Cadenas-Salazar R, Carriles-Ortiz MG, Díaz-Torres MEY

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 72-78
PDF size: 393.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Low enrolment in online courses promoted by the IMSS for primary care level physicians in 2014, where only 23% of them enrolled in a course online, and of these only 30% ended the course.
Objective: Identify the primary care medical personnel’s perceived barriers for registering to courses on line in Queretaro’s delegation.
Method: Phenomenological study which involved 11 primary care level physicians. The procedure used was interview and analysis with triangulation technique.
Results: 4 categories were identified with 18 subcategories. In the personal barriers category two subcategories were predominant: the time management (81%) and personal preference (72%); in the employment barriers category: lack of dissemination (81%) and workload (72%); in the technological barriers category: problems with the institutional education platform (45%); and finally in the educational barriers category: the course planning (72%).
Conclusions: The barriers perceived most often primary care level doctors were: time management, the lack of dissemination, preference, workload, and planning of the course.

REFERENCES

1. García Aretio L, Ruíz Corbella M, Quintanal DJ, García BM, García PM. Concepción y Tendencias de la Educación a Distancia en América Latina. 1st ed. Centro de Altos Estudios Universitarios, editor. Madrid: OEI; 2010.

2. Quesada Castillo R. Evaluación del aprendizaje en la educación a distancia “en línea”. Rev Edu Distan. 2006;5(6):15-2.

3. Rivera MD. Factores que inciden en la retención o deserción del estudiante a distancia [tesis doctoral]. [Fort Lauderdale Florida (USA)]: Nova Southeastern University; 2011. p18.

4. López Noguero F. Análisis del contenido como método de investigación. XXI Huelva. 2002[citado el 02 may 2019];4:179- 67. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/10272/1912

5. Arias Valencia M. La triangulación metodológica: sus principios, alcances y limitaciones. Invertir Educ Enferm. 2000;XVIII(1):26-13.

6. Yukselturk E, Inan F. Examining the Factors Affecting Student Dropout in an Online Certificate Program.TOJDE. 2006;7(3):76-88.

7. Borges Sáiz F. La frustración del estudiante en línea: Causas y acciones preventivas. Digithum. 2005 Mayo 01;7:a 9. doi: 10.7238/d.v0i7.536

8. Rodríguez Nuñez LH, Londoño Londoño FJ. Estudio sobre deserción estudiantil en los programas de Educación de la Católica del Norte Fundación Universitaria. Rev. virtual. univ. catol. Norte. 2011[citado el 02 may 2019];33. Disponible en: http://revistavirtual.ucn.edu.co/index.php/RevistaUCN/ article/view/21

9. Rodríguez J. Una mirada a la pedagogía tradicional y humanista. Presencia Universitaria. 2013 Jun;3(5):45-36.

10. O’Connor C, Sceiford E, Wang G, Foucar-Szocki D, Griffin O, et al. Departure, abandonment, and dropout of e-learning: Dilemma and solutions. Tech Rep NAVTRADEVCEN. [Internet]. 2003 [citado 2003 agosto 30]; [alrededor de 46 p.]. Disponible en: http://www.academia.edu/1217610/ Departure_abandonment_and_dropout_of_e-learning_ Dilemma_and_solutions

11. Muilenburg LY, Berge ZL. Students Barriers to Online Learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education. 2005;26(1):48-29.

12. Gellman Danley B, Fetzner M. Asking the Really Tough Questions: Policy Issues for Distance Learning. J Distance Learn Adm. 1998 [02 may 2019];1(1):7-1. Disponible en: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/danley11.html

13. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Contrato colectivo de trabajo. México: IMSS; 2017. 541 p.