software can truly change the way we educate, rather than merely digitizing the old methods--as well as investigate the Learning Theories of Malcolm Knowles, who the article referenced.  I'm not familiar with his work.

APA citation:

Sanchez-Diaz, P.C. (2013). Impact of Interactive Instructional Goals in Gross Anatomy for Optometry
      Students: a Pilot Study. Optometric Education. 38(3), 100-105.  Retrieved from
      http://www.opted.org/files/Volume38_Number3_Summer2013.pdf