1. Constructivism Martin Valcke Martin.Valcke@UGent.be http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

2. Structure Activity 1: Successful learning Jonassen & constructivism Activity 2: Collaborative learning prep Scripting Activity 3: Application of scripting

3. Activity 1 Describe your most successful teaching & learning experience Cluster keywords on flipover

4. Constructivism: Jonassen (1994)

5. Active/manipulative Constructive Intentional Complex Contextualized Reflective Conversational Collaborative

6. Manipulative

7. Constructive

8. Intentional

9. Complex http://neurosurgery.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=774

10. Contextualized

11. Reflective

12. Conversational

13. Collaborative

14. Collaborative work Activity 2: positive and negative experiences with group work Structure: learner, group, task related

15. Collaborative learning: conditions 15 Slavin (1996) Johnson & Johnson (1996)

16. 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. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22

23. 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. 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. 25

26. 26 CSCL scripting: roles Content roles: –Pharmacyst –Pharmacyst assistant –Theorist –Researcher –Intern Communication roles: –Moderator –Question-asker –Summarizer –Source researcher

27. 27

28. 28 Exchange

29. 29 ICS Integrated Curriculum Score

30. 30 LKC Level knowledge Construction

31. 31 CSCL scripting: tagging

32. 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. 33 CSCL scripting: tagging Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking: –Problem identification –Problem definition –Problem exploration –Problem evaluation/ applicability –Problem integration

34. 34 De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats Critical ThinkingThinking hats Problem identificationWhite hat Problem definitionBlue hat Problem explorationGreen hat Problem applicabilityBlack hat Problem integrationYellow hat Red hat

35. 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. 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)

37. 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)

38. Activity 3 Develop “role” or “script” that could guide collaborative work in the collaborative execution of a medical task/activity

39. Constructivism Martin Valcke Martin.Valcke@UGent.be http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm