Part One: The Context Of Educational Research Part Two: Planning Educational Research Part Three: Styles Of Educational Research Part Four: Strategies And Instruments For Data Collection And Researching Part Five: Data Analysis

Research Methods in Education

generalize create, solve unseen problems, extrapolate to unknown domains 22831.indb 124 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 125 • the verb at the appropriate level of understanding or of performance intended; • the topic content the verb is meant to address, the object of the verb in other words; • the context of the content discipline in which the verb is to be deployed. The ILOs for the course The Nature of Teaching and Learning illustrate these points: 1 Explain why a particular course topic is important to teaching. 2 Apply a course topic to your own teaching. 3 Refl ect on your teaching in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course. 4 Evaluate a situation that has gone wrong and apply a solution. The fi rst refers to declarative knowledge: the students have to reach a level of understanding that requires them to explain something, not just describe or list it: the latter only display multistructural levels of understanding, but explaining requires students to be able to relate the topic to the context of teaching and is at a relational level of understanding. The second is a functioning knowledge example also at the relational level as it requires a level of understanding that enables the student to apply the topic to teaching. The other two are also about functioning knowledge and should be at the relational to extended abstract level of understanding, depending on the originality of the student’s response. The content in (3) is the student’s own working theory and the context the student’s own teaching, and in (4), the content is the theory used in evaluating and the context the problematic situation in teaching. As a note on the number of ILOs per course, we stated earlier that there should be no more fi ve or six ILOs for any course, even though there may be up to ten topics that need addressing. The answer is to write integrating ILOs that address several topics, or, as in ILOs (1) and (2) above, the ILO allows the student to select just one topic for demonstrating ability to achieve the ILO. Another thing to watch out for are redundant ILOs, such as ‘Describe and explain . . .’. ‘Describe’ is redundant because if the student can explain the topic, he or she can certainly describe it. The other matter one should keep in mind at this stage is that desirable but unintended outcomes, or outcomes unforeseen by the teacher, may emerge. This is the nature of extended abstract responses by the student, and they will be accounted for in the normal assessment, but others may simply be things that the student sees as important and relevant learning. This matter becomes a practical issue during assessment, and we address it in Chapter 10. You should now be in a position to design and write your own ILOs for a course you are teaching (Task 7.1). 22831.indb 125 6/15/11 2:11 PM 126 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning Task 7.1 Writing course ILOs Take a course that you are teaching. Consider the course aim and write the course ILOs by identifying: a the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning). b the content or topic to be learned. c the level of understanding or performance to be achieved. d any particular context in which the outcome verb is to be enacted. The following grid may be a useful framework to help you think. Kind of knowledge Level of Content topic Context Declar/function understanding (outcome verb) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Now go across the rows and write out the course ILOs by stating the intended level of understanding or performance (outcome verb), topic and the context in which the verb is to be enacted. There is no need to include the kind of knowledge in the ILO as that is defi ned by the verb(s) you use. To recap an example of a course ILO from our course The Nature of Teaching and Learning : Students should be able to: Refl ect (level of understanding and performance) on your teaching (context) in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course (content). Now write your course ILOs. Students should be able to: ILO1: _______________________________________________________ ILO2: _______________________________________________________ ILO3: _______________________________________________________ 22831.indb 126 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 127 Aligning ILOs at three levels: curriculum mapping Now that we have written the course ILOs, we have the task of checking to see that the three levels of intended outcomes, graduate, programme and course, are aligned. We can achieve this by curriculum mapping (Huet et al. 2009), which is a systematic means of ensuring alignment between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes, and course ILOs and programme ILOs. Graduate outcomes and programme ILOs Table 7.4 shows a simply way of checking the alignment between graduate outcomes and programme ILOs. The table is a device to ensure that the match between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes has at least been considered. Programme ILOs should not be forced to match graduate outcomes that don’t belong in the programme. Because of the different natures of different disciplines or professions, different programmes may have different emphases in addressing the graduate outcomes. It is not necessary that every programme should address all graduate outcomes to the same extent because some may not be relevant to the programme. Programme ILOs are simply the reasons that the programme is being taught, which is a matter of professional and academic judgment. However, university policy will prevail on this. Task 7.2 parallels Table 7.4: it asks you to align programme ILOs with the graduate outcomes of your university, if it has any. If the programme ILOs ILO4: _______________________________________________________ ILO5:_______________________________________________________ ILO6:_______________________________________________________ Review the ILOs to see whether: a the kind of knowledge, content and level of understanding or performance are relevant to achieve the course aim. b they cover all the main reasons for teaching the course. c they are clearly written, especially in identifying the level of understanding or performance to be achieved by the students, and the context (if appropriate). d the number is manageable for designing aligned teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. How does this new set of course ILOs compare to your existing course ‘objectives’? Does the existing set need to be rewritten? 22831.indb 127 6/15/11 2:11 PM 128 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning haven’t yet been articulated, discuss them with the programme coordinator and derive a set, then match them with the graduate outcomes. This should give you a clearer idea of how graduate outcomes can suitably be addressed in your teaching. How does your attempt gel with your university’s policy on this? Gelade and Fursenko (2007) also describe a tool for systematically mapping courses and programmes for graduate outcomes. Task 7.2 Aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes 1 Take a programme in which you are teaching and either list the programme ILOs if they are already articulated or, if they are not, sit down with the programme coordinator or programme committee chairperson and fi rst write the aims of the programme and a list of programme ILOs that meet those aims. 2 What are the graduate outcomes of your university? List them in the left-hand column in the grid below. 3 In the right-hand column list the programme ILOs that would address the graduate outcomes. Are all graduate outcomes addressed somewhere? Which are not? Does it matter?’ Graduate outcomes Programme ILO 1 2 etc. Table 7.4 An example of aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes Graduate outcomes Programme ILO Competent in professional Analyse and apply principles to real-life practice accounting situations Communicate effectively Communicate as a professional with clients and colleagues in real-life accounting situations Teamwork Operate effectively and ethically as a team member in real-life accounting situations Ethical professional As above 22831.indb 128 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 129 Programme ILOs and course ILOs The next level of alignment is between the programme and the course ILOs. As each programme is served by its constituent courses, it is important that, when aligning course ILOs to the programme ILOs, the course ILOs in total address all aspects of the programme ILOs. Often a programme ILO will be addressed by several courses, from different and increasingly more complex angles. You may attempt this in Task 7.3. Task 7.3 Aligning course ILOs with programme ILOs For individual teachers 1 List the programme ILOs of the programme. 2 List the course ILOs of the courses that you are teaching in a given programme. 3 Consider what programme ILO(s) each of the course ILOs addresses in the following table. Programme ILOs Course 1 ILOs Course 2 ILOs Course 3 ILOs

Teaching For Quality Learning At University

The theory of formative assessment outlined in this article is relevant to a broad spectrum of learning outcomes in a wide variety of subjects. Specifically, it applies wherever multiple criteria are used in making judgments about the quality of student responses. The theory has less relevance for outcomes in which student responses may be assessed simply as correct or incorrect. Feedback is defined in a particular way to highlight its function in formative assessment. This definition differs in several significant respects from that traditionally found in educational research. Three conditions for effective feedback are then identified and their implications discussed. A key premise is that for students to be able to improve, they must develop the capacity to monitor the quality of their own work during actual production. This in turn requires that students possess an appreciation of what high quality work is, that they have the evaluative skill necessary for them to compare with some objectivity the quality of what they are producing in relation to the higher standard, and that they develop a store of tactics or moves which can be drawn upon to modify their own work. It is argued that these skills can be developed by providing direct authentic evaluative experience for students. Instructional systems which do not make explicit provision for the acquisition of evaluative expertise are deficient, because they set up artificial but potentially removable performance ceilings for students.

/pdf/formative-assessment-and-the-design-of-instructional-systems-1bezxbj8q3.pdf

Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems

Theories of internalization typically suggest that self-perceptions of the "causes" of (i.e. reasons for) behavior are differentiated along a continuum of autonomy that contains identifiable gradations. A model of perceived locus of causality (PLOC) is developed, using children's self-reported reasons for acting. In Project 1, external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic types of reasons for achievement-related behaviors are shown to conform to a simplex-like (ordered correlation) structure in four samples. These reason categories are then related to existing measures of PLOC and to motivation. A second project examines 3 reason categories (external, introject, and identification) within the domain of prosocial behavior. Relations with measures of empathy, moral judgement and positive interpersonal relatedness are presented. Finally, the proposed model and conceptualization of PLOC are discussed with regard to intrapersonal versus interpersonal perception, internalization, cause-reason distinctions, and the significance of perceived autonomy in human behavior.

/pdf/perceived-locus-of-causality-and-internalization-examining-pla8tgo3t9.pdf

Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains.

The goals of this chapter are (1) to outline and substantiate a broad conceptualization of what it means to think mathematically, (2) to summarize the literature relevant to understanding mathematical thinking and problem solving, and (3) to point to new directions in research, development, and assessment consonant with an emerging understanding of mathematical thinking and the goals for instruction outlined here. The use of the phrase “learning to think mathematically” in this chapter’s title is deliberately broad. Although the original charter for this chapter was to review the literature on problem solving and metacognition, the literature itself is somewhat ill defined and poorly grounded. As the literature summary will make clear, problem solving has been used with multiple meanings that range from “working rote exercises” to “doing mathematics as a professional”; metacognition has multiple and almost disjoint meanings (from knowledge about one’s thought processes to self-regulation during problem solving) that make it difficult to use as a concept. This chapter outlines the various meanings that have been ascribed to these terms and discusses their role in mathematical thinking. The discussion will not have the character of a classic literature review, which is typically encyclopedic in its references and telegraphic in its discussions of individual papers or results. It will, instead, be selective and illustrative, with main points illustrated by extended discussions of pertinent examples. Problem solving has, as predicted in the 1980 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Krulik, 1980, p. xiv), been the theme of the 1980s. The decade began with NCTM’s widely heralded statement, in its Agenda for Action, that “problem solving must be the focus of school mathematics” (NCTM, 1980, p. 1). It concluded with the publication of Everybody Counts (National Research Council, 1989) and the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989), both of which emphasize problem solving. One might infer, then, that there is general acceptance of the idea that the primary goal of mathematics instruction should be to have students become competent problem solvers. Yet, given the multiple interpretations of the term, the goal is hardly clear. Equally unclear is the role that problem solving, once adequately characterized, should play in the larger context of school mathematics. What are the goals for mathematics instruction, and how does problem solving fit within those goals? Such questions are complex. Goals for mathematics instruction depend on one’s conceptualization of what mathematics is, and what it means to understand mathematics. Such conceptualizations vary widely. At one end of the spectrum, mathematical knowledge is seen as a body of facts and procedures dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms, and the relationships among them; knowing mathematics is seen as having mastered these facts and procedures. At the other end of the spectrum, mathematics is conceptualized as the “science of patterns,” an (almost) empirical discipline closely akin to the sciences in its emphasis on pattern-seeking on the basis of empirical evidence. The author’s view is that the former perspective trivializes mathematics; that a curriculum based on mastering a corpus of mathematical facts and procedures is severely impoverished—in much the same way that an English curriculum would be considered impoverished if it focused largely, if not exclusively, on issues of grammar. The author characterizes the mathematical enterprise as follows:

W. A. L. Blyth

Papers

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain@@@Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 2: Affective Domain