249 resultados para subject-based teaching and learning
Resumo:
This study explored the relationship among student approaches to learning and teaching methods on critical thinking in two business units. Key findings included differences in critical thinking scores between student approaches to learning and some evidence of an interaction between student approaches to learning and critical thinking teach method (immersion vs. infusion). Possible explanations for the results are examined and implications for developing critical thinking skills across a degree discussed. What is apparent is that as Universities move towards program-wide level assessment of critical thinking, further work is required in terms of the design of critical thinking teaching interventions and assessment at the unit, school, and degree level. The session will discuss the challenges in developing critical thinking programs in individual units and at the Faculty level.
Resumo:
The ubiquity of multimodality in hypermedia environments is undeniable. Bezemer and Kress (2008) have argued that writing has been displaced by image as the central mode for representation. Given the current technical affordances of digital technology and user-friendly interfaces that enable the ease of multimodal design, the conspicuous absence of images in certain domains of cyberspace is deserving of critical analysis. In this presentation, I examine the politics of discourses implicit within hypertextual spaces, drawing textual examples from a higher education website. I critically examine the role of writing and other modes of production used in what Fairclough (1993) refers to as discourses of marketisation in higher education, tracing four pervasive discourses of teaching and learning in the current economy: i) materialization, ii) personalization, iii) technologisation, and iv) commodification (Fairclough, 1999). Each of these arguments is supported by the critical analysis of multimodal texts. The first is a podcast highlighting the new architectonic features of a university learning space. The second is a podcast and transcript of a university Open Day interview with prospective students. The third is a time-lapse video showing the construction of a new science and engineering precinct. These three multimodal texts contrast a final web-based text that exhibits a predominance of writing and the powerful absence or silencing of the image. I connect the weightiness of words and the function of monomodality in the commodification of discourses, and its resistance to the multimodal affordances of web-based technologies, and how this is used to establish particular sets of subject positions and ideologies through which readers are constrained to occupy. Applying principles of critical language study by theorists that include Fairclough, Kress, Lemke, and others whose semiotic analysis of texts focuses on the connections between language, power, and ideology, I demonstrate how the denial of image and the privileging of written words in the multimodality of cyberspace is an ideological effect to accentuate the dominance of the institution.
Resumo:
Process-oriented thinking has become the major paradigm for managing companies and other organizations. The push for better processes has been even more intense due to rapidly evolving client needs, borderless global markets and innovations swiftly penetrating the market. Thus, education is decisive for successfully introducing and implementing Business Process Management (BPM) initiatives. However, BPM education has been an area of challenge. This special issue aims to provide current research on various aspects of BPM education. It is an initial effort for consolidating better practices, experiences and pedagogical outcomes founded with empirical evidence to contribute towards the three pillars of education: learning, teaching, and disseminating knowledge in BPM.
Resumo:
Reflection is an essential part of being an effective learner and working as a productive teacher. It enables the learner or teacher to deliberate about the factors that lead to successful learning and teaching for them and/or their students, in a particular place and for a specific purpose, so they can make reasoned and effective choices. This chapter introduces important frameworks that cover a century of thinking around reflection in education, and illustrates how preservice teachers can use these ideas across three phases. First, becoming a reflective learner as a university student to enhance learning and assessment outcomes; second, becoming a reflective teacher to improve classroom teaching and learning outcomes; and third, developing the reflective capacities of primary students so they can enhance their skills for lifelong learning.
Resumo:
Australian universities are currently engaging with new governmental policies and regulations that require them to demonstrate enhanced quality and accountability in teaching and research. The development of national academic standards for learning outcomes in higher education is one such instance of this drive for excellence. These discipline-specific standards articulate the minimum, or Threshold Learning Outcomes, to be addressed by higher education institutions so that graduating students can demonstrate their achievement to their institutions, accreditation agencies, and industry recruiters. This impacts not only on the design of Engineering courses (with particular emphasis on pedagogy and assessment), but also on the preparation of academics to engage with these standards and implement them in their day-to-day teaching practice on a micro level. This imperative for enhanced quality and accountability in teaching is also significant at a meso level, for according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 25 per cent of teachers in Australian universities are aged 55 and above and more than 54 per cent are aged 45 and above (ABS, 2006). A number of institutions have undertaken recruitment drives to regenerate and enrich their academic workforce by appointing capacity-building research professors and increasing the numbers of early- and mid-career academics. This nationally driven agenda for quality and accountability in teaching permeates also the micro level of engineering education, since the demand for enhanced academic standards and learning outcomes requires both a strong advocacy for a shift to an authentic, collaborative, outcomes-focused education and the mechanisms to support academics in transforming their professional thinking and practice. Outcomes-focused education means giving greater attention to the ways in which the curriculum design, pedagogy, assessment approaches and teaching activities can most effectively make a positive, verifiable difference to students’ learning. Such education is authentic when it is couched firmly in the realities of learning environments, student and academic staff characteristics, and trustworthy educational research. That education will be richer and more efficient when staff works collaboratively, contributing their knowledge, experience and skills to achieve learning outcomes based on agreed objectives. We know that the school or departmental levels of universities are the most effective loci of changes in approaches to teaching and learning practices in higher education (Knight & Trowler, 2000). Heads of Schools are being increasingly entrusted with more responsibilities - in addition to setting strategic directions and managing the operational and sometimes financial aspects of their school, they are also expected to lead the development and delivery of the teaching, research and other academic activities. Guiding and mentoring individuals and groups of academics is one critical aspect of the Head of School’s role. Yet they do not always have the resources or support to help them mentor staff, especially the more junior academics. In summary, the international trend in undergraduate engineering course accreditation towards the demonstration of attainment of graduate attributes poses new challenges in addressing academic staff development needs and the assessment of learning. This paper will give some insights into the conceptual design, implementation and empirical effectiveness to date, of a Fellow-In-Residence Engagement (FIRE) program. The program is proposed as a model for achieving better engagement of academics with contemporary issues and effectively enhancing their teaching and assessment practices. It will also report on the program’s collaborative approach to working with Heads of Schools to better support academics, especially early-career ones, by utilizing formal and informal mentoring. Further, the paper will discuss possible factors that may assist the achievement of the intended outcomes of such a model, and will examine its contributions to engendering an outcomes-focussed thinking in engineering education.
Resumo:
This paper provides a contextual reflection for understanding best practice teaching to first year design students. The outcome (job) focused approach to higher education has lead to some unanticipated collateral damage for students, and in the case we discuss, has altered the students’ expectations of course delivery with specific implications and challenges for design educators. This tendency in educational delivery systems is further compounded by the distinct characteristics of Generation Y students within a classroom context. It is our belief that foundational design education must focus more on process than outcomes, and through this research with first year design students we analyse and raise questions relative to the curriculum for a Design and Creative Thinking course—in which students not only benefit from learning the theories and processes of design thinking, conceptualisation and creativity, but also are encouraged to see it as an essential tool for their education and development as designers. This study considers the challenges within a design environment; specifically, we address the need for process based learning in contrast to the outcome-focused approach taken by most students. The authors base their reflections on teaching design students at a university in Queensland, Australia.
Resumo:
An increasing emphasis on embedding Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) in the curriculum has impacted on teaching and learning approaches in Australian higher education institutions (Higher Education Base Funding Review: Final Report, 2011). Yet whilst the benefits and costs of these approaches have been identified (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008; Patrick et al., 2009) insufficient attention has been paid to financial costs experienced by students studying subjects with a Work Integrated Learning component. In 2010 the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) responded to this issue by offering three modest student scholarships based on evidence of hardship. Data collected from over 1000 applicants between 2010 and 2012 indicate travel, accommodation, food, clothing, equipment and loss of income are of major concern especially for students on lengthy placements involving relocation. At the same time the Australian Federal Government’s review of base funding has recommended a detailed assessment of the costs of providing student placements across all disciplines - in particular health and education (DEEWR, 2011, p.94). This paper considers costs from the student perspective and highlights major concerns identified through ACEN scholarship applications over a three year period. The implications for ACEN are described and recommendations documented which outline ACEN’s role in ensuring that these issues are given greater consideration across the sector.
Resumo:
The implementation of systematic peer review as a professional development activity, and as a support for educational design activities is under-utilised in many Australian higher education institutions. This case study reports on the first stages of planning and implementation of an institution-wide project to enhance teaching and learning quality at a remote and regional university, where one of the major strategies for improvement is peer review. Through a systematic process of staff engagement in peer review, within and from outside the organisation, a substantial change in flexible learning is envisaged. A mix of new and different learning spaces are to be used in the project, including blended learning spaces for academic development. This paper describes the research framework that will guide the peer review process and examines the early findings of the design-based research. Leadership, awareness raising and development of a supportive community of inquiry are seen as key components for successful implementation of peer review. In addition, unique contextual elements add to the complexity of designing for transformative change within such a relatively new organization.
Resumo:
Advancing the development of good practice around the teaching team has been the focus of a recently completed, nationally funded Australian grant entitled Coordinators Leading Advancement of Sessional Staff (CLASS). The project focused on developing leadership capacity of subject coordinators to provide supportive contexts for sessional staff to enhance their knowledge of teaching practice and contribute to subject improvement through a team approach. An action learning approach and notions of distributed leadership underpinned the activities of the teaching teams in the program. This paper provides an overview of a practical approach, led by the subject coordinator, to engaging sessional staff through the facilitation of a supportive network within the teaching team. It addresses some of the gaps identified in the recent literature which includes lack of role clarity for all members of the team and provides some examples of initiatives that teams engaged with to address some of the challenges identified. Resources to support this approach were developed and are shared through the project website. Recommendations for future direction include improved policy and practice at the institutional level, better recognition and reward for subject coordinators and resourcing to support the participation and professional development needs of sessional staff.
Resumo:
As teacher/researchers interested in the pursuit of socially-just outcomes in early childhood education, the form and function of language occupies a special position in our work. We believe that mastering a range of literacy competences includes not only the technical skills for learning, but also the resources for viewing and constructing the world (Freire and Macdeo, 1987). Rather than seeing knowledge about language as the accumulation of technical skills alone, the viewpoint to which we subscribe treats knowledge about language as a dialectic that evolves from, is situated in, and contributes to a social arena (Halliday, 1978). We do not shy away from this position just because children are in the early years of schooling. In ‘Playing with Grammar’, we focus on the Foundation to Year 2 grouping, in line with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (hereafter ACARA) advice on the ‘nature of learners’ (ACARA, 2013). With our focus on the early years of schooling comes our acknowledgement of the importance and complexity of play. At a time where accountability in education has moved many teachers to a sense of urgency to prove language and literacy achievement (Genishi and Dyson, 2009), we encourage space to revisit what we know about literature choices and learning experiences and bring these together to facilitate language learning. We can neither ignore, nor overemphasise, the importance of play for the development of language through: the opportunities presented for creative use and practice; social interactions for real purposes; and, identifying and solving problems in the lives of young children (Marsh and Hallet, 2008). We argue that by engaging young children in opportunities to play with language we are ultimately empowering them to be active in their language learning and in the process fostering a love of language and the intricacies it holds. Our goal in this publication is to provide a range of highly practical strategies for scaffolding young children through some of the Content Descriptions from the Australian Curriculum English Version 5.0, hereafter AC:E V5.0 (ACARA, 2013). This recently released curriculum offers a new theoretical approach to building children’s knowledge about language. The AC:E V5.0 uses selected traditional terms through an approach developed in systemic functional linguistics (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004) to highlight the dynamic forms and functions of multimodal language in texts. For example, the following statement, taken from the ‘Language: Knowing about the English language’ strand states: English uses standard grammatical terminology within a contextual framework, in which language choices are seen to vary according to the topics at hand, the nature and proximity of the relationships between the language users, and the modalities or channels of communication available (ACARA, 2013). Put simply, traditional grammar terms are used within a functional framework made up of field, tenor, and mode. An understanding of genre is noted with the reference to a ‘contextual framework’. The ‘topics at hand’ concern the field or subject matter of the text. The ‘relationships between the language users’ is a description of tenor. There is reference to ‘modalities’, such as spoken, written or visual text. We posit that this innovative approach is necessary for working with contemporary multimodal and cross-cultural texts (see Exley and Mills, 2012). We believe there is enormous power in using literature to expose children to the richness of language and in turn develop language and literacy skills. Taking time to look at language patterns within actual literature is a pathway to ‘…capture interest, stir the imagination and absorb the [child]’ into the world of language and literacy (Saxby, 1993, p. 55). In the following three sections, we have tried to remain faithful to our interpretation of the AC:E V5.0 Content Descriptions without giving an exhaustive explanation of the grammatical terms. Other excellent tomes, such as Derewianka (2011), Humphrey, Droga and Feez (2012), and Rossbridge and Rushton (2011) provide these more comprehensive explanations as does the AC:E V5.0 Glossary. We’ve reproduced some of the AC:E V5.0 glossary at the end of this publication. Our focus is on the structure and unfolding of the learning experiences. We outline strategies for working with children in Foundation, Year 1 and Year 2 by providing some demonstration learning experiences based on texts we’ve selected, but maintain that the affordances of these strategies will only be realised when teaching and learning is purposively tied to authentic projects in local contexts. We strongly encourage you not to use only the resource texts we’ve selected, but to capitalise upon your skill for identifying the language features in the texts you and the children are studying and adapt some of the strategies we have outlined. Each learning experience is connected to one of the Content Descriptions from the AC:E V5.0 and contains an experience specific purpose, a suggested resource text and a sequence for the experience that always commences with an orientation to text followed by an examination of a particular grammatical resource. We expect that each of these learning experiences will take a couple if not a few teaching episodes to work through, especially if children are meeting a concept for the first time. We hope you use as much, or as little, of each experience as is needed. Our plans allow for focused discussion, shared exploration and opportunities to revisit the same text for the purpose of enhancing meaning making. We do not want the teaching of grammar to slip into a crisis of irrelevance or to be seen as a series of worksheet drills with finite answers. Strategies for effective practice, however, have much portability. We are both very keen to hear from teachers who are adopting and adapting these learning experiences in their classrooms. Please email us on b.exley@qut.edu.au or lkervin@uow.edu.au. We’d love to continue the conversation with you over time.
Resumo:
Do you need a practical guide to assessment, curriculum and policy? Are you also looking for a book that is firmly grounded in the theory of this subject? Assessment for Education combines both theory and practice, making it the perfect guide for students, researchers, academics and teachers. This book makes assessment processes transparent for practitioners, and shows how assessment should relate to education. It looks at evidence-informed decision-making and the interrelationships between standards, judgment and moderation practice for improved assessment, teacher quality, schools and systems. The book will provide you with: ' Knowledge about quality assessment and judgement practice ' Understanding of relationships across curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning ' Knowledge of the concept of front-ending assessment based on the learner's needs ' An analysis of practitioner judgement approaches ' Understanding of the conditions under which teacher assessment can be valid ' Principles derived from research of social moderation practices Whether you are studying and researching assessment or working in curriculum and assessment policy, this book will show you how practitioner use of achievement standards can improve learning, equity, social justice and accountability.
Resumo:
There is currently a wide range of research into the recent introduction of student response systems in higher education and tertiary settings (Banks 2006; Kay and Le Sange, 2009; Beatty and Gerace 2009; Lantz 2010; Sprague and Dahl 2009). However, most of this pedagogical literature has generated ‘how to’ approaches regarding the use of ‘clickers’, keypads, and similar response technologies. There are currently no systematic reviews on the effectiveness of ‘GoSoapBox’ – a more recent, and increasingly popular student response system – for its capacity to enhance critical thinking, and achieve sustained learning outcomes. With rapid developments in teaching and learning technologies across all undergraduate disciplines, there is a need to obtain comprehensive, evidence-based advice on these types of technologies, their uses, and overall efficacy. This paper addresses this current gap in knowledge. Our teaching team, in an undergraduate Sociology and Public Health unit at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), introduced GoSoapBox as a mechanism for discussing controversial topics, such as sexuality, gender, economics, religion, and politics during lectures, and to take opinion polls on social and cultural issues affecting human health. We also used this new teaching technology to allow students to interact with each other during class – both on both social and academic topics – and to generate discussions and debates during lectures. The paper reports on a data-driven study into how this interactive online tool worked to improve engagement and the quality of academic work produced by students. This paper will firstly, cover the recent literature reviewing student response systems in tertiary settings. Secondly, it will outline the theoretical framework used to generate this pedagogical research. In keeping with the social and collaborative features of Web 2.0 technologies, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (SLT) will be applied here to investigate the effectiveness of GoSoapBox as an online tool for improving learning experiences and the quality of academic output by students. Bandura has emphasised the Internet as a tool for ‘self-controlled learning’ (Bandura 2001), as it provides the education sector with an opportunity to reconceptualise the relationship between learning and thinking (Glassman & Kang 2011). Thirdly, we describe the methods used to implement the use of GoSoapBox in our lectures and tutorials, and which aspects of the technology we drew on for learning purposes, as well as the methods for obtaining feedback from the students about the effectiveness or otherwise of this tool. Fourthly, we report cover findings from an examination of all student/staff activity on GoSoapBox as well as reports from students about the benefits and limitations of it as a learning aid. We then display a theoretical model that is produced via an iterative analytical process between SLT and our data analysis for use by academics and teachers across the undergraduate curriculum. The model has implications for all teachers considering the use of student response systems to improve the learning experiences of their students. Finally, we consider some of the negative aspects of GoSoapBox as a learning aid.
Resumo:
The purpose of this research is to examine School Based Youth Health Nurses experience of partnerships for health education and team teaching. The School Based Youth Health Nurse Program is a contemporary model of school nursing in Queensland, Australia. The role of the School Based Youth Health Nurse consists of individual health consultations and health promotion. This research analyses a subset of qualitative data collected for a larger project about the experience of school based youth health nursing. The Health Promoting Schools model is used as a deductive framework. The findings reveal five subthemes across the three areas of the Health Promoting Schools approach. There are two subthemes within the curriculum, teaching and learning area; We were on the same page so to speak and I can go and do my reports or whatever. There are two sub-themes within the partnerships and services area; I had a beautiful science teacher who was just delightful and really just wanted to do things in partnerships and It’s all airy fairy arty farty stuff that’s not important. There is one theme in the school organisation, ethos and environment area; I just don’t know how well the top of these organisations communicate with the bottom of those organisations. Successful partnerships for health education and team teaching between school nurses and teachers are based on personal relationships based on rapport which lead to trust and reciprocity. Partnerships are limited by teachers understanding of the role of the school nurse and engagement with school nurses in the classroom. Administrative support from the top down is fundamental.
Resumo:
Analogy plays a central role in legal reasoning, yet how to analogize is poorly taught and poorly practiced. We all recognize when legal analogies are being made: when a law professor suggests a difficult hypothetical in class and a student tentatively guesses at the answer based on the cases she read the night before, when an attorney advises a client to settle because a previous case goes against him, or when a judge adopts one precedent over another on the basis that it better fits the present case. However, when it comes to explaining why certain analogies are compelling, persuasive, or better than the alternative, lawyers usually draw a blank. The purpose of this article is to provide a simple model that can be used to teach and to learn how analogy actually works, and what makes one analogy superior to a competing analogy. The model is drawn from a number of theories of analogy making in cognitive science. Cognitive science is the “long-term enterprise to understand the mind scientifically.” The field studies the mechanisms that are involved in cognitive processes like thinking, memory, learning, and recall; and one of its main foci has been on how people construct analogies. The lessons from cognitive science theories of analogy can be applied to legal analogies to give students and lawyers a better understanding of this fundamental process in legal reasoning.