Tuesday 27 April 2010

I Got a C on My Orgo Exam! What Should I Do?

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via Study Hacks by Study Hacks on 01/04/10

Note: Though my new format focuses on publishing in-depth articles twice a month, I still reserve the right to occasionally publish one my classic-style student advice articles. 

o-chem

The Pre-Med's Lament

I recently received the following e-mail:

"I've failed both of my tests in Organic Chemistry 2…I don't know what I'm doing wrong…no matter how much I review or study my class notes, nothing seems to work."

This is a familiar lament. I recently reviewed the student e-mails I've received so far in 2010, and discovered that I average around one "I failed my Orgo exam!" e-mail per week.

That's a lot of unhappy pre-meds.

I decided it was time to write a definitive answer to this common issue.  This post details my famous three-step plan for turning around a chemistry disaster.

Step #1: Reset Your Mindset

In 2002, the psychologist Carol Dweck, then at Columbia University, working with her graduate student Heidi Grant, received permission to study the students enrolled in the fall semester offering of general chemistry. Earlier research by Dweck found that most students sort into one of two mindsets: fixed versus growth. As she explained in a 2009 speech:

  • "Fixed mindset students believe their intelligence is just a fixed trait…they worry about how clever they are…they don't want to take on challenges and make mistakes."
  • The "growth mindset [students] think 'no,' [it's] something that you can develop."

In their Columbia study, Dweck and Grant explored how these mindsets affected performance in the chemistry classroom. Their results were striking.

As they concluded in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper describing the experiment: students with the growth mindset scored higher grades in the course and, perhaps more crucially, were much more likely to recover from a bad midterm grade to score high on the final. By contrast, once a fixed mindset student scored low, he was unlikely to escape the spiral of self-doubt that followed.

Put another way, Dweck and Grant demonstrated: pre-med courses do weed out students, but they're not culling the smart from the dumb, instead they're separating the adaptable from the non-adaptable.

(In the context of medicine,  of course, this makes a lot of sense: students who are able to adapt to novel and difficult situations, aggressively trying different strategies until finding one that works, will fare better under the pressures of med school, residency, and eventually full time medical practice.)

This research indicates that a student faced with a bad grade on his first exam must embrace the following ideas…

  • This grade is a reflection of your study strategies and previous experience with this style of course.
  • It has nothing to do with innate intelligence.
  • It has nothing to do with the amount of time you spent studying. (A factor which is often irrelevant to academic performance.)
  • Therefore: If you want to improve, you need to improve your study strategies.

TO SUMMARIZE: A bad grade doesn't mean you're lacking some mythical chemistry gene, it simply means your approach to the course is sub-par — hardly a catastrophe.

Step #2: Redesign Your Strategies

There's no magic bullet study strategy that will guarantee you an A on future exams. But there are some high-level guidelines that most successful strategies follow.

Let's start with an important law of (academic) nature that any smart plan should obey:

The Law of Mental Energy
Every concept presented in your chemistry class will require between 15 - 60 minutes of hard focus, including time spent asking clarifying questions, before you understand it well enough to ace related questions on an exam.

There's no escaping this law. This is why the standard strategy of taking haphazard notes throughout the semester, and then holing up in the library three days before the exam, is destined to fail — there's simply way more hard focus required than you can cram into such a small time frame.

Remember: hard focus is hard. You can't sidestep this hardness in a course such as chemistry. If you don't build a study plan that respects the need for this difficult work, then you're unlikely to succeed.

Here's a simple rule to help keep this respect central to your efforts:

The 48 Hour Rule
Within 48 hours of first being presented a concept, learn it well enough that you could teach it to a classroom of your peers — walking them through related sample problems while giving an insightful running commentary.

If you respect the 48 hour rule, you'll avoid the hard focus pile ups that scuttle many students' grades. This rule takes the mental labor necessitated by the law of mental energy, and spreads it throughout the semester — maximizing the chances that it all gets done.

Here are a few tactics to help make the 48 hour rule a reality…

  1. Insist on active review.
    Reading highlighted notes is worthless. Stop doing it. The best way to learn material is to explain the idea out loud, as if lecturing an imaginary class, without peeking at your notes. This is mentally draining, which is why most students skip it, but that discomfort is a good thing; it's the sensation of your brain stretching to internalize the concepts.
  2. Take notes in a format that's ready for active review.
    Reformatting notes is a waste of time. Take your notes in a format that's ready for active review. For example: write the sample problem clearly;  put the steps on separate lines, adding little commentary notes wherever possible; conclude with a clearly marked answer. To review this problem later, you can cover over everything below the problem and then try to recreate the steps to the answer out loud. If you falter, everything you need to improve your understanding is right there. The key is to minimize steps between the classroom and active review.
  3. Ask questions immediately.
    You only have 48 hours to learn this concept, so the quicker you tackle confusions, the better. Here are five lines of defense to help make this a reality:
    • Concentrate hard in class, trying to understand the concepts as they are presented. (Remember the law of mental energy: you cannot escape hard focus, so it's better to pay off some of this mental debt while you're in the classroom.)
    • As soon as you're confused, raise your hand to ask for clarification.
    • If you're still confused, talk to the professor immediately following class.
    • If you're still confused, use your textbook to guide you, and talk to a TA or classmate for additional clarification.
    • You're final line of defense is to bring the question to office hours. Because you've already gone through the previous steps, you should be well beyond "I don't get it," and instead be able to pinpoint the specific area of confusion.
  4. Schedule your review time.
    Put aside two blocks per week in your autopilot schedule for reviewing the material from the most recent class. (You are using an autopilot schedule, right?). The key is to make this studying a part of your weekly routine.

Notice, this approach requires time. It won't devour your nights or cripple your social life, but it insists that you expend reasonably-sized blocks of hard focus on a regular basis throughout the entire semester. This truth inspires an important corollary:

The Hard Schedule Corollary
If you combined organic chemistry with multiple other demanding courses, then you're an idiot.

As I've argued before, hard course schedules are giant sources of stress and difficulty that add little to no benefit. Many students labor under the misguided belief that taking a challenging course loads matters. Here's the secret: no one cares about what specific college courses you took when, or how hard your semester schedules were. They'll see your major. They'll see your GPA. And that's it. So for God's sake, drop your double major, and stop trying to take three science courses at once, you masochistic fool! There's no extra credit given for being overloaded.

TO SUMMARIZE: Learning complicated subjects requires the expenditure of lots of uncomfortable and difficult hard focus. Build a system that respects this mental labor.

Step #3: Refactor Again and Again and Again…

My canonical article on the danger of black box studying identifies a crucial question that must be answered to turn around poor performance:

Why did the students who got the top grades on this test score so much higher than me?

Ignore your instinct to brush aside the prompt with an ego-preserving answer of "they're geniuses" or "they have no social life." Really try to identify what specifically they're doing differently. Don't be afraid to ask them for details.

This simple exercise provides targeted feedback on what you're not doing that you should be doing. Without this post-mortem, you'll devolve into trying random study habits that sound sort of right and then tenaciously clinging to them as if they were there the result of divine inspiration. It means nothing that you tried something different. (So many of my e-mails start by the student noting that they tried some new note-taking strategy or review plan, as if failing with that one random approach that popped into their mind disqualifies all possible strategies from potentially helping.) What's important is that your strategies are motivated by real world observation, and are then exhaustively evaluated and tweaked.

TO SUMMARIZE: Adaptable students constantly question why they're studying the way they are, and then seek concrete feedback on whether their hypothesis is correct. They're not afraid to make informed changes, again and again and again.

(Photo by quinn.anya)


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Wednesday 21 April 2010

The Types of Evidence for the ePortfolio Generated at Various Stages

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via Technology in (Medical) Education by Neil on 20/04/10



Educational institutions are embracing the concept of Portfolios for their students. The hope is that creating a portfolio will help the student become more reflective and introspective and help him/her become a life long learner. Thus for these institutions, the process of creating the Portfolio is probably more important that the actual content (evidence) in the portfolio.

But when this same student graduates and goes into a residency program or into practice, the hard evidence is what seems to be the most critical piece that is used in the selection/appointment process.

Thus medical schools need to develop a model for allowing the students to create their reflective portfolios but these models should also allow for export of hard evidence in a portable format that the students can take with them when they go for residency interviews. The same process then would get repeated during residency when the ACGME gets to the point of using portfolios in a more universal manner.

Thus as we think about ways for data from medical schools to be passed on to residency programs and then to other bodies like state licensing boards, we need to look at pieces of evidence from each stage of training and practice that would be relevant at the subsequent stage.

The schematic diagram above shows some of the evidence generated at each stage of education/practice.  The evidence below the horizontal line is likely the evidence that should be relevant to later stages.  We should keep this in mind as we develop models for data sharing for medical education and practice.

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Evidence-based undergraduate science education: About the Science Education...

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via sciencegeekgirl.com by sciencegeekgirl on 20/04/10

How do we transform undergraduate education?  That, of course, is the question of the century. We know there are problems with how undergraduate institutions are churning out students (and not cheaply, I might add) who can't explain why we have seasons, or how to light a lightbulb. Or, perhaps worse, think that science is a confusing mess of information that they'd rather leave to the eggheads in their ivory tower.

When Carl Wieman won the Nobel for making Bose-Einstein condensates (back in 2001) he poured all that money (and his not inconsiderable clout) into making a program (or two) to reform science education for undergraduates.  The result was the Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado and University of British Columbia.  That's where I've been employed for the past 3 years, doing research on education.  Carl's vision (and that of co-director Kathy Perkins) is to support the teaching of science as a science — that is, to take what we know about how people learn and create effective education programs based on that research, and to then evaluate the effectiveness of the change.  In other words, a scholarly approach to teaching.

Their approach has been to hire postdocs with a PhD in the discipline (like me) and support their collaboration with faculty to this end.  They've just published a major article in Change magazine discussing this model, and its effects.  The results, overall, are positive:

We see an emerging culture in which faculty are adopting effective evidence-based teaching methods, collecting data on the results, and coming to see teaching as a rewarding scholarly activity (the SEIs have produced over a dozen research papers on science education). Discussions of teaching in these departments have both increased in frequency and shifted their focus from topical coverage to student learning, pedagogy, and evidence.

The assumptions of the SEI model, they say, are:

  1. There is now an unprecedented opportunity to improve undergraduate teaching methods
  2. Data are necessary to convince science faculty to teach differently
  3. The department is the necessary unit of change
  4. Reward structures need to align with change initiatives
  5. More effective teaching need not take additional time or money, although the process of change requires additional resources

Read the whole article here, which includes thoughts on what has been effective, and an outline of the institutional structures required for the program.

See also Carl's earlier article in Change, "Why not try a scientific approach to education?"

The more the department as a whole has been involved and seen this as a general departmental priority, the more successful and dramatic have been the improvements in teaching.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday 20 April 2010

Fwd: Health Sciences and Practice Subject Centre e-bulletin April 2010


Dear Colleague,

 

Please find attached the April edition of the e-bulletin from the Health Sciences and Practice Subject Centre.

 

I would like to draw your attention to the following items:

 

1.  Workshop with CAIPE: Quality in Interprofessional education and collaborative practice. 7th May 2010, Dr Andre Vyt, King's College London. For more information or book a place: http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk/news-events/eventsbox/events2010/WPqualityIPE07052010/

 

2.  Departmental workshops applications 2010. Do you have a learning, teaching or assessment development on the back burner or urgently needs moving forward? There are still places available for the next set of workshops. Deadline: 24th May 2010. For information and application form: http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk/news-events/newsbox/news-2010/deptworkshop2010/

 

3.  Interprofessional Education (IPE) Special Interest Group: 'Interprofessional competencies and capabilities – the professional body perspective - TBC.' 5th July 2010, Institution of Clinical Education, Warwick Medical School. Please note the date change. More details TBC: http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk/news-events/eventsbox/events2010/ipesig05072010/   

 

More details of these events and many others are available in the e-bulletin and on our website.

 

Kind regards

 

Charles Kasule
Communications & Resources Officer

 

Health Sciences and Practice Subject Centre

3.12 Waterloo Bridge Wing, Franklin Wilkins Building, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street London, SE1 9NH

02078484266

www.health.heacademy.ac.uk  

 

10 years of enhancing Learning and Teaching

 

PHORUS Project http://phorus.health.heacademy.ac.uk/

 


Thursday 15 April 2010

Accessing e-learning resources in the NHS

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via e-LiME by Natalie on 14/04/10

Yesterday I was contributing to a staff development session for ST (specialty training) doctors and my stint was about e-learning.  I talked about content that's available on the web that can be reused and remixed under a creative commons licence and touching on the tools that support personalising learning and networked learning.  Then I had to say they probbaly wouldn't be able to access a lot of these sites for on the job teaching because the NHS denies access.  At the end of the session frustrations with the NHS IT infrastructure were raised, issues with old web browsers (IE6) old operating systems (pre XP) and the inability to access useful online resources.  These are all common complaints across different NHS Trusts and it's why many doctors are keen to have a University PC/Mac on their desk.

The problem of accessing e-learning resources is covered in a short commentary in the latest edition of Medical Education by Prince, Cass and Klaber from King's College Hospital, London (Medical Education 44 (5) p 436-7). Prince et al highlight the wealth of excellent resources that are being developed and made available but that there is a danger that enthusiastic learners will be unable to access them.  They pick up on a paper published in the same edition looking at accessibility issues in African medical schools due to infrastructure and resourcing issues but go on to draw attention to the significant access problems faced by postgraduate trainees in the NHS.

Prince and his colleagues surveyed doctors across 37 English NHS Trusts in April 2009 to assess the accessibility of online resources to postgraduate trainees.  Unfortunately I can't see the table with the results referred to in the online version but the paper indicates that many experience blanket 'internet denial' leaving them unable to access important clinical resources and download PowerPoint presentation or pdfs of journal articles.  Only 32% could access the The UK Department of Health 'E-learning for Healthcare' programme modules.  YouTube is identified as huge source of medical video content which is blocked and likewise there is no access to iTunesU.  The authors go on to say,

Whereas in Africa limited infrastructure is producing an information bottleneck, access in the UK is restricted by 'denial of service' restrictions placed upon a competent and fast modern system. Emerging Web 2.0 applications, such as wikis and blogs, provide creative and interactive learning environments within which all learners can contribute and interact, provided they are given 'write-access'. Shouldn't we be managing the risks more effectively in order to allow learners the freedom to use IT resources to better effect?

This question is how do we go about managing the risks more effectively to allow NHS staff to access online learning resources and tools which many of us take for granted.  There are understandable concerns about the security of patient information and quite rightly so, I don't think any of us would disagree that the NHS needs to diligent about this.  It's also essential that clinical systems take priority in terms of bandwidth, which is the reason sites with streaming video like YouTube and Vimeo are blocked in the NHS.  All of this said individuals working in the health professions are called to be lifelong learners and need access to educational resources which are being increasingly delivered and freely available online.

Is there any dialogue going on at a national level that is seeking to address these issues?  IT projects and the NHS don't have a good track record, but are there are steps that can be taken to separate  access to educational resources and tools from the clinical and management IT systems.  I agree with Prince and his colleagues who end their short commentary by saying,

There is an urgent need for commissioners, providers and users of e-learning materials to be jointly involved in planning how, when and where resources will be used. Without such a partnership, there is a significant risk that 'disconnection' will severely compromise what could be one of our most valuable learning tools.

How do we make this happen?



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Sunday 4 April 2010

Education is easy – in theory! [visualization]

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via dougbelshaw.com/blog by Doug Belshaw on 03/04/10

I can see now that it takes more than having passed through school as a student to understand the education system.* After all, it looks something like the diagram below, right?

Of course those who have worked in educational institutions know that the above is far from the truth. Instead of, for example, research being the bedrock of all that goes on, it is marginalized and distorted. The issues** along the lines linking the elements together show how it's a messy picture – not in itself a bad thing – and it's distorted by politics (which is a bad thing) :-p

* Not that you'd know that from talking to your average member of the general public! ;-)

** N.B. The reason I didn't add 'time' as a factor in the second diagram is because, as I've said to a few people this week, time itself isn't an issue. It's priorities – which is a different matter.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Friday 2 April 2010

Using online chat in teaching?

 
 

Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

 
 

via Kinda Learning Stuff by Sarah Horrigan on 01/04/10

It's been a busy few weeks but amongst the things that I've been doing was a presentation on some research I did to finish off my MEd last year at our Annual Learning and Teaching Conference which I thought might be interesting to share (interesting in a vaguely nerdish kinda way!).

What was my research about?  Well, the focus of my project was to attempt to understand what happened to educationally rich dialogue within online chat when students were left on their own, or when there was a tutor present.  Anyway, it was an interesting little project and the results were also pretty revealing (and I'd really like to look into this area further), and it led me to wonder whether or not there is any kind of pedagogy for using chat in teaching?  Surely we need one if we're to know how to use chat productively.  Not least since  according to the 2009 CLEX report 'Higher Education in a web 2.0 world' students are familiar with and comfortable using instant messaging (CLEX, p.21) - but it seems that we give them minimal guidance on how best to use it and rarely exploit (for want of a better word!) this familiarity or comfort with online chat.  Additionally, there is really very little research into what happens to dialogue in synchronous online chat and in most of the research I looked at, either tutor or participants were novice users to some degree which I felt negatively impacted on their dialogue to some degree.  In my project I was careful to make sure that everyone had had prior experience of learning / teaching via chat so as to try to minimize this technological learning curve. 

Having looked into things a bit... I decided to try to draw some conclusions from my experiences.... both from the research itself, but also based on my experience of using chat in teaching for the past decade.... which led to this presentation!  So, here ya go:
If you want to have a look at the notes to see what I was waffling about at each stage, you're more than welcome to -  they're available online at the Slideboom hosted version.

So, how to use chat in teaching?  There really are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few basic guidelines:

Give students the right building blocks (and these happen either side of the chat session)
  • Clear purpose - make sure it isn't simply a bolt-on optional extra
  • Clear introduction - explain how it's going to happen, have some intro sessions first if needed
  • Clear topic - provide a topic which works at lots of different levels so a discussion *can* happen
  • Clear timings - 30 to 45 minutes with a group of between 3 to 5 is probably about right
  • Clear plenary - the chat session should feed into *something*, a summary, a shared transcript... but there needs to be an end just as there's a beginning
Then…
  • Clear off - well, while the session's running anyway!
The things I've discovered?  You don't need to be present within a chat session for it to have educational value.  Provided you structure the activity design so that the chat session is bookended in someway (where you can have some involvement) and you bear in mind the type of dialogue you want, i.e. if you want a fairly Q&A-based session then it may well be appropriate for the tutor to be involved in the session; if you want something more free-flowing, then the tutor is probably best off not being a participant too.

     
     

    Things you can do from here:

     
     

    Microbiology education and social media

     
     

    Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

     
     

    via virology blog by Vincent Racaniello on 01/04/10

    At the Spring 2010 meeting of the Society for General Microbiology In Edinburgh I spoke about 'Social Media in Microbiology Education and Research'. In my presentation I reviewed how I use blogging, podcasting, and other social media tools to teach the public about viruses.

    Below is a video recording of my presentation. Many thanks to Prof. AJ Cann for the opportunity to speak about our efforts. I also enjoyed excellent presentations by Prof. Graham Hatfull, Cameron Neylon, Kevin Emamy of citeulike, and Jason Hoyt of Mendeley.


    Download: .wmv (119 MB) | .mp4 (28 MB)


     
     

    Things you can do from here:

     
     

    Perry’s stages of intellectual and ethical devlopement

    Perry's model of moral development is often used to analyse the development of student's ethical frameworks in HE.

     
     

    Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

     
     

    via The Mouse Trap by sandygautam on 30/03/10

    No Gravatar
    Personification of knowledge (Greek ????????, ...
    Image via Wikipedia

    In one of the recent posts we saw that Averill believed that ethics or moral domain in psychology can be derived from focusing on emotions, will, motivation , ethics and virtue; while the mental domain in psychology and philosophy evolved by studies of epistemology. Today I wish to focus on one way of how we come to know i.e. a theory of epistemology and how a staged theory for the same has been proposed by Perry in a student education domain.

    To quote from wikipedia:

    The Perry scheme is a model for understanding how college students "come to know, the theories and beliefs they hold about knowing, and the manner in which such epistemological premises are a part of and an influence on the cognitive processes of thinking and reasoning".

    Perry has split his analysis of how college students "come to know" into nine position further grouped into 4 stages, but I will treat all of them as stages only and try to fit them in my eight stage model by trying to draw parallels with Selman's role-taking or perspective taking stages. I'll be using material extensively from Wikipedia and this page about Perry's scheme.

    1. Stage 1: Dualism/Received Knowledge:There are right/wrong answers, engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities.Basic Duality:All problems are solvable; Therefore, the student's task is to learn the Right Solutions.The authorities know: e.g. "the tutor knows what is right and wrong". Contrast this with the undifferentiated perspective of Selman, the first stage. In it "one attributes one's or protagonist perspective to everyone else's. One may have a concept of perspective or Theory-of-mind but may suffer from an inability to attribute any other perspective to anyone else distinct from one's own". The underlying theme in both the cases is that there is only one reality- one perspective-mine; one knowledge or right answer- my authority's.
    2. stage 2: Full Dualism: Some Authorities (literature, philosophy) disagree; others (science, math) agree. Therefore, there are Right Solutions, but some teachers' views of the Tablets are obscured. Therefore, student's task is to learn the Right Solutions and ignore the others! The true authorities are right, the others are frauds "e.g my tutor knows what is right and wrong but others don't". Contrast this with second stage of Selman that of social-informational perspective taking: It is a stage "whereby one comes to realize that not only there exits a perspective, but that it can be different for different persons. Nevertheless, despite the realization that the perspectives can differ ( based on say the different information that each may have) the preponderant tendency is to consider one's perspective as valid and by exchanging information attempts to make others perspective inline with one's own.". the underlying theme in both cases is that there is one reality, but there can be two views of it; my view or my authority's view is , of course, the correct one.
    3. Satge 3: Multiplicity/Subjective Knowledge: There are conflicting answers;therefore, students must trust their "inner voices", not external Authority.Early Multiplicity:There are 2 kinds of problems:those whose solutions we know and those whose solutions we don't know yet (thus, a kind of dualism). Student's task is to learn how to find the Right Solutions.There are some uncertainties and the authorities are working on them to find the truth "e.g my tutors don't know, but somebody out there is trying to find out". Contrast this with Selman;'s third stage that of self-reflective perspective taking. It "marks the first empathetic perspective taking whereby one sees, thinks and feels from other person's perspectives using first person. This is literally stepping in someone else's shoes and truly seeing as if the situation concerned oneself. This not just a logical realization that someone can have a different perspective but also realizing that that perspective can be equally valid given the other person's unique situation. Thus one thinks and feels like the other person and can both suffer and enjoy the outcomes of situations as they unfold from the other person's perspective. The emphasis is on understanding. And empathy." The underlying theme here I believe is understanding that instead of just right and wrong answers / solutions, there are different approaches to solve the problems which are indeed solvable. Also the theme is to feel from inside the authority, to understand how authority is gained- and know how to find the answer rather than just what is the right answer. While the first two stages focused on what is the right answer, after realizing that there may not be a right answer, the focus changes to how to find the right answer. this is akin to finding that there is no one valkid perspective and thus changing focus to how one feels in other persons shoes and having his/her different perspective.
    4. stage 4: Late Multiplicity: Most problems are of the second kind(we don't know solution yet); therefore, everyone has a right to their own opinion; or some problems are unsolvable; therefore, it doesn't matter which (if any) solution you choose. Student's task is to shoot the bull.(Most freshman are at this position, which is a kind of relativism)At this point, some students become alienated, and either retreat to an earlier ("safer") position ("I think I'll study math, not literature, because there are clear answers and not as much uncertainty") or else escape (drop out) ("I can't stand college; all they want is right answers" or else "I can't stand college; no one gives you the right answers".) (a)Everyone has right to their own opinion "e.g different tutors think different things" (b) The authorities don't want the right answers. They want us to think in certain way "e.g there is an answer that the tutors want and we have to find it". Contrast this with the fourth 'third-party or bystander stage' . In it "one has decentred in the emotional/cognitive personal sense and can see a situation not only from first and second person perspectives of interacting parties, but also from that of a neutral bystander. This includes the ability to keep multiple perspectives in mind at the same time. One does not see from this perspective and then from the other – one looks at the entire big picture or view and understands that different people are having different perspectives." The underlying theme is that of relativism and that there are as many solutions/perspectives and right answers as there are people involved. My tutor/authority doesn't want the absolute right answer (as there are none) but a certain type of answer that he considers is right and neutral and thinks that the answer doesn't necessarily stem and is embedded in his own perspective. Thus, the right answer, if any, is taken by consensus, and can be different form my own or my tutors own perspectives/ beliefs about the right solution.
    5. stage 5: Relativism/Procedural Knowledge: There are disciplinary reasoning methods: Connected knowledge: empathetic (why do you believe X?; what does this poem say to me?) vs. Separated knowledge: "objective analysis" (what techniques can I use to analyze this poem?) Contextual Relativism: All proposed solutions are supported by reasons; i.e., must be viewed in context & relative to support. Some solutions are better than others, depending on context. Student's task is to learn to evaluate solutions. Everything is relative but not equally valid "e.g there are no right and wrong answers, it depends on the situation, but some answers might be better than others". contrast this with Selman's fifth stage that of societal perspective. In it "one realizes that the neutral third party perspective is not really neutral but influenced by the societal and cultural context in which the bystander lives and is reflective of those values. One realizes that one can have different neutral perspectives on a situation, each of which would be colored by the values that are dear to the social and cultural context in which the situation occurs and which dictate what a neutral perspective is. One may realize that some values are desirable and others are not and that the perspective that is informed by desirable values is more preferable." the underlying theme in both cases is to move away from decontextualized value-free equality of all perspectives/ solutions to a contextual and value-laden evaluation of relatively better/ more valid perspectives/ answers given a particular context.
    6. The sixth stage: "Pre-Commitment": Student sees the necessity of: making choices and committing to a solution. You have to make your own decisions "e.g what is important is not what the tutor thinks but what I think". I had not delineated any stages of Selman beyond the fifth stage for the perspective taking, but if I have to venture it may be akin to choosing a particular value-laden way of looking at things irrespective of the given context. It would be akin to choosing your attitude to life no matter what you have been served. To paraphrase Victor Frankl , your own unique attitude/ perspective is one thing no one can take away from you. you can always choose how to see things , not objectively as per a some gold standard, but subjectively , but a subjectivity that is informed and grounded in a prior commitment. For eg., you can choose to be positive (have a positive attitude) and focus on the silver linings in the clouds. The underlying theme would be existential theme- that of creating your own meaning- your own perspective, your own right solution/ answer. Nothing is given. You are . The problems are. You have to construct and create your own answers and meaning. You are free and can exercise choice as to commit to a way of life, a perspective, a solution, an answer- something that leads to coherence for you and your life.
    7. Satge 7 : Commitment/Constructed Knowledge: Integration of knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection. Commitment: Student makes a commitment. Challenges to Commitment: Student experiences implications of commitment. Student explores issues of responsibility. First commitment "e.g for this particular topic I think that…."; Several Commitments "e.g for these topics I think that….". I have collapsed stages 7 and 8 of Perry into one stage . The corresponding Selman's stage would be measuring, aligning and integrating one's chosen perspective with those of ones con-specifics and bringing things in harmony. The underlying theme I believe is on communicating with others regarding ones committed answers and either modifying ones perspective or trying to modify others perspectives/ solutions/answers as per one's committed solution/ perspective/answer. On not only is and has chosen a right answer/perspective, one is also forced to convince others of the rightness of ones perspective and ones solution/answer. With great commitment, comes great responsibility.
    8. stage 8: "Post-Commitment": Student realizes commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving activity. Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn "e.g I know what I believe in and what I think is valid, others may think differently and I'm prepared to reconsider my views". stage 8 of Selman may have been a step away from proselytizing tone of seventh stage and more of (in)tolerance of equally strongly committed views by others. The ingroup/outgroup dynamic is at play and while some groups of people may adhere to our shared committed solutions/ beliefs/ perspectives; other groups may have other solutions/ beliefs/ perspectives and we can perhaps mutually agree to disagree at worst, if not to learn from the different committed views and enhance and deepen our view of reality, at best. The underlying theme being that of tolerance for others who ware equally committed to their view/ solution and may be correct in a way in their own right.

    Phew! This post was a handful. Hope you like it and like my theorizing and dogged attempt to fit everything in a eight fold developmental model.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    Effecient Related Posts:


    Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

    Related posts:

    1. The five tribal stages I recently came across this TEDx video by David Logan...
    2. Developmental Stages: New Age concurs I recently came across a series of article by Bill...
    3. Development of Perspective Taking : a pre-requisite for different stages of Moral Development There is an interesting post on Edie NeuroLearning Blog, that...


     
     

    Things you can do from here:

     
     

    Thursday 1 April 2010

    Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Curriculum (Address: Aust...

     
     

    Sent to you by David Andrew via Google Reader:

     
     

    via Higher Ed. Pedagogy, Andragogy & Application by Roger Goodson on 29/03/10

    "...When we had completed our survey of the five basic building blocks of the undergraduate program - curriculum content, curriculum structure, teaching methods, assessment approaches, and student support - we had an uneasy feeling that a university could be attending to all five of these things, and yet still not be producing lifelong learners. This was an intriguing problem, and so we asked the graduates, "how come?" Their answers were very enlightening, because many of them reported that lifelong learning did not seem to have been valued in the departments and programs where they had studied. It was not something that they saw being modelled by the staff and, in many cases, there was no real sense of intellectual excitement in the department. So we added a sixth term of reference; creating a climate of intellectual enquiry. ..."

     
     

    Things you can do from here: