PubMed · 10553892
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Nadis. 1999-10-28. MIT promises us the sensitive computer.... https://doi.org/10.1038/44660
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Although computer-assisted education has been used to augment education in many areas, there are few studies of programs designed to replace lectures in a medical curriculum. OBJECTIVE: To test whether a thoughtfully designed computer program can replace a standard lecture in a pediatrics curriculum while teaching the subject matter equally well. METHODS: A computer program was developed to teach the Draw-a-Person developmental test using the multimedia-authoring tool Director. One of us (A.E.C.) tested and modified the program several times during its creation after submitting it to several objective evaluators. Thirty-nine students taking the clinical pediatrics rotation were chosen by month to interact with the program or attend the lecture. All students then scored 3 drawings and assigned them a developmental age according to the Draw-a-Person test rules. Students assigned to the computer program also completed a questionnaire evaluating the program in several subjective areas. A t test for 2 samples assuming equal variance was used to analyze the test results. RESULTS: Students receiving the lecture (control group) scored the 3 drawings as 5.43 years (age range, 4.5-8 years), 9.08 years (age range, 7-12 years), and 3.5 years (age range, 2-5 years), respectively. Those using the computer program (study group) scored the 3 drawings as 5.91 years (age range, 5-7 years), 7.68 years (age range, 7-8 years), and 4.34 years (age range, 3-5 years), respectively. The correct answers for the ages were 6, 7.75, and 4.25 years, respectively. A t test for 2 samples assuming equal variance showed that students using the computer program performed better on all 3 drawings (P<.05, P<.02, and P<.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Students using the computer program were more accurate than students attending the lecture when scoring drawings and estimating a developmental age from them. These results support the conclusion that a thoughtfully designed computer program can replace a standard lecture in a pediatrics curriculum.
In this paper, human interaction with embedded or ubiquitous technology is considered. The techniques focus on the use of what might be termed "everyday" objects and actions as a means of controlling (or otherwise interacting with) technology. While this paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review, it does present a view of the immediate future of human-computer interaction (HCI) in which users move beyond the desktop to where interacting with technology becomes merged with other activity. At one level this places HCI in the context of other forms of personal and domestic technologies. At another level, this raises questions as to how people will interact with technologies of the future. Until now, HCI had often relied on people learning obscure command sets or learning to recognise words and objects on their computer screen. The most significant advance in HCI (the invention of the WIMP interface) is already some 40 years old. Thus, the future of HCI might be one in which people are encouraged (or at least allowed) to employ the skills that they have developed during their lives in order to interact with technology, rather than being forced to learn and perfect new skills.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevailing attitudes among physicians to use of computers in the clinical setting and specifically those attitudes that may be associated with the adoption of computers in practice. DESIGN: A self-completed, 20-question postal questionnaire sent to 4850 randomly selected physicians. The questionnaire focused on details of the physicians' practice; actual computerization of or intention to computerize clinical and administrative functions; attitudes towards computerization; self-perceived computer ability and knowledge; and demographic information. The attitude statements were grouped under four themes according to a factor analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 897 physicians. Only physicians in 'individual' practices were included in the analysis. This group was further dichotomized into clinical users (those with one or more clinical functions computerized) and non-clinical users. Non-clinical users were older and had fewer specialist qualifications. Although there was strong support for the attitude statements among both groups with regard to the benefit of computerization to patient care, there was much less support for electronic medical records. Non-clinical users were concerned about the potentially negative impact of computerization on the clinical encounter and the perceived high cost of computerization. DISCUSSION: The attitudes among current clinical users and non-users were substantially different. The most important disincentives to computerization were the potential for interference with the patient-physician encounter and the cost of computerizing multiple practice locations. Turning these disincentives into opportunities for change remains the challenge.