I found this book of morphology on-line today. It’s rather useful…
The nice people at Roche Diagnostics have made the video of their Pro-COAG scientific and educational event available to all. You can see it by clicking here.
I’ve often mentioned that this is the way forward. Rather than having meetings where people travel for miles (at someone else’s expense) just for a meet-up with their mates, or rather than having a webinar which is broadcast at a fixed time, videos which can be watched at the viewer’s leisure are clearly the way forward. I just wish more professional bodies would do this sort of thing. After all, Netflix have been doing this for years.
(Am I being picky by wishing that the speakers *didn’t* look like they were reading from a script?)
I’m still bitter about the digital morphology exercise I ranted about a couple of days ago – I again tried to access the CPD certificate to list my side of the story. Again the website wasn’t having it, but I did find this link (click here)
Whilst there is nothing new, a refresher is always useful…
I got to spend the afternoon on a distance-based over-the-internet interactive teaching session today. It’s no secret that I’m not the world’s greatest parasitologist – I was hoping for so much…
The first session was utterly disjointed. There was no structure or plan to it. The speaker spent the first fifteen minutes saying a lot without actually saying anything, and then spent forty-five minutes jumping from one topic to another seemingly at random with absolutely no connection between one sentence and the next. Occasionally the presenter would write on the screen… I say “write” – my six-year-old grandson could scribble neater.
There was then a quiz. We were presented with various pictures. First of
all we had to identify the parasite, and then we had to select up to four
reasons to support our reasoning. Identifying the parasite was easy - we just
had to find the right picture in the accompanying pdf file (!), but justifying our answers wasn't so
simple as the questions weren't well worded.
We had a tea break, then the presenter went through the answers. It was
rather frustrating to score zero on one answer when having been told to select
two of four answers we then found that all four were correct (as we'd thought). We scored eighty-nine
per cent on the qiz as a whole (having
only lost marks on the arguable reasoning), but I thought it very unfair
that the speaker wasn't very constructive in telling people who'd made mistakes
that they should not guess if they don't know, and implied that people were
stupid for doing so.
And the answer session could have been prepared far better on the
software - jumping from screen to screen did not work when we could only see
the bottom tenth of the picture to which the speaker was referring.
Having done a post-graduate certificate in distance-based learning a few
years ago it struck me that the speaker did pretty much everything I'd been
told not to do.
And as an added bonus, doing something like this was one of this year’s appraisal objectives…