Constructivism

Martin ValckeMartin.Valcke@UGent.be

http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

Structure • Activity 1: Successful learning

• Jonassen & constructivism

• Activity 2: Collaborative learning prep

• Scripting

• Activity 3: Application of scripting

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

20

21

22

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).

23

24

Example scripting: roles

• Pharmacy education

• 5th year students

• 5 months internship

• Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge

(see Timmers, Valcke, De Mil & Baeyens, 2008)

25

26

CSCL scripting: roles• Content roles:

– Pharmacyst– Pharmacyst assistant– Theorist– Researcher– Intern

• Communication roles:– Moderator – Question-asker– Summarizer – Source researcher

27

28

Exchange

29

ICSIntegrated Curriculum Score

30

LKCLevel knowledge Construction

31

CSCL scripting: tagging

32

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

33

CSCL scripting: tagging

• Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking: – Problem identification– Problem definition– Problem exploration– Problem evaluation/

applicability– Problem integration

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

Constructivism

Martin ValckeMartin.Valcke@UGent.be

http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm