Students valuation of the use of computers in education

Two schools for general secondary education in Enschede, The Netherlands took part in a 4-yr Technology-enriched Schools project. One of the research questions in this project was the valuation by the students of the use of computers in education. It was hypothesized that this valuation would be influenced by factors which deal with the perception of the student, the use of computers in teachinglearning situations, the circumstances in which the computers are used, and background information on the students. It was also hypothesized that the frequent use of computers in education could make the students less enthusiastic about computers.\ud \ud The research questions were investigated by means of two instruments with identical content: a paper-and-pencil questionnaire and a computerized questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to 816 students. About 20% of the students had had considerable experience with computers outside of school-hours.\ud \ud Results show that some students had used the computer at school very frequently. There was no evidence found in this study that students with much computer experience at school valued the use of computers in education differently than did students who had little experience. The intensity with which the computers were used by the teachers of the technology-enriched schools did not have a restraining influence on the enthusiasm and the motivation of the students

Computer science in Dutch secondary education: independent or integrated?

Nowadays, in Dutch secondary education, computer science is integrated within school subjects. About ten years ago computer science was considered an independent subject, but in the mid-1980s this idea changed. In our study we investigated whether the objectives of teaching computer science as an independent subject are met when computer science is integrated within school subjects. The main problem was that there was no formal curriculum of computer science as an independent subject. Therefore we interviewed 13 experts in the field of computer science and then compared this formal curriculum with the operational (integrated) curriculum, which is still in the development stage. It appears that most of the components of the formal curriculum are being covered by the operational curriculum, and we therefore concluded that these curricula are equivalent, although there may be differences in the level of teaching. In our opinion the best approach to computer science is to combine the independent and the integrated approaches

Probleemoplossen binnen het vak techniek: Een studie naar effectieve domeinspecifieke ontwerprichtlijnen voor onderwijsleerpakketten

The effects of domain-specific design standards for designing teaching/learning packages for the subject area technology in secondary education is the subject of this study. It concerns teaching/learning packages in which problem-solving is the main issue. Domain-specific design standards refer to one subject area in particular. The implementation of basic education in 1993 meant a drastic change for the subject area technology. From that moment, a more heterogeneous group of pupils receives technology education. The teaching/learning packages that are used, are not tuned optimally to this new target group.\ud The aim of this study is twofold: (a) establishing domain-specific design standards for teaching/learning packages in which problem solving is the main issue, and (b) establishing the effects of domain-specific design standards.\ud This study consists of (a) carrying out a procedure aimed at drawing up domain- specific design standards, (b) a research consisting of two experiments, and (c) reflection, discussion and recommendations

Korte reis Berlijn

Per jaar organiseert de B.I.L. driemaal een studiereis. In januari een korte reis naar Europese (hoofd)stad, een trip voor masterstudenten naar Brussel in april en in juni een lange reis van een dag of tien naar een land in een ander continent. Hier het verslag van de studiereis van afgelopen januari naar Berlijn

Dutch Healthcare Professionals’ Opinion on the Allocation of Responsibilities concerning Prescribing and Administering Medically Indicated Vaccines to Immunocompromised Patients

Background: Specific vaccines are indicated for immunocompromised patients (ICPs) due to their vulnerability to infections. Recommendation of these vaccines by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a crucial facilitator for vaccine uptake. Unfortunately, the responsibilities to recommend and administer these vaccines are not clearly allocated among HCPs involved in the care of adult ICPs. We aimed to evaluate HCPs’ opinions on directorship and their role in facilitating the uptake of medically indicated vaccines as a basis to improve vaccination practices. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed among in-hospital medical specialists (MSs), general practitioners (GPs), and public health specialists (PHSs) in the Netherlands to assess their opinion on directorship and the implementation of vaccination care. Additionally, perceived barriers, facilitators, and possible solutions to improve vaccine uptake were investigated. Results: In total, 306 HCPs completed the survey. HCPs almost unanimously (98%) reported that according to them, the primary treating physician is responsible for recommending medically indicated vaccines. Administering these vaccines was seen as a more shared responsibility. The most important barriers experienced by HCPs in recommending and administering were reimbursement problems, a lack of a national vaccination registration system, insufficient collaboration among HCPs, and logistical problems. MSs, GPs and PHSs all mentioned the same three solutions as important strategies to improve vaccination practices, i.e., reimbursement of vaccines, reliable and easily accessible registration of received vaccines, and arrangements for collaboration among the different HCPs that are involved in care. Conclusion: The improvement in vaccination practices in ICPs should focus on better collaboration among MSs, GPs, and PHSs, who should know each other’s expertise; clear agreement on responsibility; reimbursement for vaccines; and the availability of clear registration of vaccination history.</p