Abstract
We have been working with clinicians (mentors and trainees) to develop a computer-supported training environment for mammography. In this chapter, we draw on our experiences of this project to develop two important themes for CSCL@Work. First, we explore how the training environment constitutes a ‘technology of participation’ that extends the range of practice-based experience available to trainees in order to further their professional development. Second, we illustrate how collaborative learning practices are instrumental in relevancing content and experiences to ‘real-world’ practice and performance. Finally, we consider how to introduce new collaborative affordances that support for relevancing work in this transformed context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
An SPR is a doctor undergoing final training before becoming a consultant in a specialist area of medicine.
- 2.
The CHI number is a unique numeric identifier, allocated to each patient on first registration with the healthcare system in Scotland.
- 3.
In the extract, Mark is the software developer.
- 4.
Radiographers’ more usual responsibilities concern the production rather than the interpretation of screening images. It has become increasingly common and acceptable to train radiographers to read films as a means of addressing shortages of radiologists.
- 5.
As before, Mark is the software developer.
- 6.
Pedagogy serves more than one purpose and trainees are aware of this. It is open for them to suspect that a given exercise may serve institutional or professional objectives rather than strictly educational ones.
References
Azevedo, R., & Lajoie, S. P. (1998). The cognitive basis for the design of a mammography interpretation tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 9, 32–44.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1996). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Stolen knowledge. Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Carlson, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). What are data? The many kinds of data and their implications for data re-use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 635–651.
Coopmans, C. (2006). Making mammograms mobile: Suggestions for a sociology of data mobility. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 1–19.
De Roure, D., Goble, C., Aleksejevs, S., Bechhofer, S., Bhagat, J., Cruickshank, D., et al. (2010). Towards open science: The myExperiment approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 27(17), 2335–2353.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 407–426.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1489–1522.
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage.
Hartswood, M., Blot, L., Taylor, P., Anderson, A., Procter, R., Wilkinson, L., & Smart, L. (2009). Reading the lesson: Eliciting requirements for a mammography training application. Proc. SPIE. 7263, Medical Imaging 2009: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 72631D (February 26, 2009) doi: 10.1117/12.813920.
Hartswood, M, Procter, R, Taylor, P, Blot, L, Anderson, S, Rouncefield, M & Slack, R. (2012), Problems of data mobility and reuse in the provision of computer-based training for screening mammography. In: CHI ‘12 Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 909–918, Austin, Texas, United States, 5-11 May.
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., & Slack, R. (2002). Performance management in breast screening: A case study of professional vision and ecologies of practice. Journal of Cognition, Technology and Work, 4(2), 91–102.
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R., & Voss, A. (2008). Co-realisation: Evolving IT artifacts by design. In M. Ackerman, T. Erickson, C. Halverson, & W. Kellogg (Eds.), Resources, co-evolution and artifacts. London: Springer.
Kneebone, R. L., Scott, W., Darzi, A., & Horrocks, M. (2004). Simulation and clinical practice: Strengthening the relationship. Medical Education, 38(10), 1095–1102.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. (2006). Vicarious learning and multimodal dialogue. In Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies. IEEE Computer Society, 1202–1203.
McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Sharples, M., Jeffery, N. P., du Boulay, B., Teather, B. A., Teather, D., & du Boulay, G. H. (2000). Structured computer-based training in the interpretation of neuroradiological images. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 60(3), 263–280.
Subedi, B. S. (2004). Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning. International Education Journal, 5(4), 591–599.
Taylor, P., Blot, L., Hartswood, M., & Procter, R. (2010). Scoring systems in computer-based training for digital mammography. Spain: International Workshop on Digital Mammography.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grant EP/E03165X/1 for funding this work. We would also like to thank our radiologist collaborators for giving so generously of their time.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Taylor, P., Blot, L., Anderson, S. (2013). Technologies of Participation: A Case Study of CSCL@Work in Mammography. In: Goggins, S., Jahnke, I., Wulf, V. (eds) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 14. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1740-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1740-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1739-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1740-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)