《LINFostering a Student Centred Learning Experience Conference Proceedings.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《LINFostering a Student Centred Learning Experience Conference Proceedings.doc（163页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、LIN 2008Fostering a Student Centred Learning ExperienceConference Proceedings10th October, 2008AcknowledgementsThe LIN 2008 Conference Organising Committee (Chair: Nuala Harding, John Murphy, Brian Bennett, Attracta Brennan, Noel Fitzpatrick and Mary Fox) would like to thank the following;o Marion C
2、oy (President of GMIT) - Welcome Addresso Fergal Costello (HEA) - Opening Addresso Frank McMahon (Director of Academic Affairs, DIT) - Introduction to Keynote Speakerso Ray Land, Richard Thorn and Sarah Moore - Keynote Addresseso Gerry Murray (IOTI) - Plenary Session Coordinatoro Brian Bennett Confe
3、rence Closeo Anne Jordan, Joe Ryan and Jen Harvey Theme Chairso Rosemary Cooper, Anne Carpenter and Nuala Harding RapporteursMeeting of Minds This sculpture - which was presented to all of the keynotes - also reflected the theme of the LIN 2008 Conference. http:/celtic-Conference Committee & Reviewe
4、rsReviewersNuala Harding ChairKevin ORourkeBrian BennettVincent FarrellJohn MurphyRoisin DonnellyNoel FitzpatrickDeclan KennedyAttracta BrennanLiam BoyleMary FoxMarion PalmerBrian BennettCatherine BruenJohn DallatMarian FitzmauriceMartina CrehanThe Learning Innovation Network ProjectThe Learning Inn
5、ovation Network (LIN) project is a three year collaborative project between the 13 Irish Institutes of Technology and DIT. Funded by the Strategic Innovation Fund (Cycle 1) LIN is one of five stands within the project “The Institutes of Technology Sector Learning Network Delivering Systemic Change”.
6、 The goals of the LIN project are as follows, To scope the parameters of an agreed Academic Development Programme To provide a centrally coordinated repository service and portal To develop a model for a National Excellence in Learning and Teaching Awards system LIN is led by joint strand leaders, M
7、arion Coy (President of GMIT) and Dr. Frank McMahon (Director of Academic Affairs, DIT). ContentsPage6Foreword by Ray Land11Keynote SpeakersTheme 1: Innovations in Teaching and Learning14Unfolding Stories: Shifting from Teacher Centred Delivery to Student Centred Learning - Mairead McCann, Una Manni
8、on & Susan Leonard.31Advanced Learning and Adaptive Problem Solving Techniques: Practical Lessons from Cognitive Science - David Delany & Lorraine Boran.43Interactive Large Group Teaching and Feedback Mechanism - Oliver Joyce.52Guidelines for Teaching Chinese Students in Irish Classrooms: Perspectiv
9、es from Chinese Teachers on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education - Karen Bunyan.Theme 2: Working within a Modular Environment61Exploring Teaching in Institutes of Technology - Marion Palmer.76Learning to Walk in a Modularised World: A Review of Modularised Programme Development in GMIT - Colm K
10、elleher.84Mentoring Initiatives, Modules and Tools for Developing NFQ Competences in Modular Environments - Etain Kiely, John Kavanagh & John McGuckin.95The Contribution of Personal Development Planning in a Modularised Environment: An Account of PDP in the B.A. in Applied Social Studies Programme -
11、 Deirdre Scott.Theme 3: Assessment within a Modular Environment107Project Based Learning: The Experiences Encountered - Cathy OKelly & Lisa Dunne.114Demystifying Assessment for Learning - Kathryn Mc Sweeney.125A Study of Lecturers and Learners Perceptions and Experiences of Group Project Assessment
12、- Carmel Brennan.147Assessing Student Placement: A Study of the Assessment of Placements amongst Undergraduate Dietetic Students in Ireland - Maria Bowles.ForewordProfessor Ray Land, Director, Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of StrathclydeThis collection of papers f
13、rom the first conference of the Learning Innovation Network draws on national and international perspectives, and, through its integrating theme of Fostering a Student-Centred Learning Experience, engages with topics of increasing salience to the daily experience of both our students and our staff i
14、n contemporary higher education. The world in which our students are currently studying, and in which, as the first generation of 21st century graduates, they will soon be practising, is one characterised by complexity, by volatile change, and by rapid and massive flows of information. Our graduates
15、 face professional environments characterised by uncertainty and unpredictability, by risk and speed, and in which they will need to handle complex problems and find creative approaches as confident autonomous and resilient individuals. In the light of this, the three keynote addresses by Ray Land,
16、Richard Thorn and Sarah Moore framed the conference discussions by drawing attention, respectively, to issues of transformational learning, lifelong learning for the workforce, and innovative developments to promote active learning. The conference papers gathered here examine various crucial aspects
17、 of this rapidly changing environment. There is a timely discussion of the role of personal development planning (PDP) as a means of fostering and capturing within curricula the kinds of graduate attributes our students will need in such a world. Deirdre Scotts account of PDP in an Applied Social St
18、udies programme emphasises the need to ensure that students understand the benefits of developing such attributes in a competitive world which continually demands innovation and flexibility. As one third year student commented: I found it difficult to rate myself against qualities and skills and yet
19、 when it came to placement preparation and job applications I found it useful. Central to any configuration of graduate attributes for the next generation of higher education students will be critical thinking, reflective capacity and learner self-regulation. Within these conference proceedings we f
20、ind a range of innovative approaches to these issues that promote transformative pedagogies and new approaches to assessment. Emphasis is placed also on learner responsibility and interaction, and the fostering of active dialogue and positive relationships between teacher and learner. Mairead McCann
21、, Una Mannion and Susan Leonard investigate the experience of both teachers and learners in the shift from teacher centred delivery to student centred learning. They point to the self-validation, validation of others and peer-learning that can occur when learners are given pedagogical autonomy. As o
22、ne of the learners reflects:The group thing for me allows people to act as individuals. Rather than be the taught student, theyre actually coming up with their own conclusions As I said, I could be the worst student in the class but I might have great ideas but I dont have the confidence to say it a
23、nd a group thing like that allows me to say, well, I can do it.In her exploration of teachers and teaching within Irish Institutes of Technology, however, Marion Palmer reminds us that though the story of teaching in the Institutes is one where teaching is liked and even loved, nonetheless it is oft
24、en still learned on the job, and for some it can be an accidental career which makes the appropriate preparation for the teaching component of the lecturer job difficult prior to entry. One of her respondents captures the pressures faced by teachers in the modular structures of contemporary higher e
25、ducation, commenting:The environment in which we work is changing, classes are bigger, more international students, students may be academically weaker, most work up to 20 hours in part-time jobs and this leads to huge pressures on them, more and more of my time is taken up running my course, and de
26、veloping new courses to compete in the industry it leaves little time to think about your teaching and give more to that. More training is required and easier access to that training.Part of such pressure stems from the larger student numbers the increasing massification with which lecturers now hav
27、e to contend. One managerial means of coping with such trends is to modularise curricula. In his paper Colm Kelleher has analysed the recurring issues that arose from the redesign and transformation of 27 programmes into modularised form. He identifies fragmentation in programmes as a common design
28、fault, the need to move from a content focus to a student-centred focus in module design, and to match National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) levels to learning outcomes. Significant further problems were the increased number of assessments that can arise, the convergence of assessment deadlines
29、 so that they occur nearly simultaneously, ambitious workloads, and the complexities of choice and flexibility that modularised schemes can present. Balance in design emerges as a key consideration for effective practice as well as staff training to develop staff expertise and confidence in programm
30、e (re)design.As indicated in the preceding paragraph the development of NFQ competences forms a substantial part of the curricula of the Institutes of Technology. Developing effective pedagogies to help learners achieve levels of competence through student-centred approaches is the focus of the stud
31、y by Etain Kiely, John Kavanagh and John McGuckin. They identify varied approaches to mentoring as a potentially productive way forward in this regard. Mentoring, they argue, can foster a student-centred learning experience by enabling the learner to identify, capture and reflect on collaborative le
32、arning experiences with mutual benefits reported by both mentors and mentees. It achieves these ends by foregrounding encouragement, active listening, partnership commitment, constructive feedback, co-enquiry, mutual trust, respect and a willingness to learn and share. The mentoring initiatives disc
33、ussed by these authors have led to the provision of a wide variety of tools to support and evaluate mentoring practices elsewhere. These include mapping techniques, multimedia resources, learning agreements, online journals and portfolio systems, mentor packs, guides, toolkits, handbooks and mentor
34、surveys. Amongst the repertoire of attributes that any 21st century graduate will require there will undoubtedly need to be a capacity for problem formulation and problem solving. David Delaney and Lorraine Boran, in their study of adaptive problem solving techniques in cognitive science, present a
35、novel theoretical framework of educational objectives the Advanced Critical Thinking (ACT) Framework. They characterise it as a “conceptual scaffold” for integrating and structuring the logical and metacognitive (reflective) skills characteristic of adaptive expertise. A further key requirement will
36、 be the capacity of our graduates to work effectively and creatively in teams and to manage projects within those teams. Part of the responsiveness and adaptiveness of all our graduates to the complexity and change mentioned earlier is the capacity to manage inter-group and intra-group interaction.
37、This is a crucial attribute of any 21st century graduate, and the need to foster effective collaborative practice to overcome conflict within interprofessional relationships is pressing. Cathy OKelly and Lisa Dunne analyse the experiences encountered by Business Studies students engaged in project-b
38、ased learning (PjBL), noting that Some students may take the direct route, whereas others may take the scenic route to achieve their outcomes. Nonetheless PjBL provided a forum for the development of skills on a number of levels, to the benefit of all learners. As one Business student commented, It
39、is the best way to put theory learned in the classroom into practice. Carmel Brennan in her analysis of lecturers and learners perceptions of group project assessments (GPAs) in Business subjects concludes that GPAs can potentially incorporate many of the desired skills including collaboration, inte
40、r-personal communication, conflict resolution, negotiation, time management, planning and co-ordination. However she reminds us that the effectiveness and extent of skills development depends on the assessment design and process, and particularly its validity. Problems can arise with constructive (m
41、is)alignment and methodologies of grading. A specific issue arises in relation to how individual grading can be accommodated within the grading of group processes, and these processes, she observes, might benefit from consultation with students during the grading process.Our graduates world is also
42、an increasingly globalised world. Karen Bunyans study of issues that can surface when teaching Chinese students in Irish classrooms identifies a range of factors that Irish teachers will need to consider when teaching international classes. These include: teaching methods, such as group work, that m
43、ight be unfamiliar to students from radically different cultures; the shift required in Irish higher education from passive to active learning; matters related to different genres and conventions of academic writing; as well as more generic matters of coping with living independently, and learning t
44、o cope with a different language and a variety of new accents. One powerful way of developing professional capacity for the workplace, as well as enhancing independent learning and project-based skills of inquiry, is through students experience of work-based learning. The placement experience of pos
45、tgraduates in Irish higher education can give rise to complex challenges and the additional pressures placed upon students, mentors and employers can be considerable. A major consideration is the complicated business of how one adequately assesses the learning that has taken place in such settings.
46、Maria Bowles analysis of the assessment of undergraduate Dietetic students whilst on placement is testament to the difficulty of Providing fair and objective assessment which confirms progression in skill development. This is not helped by assessment tools that are often cumbersome to use, and by a
47、lack of clear criteria for each of the stages of training. There is variation in interpretations, she argues, difficulty giving feedback, lack of definitions of terms. Three clear strategies are identified as the basis for a future programme of research and development in this area a need for standa
48、rdisation, validation of the assessment tools used, and the training of trainers. Assessment is rightly given strong emphasis in these proceedings as a major determinant of the quality of our students learning and a crucial dimension of their student experience. Kathryn McSweeney, in her demystification of assessment, repeatedly stresses that assessment is primarily for learning
