![](bg8.png)
when creating new relationship diagrams and
assessing the created diagrams.
Table 3: Results of analyzing the relationship diagrams
using the tool before and after improvement.
In addition, efficiency evaluations of the tool
showed improvement in three evaluation items; in
particular, 1, which considered creating diagrams,
improved. The reason for this is thought to be that
by adding the initial information entry function, it
was possible to reduce the time required for students
to enter information. In addition, 10, which
considered the ease of thinking about relationships,
also improved. This suggests that the nursing issue
extraction function was effective in making
relationships easier to grasp.
Analysis of the relationship diagrams created by
the students confirmed that physical attributes and
social background elements increased in the
improved tool. This is thought to be because the
improved tool reflects the results of continuing
creation while the student focuses on social
background elements, such as occupation and family
composition, and physical attributes, such as
medical history, through the initial information entry
function implemented in the tool. We hypothesize
that the reduction in psychological state elements
was due to the absence of psychological state
elements in the initial information.
In this study, during creation of the initial
information we selected the basic information that
we wanted students to enter in the relationship
diagram. If the selected information had a strong
effect on the content of the relationship diagram, we
considered that it should include information that
would serve to develop opportunities for further
consideration; for example, problems during
hospitalization and psychological state elements,
such as what the patient does not want to do. In
future, we aim to investigate this point through
practical experiments.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The relationship diagram-creation tool developed in
this study received more positive evaluation than
tools developed in earlier research. We have also
examined the effects of further improving the tool.
While this study conducted an analysis of the
relationship diagrams created by the students, future
research is aimed at performing detailed analysis of
the creation process and experimentally
investigating the effect of each function
implemented to facilitate addition of knowledge
obtained in the current study. Based on the results of
this analysis, we hope to improve the tool further
and create a more effective learning environment.
REFERENCES
Akinsanya, C., Williams, M., 2004. Concept mapping for
meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 13(1),
41-46.
All, A., Havens, R., 1997. Cognitive/Concept mapping: A
teaching strategy in nursing. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 25(6), 1210-1219.
Brooke, J., 1996. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale.
In Jordan, P. W. et al., (eds.), Usability Evaluation in
Industry. Taylor and Francis.
Hsu, L., Hsieh, S., 2005. Concept maps as assessment tool
in a nursing course. Journal of Professional Nursing,
21(3), 141-149.
Ishii, N., Sakuma, S, 2011. Supporting the creation of
sequence of events in nursing education. International
Journal of Education and Information Technologies,
5(2), 199-206.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B.,1984. Learning How to Learn.
Cambridge University Press.
Schuster, P. M., 2002. Concept Mapping: A Critical
Thinking Approach to Care Planning. F.A. Davis.
Sugisaki, H., Ogawa, I., 2006. Learning effects of use of
sequence of events in adult nursing practicum (Acute
period). Bulletin of Nara Medical University School of
Nursing, 2, 1-6.
Toyoshima, Y., Itou, F., Hagi, Y., Nishibori, Y., Kazaoka,
T., Kishita, S., Itou, S., 2005. Evaluation of student
learning about the nursing process using written
simulation in adult nursing course (Part 3): Analysis of
student self-evaluation in learning with sequence of
events. Bulletin of Department of Nursing Seirei
Christopher College, 13, 81-90.
Yakushijin, Y., Murakami, E., Nakamura, K., 2006.
Learning effectiveness of using concept maps in
pediatric clinical nursing practice. Journal of Japanese
Society of Child Health Nursing, 15(2), 8-14.
Evaluation items
Before
improvement
After
improvement
Phy sical attributes 5.2 8.8
Social background elements 0.3 0.9
Psy chological state element s 3.7 2.3
Expectations 2.2 1.7
Nursing obstacles 1.3 0.7
Nursing intervention 3.0 3.5
Links 14.8 15.7
Crossing links 6.8 7.6
DevelopmentandPracticalApplicationofaRelationshipDiagram-creationToolCenteringonAutomaticCreation
Functionality
401