Use of web 2.0 technologies among medical students, residents and researchers at AIIMS: a survey Sangeeta Narang Librarian...
INTRODUCTION <ul><li>Web 2.0 is a new generation of Internet services   and devices that brings collaboration among people...
Various components of web 2.0 technologies <ul><li>Weblogs/Blogs   </li></ul><ul><li>Instant messaging   Podcasting/vodcas...
Advantages <ul><li>Web 2.0 is free of publication barriers and multinational interests as it encourages open access. </li>...
From crowd sourcing to open sourcing <ul><li>S ince the time of Galileo and Newton, scientists have built up their knowled...
Various projects <ul><li>One such project is  OpenWetWare  developed at Massachusetts Institute of technology is a wiki – ...
Other projects <ul><li>Connotea is a popular social bookmarking site/reference organiser, and users can save a webpage lin...
Methodology <ul><li>  A random sample of 150 medical students, residents and researchers were taken for the study. A semi ...
FINDINGS   45.16 14 50.94 27 38.1 16 never used 25.81 8 28.3 15 19.05 8 Social networking-not familiar 93.55 29 73.58 39 (...
Result <ul><li>The questionnaire was obtained from 126(84%) students and professionals 42(28%) were the MBBS students, 53(...
Discussion <ul><li>The survey has identified that for all groups the use of certain web2.0 technologies has not been much ...
Barriers <ul><li>Most important the technology fear among students and professionals affects their understanding to the we...
Conclusion <ul><li>Web 2.0 technologies offer new opportunities for ubiquitous learning. It is observed that there is awar...
References <ul><li>O”Reilly T What is web 2.0  www.oriellynet.com </li></ul><ul><li>Guistani,Dean How Web 2.0 is changing ...
Thank you
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Use Of Web 2

2,019 views

Published on

The presentation made during the INDEST Workshop & SIS 2008 Conference held at IIM Indore during 4-6 Dec 08.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,019
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
890
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Use Of Web 2

  1. 1. Use of web 2.0 technologies among medical students, residents and researchers at AIIMS: a survey Sangeeta Narang Librarian Gd II, BB Dikshit Library, AIIMS, New Delhi Email: narang.sangeeta @yahoo.in
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION <ul><li>Web 2.0 is a new generation of Internet services and devices that brings collaboration among people together in a more dynamic and interactive way. </li></ul><ul><li>It is leveraged to enrich our experiences as information is continually requested, consumed and reinterpreted. </li></ul><ul><li>It is highly connected digital network of people where knowledge exchange is not limited or controlled by private interests. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Various components of web 2.0 technologies <ul><li>Weblogs/Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Instant messaging Podcasting/vodcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>Social book marking/tagging </li></ul><ul><li>Media sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking sites </li></ul><ul><li>Web office/Office 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>RSS </li></ul>
  4. 4. Advantages <ul><li>Web 2.0 is free of publication barriers and multinational interests as it encourages open access. </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 is primarily about the benefits of easy to use and free internet software </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs and wikis facilitate participation and conversation across a vast geographical expense. </li></ul><ul><li>Information pushing devices like RSS feeds permit continuous instant alerting. </li></ul><ul><li>Website tagging helps as organizing tool </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasts are gaining popularity as multimedia resources </li></ul>
  5. 5. From crowd sourcing to open sourcing <ul><li>S ince the time of Galileo and Newton, scientists have built up their knowledge about the world by ‘crowd sourcing’ the contributions of many researchers and then refining that knowledge through open debate. Web 2.0 fits so perfectly well with the fast mechanism of ideas communication that scientists no longer have to wait for research dissemination. It just gets profuse to every nooks and corner </li></ul>
  6. 6. Various projects <ul><li>One such project is OpenWetWare developed at Massachusetts Institute of technology is a wiki – a collaborative web site that can be edited by anyone who has the access. OpenWetWare encompasses laboratories on five continents, dozens of courses and interest groups and hundreds of protocol discussions- more than 6100 web pages edited by 3000 registered users. Under the aegis of National Science foundation OpenWetWare has now developed into self sustaining community. Drexel university chemist Jean Claude Bradley has created his independent laboratory wiki Useful chem. It has also developed into a network of laboratories with various contributors. Medical and health-related wiki examples include the FluWiki , which is intended to help local public health communities prepare for, and perhaps cope, with a possible (avian) influenza pandemic, and Ganfyd , an online collaborative medical reference that is edited by medical professionals and invited non-medical experts. </li></ul><ul><li>Blogging encourages community, creativity, interaction and reflection. It motivates users and allows ideas to be aired, encourage reflection and lead to a synthesis of ideas. They are the most popular easy, social platform to exchange information of any type that is becoming a more acceptable reference sources even in the peer reviewed publications. Contrary to the earlier situation where citing the blogs did not add value to the reference work, of late they have got their credit as certain journals like nature, and sources like PubMed and Google Scholar refers to blogs for some of their recent documents. Certain blogs in medicine like Ves Dimov’s blog has clinical cases and images collection. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Other projects <ul><li>Connotea is a popular social bookmarking site/reference organiser, and users can save a webpage link there instead of using Favorites. Collections of these personal tags have become known as folksonomies. They have become a way of helping anyone to remember material according to their own interests. </li></ul><ul><li>Medical and health-related podcast examples include the New York University ophthalmology CME (Continuing Medical Education) programs via podcast, the New England Journal of Medicine podcasts, McGraw-Hill's Access Medicine podcasts, and John Hopkins Medicine Podcasts. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Methodology <ul><li> A random sample of 150 medical students, residents and researchers were taken for the study. A semi structured questionnaire was given in the campus during July 2008 to determine their familiarity with various web 2.0 tools viz. blogs, wiki, social networks, podcasts etc. The filled questionnaire was received in the library. Their responses i.e. quantitative data was analyzed using MS-Excel. </li></ul>
  9. 9. FINDINGS 45.16 14 50.94 27 38.1 16 never used 25.81 8 28.3 15 19.05 8 Social networking-not familiar 93.55 29 73.58 39 (38.1 16 Never used 90.32 28 52.83 28 28.5 12 Media sharing-not familiar 64.52 20 73.58 39 30.9 13 never used 25.81 8 45.28 24 28.5 12 Social bookmarking-not familiar 9.68 3 3.77 2 0   read and write 12.9 4 7.54 4 16.6 7 Never used 9.68 3 13.2 7 7.14 3 Wikis-not familiar 6.45 2 9.43 5 0 _ both read and write 32.26 10 18.86 10 28.7 12 only read 38.71 12 81.13 43 90.8 38 Blogs - not familiar 61.29 19 45.28 24 30.5 13 Never used 58.06 18 30.18 16 7.14 3 Instant messaging-not familiar % researchers (n=31) % Residents (n=53) % students (n=42)  
  10. 10. Result <ul><li>The questionnaire was obtained from 126(84%) students and professionals 42(28%) were the MBBS students, 53(35%) residents and 31(20%) from researchers, the data obtained was analyzed (table1) . The responses obtained from students, residents and researchers shows that there is a significant difference in the use of web2.0 technologies. Of the 42 medical students, each one of them was aware of Instant Massaging but little about blogs. While 31% residents were not aware of Instant Messaging (IM) but their familiarity with media sharing was more, researchers were not much familiar with media sharing. Podcast usage is not observed among the respondents </li></ul>
  11. 11. Discussion <ul><li>The survey has identified that for all groups the use of certain web2.0 technologies has not been much exploited. Medical students have greater familiarity of instant messaging, media sharing and social networking sites. While residents show less usage of IM, Blogs, Wikis etc mainly due to their busy schedule. Researchers do not show interest in media sharing also their usage to IM and social networking is less but their usage to wikis is more. Writing for blogs and wikis has been found to be 12 out of the sample of 150 respectively. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Barriers <ul><li>Most important the technology fear among students and professionals affects their understanding to the web 2.0 tools. Sometimes high traffic or busy lines affect their active participation. Reliability to these sources pose yet another danger unlike commercial tools, </li></ul><ul><li>Residents’ use of web 2.0 for medical education was less exploited due to less time and inequalities to access to computers and web facilities. Organizational policies like blocking social networking sites have also been identified. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Conclusion <ul><li>Web 2.0 technologies offer new opportunities for ubiquitous learning. It is observed that there is awareness of range of web 2.0 technologies among various groups but its use for the education is not much. It is suggested to involve web 2.0 technologies in the libraries such that librarians can design and assemble contents with their users and users can help in value creation. This participatory role model can help masses to get answers to the inequities of information access. To conclude Web 2.0 technologies can be effectively used for active learning, however there is a need for training to make the best use of it. </li></ul>
  14. 14. References <ul><li>O”Reilly T What is web 2.0 www.oriellynet.com </li></ul><ul><li>Guistani,Dean How Web 2.0 is changing medicine BMJ v.333 23-30 December 2006 1283-84p </li></ul><ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/web_2.0 accessed on23/7/2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Machine readability Nature v.440 27 April 2006 1090p </li></ul><ul><li>Sandars J ,Schroter,S Web2.0 technologies for undergraduate and post graduate medical education: an online survey Postgrad Med J: Vol. 83;759-762p </li></ul><ul><li>Waldrop, M Mitchell Science 2.0 Scientific American, May 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Maged N Kamel Boulos, Inocencio Maramba and Steve Wheeler Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education BMC Medical Education 2006, 6:41doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41 </li></ul><ul><li>Noruzi, A. (2007).   &quot;Editorial.&quot;   Webology , 4(2), editorial 12. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/editorial12.htm </li></ul><ul><li>Godwin, Peter. How Google and Web 2.0 affect librarians’ support of Information Literacy:PaperNovember 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Jack M. Maness Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries; Webology, Volume 3, Number 2, June, 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>ZareaGavgani, Vahideh and Mohan,V.Vishwa (2008) Application of web2.0 tools in medical librarianship to support medicine 2.0 Webology, 5(1),Article 53. Available at http://www.webology.i/2008/v5n1/a.53.html </li></ul>
  15. 15. Thank you

×