Course development: the role of the teacher: Reflective Commentary
1.The teaching presence I intend to enact to enable my students to achieve the learning outcomes specified in my Needs Analysis Document will acknowledge the importance of my students’ prior knowledge, and encourage them to take ownership of their own learning.
The teaching presence does include some basic structure which doesn’t rely on learners having prior knowledge (provision of digitised talk etc.)
However, the structure will require learners to use their own clinical experience which will encourage authentic learning and motivation. The Experiential Learning Theory suggested by Kolb,(Kolb 1984), in (Reese 1998) seems relevant here: students use their concrete experience, followed by reflection/observation, development of theory and testing of that theory.
The teacher’s role here is to support that process, especially to encourage the reflection and observation which allows movement into the development of theory.
Students often seem to discount the relevance of their experience: my task will be to ensure that their experience is harnessed for their learning.(Harden and Crosby 2000)
Description of student’s own experience and issues that students have found relevant is one way that I will use in my course. It does seem important to have a structure to hang reflections around (as for this document) or else the reflection easily becomes irrelevant to learning goals for the course: but this is the same for face-to-face teaching.
2. The supports (eg strategies, templates, announcements) that I intend to build into the course materials and contribute during the course will model critical thinking and reflection appropriate to clinical practice.
Harden and Crosby (Harden and Crosby 2000) suggest that an important role for clinical teachers is that of role model. Therefore it will be important to demonstrate critical thinking: to provide some reflective comments, and to combine case discussion with reference to relevant literature in the initial postings which get students oriented and start the process.
Students will need some structures to develop their formulations. Although it would be possible to let students develop these themselves as part of their learning this seems rather inefficient as there are some already well-accepted structures. But it may be helpful to encourage some discussion of these.
Reflection seems key: perhaps I also need to ensure that reflection forms part of the assessment since assessment supposedly drives learning (Newble and Entwhistle 1986) although there has been recent critique (MacLachlan 2006) of the statement “assessment drives learning” as being over-simplified.
Encouraging reflection is not easy even in face-to-face settings and strategies which can be used for these purposes vary depending on the stage of the student group(Salmon 2004).
3. The strategy underlying the teaching presence I intend to enact reflects the view of teaching and learning evidenced by my Teaching Perspectives Inventory results, but also reflects new insights that I have gained into the role of the teacher and e-learning.
Given the broad range of my TPI, I think there is limited opportunity for comment. Clearly some of my role will be developmental, some apprenticeship and some nurturing. There is not likely to be much scope for a transmission perspective, although I am intending to provide some materials for students to read.
As suggested in the 5-Stage model of moderation (Salmon 2004), the role of the teacher must change depending on where they are in the course and their interactivity with each other. For example, teachers are likely to need to provide a lot of encouragement initially, while this can be replaced by other roles such as encouraging discussion in certain learning areas.
The role of the teacher as a moderator (even the term suggests a rejection of the transmission approach) is vital to good e-learning, even more than in face to face learning. E-learning requires considerable support and encouragement, regular checks on progress etc and even though many writers emphasise the relative importance of interaction with other students for motivation and deeper learning, without a clear structure (which a teacher puts together initially) none of this can happen. The trick is, just as with face-to-face teaching, to ensure that the teacher’s responsibility for structure doesn’t overwhelm the students’ interactions as they develop their knowledge and theory.
Harden, R. and J. Crosby (2000). "The good teacher is more than a lecturer-the twelve roles of the teacher." Medical Teacher 22: 334-347.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
MacLachlan, J. (2006). "The relationship between assessment and learning." Medical Education 40: 716–7.
Newble, D. and N. Entwhistle (1986). "Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education." Medical Education 29: 162–75.
Reese, A. (1998) "Implications of results from cognitive science research for medical education." Medical Education Online Volume, DOI: http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000010.htm
Salmon, G. (2004). "The 5 stage model of E-moderation." Retrieved 27/04/07, from http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Reflections on Course design
Reflect on your design decisions by providing responses (approx. 150- 200 words each, excluding references) to the following statements. If you have doubts or questions about your decisions to date or the role of learning theory, express them as part of your response so that you are aware of gaps in your understanding and/or design. Wherever possible, cite a source (from the course readings, others' discussion forum postings, or elsewhere, using APA format) to support your response:
1. The learning activities I intend to use to enable my students to achieve the learning outcomes specified in the Needs Analysis Document will actively engage them in problem-solving, and reflect the way that the learning outcomes will be applied in real world settings.
The activities are based on student clinical activity, therefore are based on actual, real-life student work. Students are engaged in active problem-solving: attempting to understand the reasons behind a child or adolescent’s presentation to a mental health service and working with that child/whanau to develop a plan for management. This follows one of the basic tenets of clinical education: that active involvement in realistic tasks promotes student engagement and therefore deeper learning (Newble and Cannon 2001), p9.
2. The learning activities I intend to use will require my students to articulate and justify their understandings, and to collaborate to create meaningful products..Students will be required to record their management plans and formulations and share these with other students, thereby articulating their understandings of the processes involved. Since they are using their own clinical work, which is constantly changing, they are required to develop new formulations and management plans, rather than using a pre-selected case example. Since students are required to collaborate and give each other feedback on their structures, this will encourage justification and articulation. (It will be important to include some assessment for this process to emphasise its importance.)
Furthermore, students who work in Kaupapa Maori services will provide their view on processes of formulation and management as they apply to their clients(Anon 2003), thereby providing a broader perspective on the student tasks than can be provided by one teacher and helping address one of the learning objectives.
Students are more likely to develop deeper understanding of their topics when there are ample opportunities for collaboration with other students(Newble and Cannon 2001)p 9, and when learning tasks are active (ie require students to engage in a meaningful process) and also when there is “ample time on task” (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996).
3. The resources I intend to offer my students to help them of the complete the learning activities represent a variety of perspectives and use a medium that is engaging and well-suited to their message.
The process of teaching clinical reasoning behind formulation and management plans is complex (Peile 2004), and requires that students find a structure which works for them but also encompasses safe practice.
Students will be offered access to course texts and an on-line lecture using Articulate Presenter as well as Powerpoints of relevant models. In these a range of perspectives will be offered. This is in keeping with learning theory which emphasises student choice as an important factor in promoting deeper learning(Newble and Cannon 2001).
However, I continue to wonder whether teaching these issues by e-learning is feasible, largely because the informal elements of discussion are not as accessible/immediate. It is also difficult to know whether the medium is likely to be well-suited to the task because I am not very familiar to the media under discussion as yet. Basically, I think that most learners would far rather learn this stuff in a face-to-face situation but they can’t because they live all around the country!!
4.The technologies I intend to use to facilitate my students' learning activities are appropriate when considered in light of the SECTIONS model (Bates and Poole 2003)and the technology principles I helped to formulate during Module 3.
Regarding the students: in my NAD I have alluded to the issue of less computer-experienced students and their need for support and contact with instructors to promote learning (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996). This is especially true if students are from Maori or Pacific backgrounds(Hawke, Cowley et al. 2002)
On the other hand, learners in these courses are often older and have a wide experience of life and clinical situations: it is therefore important to tap into their experiences so that these can deepen and extend learning.
These students come from all around NZ and are not able to attend frequently for face to face teaching: access to learning depends at present on some electronic strategies and this is likely to increase. There will have to be a firm focus on contact: with instructors and with each other for these strategies to be helpful.
The students will also need access to support and training for use of these technologies, which need to be as easy to use as possible. As noted, they are designed to promote interactivity.
I continue to have concerns about my ability to spend the time to develop these strategies (Costs) in the Sections model and about the speed with which they can be applied.
5. The strategy underlying the learning activities I have chosen reflects the view of teaching and learning evidenced by my Teaching Perspectives Inventory results, but also reflects new insights I have gained into learning theory and e-learning.
I continue to doubt the validity of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory, and don’t consider that it assists me in clarifying my strategies for teaching. I have been unable to find any research which demonstrates that responses on the TPI are related to how instructors teach rather than how they say that they teach. Self-report measures are not necessarily reliable measures of behaviour: it all depends on how they have been benchmarked. It is possible that the TPI is no more valid that a magazine survey.
The only advantage that I can see in completing it is that it made me consider my teaching style and think more deeply about teaching strategies that are most effective for learning.
I don’t think that I have developed new insights into learning theory as a result of this course: I have some training in neuropsychiatry which I think covers many of the issues involved in learning and skills acquisition.
The principles of e-learning seem to me to be extremely similar to basic learning principles. However engagement and support become much more relevant when there is no face to face contact with instructors. I think I am experiencing this first hand!!
Submit your reflection on completion of columns 1-4 of the Course Development Document to your blog for others to read by the end of week 6.
References
Anon. (2003). "Maori Tertiary Education Framework
A Report by the Maori Tertiary Reference Group." Retrieved 19/05/06, 2006, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl9565_v1/maori-tertiary-education-framework.doc.
Bates, A. W. and G. Poole (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. .
Chickering, A. and S. Ehrmann. (1996, September 6, 2006). "Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever." TLT Group, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.
Hawke, K., E. Cowley, et al. (2002). "The importance of the teacher/student relationship for Maori and Pasifika students." SET Research Information for Teachers 3: 44-49.
Newble, D. and R. Cannon (2001). A Handbook for medical teachers. Adelaide, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peile, E. (2004). "Clinical reasoning
10.1136/bmj.326.7389.591." BMJ 328(7445): 946-8.
1. The learning activities I intend to use to enable my students to achieve the learning outcomes specified in the Needs Analysis Document will actively engage them in problem-solving, and reflect the way that the learning outcomes will be applied in real world settings.
The activities are based on student clinical activity, therefore are based on actual, real-life student work. Students are engaged in active problem-solving: attempting to understand the reasons behind a child or adolescent’s presentation to a mental health service and working with that child/whanau to develop a plan for management. This follows one of the basic tenets of clinical education: that active involvement in realistic tasks promotes student engagement and therefore deeper learning (Newble and Cannon 2001), p9.
2. The learning activities I intend to use will require my students to articulate and justify their understandings, and to collaborate to create meaningful products..Students will be required to record their management plans and formulations and share these with other students, thereby articulating their understandings of the processes involved. Since they are using their own clinical work, which is constantly changing, they are required to develop new formulations and management plans, rather than using a pre-selected case example. Since students are required to collaborate and give each other feedback on their structures, this will encourage justification and articulation. (It will be important to include some assessment for this process to emphasise its importance.)
Furthermore, students who work in Kaupapa Maori services will provide their view on processes of formulation and management as they apply to their clients(Anon 2003), thereby providing a broader perspective on the student tasks than can be provided by one teacher and helping address one of the learning objectives.
Students are more likely to develop deeper understanding of their topics when there are ample opportunities for collaboration with other students(Newble and Cannon 2001)p 9, and when learning tasks are active (ie require students to engage in a meaningful process) and also when there is “ample time on task” (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996).
3. The resources I intend to offer my students to help them of the complete the learning activities represent a variety of perspectives and use a medium that is engaging and well-suited to their message.
The process of teaching clinical reasoning behind formulation and management plans is complex (Peile 2004), and requires that students find a structure which works for them but also encompasses safe practice.
Students will be offered access to course texts and an on-line lecture using Articulate Presenter as well as Powerpoints of relevant models. In these a range of perspectives will be offered. This is in keeping with learning theory which emphasises student choice as an important factor in promoting deeper learning(Newble and Cannon 2001).
However, I continue to wonder whether teaching these issues by e-learning is feasible, largely because the informal elements of discussion are not as accessible/immediate. It is also difficult to know whether the medium is likely to be well-suited to the task because I am not very familiar to the media under discussion as yet. Basically, I think that most learners would far rather learn this stuff in a face-to-face situation but they can’t because they live all around the country!!
4.The technologies I intend to use to facilitate my students' learning activities are appropriate when considered in light of the SECTIONS model (Bates and Poole 2003)and the technology principles I helped to formulate during Module 3.
Regarding the students: in my NAD I have alluded to the issue of less computer-experienced students and their need for support and contact with instructors to promote learning (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996). This is especially true if students are from Maori or Pacific backgrounds(Hawke, Cowley et al. 2002)
On the other hand, learners in these courses are often older and have a wide experience of life and clinical situations: it is therefore important to tap into their experiences so that these can deepen and extend learning.
These students come from all around NZ and are not able to attend frequently for face to face teaching: access to learning depends at present on some electronic strategies and this is likely to increase. There will have to be a firm focus on contact: with instructors and with each other for these strategies to be helpful.
The students will also need access to support and training for use of these technologies, which need to be as easy to use as possible. As noted, they are designed to promote interactivity.
I continue to have concerns about my ability to spend the time to develop these strategies (Costs) in the Sections model and about the speed with which they can be applied.
5. The strategy underlying the learning activities I have chosen reflects the view of teaching and learning evidenced by my Teaching Perspectives Inventory results, but also reflects new insights I have gained into learning theory and e-learning.
I continue to doubt the validity of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory, and don’t consider that it assists me in clarifying my strategies for teaching. I have been unable to find any research which demonstrates that responses on the TPI are related to how instructors teach rather than how they say that they teach. Self-report measures are not necessarily reliable measures of behaviour: it all depends on how they have been benchmarked. It is possible that the TPI is no more valid that a magazine survey.
The only advantage that I can see in completing it is that it made me consider my teaching style and think more deeply about teaching strategies that are most effective for learning.
I don’t think that I have developed new insights into learning theory as a result of this course: I have some training in neuropsychiatry which I think covers many of the issues involved in learning and skills acquisition.
The principles of e-learning seem to me to be extremely similar to basic learning principles. However engagement and support become much more relevant when there is no face to face contact with instructors. I think I am experiencing this first hand!!
Submit your reflection on completion of columns 1-4 of the Course Development Document to your blog for others to read by the end of week 6.
References
Anon. (2003). "Maori Tertiary Education Framework
A Report by the Maori Tertiary Reference Group." Retrieved 19/05/06, 2006, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl9565_v1/maori-tertiary-education-framework.doc.
Bates, A. W. and G. Poole (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. .
Chickering, A. and S. Ehrmann. (1996, September 6, 2006). "Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever." TLT Group, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.
Hawke, K., E. Cowley, et al. (2002). "The importance of the teacher/student relationship for Maori and Pasifika students." SET Research Information for Teachers 3: 44-49.
Newble, D. and R. Cannon (2001). A Handbook for medical teachers. Adelaide, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peile, E. (2004). "Clinical reasoning
10.1136/bmj.326.7389.591." BMJ 328(7445): 946-8.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Copyright
I have now had a chance to read some of the copyright materials and think about the Creative Commons approach.
I am one of those who have been quietly wondering for years about the legality of some aspects of our copyright for course materials I use. I have read the Copyright rules for staff, and had some of my materials accessed for CLL audits a couple of years ago.So...I am a bit familiar with them as they apply to print media.
But, it was interesting (and disturbing)to see that the Internet rules are actually more restrictive in some ways.
Different countries also clearly have different rules - even the Clarhouet chapter in the text (Canada) pointed out that people think Canadian rules are the same as US, which they are not. the Univ Of Auck guidelines and the CLL website are not very reassuring about e-resources.
With my group of learners (distance students, some not at all keen on electronic approaches) they also want - really, truly want, a big bundle of readings so they dont have to download everything on their slow rural connections. This seems legally ok under CLL as long as the amounts are limited.
However, the University is not at all keen on this - they want to save paper & transfer costs to students I guess.
The Creative COmmons approach seems extremely sensible and already there are some medical resources relevant to me who have opted for free access to their materials.
I am one of those who have been quietly wondering for years about the legality of some aspects of our copyright for course materials I use. I have read the Copyright rules for staff, and had some of my materials accessed for CLL audits a couple of years ago.So...I am a bit familiar with them as they apply to print media.
But, it was interesting (and disturbing)to see that the Internet rules are actually more restrictive in some ways.
Different countries also clearly have different rules - even the Clarhouet chapter in the text (Canada) pointed out that people think Canadian rules are the same as US, which they are not. the Univ Of Auck guidelines and the CLL website are not very reassuring about e-resources.
With my group of learners (distance students, some not at all keen on electronic approaches) they also want - really, truly want, a big bundle of readings so they dont have to download everything on their slow rural connections. This seems legally ok under CLL as long as the amounts are limited.
However, the University is not at all keen on this - they want to save paper & transfer costs to students I guess.
The Creative COmmons approach seems extremely sensible and already there are some medical resources relevant to me who have opted for free access to their materials.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)