Computer Based Training: An initial study to discover why doctors trained as Disability Analysts have been reluctant to fully embrace this mode of training

dc.creator	Peter Ellis
dc.date	2006-05-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-20T22:05:38Z
dc.date.available	2015-07-20T22:05:38Z
dc.identifier	1477-5557
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/fd41ae1a7aa445e6ba542b80599c6ddc
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/9894
dc.identifier.uri	https://doaj.org/article/fd41ae1a7aa445e6ba542b80599c6ddc
dc.description	Contextualisation This paper reports a study looking at computer-based training in the field of post-graduate medical education. The paper examines the apparent reluctance of a group of medical practitioners to fully engage with post-graduate medical training produced on a CD-ROM; the study seeks the reasons for this lack of engagement. The, perhaps, rather unexpected reasons for this will be of interest to many general educationalists both inside and outside the field of medical education. Abstract: Medical practitioners working as Disability Analysts were offered computer based training (CBT) as part of their ongoing Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The majority of the Disability Analysts approached in this study showed some reluctance to embrace this learning approach. This reluctance was characterised as ‘surprising’ by the developers. Consequently, it was felt important to determine the nature of this reluctance, so that appropriate CPD could be developed, and the effort involved in devising such training, better channelled. This paper describes these doctors and their work, the need for CPD and the type of CPD used. It also discusses the introduction of CBT, doctors’ responses to it and the ways in which educationalists and developers responded to doctors’ comments. This initial study used a semi-structured interview technique to gather the response data. The study also identifies important political and ethical issues underlying the research. It emerged that doctors choosing paper-based training had positive reasons for doing so. Indeed, some doctors choosing the computerbased training were not entirely positive about that mode of delivery.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	Institute of Education, University of London
dc.relation	http://www.educatejournal.org/index.php?journal=educate&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=61
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1477-5557
dc.source	Educate~, Vol 5, Iss 1, Pp 50-59 (2006)
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Computer Based Training: An initial study to discover why doctors trained as Disability Analysts have been reluctant to fully embrace this mode of training
dc.type	Article