| 1. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956
(författare)
-
Att stödja lärarutveckling i praktiken – med utblick från praktiken på Lärande och Ledarskap
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Kort sammanfattning:Hur kan man göra rent praktiskt för att stödja lärares utveckling? Vi tar en titt under ytan på våra första två praktikkurser på masterprogrammet MPLOL. Skulle studenters lärande över hela Chalmers gagnas av att deras lärare (bland mycket annat) fått stöd med liknande metoder?Kort abstract: Lärandemålen, aktiviteterna och examinationsmetoderna beskrivs kortfattat för de två 7,5 hp kurserna där mastersstudenter på Lärande och Ledarskap (MPLOL) tränar upp sina praktiska färdigheter som gymnasielärare. Dessa verksamhetsförlagd utbildning (VFU) kurser är förlagda till speciellt utvalda övningsskolor i trakten, där studenterna vägleds av gymnasielärare som erbjuds en handledarutbildning på 7,5 hp på Chalmers. Dessutom får studenterna stöd av två mästarlärare, yrkesverksamma gymnasielärare som anställs på deltid under två år på Chalmers. Institutionen MC2 ger dessa tre kurser, där jag själv agerar examinator och kursansvarig lärare.Under presentationen kommer jag att lyfta fram några delar av innehållet och metodiken i dessa två VFU kurser som skulle kunna inspirera till vidareutveckling av Chalmers egna lärarkår. Några aspekter liknar det som idag redan ingår i paketet med 15 hp som utgör ”Diploma of Higher Education”, den formella pedagogiska utbildningen som erbjuds Chalmers lärare. Ytterligare några aspekter liknar arbetsmetoder som Chalmers pedagogiska utvecklare (peduler) använder vid stöd till enskilda lärare. Viceprefekter för grundutbildning och programansvariga kan finna metoder här som kan anpassas till utvecklingsaktiviteter för ”sina” lärargrupper.Det är min förhoppning att inspiration även kan hämtas ur presentationen för att stödja ”självhjälp” och kollegialt utbyte till gagn för Chalmerslärares egen utveckling. Återkommande strukturerad observation i den verkliga undervisningssituationen (auskultation) är ett starkt drivande verktyg som används flitigt på VFU-kurserna. Detta är relativt enkelt att implementera kollegor emellan.Lärandeaktiviteterna på VFU-kurserna inkluderar, förutom övningsundervisning och auskultation, även en rad andra aktiviteter. Vid minst ett tillfälle under varje kurs får studenterna spela in sina lektioner och utvärdera filmerna tillsammans med sina handledare i relation till utvalda lärandemål. Studenterna skriver en strukturerad loggbok till stöd för kommunikationen med mästarlärarna. Situationer som sällan uppstår men ändå behöver förberedas inför yrkeslivet som lärare får tränas med ”torrsim” via seminarier och inlämningsuppgifter. Exempel på dessa är etiska dilemman, konflikthantering och specialpedagogik.En återkommande problematik för både gymnasielärare och Chalmerslärare är det breda spektrum av förkunskaper och fallenhet man möter i en klass. Att kunna stödja de svagaste och utmana de starkaste är ett explicit lärandemål som studenterna jobbar med.Ledarskap i klassrummet betonas och studenterna får träna metoder att aktivera eleverna under ”genomgångar”, metoder som med fördel kan användas för att aktivera Chalmersstudenter under föreläsningar.VFU-kurserna heter Lärande och Ledarskap i praktiken 1 och 2 (CIU207 och CIU212). I den första kursen fokuserar studenterna på matematikundervisning och i den andra på antingen fysik- kemi- eller teknikundervisning, beroende på vilket program de går på Chalmers.Examinationen i kurserna ger graderade slutbetyg (underkänt, 3, 4 eller 5) där mycket av input till betyget kommer ifrån handledarens utvärdering samt två olika lektionsbesök av mästarlärare och examinator. Kvalitet på skriftliga inlämningsuppgifter samt kommunikations- och reflektionsförmåga i loggboken ligger också till grund för betyget. Totalt under dessa två kurser har studenterna ett obligatorium på 50 timmars egen övningsundervisning och 30 timmars auskultation.Vi har idag en klass på 19 studenter som går först året tillsammans (14 MPLOL och 5 KPLOL, kompletterande pedagogisk utbildning). MPLOL startade 2011, och studenterna blir både gymnasielärare och civilingenjörer. Ungefär en tredjedel av de som gått ut programmet arbetar nu som gymnasielärare.
|
|
| 2. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956
(författare)
-
Do Urban Myths About Learning and Education Influence Students and Teachers at Chalmers?
- 2019
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- SHORT SUMMARY There are a number of persistent myths about learning and education that could be important to be aware of as a student or teacher at Chalmers. For example, “learning styles” reflect preferences but not what really works best for learners. We will explore a few myths together in this workshop. ABSTRACT Introduction to the workshop topic The title of this presentation is a question, to which we ought to be able to answer an emphatic “no – of course not!” However, a more reasonable answer might be “probably now and then, but let’s systematically reduce the probability!” The purpose of this workshop is to relate and explore a few myths about learning and education taking our starting point from a recent book by de Bruyckere, Kirschner and Hulshof (2015). I have made a selection of three groups of myths I deem relevant for students and teachers at Chalmers to be aware of, and have designed a set of workshop activities to highlight and discuss. For each group of myths, the original (false) statements and the debunking of the myths will be followed by a structured group discussion. After the completion of the workshop, participants will hopefully have a nuanced view of the relevance of these myths for teaching and learning at Chalmers, and an understanding of suggested replacements for these myths using recommendations from evidence-based research. Relevance for quality of education Students and teachers have a tacit understanding that the most effective learning and teaching methods will be used in designing a high quality education at Chalmers. Allowing myths rather than evidence-based recommendations to guide choices is not going to provide the best possible educational quality, even though those involved are earnest in their belief in such myths. Workshop activities For each of the myth groups in the table below, the participants will explore the material in plenum and then small groups according to the following steps: 1. Plenum introduction to the pair of myths in the myth group at hand. 2. Small group discussion of examples where this might be relevant to teaching and learning at Chalmers. 3. Group discussion of what needs to be investigated in order to make an informed choice as to teaching and learning methods that work. 4. Plenum discussion of points 2 and 3 above, followed by a short overview of relevant evidence–based research results. Points 1-4 will be repeated for each of the three myth groups. In a concluding small group discussion, participants will be invited to articulate their own standpoints and how they intend to apply the insights they may have gained in the workshop. Documentation of a summary of discussions and personal standpoints will be collected electronically and anonymously after permission from the participants. Selected groups of myths for this workshop The following list covers the most important myths which participants will explore during the workshop. Each myth is described and debunked in the book by Bruyckere, Kirschner and Hulshof (2015). The phrasing of the myths as a postulation is used as subchapter headings in this book, and tabulated below for reference, along with the relevant page number in the book. I have also included a keyword phrase for each, and a short note on the debunking of the myth. Table headings (Note that table formatting is not available here.) Myth keywords Postulation of myth Page Debunking of myth Myth group 1: Myths about learning styles and quantitative learning pyramids Learning styles People have different styles of learning. 20 People may prefer different ways of learning, but this does not correlate with what works best. No evidence supports the grouping of people in learning styles. Learning pyramid The effectiveness of learning can be shown in a pyramid. 28 The even percentages attributed to activities such as 30% retention from demonstration is a tell-tale sign of a myth. Origin not based on sound evidence. Myth group 2: Myths about discovery and problem-based learning Discovery learning You learn better if you discover things for yourself rather than having them explained to you by others. 48 This is often ineffective, especially for the novice without prior knowledge of the subject matter. Low ability students enjoy it but learn very little. With the right guidance and support the method works better. Problem-based learning You can learn effectively through problem-based education. 54 This is not effective for learning new content, but rather for applying previous knowledge. Myth group 3: Myths about ICT in education and reading of course literature Digital natives Today’s digital natives are a new generation who want a new style of education. 139 Neither educational content nor learning methods need be changed for the generation who grew up with the internet. Reading habits Young people don’t read any more. 149 This is not true, although reading for pleasure is declining. REFERENCE de Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. and Hulshof, C. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. London: Academic Press.
|
|
| 3. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956
(författare)
-
Ethics course module – a do-it-yourself guide for teachers, with a specific example
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- SHORT SUMMARY Do you wish your students could get some subject-relevant training in ethical reasoning? Got an idea for a learning goal? Any lesson plans? Ever wondered how to examine such learning? Would you like a DIY guide? Come and get one teacher’s take on all this! ABSTRACT Intended audience: This presentation will address questions mainly of interest to teachers and educational leaders working on including ethics in engineering educational programs. Problem statement: The mere idea of teaching ethics to engineering students is something that can make some engineering faculty feel uncomfortable, while others may be very eager, but lacking suitable teaching tools. Still, it is both required by law, and recommended by the profession that engineering students should have suitable knowledge and training in order to make well-grounded decisions which include ethical aspects. Chalmers is just starting to integrate ethics into various programs, with professional support available, but the scope of the change that is needed suggests that a “do-it-yourself” guide for teachers might be in order to speed up the process. But what should that guide include? Suggested solution: As a complement to existing support made available through e.g. Chalmers Insidan (Ref. 1), I would like to give a rudimentary suggestion for a DIY guide, and a specific example of how an ethics course module can be designed and fairly easily incorporated into an existing course. Low hanging fruits can be harvested, with positive side effects of the ethics course “digression” which include training in generic communication and reasoning skills, as well as bringing students into a closer personal relation area which should be positive for other learning interaction within the group. DIY guide suggestion: · Choose a learning goal formulation for your course (together with your PA), possibly with inspiration from the program goals and/or the formulations in the national degree goals. · Think through a few examples where ethical decision making meets your course’s (or program’s) specific subject matter. · Look over the contents of the Insidan support page (Ref. 1) and choose course literature for your module. · Talk to the Chalmers “Pedul” for MHU/MTS and/or Chalmers’ own philosopher. · Design activities and assignments which will support the learning goal you have formulated. Consider including “real world” scenarios and/or professionals to add relevance for the students. · Think through how you can gather evidence that each student has achieved the learning goal. · Consider formulating criteria for differentiating how well the goal has been reached, as input to the final grade in the course. · Write all these details clearly in the course PM, and revise the course plan in the Student Portal. Example learning scenarios: Since the course I teach (Ref. 2) is obligatory in its master program, it was a suitable candidate for an ethics module. The ethics module was introduced in this course for the first time during the academic year 2015/16. The decision to include an ethics module was taken after the official publication of the course plan (one year before the course was given, in study period 3). In order to test the ethics module and provide the current students with an opportunity to learn about ethical decision making, an optional learning goal was introduced in the course PM, with optional activities that could generate bonus points towards the final grade. However, this “extra” status required that it be possible to pass the course, and achieve high grades even without the bonus points from the ethics module. The ethics learning goal is now officially included in the course plan for the present academic year 2016/17. It is phrased: “After completion of the course the student should be able to identify ethical issues in the area of photonics and discuss methods to deal with them, based on a basic theoretical framework.” Active participation in all three ethics seminars and the individual ethics essay home assignment will be obligatory now that the learning goal is an official part of the course plan. With clear quality criteria and active participation monitoring, it should be possible to reduce the risk of students finding the ethics module too easy, and not taking the learning seriously. The teaching (Ref. 3) included three seminars where students were actively discussing and documenting their discussion in the web-based student response app “Socrative”. In the first seminar, students familiarized themselves with the “Framework for ethical decision making” (Ref. 4) which was our only course literature as such in this module. Scheduled in Study period 3, it was suitable to make use of the Career fair “Charm”, asking the student to interview a professional at Charm about their experiences in ethical aspects of decision making. The second seminar focused on sharing the results of these interviews, which were then individually documented as material for bonus points. An individual short essay was the core activity in this module, with the students coming up with their own subject-relevant topics, and applying the “Framework” to this topic, again for bonus points. Note that the bonus point system will be replaced by obligatory activities and assignments in this year’s version of the course. Student achievement measures: Of the 32 students following the course, most of them attended and participated actively in the three seminars (and were thereby awarded a token bonus). 14 chose to submit the Interview assignment and 15 chose to write a short essay. 11 out of 15 students were awarded the extra bonus point for high quality in the essay assignment. · The criteria for grading the essay assignment, included in the instructions to the students, were as follows: · The essay addresses all of the relevant steps in the “Framework for Ethical Decision Making” (also making note of which aspects that might be deemed irrelevant in your chosen case.) · The essay is clearly written so that the reader can easily follow your reasoning behind each step. · The length of the essay is within the suggested range of 1000 – 3000 words. · References are clearly given to information sources such as various codes of ethics. · The essay is written with due respect given to academic honesty when it comes to using your own words rather than creating a “cut-and-paste essay”. (Not fulfilling this criterion is called plagiarism and … just don’t!) Student acceptance of teaching methods: In the course evaluation questionnaire, the students indicated that they were most helped by the seminars. References: 1. Chalmers Insidan resource page for ethics teaching: http://www.chalmers.se/insidan/SV/utbildning-och-forskning/grundutbildning/program/miljo-och-hallbar/etik 2. Study Portal Course plan for academic year 2016/17: https://www.student.chalmers.se/sp/course?course_id=25017 3. Ethics course module documents on PingPong for academic year 2015/16: https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/6373/content.do?id=3367226 4. Framework for ethical decision making, Tom Adawi, 2005, available at: http://document.chalmers.se/doc/1b3f09fb-57f0-4dcb-8aa0-103a3156d869
|
|
| 4. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956
(författare)
-
Fake News - Gimmicks and Pseudoscience
- 2018
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Short Abstract in English Fake news – gimmicks and pseudoscience Chalmers’ students and employees are (ought to be) in a good position to help the public and policy makers see the difference between scientifically supported “facts” and “fake news”. In areas such as well-being, health and medical care, many examples flourish where evidence based scientific “proof” is lacking. Anyone interested in supporting a scientific approach needs knowledge of, among other things, information evaluation (source criticism), statistics, “cherry picking”, and the placebo effect. We will discuss Chalmers-relevant examples and what we can (and possibly should) do at Chalmers to address such questions, within education, research and public relations. Short Abstract in Swedish Fake news – gimmicks och pseudovetenskap Chalmers studenter och anställda har (bör ha) goda förutsättningar att hjälpa allmänheten och politiska beslutsfattare att se skillnad på vetenskapligt underbyggda ”sanningar” och ”fake news. Inom områden som välbefinnande, hälso- och sjukvård florerar många exempel där evidensbaserade vetenskapliga ”bevis” saknas. Alla som är intresserade av att stödja ett vetenskapligt tillvägagångssätt behöver kunskap om bland annat källkritik, statistik, "cherry picking" och placebo-effekten. Vi kommer att diskutera Chalmers-relevanta exempel och vad vi kan (och borde) göra på Chalmers för att ta itu med sådana frågor inom utbildning, forskning och PR.
|
|
| 5. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956, et al.
(författare)
-
Hur utvecklas bra lärare? Det är fokus för en workshop där goda Chalmerslärare är det långsiktiga målet.
- 2015
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Sammanfattning:Vad är det som utmärker en bra lärare, och hur utvecklar man bra lärare? Tillsammans kommer workshopdeltagarna att skapa en målbild för Chalmerslärare och inventera samt prioritera olika vägar att utveckla lärare. Vi kommer att jämföra läraryrket på högskolan med gymnasieläraryrket, och leta synergier för lärarutveckling ur MPLOL.Abstract:Hur utvecklas bra lärare? Det är fokus för en workshop där goda Chalmerslärare är det långsiktiga målet. Det finns mycket skrivet om hur man ”ska vara” för att just vara en bra lärare, med många resurser tillgängliga för Chalmerslärare från bl.a. avdelningen EER (Engineering Education Research). Kurser i pedagogik, rekommenderade böcker och vetenskapliga artiklar, seminarier o.s.v. har alla till syfte att visa hur man kan göra för att vara en bra lärare. Men det finns inte lika mycket fokus på processen att just utvecklas till att bli en bra lärare.I samband med att man utvecklas från grön, nervös förstagångslärare till duktig presentationstekniker och sedan vidare till reflekterande lärare och lärandekatalysator så ändras lärarens tankemönster och därmed beteende och agerande i lärandemiljön. Workshopdeltagarna kommer att få hjälpa till att sortera upp vilket stöd som bäst behövs för Chalmerslärare i dessa olika utvecklingsfaser.Chalmers har numera två relativt nya aktiviteter på lärarutvecklingsfronten, där pedagogiska utvecklingsledare (peduler) är den ena. Metoder för utveckling av lärare och lärarlag kan behöva förfinas för att bli så effektiva som möjligt, både avseende resultat och resursbehov. Här kan workshop deltagarna ge sin input, dokumenterat, med ”mjukt” styrda gruppdiskussioner.Den andra relativt nya lärarutvecklingsaktiviteten på Chalmers är gymnasielärarutbildningen för blivande civilingenjörer, masterprogrammet Lärande och Ledarskap (MPLOL). Programmet är designat för att utveckla goda lärare och ledare, till både skolmiljö och näringsliv. Praktiken för dessa lärarstudenter inkluderar VFU (verksamhetsförlagd utbildning) på gymnasieskolor där just lärarutveckling i praktiken är i fokus. VFU-kurserna kan ge input till just ”hur man gör” med allt från praktiska tips i klassrummet till reflekterande inlämningsuppgifter med feedback från mästarlärare. Andra lärandeaktiviteter som kan tillämpas för lärare vid Chalmers inkluderar auskultation och filmning av egna lektioner. Workshopdeltagarna kommer att få ge input till vilka av dessa aktiviteter som kan tänkas hjälpa bäst för Chalmerslärare.Frågeställningarna för workshopens deltagare att ge input till kan sammanfattas som:1.Vad är det som utmärker en bra lärare?2.Hur kan man effektivt stödja en lärares utveckling?3.När i utvecklingsprocessen passar de olika möjliga insatserna?4.Hur kan peduler stödja lärarutvecklingsprocessen?5.Hur kan MPLOLs arbetssätt stödja Chalmerslärares utveckling?
|
|
| 6. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956
(författare)
-
Learning plan before single-student final re-exam
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- SHORT SUMMARY As a teacher, are you ever frustrated over being asked to create an extra exam for only one student, when “your” course is the only thing stopping this student from receiving their degree? I will provide one suggestion to help both you and the student, before creating this final re-exam. Together, we will discuss how else we can help the students best, in similar situations, without an unreasonable workload for the teachers. ABSTRACT Intended audience: This round table discussion is mainly keyed for examiners, leaders of programs, and department vice-heads for undergraduate education. It will possibly also be relevant for student counsellors. Problem statement: When only one course remains before receiving their degree, Chalmers students have the right to request an extra exam (see link below, Reference 1, in Swedish). The examiner decides whether or not to provide this. Often, the last course remaining for the student is the one that the student has most trouble with. Sometimes, the student will have a long history of failed exams in this course. In such a case, the student needs support in finding a better way of learning before it is useful to provide an extra re-exam. Suggested solution: The student can fill out a learning plan document, where previous exam attempts in this course are analyzed in a structured format. For each failed exam attempt, at least three specific “learning aspects” with identified “room for improved learning” and “plan to achieve learning” are noted. Each identified learning aspect is then keyed (by the student) to the learning goals and course content. Finally, a time schedule with checkpoint actions is created, with a plan for self-guidance and progress reporting to the examiner. The learning plan document used in my recent pilot study (one student) is available for download at the address listed below under Reference 2. Single student pilot study: This method has be tested by me in an obligatory course within one of Chalmers master programs. The student for whom I designed this learning support tool had asked me to create another re-exam, after failing six exams in a row in this course. This was the only exam left before the degree could be requested. I provided the student with the instructions and template for the above mentioned learning plan. Results: The student’s interpretation of the learning plan document differed substantially from that intended. After several rounds of returns, and pledged “proper” studying, the student was given a chance to be re-examined with a single-student written exam. The results of the seven exams, including the final one which has now been passed, as well as the student’s subjective reflection on the usefulness of this learning support tool will be presented at the onset of the round table discussion. Discussion: It should be useful to get input from other Chalmers teachers as to how best to support student learning in challenging final re-exam situations. A revised version of this document, after the round table discussion at KUL would likely be a useful tool to make available to other teachers, possibly via the Education pages on Chalmers Insidan. References: 1. in English: Instructions for planning and implementation of First and Second-cycle Examinations academic year 2016/17, see page 8 section 2.3 Extra examination dates, available at: http://document.chalmers.se/download?docid=91ce6170-5578-40e9-bdc1-830175233655&lang=en in Swedish: Föreskrifter för planering och genomförande av examination på grund- och avancerad nivå läsåret 2016/17, se sidan 10, rubriken ”2.3 Extra tentamenstillfällen” på länken: http://document.chalmers.se/download?docid=91ce6170-5578-40e9-bdc1-830175233655&lang=sv 2. Learning plan before single-student-exam, available as pdf and Word document at PingPong activity: https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/3024/content.do?id=3365566
|
|
| 7. |
- Galt, Sheila, 1956, et al.
(författare)
-
Students’ own collective criteria - influence on peer feedback and lab report quality
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- SHORT SUMMARY What happens when you let the students collectively decide together what’s meant by “good quality” for example in a lab report? Will this adequately guide their own learning as shown by their written lab reports and peer feedback comments? Or is it better to just tell them what you expect? ABSTRACT Intended audience: This presentation will likely mostly interest teachers who use or want to start using peer review in their courses (at bachelor or master level). Teachers of courses with lab report assignments may also be interested in my example of use of peer feedback in this learning context. Problem statement: Many students, at the onset of advanced level studies at Chalmers, lack the ability to produce a good quality lab report. Such generic skills are expected to be in place before students leave Chalmers with their master’s degree. Experience has shown that “just” telling the students how to write a good report is not sufficient. Might they listen more to each other than to the teacher? Suggested solution: If students are collectively given the chance to spell out what they mean by a “good quality” lab report, agreeing upon a list of criteria in class, this list can be used to guide their learning through applying their own criteria. This list of criteria can support their individual first draft writing process, as well as their individual feedback given to each other in a structured peer review process. Finally, the feedback given by the teacher can reference the students’ own list of criteria when making the final assessment of the revised report. Chosen learning scenarios: This method has been applied for two consecutive years in an introductory course within the MPWPS program. An introductory lecture before labs start includes a collective exercise where students provide their take on quality criteria for lab reports. The teacher takes the role of secretary, creating their collective list on the whiteboard, and making the list available in PingPong after the lecture. (See Ref. 1.) If key aspects are being forgotten by the students collectively during the process, the teacher can drop gentle hints in order to have the final quality criteria list quality assured. Seven obligatory short labs are performed in pairs, but only one of these labs is individually and randomly assigned to each student for writing a formal lab report. Students are then assigned peer review roles, and apply these quality criteria to a report on a different lab by another student. Revised lab reports are then submitted, along with a short text on how the peer feedback was incorporated into the final version. With peer review of first drafts, the reviewer as well as the author of the report will be learning during the process, while carefully applying the quality criteria. During the two most recent years, when the above system was in place in this course, the teaching differed in one significant way: the most recent year included a lecture dedicated to academic honesty and the avoidance of plagiarism. (See Ref. 2.) In previous years, quality criteria were provided by the teacher, not by the collective group of students. (See Ref. 3.) Student achievement measures: We analyze the student achievements (lab report quality) as a measure of their learning in three different aspects: core subject content learning, generic written communication skills, and academic honesty. The latter analysis is reported in a separate presentation (Ref. 2.) The generic written communication skills will be the focus of my presentation, with an attempt at measuring the degree to which the student’s own quality criteria list was actually successfully applied in their lab report and peer review writing. It will however not be possible to make a “fair and scientific” comparison to previous years’ student lab reports, since other factors were also changed at the same time. Comparison of resulting achievement for different scenarios: Student learning connected to similar quality criteria will be compared for the “student collectively generated” criteria (the latest two years of the course) and the “teacher generated” criteria (provided previously). The two different years this student generated criteria scenario was used had slightly different criteria lists – which may or may not be evident in the outcome of the students’ writing. This course has just finished, and the analysis will be performed during the coming study period before the KUL conference, so results are pending. Alternative solutions: In a more traditional scenario, the teacher informs the students of the quality criteria, set by the teacher, and the teacher applies the criteria when grading the assignment. Both comments and grades are usually provided by the teacher to individual students, who sometimes resubmit assignments after taking into account the teacher-provided feedback. However, in many cases, the feedback comes without any further requirement posed, and therefore without strong incentives for further learning. Much research has been done on criteria based assessment including negotiating criteria with students, (see e.g. Ref. 4.) Here, however, I have just given my suggestion of one way of assessing, which I have found to work well References: 1. ”Lab report quality criteria”, available on PingPong at the following link: https://pingpong.chalmers.se/courseId/7038/content.do?id=3366624 2. KUL 2017, Undervisa och examinera akademisk hederlighet, submitted ”short presentation” 3. KUL 2012, Systematisk feedback och progression som stöd för studenters lärande inom generella kompetenser. 4. Biggs, J. ”Teaching for quality Learning at University”, 2003, chapters 8 and 9.
|
|
| 8. |
- Hjelmgren, Hans, 1960, et al.
(författare)
-
Undervisa och examinera akademisk hederlighet
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- KORT SAMMANFATTNING Vi har lagt in en obligatorisk föreläsning om Akademisk hederlighet, plagiering och otillåtet samarbete i en av de inledande obligatoriska kurserna i mastersprogrammet MPWPS. Färdigheterna testas dels direkt med en quiz, men framför allt genom en individuell skriftlig laborationsrapport. ABSTRACT Antalet anmälda fall av misstänkt plagiering vid högskolorna ökar i en betydligt högre takt än andra former av anmälda disciplinärenden (UKÄ, 2014). Vad som avses med plagiering och hur man undviker det är dock inte självklart. För att kopiering ska bli otillåten i dessa sammanhang måste den ha utförts med avsikt att vilseleda under examination (Carroll och Zetterling, 2009). Våra erfarenheter från tidigare år visar att vi behöver arbeta mer aktivt med begrepp som akademisk hederlighet och plagiering. Det har inte varit tillräckligt att dela ut Chalmers policy kring akademisk hederlighet (Wennberg 2009) och en kort genomgång vid mottagning av mastersstudenterna. I en av de obligatoriska kurserna i första läsperioden på mastersprogrammet Trådlös Teknik, Fotonik och Rymdteknik har vi därför kombinerat en obligatorisk föreläsning kring akademisk hederlighet med inlämning av en individuell laborationsrapport. Under första halvan av föreläsningen definierar vi plagiering, ser vad som står i högskoleförordningen, hur man skriver utifrån källor, samt informerar om den hjälp Chalmers kan erbjuda vid rapportskrivning, t.ex. CHOCS och engelska-kurser. Under andra halvan av föreläsningen besvarar studenterna m.h.a. sina mobiler en quiz med åtta olika påståenden kring plagiering och otillåtet samarbete. Frågorna är hämtade från Henriksson (2008). Vi avslutar med att gå igenom de olika påståendena tillsammans och tittar på fördelningen av korrekta och felaktiga svar. Inför rapportskrivandet tilldelas varje student slumpmässigt att skriva en mer utförlig laborationsrapport kring en av de sju obligatoriska laborationsuppgifter som ingår i kursen. De skickar in ett utkast av rapporten till Ping Pong via Urkund. Studenterna ger sedan återkoppling på varandras utkast, s.k. peer review. Studenterna tar med rekommendationerna som de fått från peer review och lämnar sedan in en slutlig rapport till lärarna för granskning. Kursen har precis avslutats, men vi kommer utvärdera effekten m.h.a. en tillagd fråga i kursenkäten, och en jämförelse av förekomsten av plagiat i årets och föregående års rapporter. Använd litteratur Carroll, J.J., Zetterling C.M. (2009). Hjälp studenterna att undvika plagiering. Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskolan. Henriksson, A.-S. (2008) Att förebygga plagiat i studentarbeten – en pedagogisk utvecklingsmöjlighet. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. UKÄ rapport 2014:3, Disciplinärenden 2013 vid universitet och högskolor. Stockholm, Universitetskansler-ämbetet. Wennberg. B. (2009) Akademisk hederlighet på Chalmers – Vilka är våra spelregler? Göteborg: Chalmers tekniska högskola.
|
|
