Module 3

My results from the multiple intelligence test were congruent with other similar tests I have taken in the past. I am also finding that as I age, I am seeing a more even distribution of my learning stlyes/preferences and I wonder if this is due to repeated exposure to a variety of teaching styles and methods. I am pretty even across the board except for a dip in the visual spatial area (I can’t read a chart or map or drive in reverse to save my life) and a slight tendency toward musical and kinesthetic preferences.
I will likely remember things put to music and motion. I complete a considerable amount of schoolwork while pedalling on a trainer or doing another activity . I acquired an appendage a couple of years ago : my ipod. (and my laptop has a name!) Podcasts would fit perfectly into my active schedule and I would likely learn while exercising. Videos or power points are more likely to capture my attention if they are set to music. I enjoy computer based training that incorporates sound and interactive quizzes with a drag and drop feature (with the rewarding tones if you provide the correct answer). I think that I would do well in a virtual learning environment. With all this said, I still I wouldn’t limit myself by seeking out auditory and kinesthetic aspects in all technologies. Instructional methods should be appropriate for the content . Romiszowski advises using appropriate sensory channels for commmunicating information to be learned (Zwrin). In addition, if someone has a prevailing learning style and we tailor a distance, asynchonous, teaching/learning activity for that individual, it doesn’t ensure learning. The learner must also demonstrate motivation, discipline, and initiative to seek clarification when necessary in order to ensure optimal learning (Richardson).

Module 2: Question 3

When comparing electronic indexes, a guideline index , and the web search engine I found that the common thread was accessibility. Each provides quick access to information. The prevailing difference is the quality and relevance of the search. The electronic index I used was Pub Med. It gave me the ability to make my search as broad or as narrow as I wanted by utilizing features such as the limits setting. Although the web search delivered the fastest results, the electronic index provided a more focused search on my topic that in the end saves time by providing exactly those topics for which I am searching rather than sifting through many results. The web search engine Google pulled up a plethora of information, much of which was too broad to suit my intended search. Google Scholar narrowed things down to scholarly articles and I could could further focus my search by completing an advanced search specifying author and date. In spite of the appealing velocity at which I can conduct a search, I prefer the electronic index as I feel that as stated in chapter 13 of our text, it provides a logical, systematic, efficient and effective means by which to obtain current and credible information. The credibliity issue was most important to me. I feel more confident with search results from the electronic index as it is updated more frequently. As well, web searches may not have full text available and at times you are required to pay a fee. The guideline index database was not helpful in my particular search as it seemed very limited. Something that impeded my search was that if I mispelled a word, I was not prompted as I was on Google to verify that that was the word I had intended. The tutorial was very easy to follow but still yeilded no results for my topic. This site would be helpful if I were researching recommended clinical practice for diseases, disorders, or treatments. I cannot see using this alone but would use it to compliment my electronic index results.
Another method I have used to complete searches is identifying a group of journals that I know will provide the evidence based information I need. I have used this feature on the Eccles Library site. I have also logged on websites of professional organizations such as the Oncology Nurrsing Society and the National League for Nursing that allow access to their journals with membership. This has sufficed when I needed to research something quickly and briefly for a presentation or to gain a better understanding of a topic. However, papers and other scholarly work would require a more exhaustive search. In this case I would use an electronic index coupled with a guideline index. I don’t think that I would go to a Web search unless I couldn’t find a specific article in the electronic index.

Module 2: Question 2

I used endnote with much apprehension as I have heard that it is very time consuming and difficult to learn. There was some truth in those statements but I will attribute that to my novice abilities with high precision searching and data management tools. Nonetheless, I was able to appreciate the benefits of endnote through my frustration. I especially like that it is connected to several databases from which I can quickly and easily import references. I like having everything in one place as opposed to my current situation with everything scattered in files and folders between 2 computers and 2 thumb drives. I also like that both the full text article and the citation (in APA format if you so desire!) is saved and organized by author or date with a touch of a button. The most important feature for me is having multiple libraries for different projects and being able to drag and drop between them. Along that line, I often covet other people’s reference lists and I find it cumbersome to share. We usually end up cutting and pasting them. With endnote I can transfer references from a colleague’s paper into my library and allow endnote to organize the additions for me. In the end I think it is a great tool that makes research, organization, and data sharing more efficient. I hope to become more proficient with its use.

Module 2: Question 1

My search was on “chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy”. I chose Pub Med as I have used it (far from its full potential) in the past. I intentionally chose a term which I knew would yield hundreds of results so that I could practice narrowing it down. The rudimentary search strategy described in the second paragraph of Poynton (2003) was the way I routinely carried out searches in the past. I would choose a term and try to make it as focused as I could, pull up a list, and then go through that massive list. The search tools found on Pub Med through the Captivate tutorial and on the Eccles site narrowed my search from hundreds to twenty. However, it was time consuming. If I were searching for something at work and had limited time, I might use a web search engine. Time is not the only barrier. With different auditory stimulus and interruptions (patients, staff, alarms), it would be difficult for me to conduct a search effectively at this level of computer and electronic index abilities. If I had no time restrictions and was conducting an exhaustive search on something very specific and needed reliable sources that were current and evidence based, I would use the electronic index. Prior to attacking the electronic index, however, I would plot out my search strategy (MeSH terms, subheadings, limits) as recommended by Poynton (2003). If I was able to compile the articles needed, I could quickly save them in Pub Med until I could retrieve them. In the end, I found that my search was focused to what I had intended however it took more time than I typically have in the workplace.