Article Rant Module 3

http://www.wiseinkblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock_Angry_Woman_in_Comic_Book_Styl_25804979.jpg

The Trouble with learning outcomes (Hussey, T and Smith, P) was...an interesting read, I guess is how I'd describe it.  I found the language used almost agressive.  Closing the first paragraph with "there are maggots in the apple" was a bit off putting.  And to be honest I haven't come away from the article thinking about learning outcomes and their downfalls or their virtues.  I'm just wondering who's taken these guys to task over their performance at work to the point they have written this article (I'm guessing some one didn't like their LO)!

I think maybe their view of LO is too black and white.  I don't think having to be accountable for how and what you teach means you aren't trusted, I just think there is stakeholders involved that need to see that there's standards being met.  Not just managers, but the students too.

I see the point of LO potentially just telling you the minimal standard.  But I think that is where a marking rubric is linked accordingly to the LO and assessment peices.  And in the rubric, there needs to be room for those unintentional and additional outcomes of learning, which show cirtical thinking and thought construction and linking of new ideas. I guess it's all the wording of how the LO is viewed in the rubric.  That would be the difference between a HD, D and scraping through.

I've found LO useful to see what is expected of students so I know how to arrange my lesson plans to facilitate achievement.  I don't stop at the LO though.  I look to engage them with the material so that the knowledge and learning that has lead to that LO used a deep approach, they explored new ideas that may not be that exact outcome, but braodens their thoughts and enhances experience.  I have however been confused by the occasional outcome when I don't see how's it measureable.  And if I'm confused then the students would be too.  But that's just the difference between and well writtenal and aligned learning out come with a poorly done won.

MODULE TWO TEACHING INTO PRACTICE REFLECTION

 

Before I commence my review of a Nursing Skills Unit outline, I do have to tip my hat to those that have done it.  On the background of all the reading and viewing that I’ve done for Module Two…curriculum mapping for constructive alignment (CA) is so complex!  But as academics, that’s our job.  And putting in all this hard work is so graduates can take excellent skills and knowledge out into the ‘real world’ and contribute with confidence and be workforce ready.

As I mentioned in my discussion board post, I can see the work that has gone into CA this unit within the course.  An introduction with how knowledge and skills previously gained will be developed upon within this unit and they will be able to take these into their next unit (practicum).  Showing where they have come from and where they are going is grounded in constructivist the theory. 

 

The Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO), are clear and have good use of high level verbs which lead to suggest deep situational approach learning is to be used.  One thing I would say about them though it…they are labelled UNIT LEARNING OUTCOMES.  I’d like to see them more reflective of who’s learning it is.  STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES or even INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES, gives the ownership of those outcomes to the learners. 

There is 4 ILO, and the 4^th is related to how these skills/knowledge will be used in the next unit.  Therefore this is only measurable in the next unit.  I don’t believe this should be an ILO for this unit.  The introduction linking this unit to the next is enough.

 

The graduate & professional attributes are tabled and clear.  When the assessments are outlined, each displays how they are linked to the different ILO & graduate attributes.  I like that this shows the alignment of these three elements.  The only thing that concerns me is, it seems to put the focus on the assessment and how everything is linked to that.  On review of John Biggs’ CA, most articles and books have the focus on the ILO and then you look at how learning environments/tasks and assessments fit to that.  I would like to see the ILO tabled as they are, but with relationship to the graduate attributes and assessments on the side.  Showing the focus is on the learning.

 

	Student learning outcome	Related to Graduate Attribute No	Related to Assessment  No
1	Apply knowledge to skills in the clinical setting using critical thinking and problem solving skills	1,2,4,6,9	1,2,3,4
2	Demonstrate the ability to calculate, prepare and safely administer medications to clients.  Evidence an understanding of side effects and contraindications of those medicines	2,3,4,5,&7	3,4

What I do like, and actually hadn’t noted before was that there is clear reference to Nursing’s governing body and how the unit aligns with this.    It gives students the knowledge that this course if professionally recognised and in line with national standards.

Having taught other units within the same semester, I can see how they have aligned, but what concerns me, particularly after reading Curtin university’s curriculum mapping framework is repetition.  Stated in the Curtin article, was that mapping was to prevent repetition of material in units and to avoid gaps.  I do believe some of the units come within the scope of repetition.  Reading some lectures, I’ve had to check which unit it is as I was going through, because the material was the same as I’d read in a different unit.  Cross over of material is at times required, it shows the practical application between theory based units with practical ones, but the information should be presented with the focus  within the units.  So students don’t feel their time is being wasted in repeat lectures.

 

So ultimately what do I think?  I think the hard work of curriculum mapping in line with CA is evident.  But there may be room for improvement.  I am aware that at the end of each semester, tutors and students are asked for feedback regarding the units.  Also feedback from clinical placements is taken on board. And I’m pleased to see how feedback has been used to change some structure in units.    This shows that external stakeholders are also used to increase the CA of not just this unit, but the  nursing course.

 

 

Module two thinking and thoughts...

John Biggs Blog entry that I read…simple, concise and really…why hadn’t anyone else really brought this forward before (yes I know there’s Piaget etc ), it’s the constructive alignment I’m talking about.

For me this blog entry is really highlighting where to start in curriculum design.  What do you want students to learn ILO.  And then work the learning activities and assessment from there.  Makes sense.

Focus is on the students and what they do, not what the teachers do.

Simple, I like it.

Again this student focus was highlighting in the reading on Constructive Alignment - and why it isimportant to the learning process

With the students in the centre of your curriculum map, you then align your assessment and planned learning activities so that the students can construct meaning from what they are doing, and achieve ILO.

All of the above make it sound simple.  But having looked at curriculum mapping and having a go at just aligning my unit…it’s not easy.

 

Curtin University’s Mapping curricula:ensuring work-ready graduates by mapping course learning outcomes and higherorder thinking skills again emphasis what I’ve been reading and highlights the complexity of course mapping.  I do like though how they have come up with a structure that allows course designers to have clear guidelines on how their course/unit maps and the expectations to ensure ILO are reached and that ultimately they are aiming to turn out graduates who are work ready.  The inclusion of external stakeholders such as employers and graduates (if you can call them external) makes the process very transparent, and allows everyone with an interest in the course to see that they are working towards the best outcomes.  Acutally mapping a course, ensures theres no unneccasry overlapping and repetititon and also that there’s no gaps in learning.  Does UNDA have something like this?

Prezi reflection

After review of a Prezi on constructive alignment in curriculum design, here's my reflection linked below.  I've never used Paper for the Web: Padlet.com .  When I get my head out of article, I'm going to go back and explore it.  Another little tool to add to the bag!

http://media.padlet.com/v1/print/http%3A%2F%2Fpadlet.com%2Fwall%2Fsosxhn817w.pfml%3Flocale_redirect%3Dno%26token%3D_Ukr_dA5osLz2rF7S3fFrdntAEOaMk7pL_e2Q-oaU8bAdrs4qe8gckW3BW6g_lY1p_F9qU0EluGeIXvqgipXxhk3AovfKTKnLQOwLNJgGvpmQdxSZLskvdPIcsjpxQawOAYLVAcbwrKYJ0cKkXhhPKcBSMOc8aoIy10UAOcTexWi5ULNrCYH1HFtRLd-dnFvYnoyUtGb3ewsptVX814SMxyjsNUYeXUxJ0e2jOy0ndn9Mqtge8YwIUgzyPiQs8NWc6wel1yaHfWuEjqfwlKUYQ%253D%253D

Constructivist learning environments

Over the last 12 months, I've thought and read a lot about the Constructivist learning theory.  I feel this theory sits well with nursing education, undergraduate and post graduate. 

Prior to my lab session this week, where my job description is to 'instruct on practical skills,' I thought about how and if my lab aligns with this theory.  

To start with my job description doesn't.  In viewing myself as a facilitator to students learning, rather than a teacher, it's made it easier to create the environments to allow them to construct their own knowledge and lead their own experience.

In Lefoe article "Creating Constructivist Learning environments on the web: the challenge in higher education (1998)" the basic idea of the constructive learning environment is simply put that "at a minimum a learning environment contains; a learner and a setting or space wherein the learner acts, using tools and devices, collecting and interpreting information, interacting perhaps with others, etc."

So where am I in that?  Not up the front barking instructions and imparting knowledge.  My job is to set that environment to be engaging to allow the leaner to experience and build upon that.  And I'm more there as another resource and sounding board?

So now I'm putting more thought into what the students see when they enter the lab.  How I can place the tools they'll use in such a way that it invokes thought and conversation.  I did a little experiment.  I'm meant to teach and demonstrate priming intravenous infusions.  I had one set up and ready, and another next to in a packet not done.  I sent one group to that set up.  Gave them 10 minutes to look/touch/experiment with the set up and set the 2nd one up.  The other group I did the old fashion show and tell.    After that, I gave each group a new set and allowed them to set up and prime the new line. 

The group that had no instruction, but learnt by touching/experimenting with trial and error, where far more adapt at the skill.  They also appeared to enjoy themselves more and were steps ahead with having already previously made errors and learnt how to avoid them.

So note to self...less talk, more action.

Mapping my mind

Having listened and watched a slide show on Curriculum Design: The big picture I set about making a mind map for a unit I had an idea about.  This medication calculation unit, is really a subject within an established unit.  It's problematic though, as it's almost squashed into an already busy unit because it's something that 'has to be done.'  The thing is, it doesn't just have to be done, it has to be assessed and the pass mark is 100% and that is required by the nurses professional registration body.  I think it needs more focus. 

So full of enthusiasm I looked at the basic mind map and set about making mine, really focusing on the constructive alignment with the other practical unit.

Here's the example framework:


Here's my attempt:

So on review of my own work, what's included?

• alignment with other units
• thought regarding governing body requirements
• basic assessment (100% pass)
• alignment within the course (prerequisite for another unit)
• Timeframe.
• content

Now when I look at what's not there... I see just how 'surface' my mind map is

• clear outline of cohort
• delivery mode ( how can I have missed that?)
• resources
• assessment for formative feedback
• teaching and learning environment
• activities
• and  I think this is enough, point taken...curriculum design is indepth! 

Although I've given myself a high five for working through the online mind map software (with minimal expletives).