I see it every day in my “day job” of managing and overseeing the development, fundraising and compliance for my employer’s continuing medical education (CME) programs and activities. Physicians need to have a lot of theoretical knowledge as background, but of course they must then use it as experts. The authors describe experts as those who “act appropriately in all situations they encounter in working in the field, including novel situations”. So they must have both theoretical and tacit knowledge.
Some questions this raises then are:
- how do we teach both types of knowledge?
- how do we do this in a distance setting?
These are not rhetorical questions—my own organization is trying to figure this out right now. I am responsible for working the clinical experts to figure out how we can do this. Lots of ideas come up but we have rejected many!
Aside from my main employer, I have had experience teaching both theoretical and tacit knowledge through action learning in my grant writing course which involves an internship in which students partner with a nonprofit to write a real grant proposal. In class and the readings from the text, students are getting the theoretical knowledge. In the internship experience, students get practice acting as experts working with the nonprofit.
My specific class could be easily adapted to a distance setting. The nonprofits where students intern do not have to be in any one place—the same issues and concerns will arise no matter where they are. Students could develop theoretical knowledge also through reading and class discussion on discussion boards.
But what about other content areas? How are both theoretical and tacit knowledge developed? And how would this work in distance settings?
I would love to hear from others your thoughts on this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThose are tough questions. I can see how the grant writing courses cover both aspects well, and I can see how practical and ethical situations would inform how or whether a health services professional could undertake "action-oriented learning." Do elaborate games, virtual reality, or role-playing have a place, or do they fail to provide a reasonable facsimile of clinical situations? -JD
ReplyDeleteJD--Thanks for your comment. You're right where I am in my thinking. I have been thinking about "Continuing Medical Education: The Game"--which would be a good way to do DE action oriented learning. At first, like university based DE, there would be a large financial investment. But I think eventually there would be cost savings.
ReplyDeleteActually, one of my organization's funders just issued a call for grant applications for "innovative projects" and I am thinking of trying to flesh this idea out and submit a grant for it. Even if we didn't get the grant, it would get us thinking through the practicalities of something like this!
Dierdre
Dierdre,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important question for all educators. How is the information we present turned into knowledge. Organizing the information logically and easy to access helps. But it does not stop there. Making it relevant is another point Inglis et al make. To me it, it is important to look into what the students do with the created own knowledge afterward. How do they use it? How often? In learning another languages, if the learning and the practice stay in the classroom, the language will be "dead" very soon. Is it not how it is with other types of learning? Knowledge? In your program, who are the successful learners? Have you tried to follow up on what they do with the information you cover in the class?
Thanks for sharing your wonderful experience,
Adelina
testing. Linda
ReplyDelete