Suchergebnisse

This study aims to specify the definitions of two terms, bigraphia and digraphia, and examine how these phenomena appear in post-socialist countries. It is currently a global phenomenon to use two or more writing systems in one country, due to the spread of English and the Internet. Bigraphia means when the function and prestige of two writing systems (or two varieties of one system) are equal. On the other hand, when there is a difference in the function and/or prestige between two writing systems, it is defined as digraphia. The paper examines the combination of writing systems in post-socialist countries such as Russia, Belarus, Serbia, and Uzbekistan. In-digraphia refers to a situation in which variations of one writing system coexist, and out-digraphia refers to a situation in which two different writing systems coexist. A narrower sense of digraphia is observed in Belarus today: Belarusian Cyrillic-Т(BC-T) is used to write Tarashkievitsa and Belarusian Cyrillic-N (BC-N) is used to write Narkamaŭka. Out-digraphia is observed in Serbia and Uzbekistan. In these countries, Cyrillic and Latin scripts are used to write Serbian and Uzbek. Out-digraphia is also confirmed in Russian texts: It is commonly thought that only Cyrillic letters are used to write Russian, but recently the use of the so-called "macaronic alphabet," which is a mix of Cyrillic and Latin letters, has become common.

Previous studies have applied interview-oriented self-reported or peer-centered evaluation methods, rather than an objective and quantitative method, to evaluate outcome of a postgraduate capacity-building program and have mainly focused on the cognitive level. To investigate the feasibility of the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in an international setting and report the results of the outcome evaluation for the behavioral aspect. A case–control study. Ninety examinees divided into 2 case–control groups: 17 program-experienced doctors and 17 control doctors in the first group, and 28 mentees of the program-experienced doctors and 28 control doctors in the second group. A six-station OSCE was implemented. The OSCE scores were measured to evaluate (1) the direct educational effect regarding learning in the first group and (2) the indirect educational effects regarding transfer in the second group. Written questionnaire and interview data were collected for qualitative analysis. The quantitative results of the overall or subcomponent OSCE scores indicated no significant differences in the comparisons of the first and second case-control groups. The qualitative data indicated that the program improved participants' medical knowledge, skills, and self-confidence, however, it also revealed limited learning environment provided by the program. This transnational study has demonstrated the process for introducing and successfully completing the testing of an OSCE in Laos. Discrepancy in the goals of the OSCE and the education program limited the usefulness of OSCE as an assessment tool, leading to the lack of significant differences in its results.