I'm doing a presentation on computer- and web-based training,
comparing its efficacy to being trained by a human trainer / teacher.
Specifically I'm presenting on how health professionals (e.g. doctors
and nurses)can learn information and even techniques on a PC.

Question: Who has studied this topic, i.e. computer training vs. human
training?  Is it effective or not? In what other fields /
professionals besides medicine is this approach used (e.g military,
aviation). For example, there was a study done around 1985 (which I
can't find a reference for) comparing how naval personnel learned to
operate sonar equipment more effective on a PC than by a trained
ensign.

I beleive the level of effectiveness depends on the person.
Some people learn more by touching and doing, some people learn more
by visual and hearing. It all really depends on the person.

I myself have been taught in class and PC based training for becoming
a I.T. Technician. Personall I like to be taught my a teacher and
interact with a human that can answer my questions and help me when
needed. PC's are great for referance and going back to and finding
facts, though it can be boring and people can lose interest alot
quicker. Learning efficiently takes motivation and if you dont have
that motivation then you wont learn much or take much into memory.
Just like alot of high school kids, goes in one ear and goes out the
other because there isnt much motivation for them unless they have a
great teacher teaching them the ways.

Journal of Instructional Psychology article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_4_27/ai_68998590

My thoughts:
CBT training has the benefit of supply every student with the exact
same content. Students can advance at their own pace. It is effective.
Instructor led training has the advantage of interaction with a
knowledgeable person.  Medical training would probably be best with a
combination of both (students study cbt content, but have a 'proctor'
that can clarify complicated subject matter).