1 / 27

Renate Motschnig University of Vienna

Person-Centeredness in cooperative , blended learning and challenges for organizational development. Renate Motschnig University of Vienna. Learning at three levels. optimal learning respects all three levels!. I. intellect. II. (social) skills. III. personality, attitudes;

skyla
Download Presentation

Renate Motschnig University of Vienna

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Person-Centeredness in cooperative, blended learning and challenges for organizational development Renate Motschnig University of Vienna

  2. Learning at three levels optimal learningrespects all three levels! I intellect II (social) skills III personality, attitudes; feelings, intuitions

  3. Overview • Hypotheses regarding blended learning • Cooperative learning as a central activity • Blended learning (PCeL) at three levels • Cooperative PC learning • PCeL scenarios & their discussion: is there an added value and where does it come from? • Contribution of technology • The role of the 3 Rogers variables – extended meaning • Reactions, action research, PCA in HE network • If o.k., how to continue? How to have impact?

  4. 3 Hypotheses • If the computer takes over significant parts of the knowledge transfer, more face-to-face time can be spent for real communication. • The more better and well-organized (e)-content becomes easily available (on the Internet), and the more administrative tasks are supported by the computer, the less extra effort will have to be spent on PC teaching/learning. • The betterthe staff is “trained“ in facilitating courses, the more added value and meaning will accrue. • Required: trust in students and in technology!!!

  5. Cooperative learning as a central process: technology soft-sciences Research Knowledge management Cooperative learning Applications,industry Development

  6. Conventional versus Blended Learning

  7. Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning (1) • Real, authentic problems; project-based approach; • E.g. Develop web-site for x (teams of 3 persons) • Develop a system that best supports students in informatics in their studies (28 student in teams) • Active participation • Choice of (up to x %) topics and course material • Elaboration of goals of teams and the group • Elaboration of selected topics by teams • Contribution of eContent • Contribution of project experiences/milestones

  8. Characteristcs of PC, Blended, Learning (2) • Controlled freedom, loose guidance, companionship • Choices with suggested items and „any other to be discussed“ • Evaluation as mix of self- peer- and instructor evaluation • Guidance is provided but need not necessarily be followed • choice of techiques, • suggestions for evaluation sheets – respect for different kinds of learners • Self-initiated contributions are encouraged

  9. Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning: Reflection & Summary • Active contributions on the platform have value as • Preparation • Consolidation, afterwork • Persistance, reuse, repository for solutions • Central processes and motivation/meaning emanate in face-to-face encounters! • The platform supports the effectiveness of learning/problem solving encounters by enriching the process in the “here and now“ by extending it by past experience and planing for the future.

  10. Cooperative Aspects in PC, Blended Learning • Goals: • learning from and with peers, • more activity, • more communication • multiple perspectives  more inner flexibility? • Tasks/experiences in small teams (3 persons) and group (15 – 30 persons) – differences • Presentation of results/material in front of group – group feedback • Review of milestones/results of partner team • Written team reflections on milestones + discussion

  11. Contribution of Technology • Provision of material; vast resources as a basis for selection; choices;every participant is expected to contribute • Learning from more than one example • All peer projects are online, open for inspection • Transparency • Reaction sheets online; can be referred to during the next meeting; • Students agree to, wish, non-anonymous reaction sheets • Discussion forum

  12. Contribution of Technology • Contact to resources outside the course setting • Persons, experts, community, … • material • Oral and written forms of expression encouraged – multiple ways to contribute, • Peer evaluation more feasible • Research is easier due to online questionnaires • Reactions/reflections can be made available to other students • but... still a lot more of time consuming for the instructor!

  13. Conventional versus Blended Learning - Evolution

  14. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Realness, openness, transparency: • Rogers: congruence, authenticity of the facilitator; + • Real problems, situated setting • Open feedback, • transparent reactions, multiple perspectives • Realness of facilitator is contagious  increased realness of participants

  15. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Acceptance, respect • Rogers: acceptance of the whole person, his/her the feelings, meanings, goals, potentials; + • Participation: • in elaborating goals, choosing topics, suggesting projects • Trust in constructive team work,where individuals complement one another • Self-evaluation and peer comments • Feeling respected nourishes respect for others

  16. 3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning • Understanding, empathy • Rogers: trying to understand meanings, intentions, targets, constraints, strengths of others + • Reacting to/exploiting particualar situations for learning • Exploiting given situation for optimal, situated course design • Ballance between individuality and conformity, between choices and requirements dictated by the curriculum • Since it feels good to be understood, why not try to understand others?

  17. Learning at three levels, experiential learning I II III

  18. Students‘ Feedback (4 groups with 14-18 students, reaction sheet for 3 blocks of 3hscales: 1.. I liked it; 2..neutral; 3.. I did not like it)

  19. Questionnaire on Person-Centered Attitudes

  20. Students‘ Reactions • Students feel they have learned much, surely more than in conventional courses. • Students know what they would improve on what aspect of their work if it were to continue. • Students find they enjoyed the course and even had some satisfaction and fun in doing their projects. • Students know to which areas they are going to apply the knowledge and skills they have learned. • Students unanimously are in favor of using the Internet in several ways: As a resource, as an active means of archiving and maintaining documents, and for communication purposes. • Some students are interested in the psychological and didactic foundations of the Student-Centered Approach. • Students in general wish to attend and enquire about further courses by the same facilitator. Some wish the course to continue.

  21. My Reactions… • …wishing to share them here person-to person…

  22. Questions • Is this generalization of the 3RV‘s and their transference into actions/situations justified? • Can this kind of learning be called Person-Centered, even if it just seems to scratch on the surface of personal development? • How could the added value be assessed? Is growth in social skills and personlity features probable? • How could learning processes be deepened?

  23. Challenges for organizational development • Strategies on how to assess added value and how to convince others • How to capture PCeL wisdom? • International project; who could join it? • Staff development strategies • First step towards international cooperation; virtual community: PCA/HE: http://elearn.pri.univie.ac.at/pca

  24. Workshop - Session • Thank you for your attention! • Every viewpoint or contribution is welcome!

  25. Appendix

  26. Q U E S T I O N A I R E

  27. Cooperative Systems • Definition (Motschnig, 2003): A flexible constellation of technology, resources, people, and organisations that facilitates the communication, coordination, and learning necessary for a group to work together effectively in the pursuit ofmutual developmentand gain.

More Related