Back home after almost a week in Singapore. Left Singapore’s balmy 30’C plus weather to return to wintry Christchurch. Cycled in to work this frosty morning and checked the temps. at 10am to be 1’C.
Managed to do the obligatory catch up with various aunties, cozzies and my mother-in-law. Good to catch up with news in Singapore on what all the various family members are up to. The Temasek Polytechnic International Conference on Teaching & Learning went well. All the keynotes provided good presentations and workshops. There was a wide range of presentations / papers and I have been catching up with the full papers this morning. Of note are: Gary Poole’s paper to support his presentation on ‘I care & I can’; two papers with a problem based learning focus, one on student experiences by Chan Chun Ming (Temasek Polytechnic) and the other by Lisa Lim and Madeliene Lew (Republic Polytechnic) on first year students perception of one day/one problem PBL strategy; and two on feedback – one by Daphne Pan and Kiruthika Ragupathi from National University of Singapore and the other by Min Yan, David Carless, Diane Salter and Joy Lam on Feedback.
The staff at the local Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) seem to all be very young (perhaps it’s just me feeling old), enthusiastic about teaching and keen to learn. Networked with a few of the Polytechnic & ITE academic / staff development staff and they seem to all be focused on student centred forms of learning including an emphasis on problem based learning, especially at the polytechnic level.
Singapore, as usual, has changed physically since I was last there almost two years ago. New buildings including three tall buildings on the waterfront with what looks like a ship on the top of it. The MRT and most public areas were even more crowded that before. Where do all the people come from?? And how many more will be packed into a very small island? So good to come back to NZ where I did the grocery shopping at the local supermarket on Saturday afternoon. Just the usual small number of people about, enough to know that the supermarket was not closed.
Showing posts with label gary poole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gary poole. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Temasek Polytechnic International Conference on Teaching & Learning - day 3
The last day cosists of two workshops sessions, one in the morning with either Prof. David Boud on 'assessment reform in education' and the other with Ass. Prof. Gary Poole on ' Self-directed projects as assignment options'. The second workshop sessions are in the afternoon. Workshop sessions bracketed with one lot of concurrent sessions along with usual refuel /networking sessions.
I chose to attend the session/seminar Ass. Prof. Gary Poole with the other 1/2 of the CPIT team attending the session facilitated by Prof. David Boud. The objectives of Gary's seesion were to define 'self-direction' in student learning, identify key elements of an effective self-directed project option and to begin designing our own self-directed project option. He is keen to use the workshop, where everyone is prepared to come to do the work and shop for ideas as well :) to achieve the session's objectives.
When self-directed projects are used, the logistics, structure and preparation are crucial to ensure students are provided with sufficient support to complete their project. In particular, the negotiation process to agree to criteria for doing the project, meeting project objectives and assessing or evaluating the project is crucial. This allows for moderation of various self-directed projects to ensure parity between various self-directed projects.
After morning tea, last concurrent sessions take place. I attended the sessions which had an academic/ teacher development focus. First up, Tay Sing Leong & Roger Khoo from Insitute of Technical Education on 'staff active and reflective learning (ARL)' to enhance student management. ARL to assist staff with career exploration, public responsibility, leadership development, intellectual pursuits and professional development. ARL should be a facilitated process. The facilitator's role is to encourage active participation, create a safe space be mindful of power and who has it. Provides a forum for support, building a COP and increasing teaching practice skills.
Then 'exploring transnational approaches to educational integrity: A showcase of work of the work of Asian Pacific Forum of Educational Integrity (APFEI)' by Ruth Walker, Tracey Bretag & Julianne East from the University of Woolongong, Australia. Integrity could be academic integrity / educational values (honesty, trust, equity, respect and responsibility). Generally, the onus seems to be on students to imbibe these values and assumption is that there is a shared understanding of the requirements of academic integrity. However, challenges posed by changing student profile including internation, lower socio-economical status students and changes to social conventions on copyright requires a rethink of perception of integrity. Therefore, need to move beyond 'student deficit' but need ot focus on educative rather than punitive approaches; align policies & practices; recognise need for academics, authors and teachers to model ethical practice; realise implications of using digital technologies & changed 'economies of effort' (competing pressures of popular media culture & pedagogical directives). Approaches to help students come to grips with the concept of educational integrity include various strategies around increasing students' awareness of issues.
Final concurrent session was with Lyn Williams & Robin Graham from CPIT run a workshop on 'the complexities of learning be a tertiary teacher: emerging perspectives on the boundaries between formal & informal learning in tertiary teacher professional development'. The presentation covered the development and initial implementation of a newly developed teaching qualification, research proposal to investigate effectiveness of new qualification and feedback on ideas on how the move forward with this project. Background of CPIT & the qualification within a NZ context was firstly covered. Then the research question 'what do new vocational tutors percieve as the significant influences on and themes of their emerging practice for improving teaching to enhance student learning?' was 'unpacked' to explain the direction & focus of the project. A collaborative participatory model is proposed as a research method. Then the audience asked for feedback and suggestions on what methods, questions, gaps etc. would be useful.
In the afternoon, the concurrent workshops ran with Prof. Stephen Brookfield running one on discussion as a way of teaching and the other with Prof. Diana Laurrilard on 'A learning design support environment for collaborative pedagogical innovation'. I attended Prof. Laurrillard's workshop in order to become more familiar with her ' conversational framework'. Outcomes of this workshop / seminar are to be able to appreciate the complexity of the learning design process; a sense of how this might be embedded in a design support environment and how collaborative online design tools could enable lecturers to act 'like scientists'. Collabortive pedagogy innovation includes teachers collaborating, sharing designs or capturing pedagogy, testing pedagogic design and challenging the technology. Theorectical background includes social constructivism, collaboration, constructionist learning and knowledge building. Need for teachers to be reflective practioners (like researchers as reflective practitioners) which means building on work of other teachers; working in collaborative teams of respected peers; seeking ways of rethinking their teaching; being able to experiment, and reflect on results; and disseminating findings for peer review and use by others. Used SMS aggregation system to provide for interactivity during the session.
Introduced the concepts for capturing good pedagogy (iCOPER - standardised description of instructional model) / and Learning Design Support Enviroment (LDSE) as software developed to try to represent methods of teaching. Founded on work of Beetham (2004) - teachers'knowledge is mostly implicit' Oliver et al (2009) & Dernlet et al (2009) - teachers are not used to recording or sharing their teaching methods and Sharpe & Oliver (2007) - process of course design is complicaed and often remains a private, tacit process. Existing learning design representations tend to not allow 'tweaking' so the two examples presented provide for opportunities by practioners to adjust and customise to their own context, student profile / learning and individual teaching pedagogical approaches. A comparison made of these two 'tools'.
Good pedagogy implies alignment between learning outcomes, assessments and learning activities. Activities are categorised by the nature of the learning activities and there should be a focus on learner time (less directed, more self directed learning time).
There are possibilites for taking an existing lesson and formulating a pedagogical pattern which is generic and can then be customised for other contexts. Example at http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/
Opportunity to work through an example was then used to help the seminar participants come to grips with the concept.
I chose to attend the session/seminar Ass. Prof. Gary Poole with the other 1/2 of the CPIT team attending the session facilitated by Prof. David Boud. The objectives of Gary's seesion were to define 'self-direction' in student learning, identify key elements of an effective self-directed project option and to begin designing our own self-directed project option. He is keen to use the workshop, where everyone is prepared to come to do the work and shop for ideas as well :) to achieve the session's objectives.
When self-directed projects are used, the logistics, structure and preparation are crucial to ensure students are provided with sufficient support to complete their project. In particular, the negotiation process to agree to criteria for doing the project, meeting project objectives and assessing or evaluating the project is crucial. This allows for moderation of various self-directed projects to ensure parity between various self-directed projects.
After morning tea, last concurrent sessions take place. I attended the sessions which had an academic/ teacher development focus. First up, Tay Sing Leong & Roger Khoo from Insitute of Technical Education on 'staff active and reflective learning (ARL)' to enhance student management. ARL to assist staff with career exploration, public responsibility, leadership development, intellectual pursuits and professional development. ARL should be a facilitated process. The facilitator's role is to encourage active participation, create a safe space be mindful of power and who has it. Provides a forum for support, building a COP and increasing teaching practice skills.
Then 'exploring transnational approaches to educational integrity: A showcase of work of the work of Asian Pacific Forum of Educational Integrity (APFEI)' by Ruth Walker, Tracey Bretag & Julianne East from the University of Woolongong, Australia. Integrity could be academic integrity / educational values (honesty, trust, equity, respect and responsibility). Generally, the onus seems to be on students to imbibe these values and assumption is that there is a shared understanding of the requirements of academic integrity. However, challenges posed by changing student profile including internation, lower socio-economical status students and changes to social conventions on copyright requires a rethink of perception of integrity. Therefore, need to move beyond 'student deficit' but need ot focus on educative rather than punitive approaches; align policies & practices; recognise need for academics, authors and teachers to model ethical practice; realise implications of using digital technologies & changed 'economies of effort' (competing pressures of popular media culture & pedagogical directives). Approaches to help students come to grips with the concept of educational integrity include various strategies around increasing students' awareness of issues.
Final concurrent session was with Lyn Williams & Robin Graham from CPIT run a workshop on 'the complexities of learning be a tertiary teacher: emerging perspectives on the boundaries between formal & informal learning in tertiary teacher professional development'. The presentation covered the development and initial implementation of a newly developed teaching qualification, research proposal to investigate effectiveness of new qualification and feedback on ideas on how the move forward with this project. Background of CPIT & the qualification within a NZ context was firstly covered. Then the research question 'what do new vocational tutors percieve as the significant influences on and themes of their emerging practice for improving teaching to enhance student learning?' was 'unpacked' to explain the direction & focus of the project. A collaborative participatory model is proposed as a research method. Then the audience asked for feedback and suggestions on what methods, questions, gaps etc. would be useful.
In the afternoon, the concurrent workshops ran with Prof. Stephen Brookfield running one on discussion as a way of teaching and the other with Prof. Diana Laurrilard on 'A learning design support environment for collaborative pedagogical innovation'. I attended Prof. Laurrillard's workshop in order to become more familiar with her ' conversational framework'. Outcomes of this workshop / seminar are to be able to appreciate the complexity of the learning design process; a sense of how this might be embedded in a design support environment and how collaborative online design tools could enable lecturers to act 'like scientists'. Collabortive pedagogy innovation includes teachers collaborating, sharing designs or capturing pedagogy, testing pedagogic design and challenging the technology. Theorectical background includes social constructivism, collaboration, constructionist learning and knowledge building. Need for teachers to be reflective practioners (like researchers as reflective practitioners) which means building on work of other teachers; working in collaborative teams of respected peers; seeking ways of rethinking their teaching; being able to experiment, and reflect on results; and disseminating findings for peer review and use by others. Used SMS aggregation system to provide for interactivity during the session.
Introduced the concepts for capturing good pedagogy (iCOPER - standardised description of instructional model) / and Learning Design Support Enviroment (LDSE) as software developed to try to represent methods of teaching. Founded on work of Beetham (2004) - teachers'knowledge is mostly implicit' Oliver et al (2009) & Dernlet et al (2009) - teachers are not used to recording or sharing their teaching methods and Sharpe & Oliver (2007) - process of course design is complicaed and often remains a private, tacit process. Existing learning design representations tend to not allow 'tweaking' so the two examples presented provide for opportunities by practioners to adjust and customise to their own context, student profile / learning and individual teaching pedagogical approaches. A comparison made of these two 'tools'.
Good pedagogy implies alignment between learning outcomes, assessments and learning activities. Activities are categorised by the nature of the learning activities and there should be a focus on learner time (less directed, more self directed learning time).
There are possibilites for taking an existing lesson and formulating a pedagogical pattern which is generic and can then be customised for other contexts. Example at http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/
Opportunity to work through an example was then used to help the seminar participants come to grips with the concept.
Temasek Polytechnic International Teaching & Learning Conference
day two began with a video produced to celebrate the Temasek Polytechnic 20th anniversary.
First session was presented by four students speaking on their experiences of assessment processes. A good opportunity for the student voice to be heard :) a range of project based / realistic / real-world focused / applied assessments were described by the four very articulate students. The assessments were underpinned by a problem based learning focus including group work, peer assessments, reflective journals and team / individual projects.
The first keynote was with Professor David Boud on "a new assessment agenda: equipping students for the continuing challenges of learning and assessment". His presentation covered why assessments seemed to have failed educationally and pedagogically and how to move assessments and transform them towards supporting longer term learning. A key factor in changing assessment practices is to shift the ways in educational practioners' assessment thinking.
Assessments have failed as it tends to drive compliance, not initiative; foster depenency by learners on assesors and being assessed; backward looking to what has been rather than what may be achieved; makes us fearful rather than build confidence and depletes capacity rather than builds it. Reasons for this state of affairs include a fixation with certification and with measurement (e.g. norm referencing which is based on the performance of student cohorts and the standard is there set by each group!).
Into the future, we do not know what we must prepare for students for as the future is unknown. Therefore, students need to be prepared to cope with the requirements of the future. Assessments mean different things to different people. Assessments have moved from educational measurement to competence, authenticity and attributes and in the future moves to building capacity for judgement. This then provides students with skills to cope with future needs.
Therefore, shift in assessment thinking involves - from teacher to learning centred; from testing knowledge to judging outcomes; assessing subjects to judging professional capability; and testing students to producing learners.
Current agenda of assessment includes assessment based on explicit standards, constructive alignment between desired learning outcomes, teaching & learning activities & assessment; well-timed, high quality feedback to students; and assessment of graduate attributes. Need to move assessments from certification(summative assessments) to aiding learning (formative assesments) and fostering lifelong learning (sustainable assessment).
Sustainable assessments look beyond the immediate context, avoids creating dependency and focuses on higher-order knowledge and skills in context. Needs to develop informed judgement by developing students capacity to make judgement; assessments are about informing students' own judgement and opportunities for developing informed judgement to be staged across a programme. also needs to construct reflexive learners by involving students in assessment, position students to see themselves as learners who are pro-active and generative and focus on reflexivity and self-regulation though every aspect of a course. also forms the becoming practioner as assessments help calibrate judgement; develops confidence and skills to manage their own learning and assessments and develops capacity to work effectively with others to assist learning and mutually develop informed judgement.
After morning tea, the second keynote for the day from Ass. Prof. Gary Poole from the University of Columbia who presented on "I care and I can: the importance of student attitutes towards course relevance and their ability to succeed. Why does it matter to educators that different people have different beliefs about whether they can or cannot do something. Gary covered two items. Why the content of the presentation is important and how pedogogical practices can help to encourage students to succeed.
The ways students think about a subject, affects their learning of that subject. This includes the extent with which students find relevance and value in the subject matter; different students' perceptions about the difficulty or intellectual accessibility of course material. Therefore, I care - beliefs about relevance and I can - beliefs about self-efficacy.
Do we introduce a problem before or after the presentation of content? After - case based, can apply newly acquired knowledge to problem. Before - problem based, can place new knowledge in the context of the problem and can see the relevance of the knowledge early.
how will students know that they can? Then may find out from their teachers or from other students. Students need to be cognisant of the need for effort on their part as an important adjunct to their own natural ability and the help of others. Teachers need to set 'problems' which are clear, challenging and relevant and to know now much support should be provided for students to learn through solving the problem.
Morning session ended with the the results carried out by two students of a student survey on I care / I can carried out at Temasek Polytechnic.
questions include 'for me, the person who usually drives my learning are -- students themselves (70%) with lecturers, parents etc. very much less
'I will accept the diploma if offered to me right now without any work or courses' 90% said NO.
Reasons for answers include I need to acquire the necessary knowledge/skills (60%), i do not feel right to recieve something for nothing, studying gives sense of satisfaction.
how confident are students when they first start? - 90% confident
ability to succeed is within your control - almost 80% strongly agree
factors which help students succeed? Students efford almost 80%, both lecturers & student support also important.
most important factor which motivates learning? acquiring knowledge & getting good job around 35%.
students require relevance of studies to future career - yes.
therefore students care about acquiring knowledge /skills, they are confident and willing to work and if shown relevance of content will maintain motivation.
First session was presented by four students speaking on their experiences of assessment processes. A good opportunity for the student voice to be heard :) a range of project based / realistic / real-world focused / applied assessments were described by the four very articulate students. The assessments were underpinned by a problem based learning focus including group work, peer assessments, reflective journals and team / individual projects.
The first keynote was with Professor David Boud on "a new assessment agenda: equipping students for the continuing challenges of learning and assessment". His presentation covered why assessments seemed to have failed educationally and pedagogically and how to move assessments and transform them towards supporting longer term learning. A key factor in changing assessment practices is to shift the ways in educational practioners' assessment thinking.
Assessments have failed as it tends to drive compliance, not initiative; foster depenency by learners on assesors and being assessed; backward looking to what has been rather than what may be achieved; makes us fearful rather than build confidence and depletes capacity rather than builds it. Reasons for this state of affairs include a fixation with certification and with measurement (e.g. norm referencing which is based on the performance of student cohorts and the standard is there set by each group!).
Into the future, we do not know what we must prepare for students for as the future is unknown. Therefore, students need to be prepared to cope with the requirements of the future. Assessments mean different things to different people. Assessments have moved from educational measurement to competence, authenticity and attributes and in the future moves to building capacity for judgement. This then provides students with skills to cope with future needs.
Therefore, shift in assessment thinking involves - from teacher to learning centred; from testing knowledge to judging outcomes; assessing subjects to judging professional capability; and testing students to producing learners.
Current agenda of assessment includes assessment based on explicit standards, constructive alignment between desired learning outcomes, teaching & learning activities & assessment; well-timed, high quality feedback to students; and assessment of graduate attributes. Need to move assessments from certification(summative assessments) to aiding learning (formative assesments) and fostering lifelong learning (sustainable assessment).
Sustainable assessments look beyond the immediate context, avoids creating dependency and focuses on higher-order knowledge and skills in context. Needs to develop informed judgement by developing students capacity to make judgement; assessments are about informing students' own judgement and opportunities for developing informed judgement to be staged across a programme. also needs to construct reflexive learners by involving students in assessment, position students to see themselves as learners who are pro-active and generative and focus on reflexivity and self-regulation though every aspect of a course. also forms the becoming practioner as assessments help calibrate judgement; develops confidence and skills to manage their own learning and assessments and develops capacity to work effectively with others to assist learning and mutually develop informed judgement.
After morning tea, the second keynote for the day from Ass. Prof. Gary Poole from the University of Columbia who presented on "I care and I can: the importance of student attitutes towards course relevance and their ability to succeed. Why does it matter to educators that different people have different beliefs about whether they can or cannot do something. Gary covered two items. Why the content of the presentation is important and how pedogogical practices can help to encourage students to succeed.
The ways students think about a subject, affects their learning of that subject. This includes the extent with which students find relevance and value in the subject matter; different students' perceptions about the difficulty or intellectual accessibility of course material. Therefore, I care - beliefs about relevance and I can - beliefs about self-efficacy.
Do we introduce a problem before or after the presentation of content? After - case based, can apply newly acquired knowledge to problem. Before - problem based, can place new knowledge in the context of the problem and can see the relevance of the knowledge early.
how will students know that they can? Then may find out from their teachers or from other students. Students need to be cognisant of the need for effort on their part as an important adjunct to their own natural ability and the help of others. Teachers need to set 'problems' which are clear, challenging and relevant and to know now much support should be provided for students to learn through solving the problem.
Morning session ended with the the results carried out by two students of a student survey on I care / I can carried out at Temasek Polytechnic.
questions include 'for me, the person who usually drives my learning are -- students themselves (70%) with lecturers, parents etc. very much less
'I will accept the diploma if offered to me right now without any work or courses' 90% said NO.
Reasons for answers include I need to acquire the necessary knowledge/skills (60%), i do not feel right to recieve something for nothing, studying gives sense of satisfaction.
how confident are students when they first start? - 90% confident
ability to succeed is within your control - almost 80% strongly agree
factors which help students succeed? Students efford almost 80%, both lecturers & student support also important.
most important factor which motivates learning? acquiring knowledge & getting good job around 35%.
students require relevance of studies to future career - yes.
therefore students care about acquiring knowledge /skills, they are confident and willing to work and if shown relevance of content will maintain motivation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)