After reading Jonassen (Chapter 5), Modeling With Technologies and after completing the Cmap exercise pictured above, I’m surprised we focused that much energy on this topic. To me, his discussions related to modeling with systems dynamics tools, modeling problems with spreadsheets, modeling thinking with expert systems, and modeling experiences with expert systems was much more compelling.Perhaps I’m not impressed because beyond learning how to navigate the application, working with the tool did not require much effort around a content area that was personally relevant or meaningful to me. That being said, I think that Jonassen’s recommendation that concept mapping tools be used for reflection during an entire course of study makes sense, which is probably why I didn’t benefit much from the Cmap exercise. A concept map used as a metacognitive, think-about-thinking, facilitator to help make sense of sequentially, increasingly comprehensive and complex domain knowledge could be a wonderful way of identifying knowledge gaps or unanswered questions. I will consider using concept mapping as I work through an upcoming 18-month venipuncture simulator pilot study at B. Braun. I believe that this will result in a fairer assessment of concept mapping.
What I’m particularly excited about is systems dynamic tools. I was unaware of these kinds of programs. The potential educational value of these kinds of applications at B. Braun is significant. For example, if my sales representatives, or their anesthesia customers, could work through the variable orthopedic post surgical outcomes of nausea, vomiting and pain, by comparing and contrasting the use of a variety of preoperative and intraoperative anesthetic techniques, authentic knowledge would be constructed in a way that isn’t possible by discussing peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic. I will be researching Stella, VenSim, and PowerSim to assess their capabilities to create this kind of a dynamic cause and effect teaching tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment