15. Research Partnerships in Education
Poster
Scaffolding Students’ Professional Development: learning & teaching in complex educational settings
Linda Van Ooijen - Van Der Linden, Didi M. E. Griffioen
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Van Ooijen - Van Der Linden, Linda
Professionals need increasingly to be able to address complex issues through collaboration blending diverse forms of knowledge in responsive and pro-active professional behaviour (Barnett & Bengtsen, 2017; Griffioen, 2019; Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p. 41). Higher education responds to these attributes by offering students in bachelor programmes the opportunity to learn in living labs and other rich learning environments, furthermore called ‘labs’ (Rogers et al., 2021; Schipper, Vos, & Wallner, 2022). Though many variants exist, labs focused on student learning commonly share that they offer realistic, authentic tasks, multidisciplinarity, and social interactions (Admiraal et al., 2019). Given the complexity of multiple actors shaping the learning processes of students in labs, constructive alignment of professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in labs (PPAP-in-lab) require careful design (Biggs, 1996). Moreover, the framing of learning activities in labs is relatively weak; students’ roles are more diverse and less prescribed in specific actions than in common activities in classrooms (Barnett & Coate, p. 34). This agility required from the students requires teachers to model this agility in their pedagogy (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019). Following this, learning in labs requires engaging uncertainty and shifting and paying attention as the interactions take shape over time (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020). Generally, teachers and others in labs focused on learning state to struggle to guide students to the intended learning outcomes (Griffioen & van Heijningen, in review; Helleman, Majoor, Smit, & Walraven, 2019; Huber et al., 2020). Therefore, it remains unclear what guidance practices students need in the provided highly complex, real-life learning situations.
Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017, p. 210) offer a helpful framework based on three narratives that are part of a higher professional education context: a professional discourse following professional practice; a pedagogical discourse encompassing assignments designed for learning; and an accountability discourse designed for assessment. The question is what role each of these narratives play in the design of scaffolding practices that can guide students successfully through the afore described complex learning environments.
An initial answer to this question will be given through a two year education innovation project awarded by the Dutch Ministry of Education that started in September 2022 and sets out to deliver well-founded professional, pedagogical, and assessment practices for labs (PPAP-in-lab) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Building on current knowledge on the social learning spaces that labs offer (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020), literature on learning, curriculum design and student partnership (e.g. Bovill et al., 2016; de Kleijn, 2021), on individual functioning and development (Dweck, 2017) and on lab examples from local and international higher education practices (e.g. Cremers, 2016; McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019) design principles and a guideline for designing and implementing PPAP-in-Lab that will allow transformative learning will be developed.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAt the time of submission the project is still in its preparatory phase. The design of the project and initial findings will be presented on the poster to be discussed for feedback.
For the project as a whole, an educational design research approach in three phases is used (McKenney, Nieveen, & van den Akker, 2006; Plomp & Nieveen, 2013). In Phase 1, the literature (Bovill et al., 2016; Cremers, 2016; Dweck, 2017; McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019; Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020) was integrated into concept design principles for PPAP-in-lab and concept guidelines for their usage. The content and framing of both concepts are finetuned based on semi-structured interviews with teachers, students and professionals, five of each, from labs of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. The interview guide was designed to elicit thoughts on professional, pedagogical and assessment practices and their (un)balance in labs (Markauskaite and Goodyear, 2017, p. 210). The results of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the interview transcripts (verbatim) will inform finetuning of the concept PPAP-in-lab and guidelines.
In Phase 2, teachers and students in three labs (in parallel iterations) will collaboratively redesign and redevelop their PPAP-in-lab, using the concept PPAP-in-lab design principles and guidelines. Participating labs offer students a learning environment with realistic, authentic tasks, multidisciplinarity, and diverse social interactions (see Admiraal et al. 2019). The redesign sessions will centralize the rationale of student learning in the lab, following Van den Akker’s curricular spiderweb (2003). Guided by the rationale, the other curriculum elements can be designed, aligned, and developed. Each lab will have a reflection session, and at least one cross-lab exchange session will be held.
Afterward, in Phase 3, a cross-lab evaluation will be held. The reflection sessions and the evaluation session will be recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed, similar to the interviews in the preparation phase. This will allow overall evaluation of the design principles, accompanying guidelines and collaboration processes in their usage. Integration of findings in phase 1, 2, and 3 will result in finalization and dissemination in open access design principles and guidelines for PPAP in labs in the social sector.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt the time of submission, only a preliminary preview, anticipating further progress in writing the concept PPAP-in-lab, the guidelines and their finetuning, can be given. As stated before, meaningful learning and sustainable partner involvement in labs is argued to require alignment of professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in labs.
The design principles and accompanying guidelines are expected to consist of at least the curriculum elements of learning in labs as described under Phase 2 (Van den Akker, 2003), possible mindsets of the different actors, relevant intra- and interpersonal processes, including individual and collective meaning making and focusing and shifting of attention, possible outcomes, and their relations. The accompanying guidelines are expected to describe at least the following: how to envision and create wanted processes, how to prevent unwanted processes, and deliberately work towards students obtaining the intended learning outcomes, even in the face of the inevitable unexpected events, complemented by ways to ensure partners’ interests are served as was agreed upon. Instructions and their framing, collaboration and feedback practices and balancing formative and summative assessment are expected to receive ample attention throughout the project.
At the time of ECER 2023, the Phase 1 findings - concept PPAP-in-lab and concept accompanying guidelines, both finetuned based on the interviews - can be presented.
ReferencesAdmiraal, W., Post, L., Guo, P., Saab, N., Makinen, S., Rainio, O., . . . Danford, G. (2019). Students as future workers: Cross-border multidisciplinary learning labs in higher education. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 3(2), 85-94. Retrieved from www.ijtes.net.
Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education 32: 347-364.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195-208. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77-101.
Cremers, P. (2016). Designing hybrid learning configurations at the interface between school and workplace. (PhD Dissertation), Wageningen University, Retrieved from https://research.hanze.nl/ws/files/16392522/Cremers_designing_hybrid_learning_configurations.pdf
Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review 124(6): 689-719.
Griffioen, D. M. E. (2019). Higher education’s responsibility for balanced professionalism. Methodology beyond Research. (Inaugural lecture). Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://www.hva.nl/content/evenementen/oraties/2019/10/didi-griffioen.html
Griffioen, D. M. E., & Heijningen, M. Living Labs as social constellations to connect higher education learning to societal innovation. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department Higher Education, Research, and Innovation, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Innovation, Knowledgeable Action and Actionable Knowledge. Professional and Practice-based Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
McLaughlan, R., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: a strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 81-97. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1461621
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In Educational design research (pp. 79-102). Routledge.
Van den Akker, J. J. H. (2003). Curriculum Perspectives: An Introduction. In J. J. H. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schipper, T., Vos, M., & Wallner, C. (Eds.). (2022). National position paper Learning Communities (commisioned by Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research). Zwolle: University of Applied Sciences Windesheim.
Wenger-Trayner, E. and Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to make a difference. Value creation in Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press.
|
