Literature Review

The article I have chosen to reflect on is “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking and Representing Knowledge” by David Jonassen. The premise of the article is that computers should not just be tools for “the acquisition and repetition of knowledge” but rather that they should be used as “knowledge construction and representation tools” (p.1). Jonassen defines Mindtools as “computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content that students are studying”.
My initial reaction was to be quite excited as I could see a great deal of potential for developing teaching strategies which engage students in effective learning. I already use mindmaps as a learning and thinking tool but never had thought about the idea of using databases as Mindtools. Databases can be used to organise subject matter; for example students could use one to organise their understandings about energy or about different kinds of soil. They could use the database to answer content queries and further organise information. I will definitely experiment with using them next term in one of my units. Other Mindtools they discuss include Dynamic Modelling tools including spreadsheets, expert systems, systems modelling tools and microworlds and Information Interpretation tools including visualization tools and Knowledge Construction Tools such as hypermedia and conversation tools.
Further reading of the article however raised several questions for me. First among these was the amount of time that could be spent just teaching students how to use these tools. The author claims that Mindtools are “reasonably easy to learn” (p. 13) however I do not agree. I know how long it takes to teach students to make effective mind maps and how much time it takes them to use computer based mind mapping tools. I also have taught students how to construct basic databases and it is not an easy skill. Considering I have less than three hours with my classes and already have too much to teach them I am not sure where I would find the time to teach these skills. My students are likely to feel overloaded and these programs could potentially become another learning barrier.
My other concern is that of the “Ground Hog” effect (Mayes, p.1); that is “the excitement about technology always ended ... in disappointingly little change”. Some of the tools he mentioned such as the visualization tools help students overcome drawing ability barriers but the only advantage I can see in computer based mind mapping is that it is easier to email a completed mind map to your lecturer. The microworld as a dynamic modelling tool has potential but again I would have to consider examples in detail to ensure that the learning acquired justifies the amount of time spent in the world. I have used paper based systems modelling tools for years without a computer in sight so I would need to be convinced that the tool provides sufficient “value added”.
In conclusion I can see that using computers as mindtools is a great idea I am yet to be convinced about how workable they may be in the busyness of the everyday classroom. I am intending however to use both databases and mindmaps in one of next semester units and then decide on whether they accomplished what they needed to.


Jonassen, David (n.d.). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking and Representing Knowledge. Pennsylvania State University, USA

Mayes, Terry (2007). Groundhog Day Again? JISC Innovating e-Learning 2007: Institutional Transformation and Supporting Lifelong Learning.