Experience in the Use of Social Media in Medical and Health Education

Summary

Objectives

Social media are online tools that allow collaboration and community building. Succinctly, they can be described as applications where “users add value”. This paper aims to show how five educators have used social media tools in medical and health education to attempt to add value to the education they provide.

Methods

We conducted a review of the literature about the use of social media tools in medical and health education. Each of the authors reported on their use of social media in their educational projects and collaborated on a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to delivering educational projects.

Results

We found little empirical evidence to support the use of social media tools in medical and health education. Social media are, however, a rapidly evolving range of tools, websites and online experiences and it is likely that the topic is too broad to draw definitive conclusions from any particular study. As practitioners in the use of social media, we have recognised how difficult it is to create evidence of effectiveness and have therefore presented only our anecdotal opinions based on our personal experiences of using social media in our educational projects.

Conclusion

The authors feel confident in recommending that other educators use social media in their educational projects. Social media appear to have unique advantages over non-social educational tools. The learning experience appears to be enhanced by the ability of students to virtually build connections, make friends and find mentors. Creating a scientific analysis of why these connections enhance learning is difficult, but anecdotal and preliminary survey evidence appears to be positive and our experience reflects the hypothesis that learning is, at heart, a social activity.

Keywords

Social media - web 2.0 - medical education - conferences 2.0 - mhealth

• References

• 1 Andersen P. What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education. Citeseer; 2007
• 2 Berliner DC, Calfee RC. American Psychological Association. Division of Educational P. Handbook of educational psychology. Macmillan; 1996
• 3 Donovan MS, Bransford JD, Pellegrino JW. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. National Academy Press; 1999
• 4 Kaldoudi E, Konstantinidis S, Bamidis P. Web Advances in Education: Interactive, Collaborative Learning via Web 2.0. Chapter in: Tzanavari A, Tsapatsoulis N. editors. Affective, Interactive and Cognitive Methods for E-Learning Design: Creating an Optimal Education Experience. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global; 2004
• 5 Ebner M, Holzinger A, Maurer H. Web 2.0 technology: future interfaces for technology enhanced learning? Universal Access in Human- Computer Interaction Applications and Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4556; 2007; 559-68.
• 6 Rhea S. Going mobile. Wireless devices and technology bring surge in advanced applications for health monitoring and treatment, but legal and privacy issues remain. Mod Healthc 2010; 40 (18) 28.
• 7 Thornburg DD. The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2002
• 8 The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. Institute of Medicine; 2010
• 9 Response to the Institute of Medicine’s Report To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System AACN White Paper: Distance Technology in Nursing Education. Tri-Council for Nursing; 1999. [cited 2011 14 February 2011]; Available from: http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/positions/whitepaper.htm
• 10 Alexander B. Going Nomadic: Moblile Learning in Higher Education. Educause Review 2004; 6.
• 11 Guernsey L. In the Lecture Hall, A Geek Chorus [CORRECTED]. The New York Times; 2003
• 12 Hu W. Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the iPad. New York Times; 2011. [cited 2011 14 February 2011]; Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html
• 13 Billings DM. From teaching to learning in a mobile, wireless world. The Journal of nursing education 2005; 44 (08) 343.
• 14 Maag M. Podcasting and MP3 players: Emerging education technologies. Computers Informatics Nursing 2006; 24 (01) 9.
• 15 Shneiderman B. Computer Science: Science 2.0. Science 2008; 319 (5868): 1349.
• 16 Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008. 10. (3)
• 17 Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 10. (3):
• 18 Giustini D. How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. BMJ 2006; 333 (7582): 1283.
• 19 Top 10 Innovations of 2010. CNN; 2010. [cited 2010 14 February 2010]; Available from: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2010/12/24/2010.top.ten.innovations.cnn.html
• 20 Top Twitter Trends in 2010. Twitter; 2010. [cited 2010 14 February 2010]; Available from: http://yearinreview.twitter.com/trends/
• 21 Paton HIVEC. National Institute for Health Innovation; 2011. [cited 2011 2/6/2011]; Available from: http://www.hive.org.nz
• 22 Bamidis P, Kaldoudi E, Pattichis C. mEducator: A Best Practice Network for Repurposing and Sharing Medical Educational Multi-type Content. In: Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer Verlag; 2009: 769-76.
• 23 Bamidis P, Constantinidis S, Kaldoudi E, Maglaveras N, Pappas C. The use of Web 2.0 in teaching Medical Informatics to postgraduate medical students: first experiences. Published as Multimedia Appendix in: Eysenbach G. Medicine 2008; 02: 1022-23.
• 24 Santana EFZ, Prado AF, Souza WL, Santana LHZ. editors. A Web 2.0 Based Environment for Simulation Activities in Constructivist Medical Education. 2009
• 25 Santoro E. Podcasts, wikis and blogs: The web 2.0 tools for medical and health education. Recenti progressi in medicina 2007; 98 (10) 484.
• 26 McGee JB, Begg M. What medical educators need to know about “Web 2.0”. 2009
• 27 Kamel MNBoulos, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education1. Health Info Libr J 2007; 24 (01) 2-23.
• 28 Cain J, Fox BI. Web 2.0 and pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 73. (7)
• 29 Sandars J, Homer M, Pell G, Crocker T. Web 2.0 and social software: the medical student way of elearning. Med Teach 2010; (0): 1-5.
• 30 Conklin EJ. Dialogue mapping: building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley; 2006
• 31 Sandars J, Schroter S. Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey. BMJ 2007; 83 (986) 759.