E-learning initiative for anaesthetists

The Royal College of Anaesthetists (http://www.rcoa.ac.uk), the professional body representing anaesthesia in the UK, is introducing an interactive e-learning resource to support training and professional development in anaesthesia. The programme is being launched by the President of the College, Dr Judith Hulf, at its annual College Tutors conference on 11th June. ‘e-Learning Anaesthesia’ (e-LA) (http://www.e-LA.org.uk) is a joint initiative between the College and e-Learning for Healthcare (e-LfH), a Department of Health (England) programme (http://www.e-lfh.org.uk). It is available free to all anaesthetists practising in the NHS.

The e-LfH programme has won several industry awards and has been credited by Sir Liam Donaldson as ‘one of the most positive developments in medical education in 20 years.’

Comment: Let’s hope that this programme’s e-learning content is not just ‘interactive’ but truly engaging too. It would be awful if it ever sent the anaesthetists to sleep.

So, Encarta is no more….

Microsoft’s once-mighty multimedia encyclopaedia, Encarta, is about to be no more – yet, a mere 15 years ago, its CD-enclosed pages provided access not just to all sorts of obscure and not-so-obscure facts but also to illustrations with which technology-literate children enlivened their homework. Recently, Microsoft announced that it is finishing the Encarta product, in both disk and online formats.

 

Comment: It took the dinosaurs – world leaders of their day – a whole age of the Earth before they died out. Encarta has come and gone in just 15 years or so. It’s a tribute, in a way, to the increasing pace of change in today’s world that – at least in technology terms – 15 years is more than a lifetime: it’s an era.

RIP, Encarta. Those who did, felt privileged to use you.

Ethical dilemma

According to an online report in HR magazine, the Institute of Business Ethics has found that 84% of British staff always – or ‘frequently’ – try to display ethical behaviour in the workplace, compared with only 80% in 2005. Only 11% claim they compromise their organisation’s ethical standards. This is down from 2005’s figure of 19%. More than half of the organisations surveyed (55%) offer staff training in ethics – up from 50% three years ago – and two thirds of businesses now have a written code of ethical practice. In addition, more than nine out of ten staff (93%) think it is unacceptable to ‘fiddle’ their expenses; 55% would not contemplate stealing pens and pencils from work, and 48% think it is wrong to make personal calls from their office phones. Public-sector workers were found to be more honest than their private-sector counterparts (89% compared with 81%).

 

Comment: A number of questions about this research spring to mind.

 

For one thing, did the researchers ask the same people as they asked in 2005? If so, maybe these people now knew what answers were expected of them. If not, maybe the researchers just found, randomly, a ‘more honest’ group of workers to survey. In any case, circumstances have changed since those happy days of 2005 – when England actually won the Ashes and we partied through an idyllic summer.

 

Maybe people are more worried about keeping their jobs in today’s economic climate – and so they will choose the more ‘honest’ answer when asked. After all, do employers want to employ people who confess to stealing their pens and who fiddle expenses? Paradoxically, by stating that they are more honest, these survey respondents are, actually, likely to be being less honest. Maybe – and cynics might cite the public versus private sector honest findings to support this – they are just more convincing liars these days.

A million?

The cross-cultural communications guru and celebrated author, Richard D Lewis, wrote in his blog recently: ‘…Not satisfied with its twin sources of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman French, English has, over the centuries, ruthlessly mugged languages ranging from Sanskrit, Latin and ancient Greek to Hindi, Malay, modern French, Italian and Navajo… A Texan organisation, Global Language Monitor, has announced that English will acquire its 1,000,000th word on 10th June 2009…

 

‘Critics fall into three camps. The first says that the number is too high…Even the Oxford English Dictionary can only scrape together 600,000. Literary pundits have counted 20,000 to 30,000 words in Shakespeare’s works and between 50,000 and 60,000 in Churchill’s tomes. Apparently no other author comes close. Most 20th century estimates of the entire language’s vocabulary clung to a figure around the 500,000 mark.

 

‘The second camp of critics argue that, if we agree that ‘am’, ‘is’ and ‘are’ are different words, then so are ‘give’, ‘gives’, ‘gave’, ‘given’ and ‘giving’. This would bump up an estimated number of 50,000 verbs to 250,000… If we insist that cat/cats are two, that would give us another 50,000 nouns to chalk up…

 

‘The Oxford Dictionary lists 47,000 words which it describes as ‘obsolete’ but which nevertheless belong to English linguistic history. English… abounds in hundreds of thousands of scientific words. There are apparently 1m named insect species! Then, there is the hyphen dilemma. If thirty-one, thirty-two and thirty-three are separate words, then so are two-hundred-and-fifty-three, etc. So by counting in this manner one can add in another million…

 

‘[Then again] what is a word? (third camp of critics). Robert Beard (PhD Linguistics) tells us that there is no such thing as a word. They may appear as such written down but, when spoken, they do not have separate existences but simply stream out … The third camp also debate whether we should count words like ‘welkin’ (Shakespearean for ‘sky’), Lancashire dialect words such as ‘chowf’, ‘powfagged’ and ‘baggin’ (pulling a face, exhausted, and food to take down the mine) and domesticated foreign imports such as ‘spaghetti’ and ‘hors d’oeuvre’.

 

‘Finally, do we actually need a million words? A University of Chicago professor said recently that the average American uses about 7,500 words a day… Studies of British workers’ speech suggest this figure should be closer to 750. Ogden’s “Basic English” asserted that anything could be said using his list of 850 words…’

 

Comment: Lewis makes several good points. In addition, it’s probably more surprising that people’s vocabularies are even that extensive, given contemporary Britons’ propensity to find their literary inspiration in soap operas, tabloid newspapers and so-called reality television. To misquote Francis Thompson: ‘Oh my Shakespeare and my Churchill, long ago…’