Critical Appraisal of Research in Education Technology in Health Science Institutes of Central India.
Critical Appraisal Of Research In Education Technology In Health Science Institutes Of Central India.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i6.1395Keywords:
Evidence, education technology, health science institutesAbstract
In today’s era of evidence based medicine recent advances in medicine have been understood & adopted by all the disciplines of health sciences but the same is not true for the methods & strategies in medical education. Quality medical education provides quality improvement in healthcare & for quality medical education evidence has to be created by undertaking educational research. Methods: A questionnaire based study was designed for the teachers of the health science institutes of Nagpur & adjoining region based on the completion of education technology workshops, number of educational research projects undertaken & publications. Coordinators of the MEU were interviewed to get a larger picture. Results: 1. Three days Basic Course in education technology was completed by more than 85% medical teachers, 60-70% dentistry, 40-50%ayurved, 50% physiotherapy & homeopathy and 20-30% nursing teachers. 2. Advance course / fellowship in medical education was completed by less than 5% medical,2-3%dentistry & Physiotherapy& less than 1% ayurved & no nursing& homeopathy teachers. 3. Educational Research: less than 5% medical, 2-3% dentistry & physiotherapy, less than 1% ayurved & no one from nursing & homeopathy colleges have undertaken educational research projects. 4. Educational publication: 1-2 % medical, dentistry & physiotherapy teachers, & less than 1% ayurved & none from nursing & homeopathy colleges. 5. Reasons: time crunch: 70%, personal: 40%, administrative responsibility: 20%, support from higher authorities: 20%, priority to speciality subjects:10%, Poor salary structure for homeopathy teacher. Coordinators MEU blamed it to apathy. Conclusion: Mere attending workshops and conferences has not been able to generate interest about educational research in the teachers. [Suresh C NJIRM 2016; 7(6): 69-73]
References
2. Gao T, Shiwaku K, Fukushima T, Isobe A, Yamane Y. Medical education in China for the 21st century. Med Educ. 1999;33:768–773. [PubMed]
3. Irby D, Hodgson C, Muller J. Promoting research in medical education at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2004;79:981–984. [PubMed]
4. Elam C. Medical education research at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. Acad Med. 2004;79:985–989. [PubMed]
5. Harden R M ,crosby JR ( 2000)AMEE education guide no 20. The good teacher is more than a lecturer- the twelve roles of a teacher. Medical teacher;22(4):334-347.
6. R M Haredn ,Janet Grant,Graham Buckley,IR Hart. BEME Guide No. 1: Best Evidence Medical Education. Medical Teacher 1999,vol21 Issue 9:553-562
7. Berlinger D. Educational Research : The hardest science of all. Educational researcher.2002;31(8) : 18-20.
8. Zahar Saffari, farnaz takmil,Rahmatallh Arabzadeh.J adv in Med Educ Prof 2014;Vol 2 No 4: 183.
9. MCI medical council of India regulations on medical education1997. Available at www.mci.org ( accessed on March 2016)
10. BV Adkoli,Rita Sood faculty development and medical education units in India : A sirvey. The national medical journal of India.2009;22(1):28-32.
11. Medical council of India, Recommendations of National Workshop on Need based curriculum for Undergraduates medical education ‘1992.
12. PS Bhuiyan, N N Rege. Evoluion of Medical education Technology Unit in India. J Postgrad Med .2001, 47(1):42-4.
13. The consortium of medical Instituitions : Deliberations made at the national workshop held at CMC,vellore,Feb ,1994.
14. Neena Nagdeo, Suresh Chari. Basic Course Workshop for Medical teachers :effectiveness and Impact.NJIRM 2014;Vol 5(2): 107-114.
