A Collaborative Educational Intervention Integrating Biology and Physics in Radiation Oncology: A Design Research Case Study

Abstract

Instructional design focuses on solving problems in a multitude of contexts. As such, designers are investigators, gathering evidence to optimally design solutions to learning problems within the identified context. The challenge described in this case study was the need to create an educational activity to promote interaction and collaboration among an interdisciplinary participant group comprised of physicians, radiobiologists, and radiation physicists. Based on the premise that interdisciplinary medical research collaboration requires a shared understanding of authentic problems from multiple perspectives, this design research case documents the design and implementation of an online case study incorporating collaborative inquiry in interdisciplinary teams with the intended outcome of building or strengthening interdisciplinary communication skills. Contextual factors – including the design team and design process – influencing the design of the activity are documented. Results indicate that using an interactive online case study as the basis for collaborative inquiry in small, interdisciplinary teams followed by a summative, large group discussion resulted in (1) evidence-based treatment decisions based on the data supplied in the case study and (2) participation of all disciplines in team interactions. Outcomes also indicated the building or strengthening of interdisciplinary communication skills and the understanding of the value and contribution of all three fields to radiation oncology treatment resulted in the participation of the online case study.

Keywords

• Collaborative educational intervention,Design research,Instructional design,Conjecture mapping

References

1. Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1960. The anatomy of judgment. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 2(1), 45-49.
2. Brereton, M. F., Cannon, D. M., Mabogunje, A. & Leifer, L .J. (1996). Collaboration in design teams: How social interaction shapes the product. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.) Analysing design activity (pp.319-341). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
3. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Harper Collins.
4. Buffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 46(7), 635-652.
5. Cennamo, K. (2003). Design as knowledge construction: Constructing knowledge of design. Computers in the Schools, 20(4), 13–35.
6. Cross, D. (2011). Design thinking. New York: Berg.
7. Dynlacht, J. R., Zeman, E. M., Held, K. D., Deye, J., Vikram, B., & Joiner, M. (2015). Education and training needs in the radiation sciences: Problems and potential solutions. Radiation Research, 184, 449-455.
8. Hirsch, A. E., Bishop, P. M., Dad, L., Singh, D., & Slanetz, P. J. (2009). An increase in medical student knowledge of radiation oncology: A pre-post examination analysis of the oncology education initiative. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 73(4), 1003-1008.

9. Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008). Education technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.
10. Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(91), 17 -27.
11. Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Nelson, H.G. & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp.45-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Richey, R., Klein, J., & Tracey, M.W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research and practice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2013.77824
16. Smith, B. D., Haffty B. G., Wilson L. D., Smith G. L., Patel A. N., Buchholz T. A. (2010). The future of radiation oncology in the United States from 2010 to 2020: Will supply keep pace with demand? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(5) 160-165.
17. Statwicz, T. & Stevens, R. (2008). A distributed perspective on collaborative activity. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 163-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Sullivan, D. C. (2000). Biomedical imaging symposium: Visualizing the future of biology and medicine 1. Radiology, 215(3), 634-638.
19. Tracey, M. W. (2015). Design team collaboration with a complex design problem. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. Tracey (Eds.) The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp.93-108). New York: Springer.
20. Zerhouni, E. (2003). NIH Roadmap. Science, 302(5644), 398-399.