Interactive visual tools as triggers of collaborative reasoning in entry-level pathology

The growing importance of medical imaging in everyday diagnostic practices poses challenges for medical education. While the emergence of novel imaging technologies offers new opportunities, many pedagogical questions remain. In the present study, we explore the use of a new tool, a virtual microscope, for the instruction and the collaborative learning of pathology. Fifteen pairs of medical students were asked to solve diagnostic tasks in a virtual microscopy learning environment. The students’ collaborative efforts were analysed on the basis of approximately 20 hours of video recordings. Our analyses show how students use the technology as a mediating tool to organize, manipulate and construct a shared visual field, and later, shared understanding of the problem and solutions. Organization of the visual field is done through multimodal referential practices: gestures, three dimensional manipulation of the image and paced inspection of the specimen. Furthermore, we analyse and describe how the aforementioned practices coincide with students’ medical reasoning in this particular learning context. The analysis of medical students’ diagnostic work illustrates the collaborative potential of the virtual microscopy environment and how such interactive tools render the traditional distinction between collaborating around or through computers irrelevant, as even face to face collaboration becomes enacted through technology. Finally, we argue that as technologies develop, understanding the technical side of image production, or any representation, becomes an integral part of the interpretative process. How this knowledge is communicated to the students may play a substantive role in how students learn to interpret medical images.

[1]  M. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .

[2]  K. Kuutti,et al.  Rethinking cognitive tools: from augmentation to mediation , 1997, Proceedings Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology Humanizing the Information Age.

[3]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Paradigms of shared knowledge , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[4]  Hans Christian Arnseth,et al.  Approaching institutional contexts: systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[5]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping , 2012, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[6]  Baohui Zhang,et al.  Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[7]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  Current perspectives in medical image perception , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Christian Heath,et al.  Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction , 2000 .

[9]  Mikael Lundin,et al.  Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. , 2005, Human pathology.

[10]  V. Patel,et al.  Assessment of a computerized patient record system: a cognitive approach to evaluating medical technology. , 1996, M.D. computing : computers in medical practice.

[11]  Roger Säljö,et al.  Learning, Theories of Learning, and Units of Analysis in Research , 2009 .

[12]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Optical Pulsars and Black Arrows: Discoveries as Occasioned Productions , 2009 .

[13]  Hans Rystedt,et al.  Using virtual microscopy to scaffold learning of pathology: a naturalistic experiment on the role of visual and conceptual cues , 2012 .

[14]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Powerful learning environments : unravelling basic components and dimensions , 2003 .

[15]  Jon C. Aster,et al.  Robbins & Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease , 2014 .

[16]  Roger Säljö,et al.  Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[17]  Jan Wyndhamn,et al.  Heavenly Talk: Discourse, Artifacts, and Children’s Understanding of Elementary Astronomy , 2001, Human Development.

[18]  Jonas Ivarsson,et al.  Rediscovering radiology: New technologies and remedial action at the worksite , 2011, Social studies of science.

[19]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices , 2012, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[20]  D. Cook The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice, and what we can do about it , 2009, Medical teacher.

[21]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal With Multiple Implications , 1999 .

[22]  L. Brooks,et al.  Expertise in visual diagnosis: a review of the literature , 1992, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[23]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2009 .

[24]  J. Roschelle Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[25]  M. Myles-Worsley,et al.  The influence of expertise on X-ray image processing. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Michael Lynch,et al.  Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory , 1985 .

[27]  J. Wertsch Mind as action , 1998 .

[28]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implica-tions , 1999 .

[29]  Kevin W Eva,et al.  Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights , 2009, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[30]  Morana Alac,et al.  Working with Brain Scans , 2008, Social studies of science.

[31]  Wolff‐Michael Roth From gesture to scientific language , 2000 .

[32]  Erno Lehtinen,et al.  Learning of complex competences: On the need to coordinate multiple theoretical perspectives , 2011 .