In The Event You Don't Understand ABT-263 Right away or You Will Hate Your Self In the future

Additionally, 23 graduate non-medical students responded. In collaboration with a committee at SIUSOM we developed a needs-assessment survey, with 120 questions scored on a four-point Likert scale, and with categorical items based on literature regarding learning and living technology and usefulness.[6-8] The survey instrument was revised based on feedback and insights from the committee. The survey focused on five major areas: (1) students' hardware and software technology use for personal activities, learning or both; (2) perception of technology usefulness for learning; (3) online behaviours; (4) perception of educational #links# technology use at the medical school; and (5) demographic information. A web-based survey was distributed via e-mail and a student web page. Data were collected over 2?months from March to April 2011. The software package spss was used for quantitative data analysis (PASW Statistics 18). Students' use of software (Figure?1) and hardware (Figure?2) technologies were identified, and their perceived usefulness of various technologies is categorised in Table?1. They perceived tools for collaborative authoring (Google Docs, #links# wikis), multimedia (podcasts, YouTube), scheduling (Google Calendar), communication (Skype), LMS and EHR as useful for learning. Students did not consider blogging (blogs, RSS feeds, Twitter), social networking (Facebook, LinkedIn) or games useful for their learning. Interestingly, as seen in Figure?1, although Facebook use is pervasive for their personal activities, students did not perceive it as useful for learning. The students' perception of the usefulness of educational technology #links# differed across years. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett's T3 post-hoc tests showed that medical students in year 2 (p?<?0.0001) and year 3 (p?<?0.0001) saw Google Calendar as more useful, compared with the rating from students in year 1. Students in year 2 saw wikis as more useful than the rating by students in year 3 (p?<?0.001). Year 1 (p?<?0.004) and year 2 (p?<?0.015) saw LMS as more useful than did year 3. Year 2 (p?<?0.003), year 3 (p?<?0.011) and year 4 (p?<?0.040) saw EHR as more useful than did year 1. Year-3 clerkship students have different perceptions from students in other years. Whereas most students thought it was easy to access instructional resources, year-3 perceptions were lower than in year 1 (p?<?0.016) and in year 4 (p?<?0.047). Year-3 students did not perceive that existing technology facilitates the sharing of information as much as year 1 (p?<?0.002). They identified less of a collaborative learning community than year 1 (p?<?0.021) and year 4 (p?<?0.027). Moreover, their perception of faculty member's use of educational technology for teaching was lower than year-2 students (p?<?0.025). They identified a lower self-directed learning atmosphere than year 2 (p?<?0.024).</p>