Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Structure • Activity 1: Successful learning
• Jonassen & constructivism
• Activity 2: Collaborative learning prep
• Scripting
• Activity 3: application of scripting
• Activity 4: Assessment prep
• Rubrics
• Activity 5: application rubrics
Activity 1
• Describe your most successful teaching & learning experience
• Cluster keywords on flipover
Constructivism: Jonassen (1994)
Constructivism: Jonassen (1994)
• Active/manipulative
• Constructive
• Intentional
• Complex
• Contextualized
• Reflective
• Conversational
• Collaborative
Manipulative
Constructive
Intentional
Complex
http://neurosurgery.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=774
Contextualized
Reflective
Conversational
Collaborative
Collaborative work
• Activity 2: positive and negative experiences with group work
• Structure: learner, group, task related
Collaborative learning: conditions
15
Slavin (1996)Johnson & Johnson (1996)
16
Need for « scripting »
• Collaboration does not lead automatically to high quality learning.
• There is a need guidance and support (…) that is comparable to the need of classroom support (Lazonder, Wilhelm, & Ootes, 2003).
• Example: CSCL (chat, discussion board, discussion groups, wikis, …)
17
18
19
CSCL: scripting
• Scripting ~ adding structure to the task:– adding specific goals for the learners,
classifying task types, adding task prescriptions, or pre-structuring the task.
• Scripting effective to improve collaboration (Pfister & Mühlpfordt, 2002).
20
21
Example scripting: roles
• Pharmacy education
• 5th year students
• 5 months internship
• Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge
(see Timmers, Valcke, De Mil & Baeyens, 2008)
22
23
CSCL scripting: roles• Content roles:
– Pharmacyst– Pharmacyst assistant– Theorist– Researcher– Intern
• Communication roles:– Moderator – Question-asker– Summarizer – Source researcher
24
25
Exchange
26
ICSIntegrated Curriculum Score
27
LKCLevel knowledge Construction
28
CSCL scripting: tagging
29
CSCL scripting: tagging
• Aims of tagging:–obliges students to reflect on nature of contribution
–taggs improve outline of discussion and indicate predominance or absence thinking type
• Example: De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats to develop critical thinking
30
CSCL scripting: tagging
• Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking: – Problem identification– Problem definition– Problem exploration– Problem evaluation/
applicability– Problem integration
31
De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats
Critical Thinking Thinking hats
Problem identification White hat
Problem definition Blue hat
Problem exploration Green hat
Problem applicability Black hat
Problem integration Yellow hat
Red hat
32
CSCL scripting: tagging
• 3th-year university students
• ‘Instructional Strategies’ (N=35)
• 6 groups of 6 team members
Experimental condition
Control condition
4 groups
23 students
2 groups
12 students
Tag posts by a
thinking hat
No tags to posts
required
33
CSCL scripting: tagging
• Evidence for critical thinking in both conditions
• Significant deeper critical thinking in experimental condition (F(1, 416)=364.544; p<.001)
0.88
0.54
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Experimental condition Control condition
34
Tagging• Experimental condition
–more focused discussions (F(1, 415)=1550.510; p<.001) –more new info and ideas (F(1, 352)=21.955; p<.001) –more linking facts ideas (F(1, 31)=3.024; p<.092)
Activity 3
• Develop “role” or “script” that could guide collaborative work in the collaborative execution of a medical task/activity
Activity 4
• Prep work: How do assessors come to a reliable and valid assessment of student work?
• How does teaching staff they come to adequate decisions about mastery of student competences?
http://rubistar.4teachers.org/
Activity 5
• Pairwise development of a rbric (criteria and indicators) to assess a critical medical skill:– Communicating bad news to family and patient– Referral to a specialist– …
• All pairs develop a rubric for the same complex skill.
