"The Student Technology Committee: Students as Stakeholders in Medical Education Technology"

The Student Technology CommitteeStudents as Stakeholders in Medical Education Technology

Jared Shenson, Ryan Adams, Amol Utrankar, S. Toufeeq Ahmed, Anderson Spickard Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

AAMC IT in Academic Medicine Conference | June 4, 2015

Learning Objectives

Consider the role that students have in education technology

decision-making, design, and evaluation at your institution.

Now consider what it could be.

1

Consider the role that medical students have in education technology decision-making, design, and evaluation at your institution.

Now consider what that role could be, and whether an opportunity exists to close the gap.

The Traditional Model2

Administrators decide it.

Developers create it.

Students use it.

Traditionally, innovation in education technology flows from the top-down: administrators establish a vision, developers and staff construct the tools to meet it, and students use those tools.

Some student feedback might exist through feedback surveys or post-intervention assessments, but by and large, there is limited student involvement in determining institutional priorities in education technology or designing the tools to support learning. This is a lost opportunity, for two key reasons.

First, a top-down design process creates products that, instead of responding to student needs, respond to perceptions of student needs.

Second, a failure to engage students is a failure to leverage the experience that today’s digital natives have in building their own learning environment. Today’s medical learners have grown up customizing application settings, incorporating apps and tech tools into their workflow, and even creating resources that align with their study habits. These are firsthand experiences in education design that many administrators, or even developers, might not have.

Students are an undervalued asset in education design. The schools that realize this and capitalize on it will be the most capable of meeting their learners where they are.

The Student Technology Committee Model3

Administrators Developers

Students

StudentTechnologyCommittee

Understanding the promise of student-centered education design, we’ve introduced the Student Technology Committee at Vanderbilt as a strategy to build student involvement into every stage of the education technology design process.

We work with administrators to define a vision and chart a roadmap for education technology at our institution.

We work with developers to provide frequent feedback toward their projects, and sometimes create technologies to fill identified needs ourselves.

Most critically, we talk to our peers constantly to understand their needs and values, and use student feedback to drive impactful innovation and rapid-cycle revision.

Our Impact

Engage in design and implementation of student-centered solutions.

Extend insight in medical education technology through research.

Establish a conversation about emerging technologies in medicine.

4

As a result of the STC approach, we’ve been able to impact the institution in three critical ways. • Engage in design and implementation of student-centered solutions. At Vanderbilt, students aren’t just users of tech. They’re intimately involved with

defining the need, developing the design, evaluating the outcomes, and driving rapid-cycle revision. • Extend insight in medical education technology through research. With faculty mentorship, we’ve been able to systematically assess results and make

contributions to the literature, leveraging our experience to inform impact beyond Vanderbilt. • Establish a conversation about emerging technologies in medicine. As technologies transform clinical practice, they’ve been slow to make their way

into medical education. We’ve taken it upon ourselves to organize events that challenge our peers to think about how technology trends, like big data, clinical decision support, and augmented reality will shape their clinical futures.

iPad-Enhanced Anatomy Dissection

Next, let’s review some case studies that illustrate the process and impact of the Vanderbilt Student Technology Committee.

Several years ago, a group of first-year medical students identified a need in their anatomy education. They wanted to augment the static interface of a dissection manual with mobile devices in order to visualize 3D structures; to take, annotate, and share images; and to quiz each other with in-lab, just-in-time training applications.

With the faculty’s support, the students developed a pilot study. They gathered feedback, conducted surveys, and observed their peers at work. Over time, the students made revisions in response to student feedback, identifying additional applications to address unmet student needs and developing a training module to guide students in effective technology use. The insights from those pilot cycles and initial iterations were published under faculty mentorship, informing the efforts of schools elsewhere to implement similar initiatives.

The implementation of iPads in our anatomy labs highlights several foundational elements of the Technology Committee model. Students generated the impetus for change. Students designed the pilot, students evaluated its impact, and students drew publishable conclusions to drive continued revision. As essential as the student ownership component is, though, it’s equally vital to note that the project succeeded because faculty and developers were willing to support student-led initiatives. Their influence on the STC’s success cannot be stated enough.

Next, let’s review some case studies that illustrate the process and impact of the Vanderbilt Student Technology Committee.

Several years ago, a group of first-year medical students identified a need in their anatomy education. They wanted to augment the static interface of a dissection manual with mobile devices in order to visualize 3D structures; to take, annotate, and share images; and to quiz each other with in-lab, just-in-time training applications.

With the faculty’s support, the students developed a pilot study. They gathered feedback, conducted surveys, and observed their peers at work. Over time, the students made revisions in response to student feedback, identifying additional applications to address unmet student needs and developing a training module to guide students in effective technology use. The insights from those pilot cycles and initial iterations were published under faculty mentorship, informing the efforts of schools elsewhere to implement similar initiatives.

The implementation of iPads in our anatomy labs highlights several foundational elements of the Technology Committee model. Students generated the impetus for change. Students designed the pilot, students evaluated its impact, and students drew publishable conclusions to drive continued revision. As essential as the student ownership component is, though, it’s equally vital to note that the project succeeded because faculty and developers were willing to support student-led initiatives. Their influence on the STC’s success cannot be stated enough.

Next, let’s review some case studies that illustrate the process and impact of the Vanderbilt Student Technology Committee.

Several years ago, a group of first-year medical students identified a need in their anatomy education. They wanted to augment the static interface of a dissection manual with mobile devices in order to visualize 3D structures; to take, annotate, and share images; and to quiz each other with in-lab, just-in-time training applications.

With the faculty’s support, the students developed a pilot study. They gathered feedback, conducted surveys, and observed their peers at work. Over time, the students made revisions in response to student feedback, identifying additional applications to address unmet student needs and developing a training module to guide students in effective technology use. The insights from those pilot cycles and initial iterations were published under faculty mentorship, informing the efforts of schools elsewhere to implement similar initiatives.

The implementation of iPads in our anatomy labs highlights several foundational elements of the Technology Committee model. Students generated the impetus for change. Students designed the pilot, students evaluated its impact, and students drew publishable conclusions to drive continued revision. As essential as the student ownership component is, though, it’s equally vital to note that the project succeeded because faculty and developers were willing to support student-led initiatives. Their influence on the STC’s success cannot be stated enough.

VSTAR: A Lifelong Learning Platform

Today, student-centered, student-informed design pervades the Vanderbilt culture.

When Vanderbilt built its own LMS in 2014, students were invited to engage in discussions and drive decisions from the project’s inception.

Developers handled most of the design, but students had an active voice in bringing about specific features, optimizing the configuration, and gathering several cycles of feedback. Even when we’re not the ones building the products, the conversation begins and ends with responsiveness to student-voiced needs.

Today, student-centered, student-informed design pervades the Vanderbilt culture.

When Vanderbilt built its own LMS in 2014, students were invited to engage in discussions and drive decisions from the project’s inception.

Developers handled most of the design, but students had an active voice in bringing about specific features, optimizing the configuration, and gathering several cycles of feedback. Even when we’re not the ones building the products, the conversation begins and ends with responsiveness to student-voiced needs.

Tech Talks

One of our most recent projects is the VUSM Tech Talks: a conversation about how technology is shaping the future of medicine, so as to inspire students to have an active hand in that innovative process.

We bring experts to address students on topics like clinical decision support or design thinking, building a complement to the curriculum to ensure that today’s students are prepared for tomorrow’s medicine.

The Tech Talks, most significantly, speak to our committee’s continuing evolution from a committee developing technologies to a committee that’s fostering a culture of technology, transformation, and ideation.

Kevin Johnson, MD, MS CORNELIUS VANDERBILT PROFESSOR & CHAIR OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS

PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS

Randolph Miller, MD CORNELIUS VANDERBILT PROFESSOR

OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS,

MEDICINE & NURSING

One of our most recent projects is the VUSM Tech Talks: a conversation about how technology is shaping the future of medicine, so as to inspire students to have an active hand in that innovative process.

We bring experts to address students on topics like clinical decision support or design thinking, building a complement to the curriculum to ensure that today’s students are prepared for tomorrow’s medicine.

The Tech Talks, most significantly, speak to our committee’s continuing evolution from a committee developing technologies to a committee that’s fostering a culture of technology, transformation, and ideation.

A Win-Win Solution

Faculty and Staff: Implement innovations that support educators and learners. Receive feedback at every stage of the design process.

Students: Contribute an end-user’s perspective that is valued and acted upon. Develop professional skills as peer leaders and faculty liaisons. Acquire clinically-relevant expertise in QI, innovation, and design. Learn medicine through innovative, technology-guided pedagogies.

12

The Student Technology Committee model is a win-win for faculty and students, which is why we’ve flown across the country to make the case that it should be a cornerstone of innovation at every medical school nationwide.

Establishing an STC

• Select the right students • Seek an engaged advisor • Secure institutional ‘buy-in’

13

Ideally, your institution is now motivated to establish an STC of its own. Here are a few points that are essential to the recipe for a Student Technology Committee. •First, select the right students. A student who can design and code is a plus, but the key is someone who can ideate and relay ideas to experts. •Next, seek an engaged advisor. You want someone who can provide the occasional reality check, but is almost always willing to go to bat for your ideas and respond with “How might we …” vs. “Here’s why not.” •Finally, secure institutional ‘buy-in.’ Our committee works because our faculty give students broad opportunity to try new ideas and take ownership of the effort. Our faculty and administrators don’t simply pay lip service to the concept of student engagement; they believe in it enough to put their resources where their mouth is, and we hope the projects highlighted here speak to what students can do when presented with such opportunities.

Thank You

Anderson Spickard, III, MD, MS Assistant Dean, Educational Informatics and Technology [email protected]

Acknowledgements Student Technology Committee: Stephen Dorner, Julian Genkins, Scott Hagan, Sandeep Jain, Anupam Kumar, Benjamin Li, Tom Mou, Mitchell Odom, Annie Pally, Colby Uptegraft, Ashley Wu. Faculty: Kim Lomis, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Medical Education; Bonnie Miller, Senior Associate Dean for Health Sciences Education.

14

Interested in establishing an STC? Contact us; we’d love to help your students and faculty build a similar model that meets your institution’s needs!