• No results found

Weaving knowledge together : Articulating and assessing the involvement of societal actorsin challenge based learning within design education

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Weaving knowledge together : Articulating and assessing the involvement of societal actorsin challenge based learning within design education"

Copied!
14
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Weaving

knowledge

together

Articulating and assessing the involvement of societal actors

in challenge based learning within design education

(2)

Aim

This guide provides a theoretical grounding for the understanding of the role of societal actors in CBL and how it can be assessed. This grounding is used to formulate an assessment for the involvement of societal actors in CBL.

Background

Alliances across sectors and integration of different forms of knowledge is recognized as a key factor to address contemporary societal challenges as also highlighted by UN SDG 17 that lifts partnerships among different actors as a driver for all other SDG goals (UNDP 2015). Challenge based learning (CBL) often implies the involvement of societal actors. They are those who own “the challenge” and they can be engaged in several ways in the learning process: they can communicate and frame the challenge; give feedback to the students along the way; contribute with different perspectives. Their involvement is crucial for the quality of the learning experience. Articulating and assessing this involvement gives opportunities to improve the way knowledge from these actors is integrated in the learning experience.

Method

The guide has been developed by combining insights from literature and from interviews with three people, “actors”, with whom I collaborated in different courses throughout the years. A civil servant working with local area development; a civil servant working with waste management; a person who has been working with NGOs as well as with the municipality focusing on civic initiatives and citizens’ participation.

Limitations

This guide primally addresses CBL courses within design higher education programs. It can also be relevant for courses that strongly rely on the engagement of societal actors (such an internships, project-based courses with external cases etc. etc.). It can provide inspiration to other disciplines about how to understand and assess the collaboration with societal actors.

Glossary

Actor(s): within CBL, the word “stakeholder” is often used to describe external people/ organizations involved in the teaching process. I prefer to use the word “actor” since it opens up for a less instrumental and more holistic way to consider the relationship with these people/ organizations.

Knowledge co-production: an interactive process that combines different forms of knowledge (disciplines, embodied knowledge, context-based knowledge) to generate new insights (Norström et al. 2020).

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Mina Sharifiyan, Jorgen Andersson and Savita Upadhyaya for sharing their experiences and reflections about engaging with students and teachers.

This guide has been developed within the pedagogical course “Perspectives and methods for Challenge-based learning” at Malmö University (Autumn, 2020).

Contact for inquires and comments

(3)

1 Challenge-based learning and designerly ways of learning 2 Challenge based learning as knowledge co-production

2.1 Consequences for the course design

3 Key questions for assessing societal actors’ involvement 4 The assessing process

4.1 The learning agreement 4.2 Dialogue througout the course

4.3 The final evaluations with students and external actors

5 Final reflections and further work

5.1 Adressing CBL risks a focus on phronesis

5.2 Knowledge co-production for (future) reflective practitioners…. 5.3 …but how to assess different levels of integration?

References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 13 14

Table of contents

(4)

Challenge-based learning is about

educating reflective practitioners who

are able to critically reflect on their

own and others’ doing to improve

understandings and ways of acting

in and on reality.

Challenge based learning (CBL) (Nichols and Cator 2008) is a learning experience where the learning takes place through the identification, analysis and design of a solution to a socio-technical issue (Malmqvist et al. 2015). Its first formulation was developed by Apple (Nichols and Cator 2008), but in the last years, the approach has been progressively grounded in theory and being further developed. A key aspect of CBL is that students train in combining theoretical and practical knowledge by engaging with a “real” case. In doing so they enhance their understanding of and capacity to bring about change (Cruger 2018). CBL is an approach that strongly overlaps with the way design practice and education is framed (Schön 1984,1992).

1

Challenge-based learning and designerly

ways of learning

CBL and design share the idea that experience can be a driver for learning (Dewey 1938). Learning-by-doing entails to reflect in the action and on the consequences of such action (Schön 1984), and in doing so, it focuses on the interactive relationship between understanding a specific situation (i.e. problem framing) and acting in and upon it (i.e. problem solving) (Schön 1984,1992). Working on the interaction between knowledge (production) and action can lead to the development of a “reflective practice” (Schön 1984), a practice that interweaves action and reflection in order to advance ways of understanding and acting in the world. Particularly, it can foster questions and learning about: “are things done right?” (single-loop learning) “what is the right thing to do? “ (double-loop learning) and “how is the notion of what is ‘right’ defined?” (triple-loop learning) (Argyris and Schön 1974).

I argue that, if properly structured, CBL experiences can be a way of educating reflective practitioners (Schön 1984) who, as future professionals, will be able to critically reflect on their own and others’ doing to improve understandings and ways of acting.

In traditional design education, the main actors of the learning process are the teacher and the student (Schön 1984). CBL opens up for considering the role of societal actors (i.e. people who is not teaching staff nor students) in the learning process. In CBL teachers, students and external actors are contributing with their different knowledge to the learning process. CBL brings together theoretical knowledge, general methods with professional, context-based and embodied knowledge. In line with Participatory Design tradition, CBL can be understood as a process that, while aiming for addressing a specific issue, promotes respectful learning among different actors and across the forms of knowledge they bare (Simonsen and Robertson 2012).

(5)

Students (previous knowledge and experiences) External actor(s) (context-based, professional and embodied knowledge) Teacher (theoretical concepts; general methods; ev. applied knowledge)

Societal actors bring to a course a specific situation (Schön 1992) for students to address. They also bear experiences and perspectives that are relevant for the understanding of such situation. Their knowledge is based on their own experiences, professional role and culture, and it is specific to the context(s) in which they are operating. In CBL, students are asked to weave together general knowledge about theories and methods with professional, context-based, embodied knowledge to understand and address a specific challenge. Thus, CBL can be understood as a matter of knowledge co-production (Norström et al. 2020), since different forms of knowledge are brought together with the aim of developing understandings about an issue and to inform ways to address it. A useful framework for articulating knowledge co-production can be found within sustainability research (Lang et al. 2012; Nörstrom et al. 2019). Here, successful knowledge co-production is defined as a matter of combining different forms of knowledge to generate a new understanding of and answer to a specific issue (Lang et al. 2012; Nörstrom et al. 2019). This kind of research is: context-based (i.e. situated in particular context, place or issue); pluralistic (i.e. it recognizes and supports multiple ways of knowing and doing); goal-oriented (i.e. it articulates clearly defined, shared and meaningful goals that are related to the challenge at hand); interactive (i.e. it allows for ongoing learning among actors, active engagement and frequent interactions) (Nörstrom et al. 2019). The

2

Challenge-based learning as

knowledge co-production

In challenge-based learning students

are asked to weave together general

knowledge about theories and

methods with professional,

context-based, embodied knowledge

to understand and address

a specific challenge.

5

Figure 1.

CBL is about weaving together different forms of knowledge

(6)

following table summarizes how these four aspects can be assessed.

6

Characteristics of knowledge

co-production Assessment criteria

Context-based, it is situated in particular context,

place or issue. Connection to the context (when it comes to:focus; process; knowledge(s) and outcome); Relevance and appropriation of the outcome for the context.

Pluralistic, it recognizes and supports multiple ways

of knowing and doing. Mobilizing and articulating different forms of knowledge;

Developing trust and shared perspectives among participants.

Goal-oriented, it articulates clearly defined, shared and meaningful goals that are related to the challenge at hand.

Outcomes can be and/or are used to inform actions and understandings,

Interactive, it allows for ongoing learning among

actors, active engagement and frequent interactions. Mutual understanding for different positions/knowledge. Changes in how participants understand the challenge.

Based on Norström et al. (2020)

2.1 Consequences for the course design

Understanding CBL as knowledge co-production implies consequence for the course design. The framework of constructive alignment (Biggs 2011) highlights the importance of the coherence between learning goals, learning activities and assessments in an higher-education course. On the basis of Norström et al. (2020) framework, the following aspects seem relevant when designing a CBL course:

•Learning goals should consider students’ capacity to appropriate and integrate societal actors’ knowledge in their learning process and outcomes.

•Learning activities should provide space for societal actors’ knowledges and provide the students with possibilities to learn about them and train about how to integrate different kinds of knowledge.

•Assessments should focus on interweaving different forms of knowledge. They should consider if and how students’ learning process and outcomes are relevant for the different course participants (i.e. students, teachers and societal actors) their knowledge and learning expectations

The appendix A provides more detailed suggestions for the formulation of learning goals, possible learning activities and assessments’ criteria.

(7)

3

Key questions for assessing societal

actors’ involvement

By considering Norström et al. (2020) criteria for co-production and the course design aspects, four questions seem to be key for assessing societal actors involvement:

•Is societal actors’ knowledge integrated in the course goals and activities? (i.e. based; pluralistic interactive; learning goals and activities).

•Are different forms of knowledge communicated in an appropriate (i.e. that is respectful and appropriate for the specific kind of knowledge) and effective way (i.e. that allows students to appropriate them and learn about how to work with them)? (i.e. interactive pluralistic; goal oriented;learning activities).

•Are different forms of knowledge interweaved in students’ learning process and outcomes? And how? (i.e. pluralistic; interactive; learning activities; assessments criteria).

•Are students’ learning process and outcomes relevant for the different participants? And how? (i.e. context-bsed; interactive; pluralistic; goal-oriented; assessments criteria).

Is external

actors' knowledge

integrated in the course goals

and activities? Are different forms of knowledge communicated in an appropriate and effective way? Is student work relevant for different participants? And how? Context-based: Connection to local context; Relevance of outcomes for

the participants Interactive: Mutual understanding for different positions/ knowledge; Changes in how participants understand the challenge Goal oriented:

Outcomes are used to inform actions and

understandings Are different forms of knowledge interweaved in students work? And how? Learning goals: Focus on studentsʼ capacity to appropriate and

integrate societal actorsʼ knowledge

Learning activities:

space to societal actorsʼ knowledge and give students possibilities to

learn about it and train about how to integrate

different knowledge forms. Assessments criteria: Studentsʼ capacity to appropriate and integrate societal actorsʼ knowledge

in their learning process and

outcomes

Pluralistic:

Mobilizing and articulating the different

forms of knowledge; Developing trust and

shared perspectives among participants

Figure 2.

The four questions to assess societal actors’ involvement

(8)

4

The assessing process

COURSE

Dialogue Is student work relevant for different participants? And how? Are different forms of knowledge interweaved in students work? And how? Are different forms of knowledge communicated in an appropriate and effective way? Is external actors' knowledge integrated in the course goals

and activities?

Final evaluations for students and

external actors The learning agreement COURSE ASSESSIN G COURSE PROCESS

Due to the dynamic nature of knowledge co-production processes, involved actors’ role should be considered throughout the course and not only at its end. This calls for an assessment rather than evaluation. Here, I suggest that such process should, at a minimum, include two stages: the compilation of the learning agreement at the beginning of the course, and the final evaluations. If courses’ structure, duration and resources allow, it might be rewarding to ensure a dialogue with the involved actors throughout the course.

4.1 The learning agreement

This document is compiled at the beginning of the course by the student(s), the external actor and the teacher. It aims at fostering a shared and basic understanding about the goals and processes of the learning experience. It highlights some important aspects to consider like the alignment between learning goals and activities with the external actors’ knowledge as well as the communication between the parties. It also creates a basis for the final evaluation. The main value of “the learning agreement” is the dialogue that sparks between the teacher, students and the societal actor. A dialogue that, hopefully, can lead to an alignment of the different expectations but also let everyone involved articulate and appropriate the course as a learning experience.

The learning agreement consists of the following questions:

•What is the issue/question the student is focusing on throughout the course? How is this issue relevant for the societal actor perspective (consider specific context; professional knowledge etc.)? How is this issue relevant for the teacher (consider learning

goals and assessments etc.)? How is this issue relevant for the student (consider assessments, personal motivation etc.)?

•What are the (learning) expectations of students, societal actors and teachers? •How is knowledge from the external actor going to be integrated in course goals, activities and examinations?

•How will students be supported in relating to and integrating different forms of knowledge throughout the course?

•How will communication between students, teachers and societal actors be ensured throughout the course?

Appendix B provides a possible format for the learning agreement.

Figure 3.

The assessment process and its different tools

(9)

4.2 Dialogue throughout the course

The dialogue aims at addressing opportunities and issues emerging in the collaboration about practical aspects (f.ex. changed conditions for actors’ engagement); communication; students’ capacity to deal with different forms of knowledges and accountabilities.

The dialogue can be part of ordinary learning activities (see Appendix A). Particularly, tutoring sessions with students are usually a good occasion to discuss with them the

collaboration and the need for ad-hoc support. When it comes to external actors, it might be worth planning a joint supervision session and/or inviting them to a presentation of students’ work half way in the course. This activity can provide the teacher with an understanding of how external actors’ relate to students’ work as well as with specific insights about the collaboration between the student(s) and the external actor(s). It is also important that the teacher(s) clearly establishes a direct communication with the external actors before the beginning of course. This might ease the dialogue with each other along the way in case of unforeseen happenings or possible issues.

Key questions to be considered along the course:

•What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current collaboration according to the students?

•What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current collaboration according to the external actor?

•To what extent communication among the people involved is considered effective (valuable and sufficient) by the students?

•To what extent communication among the people involved is considered effective (valuable and sufficient) by the external actors?

4.3 The final evaluations with students and external actors

The final evaluations gather input from students and external actors about the communication and collaboration and about could be improved in the course. They partially build on aspects addressed in the learning agreement.

Students’ evaluation.

The following questions could be integrated in the questionnaire that is usually used to gather students’ input at the end of a course.

•To what extent course activities, goals and examinations integrated external actors’ knowledge in the learning process?

•To what extent course activities and examinations supported you in integrating external actors’ knowledge with disciplinary knowledge provided by the teacher?

•To what extent has the communication between you and the external actor been effective (valuable and sufficient)?

•To what extent has the communication between you and the teachers been effective? •Any suggestion about how to improve collaborations with external actors in the course? External actors’ evaluation.

The evaluation can be a survey and/or a conversation between the teacher and the external actors. The following questions can be considered:

•Did your understanding of the issue/problem change along the way? If yes, how? •Did your (learning) expectations change along the way? If yes, how?

•Did students’ learning process and outcomes provide you with new insights? Are you going to appropriate/use some of these insights? And how?

•To what extent course activities, goals and examinations allowed to integrate your knowledge in the learning process?

•To what extent have you been aware of course goals, structures and examination forms? •To what extent has the communication between you and the student(s) been effective? •To what extent has the communication between you and the teacher(s) been effective? •Any suggestion about how to improve collaborations with external actors in the course? Appendix C provides an example of how the external actors’ evaluation can be adapted for an internship course.

(10)

5

Final reflections and further work

In order to articulate and assess the role of external actors in CBL, this guide builds upon designerly ways of learning (and knowing) and the idea of knowledge co-production. The following sections reflect on the consequences of these choices as well as opportunities for further work.

5.1 Addressing CBL risks: a focus on phronesis

The work of Schön (1984) and Dewey (1938) provide a framework to understand how concrete experiences can lead to learning, i.e. by creating processes that favor the interaction between theoretical knowledge with context-based and embodied knowledge (Schön 1992). In these processes students need to critically reflect on general theories and methods as well as in and on the specific case they are working with (Schön 1984,1992). They need to become aware of which forms of knowledge they rely upon to make sense of reality and how these forms of knowledge underpin their own actions. At best, this raises practical, epistemological, political questions (Argyris and Schön 1972) but also ethical concerns. All in all, learning-by-doing can generate phronesis.

Aristotle distinguished between three kinds of knowledge: episteme (theoretical knowledge), techne (technical knowledge), and phronesis ( practical knowing or practical wisdom) According to Flyvbjerg (2004), phronesis is about practical knowing and practical ethics, which implies a focus not only on knowledge about how to act in a situation, but also an understanding of how power and values are at play in practitioners’ actions (Flyvbjerg 2004).

Students might treat questions

emerging along the way as something

to quickly resolve rather than explore.

A focus on problem framing rather

than problem solving can support

CBL experiences in keeping

knowledge production at their core.

CBL focus on “addressing/solving real-world problems” can lead to instrumental approaches that can weaken the learning process. If the focus is on ”developing a solution”, students might treat questions emerging along the way as something to quickly resolve and/or circumnavigate rather than explore and try to understand. This can hinder their capacity to develop a more in-depth understanding of the issue at stake. A focus on phronesis and reflection in and on action can support CBL experiences in keeping knowledge production at their core. By prioritizing problem framing over problem solving (Schön 1984,1992), CBL experiences can foster students’ understanding that the way we make sense of the world around us, is what guides our actions and what opens up (but also shuts down) possibilities to imagine new/different solutions. It might also help them in articulating political stands that are part of problem framing and problem solving processes (Argyris and Schön 1974).

The focus on practical knowing and practical wisdom is also useful in addressing and (hopefully) developing a constructive relationship with the external actors. To lift the importance of their professional, context-based and embodied knowledge in the learning experience, rather than “just” focusing on the problem/issue they bring to the course, might help in creating

(11)

a better learning alliance between the external actors and teachers for the benefit of the students.

5.2 Knowledge co-production for (future) reflective practitioners….

Knowledge co-production is here used to understand (and assess) the process through which disciplinary knowledge and context-based, professional, embodied knowledges are brought together. The use of this concept, once again, highlights the centrality of learning in CBL: the focus is not on “solving a problem” but rather learning about how to integrate different forms of knowledge to enrich one own’s understanding of the world and own’s own practice, i.e. how to become a reflective practitioner (Schön 1984). This requires to develop different abilities. They range from analyzing a context to understanding and developing connections across different forms of knowledge; from recognizing that people has different forms of knowledge and views to being able to collaborate with others; from being aware of how knowledge, actions and values are interweaved with each other to being able to act upon and transform such connection.

5.3…but how to assess different levels of integration?

For reasons of time, this work hasn’t address the question of how to assess different levels of knowledge integration. Within academia, this topic has been around for a while (at least since Gibbson et al. 1994) and discussed as issues of multi- inter- or trans-disciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity is about the inclusion of several disciplines that operate within their disciplinary boundaries; interdisciplinarity, is a matter of including and combining different disciplines by establishing a shared terminology or methodology; transdisciplinarity is about including and combining different disciplines by defining a mutual theoretical framework and weaving together different disciplinary epistemologies (Gibbson et al. 1994; Van den Besseelar and Heimerisk 2001).

While formulating this guide, I tried to use notions of inter- and transdisciplinarity to articulate different levels of knowledge co-production. However, I hesitated to proceed along this way since these notions have been developed to describe the interaction of different disciplines(i.e. field of specialty and/or branch of learning), and not of forms of knowledge that profoundly differ in their nature, like embodied and academic knowledge. A question for future work is thus how to develop a framework to articulate integrations of these different forms of knowledge.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-bass. Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-hill education (UK).

Cruger, K. M. (2018). Applying challenge-based learning in the (feminist) communication classroom: Positioning students as knowledgeable change agents. Communication Teacher, 32(2), 87-101.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283-306.

Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability science, 7(1), 25-43.

Malmqvist, J., Rådberg, K. K., & Lundqvist, U. (2015, June). Comparative analysis of challenge-based learning experiences. In Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China (pp. 87-94).

Nichols, M., & Cator, K. (2008). Challenge Based Learning. White Paper. Cupertino, California: Apple. Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., ... & Campbell, B. M. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature sustainability, 1-9.

Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books.

Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-based systems, 5(1), 3-14.

Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge.

UNDP (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/ home/sustainable-development-goals.html

Van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. In ISSI,705-716.

(12)

LEARNING GOALS: Focus on students’ capacity to appropriate and integrate societal actors’ knowledge

Basic level of knowledge integration:

Students can describe different forms of knowledge and discuss their differences;

Students can motivate their choices in relation to the way they use the different forms of knowledge in their work;

Students can integrate different forms of knowledge by identifying similarities among concepts and actions/practices across different forms of knowledge and/or by acting in ways that are grounded in the different forms of

knowledge; Advanced level

of knowledge integration:

Students are able to connect elements from one knowledge domain to another;

Students can formulate concepts, develop approaches and carry out actions/ practices that combine elements from the different forms of knowledge;

LEARNING ACTIVITIES: Provide space for societal actors’ knowledge and provide the students with possibilities to learn about it and train about how to integrate different kinds of knowledge.

Basic level of knowledge integration:

External actors presentations/lectures; Tutoring sessions with external actors;

Joint tutoring sessions with external actors and teachers; Seminars with external actors and teachers;

Workshops/Exercises focusing on describing and analyzing different forms of knowledge and developing possible connections;

….. Advanced level of knowledge integration:

Workshop/exercises focusing on developing possible connections between forms of knowledge in the form of concepts, actions or other relevant elements;

Including external actors as examiners; ….

ASSESSMENTS CRITERIA:

Focus on students’ capacity to appropriate and integrate societal actors’ knowledge in their learning process and outcomes.

Basic level of knowledge integration:

How does student’s work responds to students, teachers and involved actor(s) (learning) expectations?

To what extent the student is able to communicate insights in ways that are appropriate for the different contexts and forms of knowledge they entail? To what extent student’s work is connecting the different forms of knowledge by means of concepts, actions/practices or other relevant elements?

Advanced level of knowledge integration:

To what extent student’s work develops concepts, action/practices or other relevant elements that connect different forms of knowledge in a new and relevant way ?

(13)

Learning agreement for courses involving societal actors

compiled by the teacher, student and involved actor(s) at the beginning of the course (possibly together). It should be also used as a basis for the final evaluation of the learning experience and of the involvement of an external actor. The aim of the learning agreement is to support a dialogue

about learning, relationships and collaboration, among students, involved actor(s) and teachers and not a matter of stricktly regulating these aspects. The agreement should be

COMPILED BY:

... ... ...

FOR THE COURSE:

... ... 1. What is the issue/question the student is focusing on throughout the course?

... ...

How is this issue relevant for the external actor(s) (consider specific context; professional knowledge etc.)?

... ...

How is this issue relevant for the teacher (consider learning goals, assessments etc.)?

... ...

How is this issue relevant for the student (consider assessments, personal motivations etc.)? ... ... 2.What are the (learning) expectations of student(s), external actors and teachers for the course? Student(s):... Teacher:... External actor: ... 3.How is knowledge from the external actor(s) going to be integrated in course goals, activities and examinatons?

... ... ... 4.How will students be supported in relating to and integrating different forms of knowledge

throughout the course?

... ... ... 5.How will communication between students, teachers and external actor(s) be ensured throughout the course?

... ... ...

(14)

APPENDIX C: Example of external actors evaluation form

Questionnaire to be compiled by the organizations that host students for the internship course in the design bachelors at MAU (30 ECTS).

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1.Which were your initial expectations about the student’s internship at your organization? a. Did these expectations changed along the way?

2.Overall, what are your impressions about student’s learning process during the internship? a.What went well?

b.Which were the challenges?

KNOWLEDGE APPROPRIATION, INTEGRATION and RELEVANCE:

3.To which extent did the student focus on a specific question/issue/topic/process during the internship? (pick on a scale:1-5) a. Can you describe shortly the question(s)/issue(s)/topic(s)/process(es) the student has been focusing on?

4.To which extent did the student appropriate/integrate input and experiences from your organization in her/his way of working during the internship? (pick on a scale:1-5)

5. To which extent did the student bring in the organization different perspectives and ways of working? (pick on a scale:1-5)

6.At the first examination, to what extent did the student integrate knowledge/input that she/he gained at your organization? (pick on a scale:1-5)

7. During the first examination, to what extent did students’ presentations provide you with new input and insights? (pick on a scale:1-5)

8. Are you going to use/appropriate some of the input provided by the student? (yes/no) a. If yes how? If no why?

COMMUNICATION:

9. To which extent student(s)’ working tasks at your organization have been directed towards the following goals? a. Learning goal 1: develop in-depth knowledge and understanding of practical professional work on issues related to the main subject (pick on a scale:1-5)

b.Learning goal 2: identify and describe professional knowledge and skills in relation to potential clients and partners in the student’s main field (pick on a scale:1-5)

c.Learning goal 3: communicate experiences during the internship in dialogue with different groups (pick on a scale:1-5)

d.Learning goal 4: independently select, investigate and account for a relevant topic or question which has been in focus during the internship period (pick on a scale:1-5)

e. Learning goal 5: evaluate and reflect on their own professional practice and development and demonstrate the ability to independently identify the need for further knowledge within relevant subject areas. (pick on a scale:1-5)

10.To which extent have you been informed about and or involved about the different assignments the student(s) has/have to deliver?

a.Knowledge and understanding of the field of work/business, the workplace and the working tasks: oral presentation (pick on a scale:1-5)

b.Communication of internship: presentation and visual conference contribution (pick on a scale:1-5)

c.Reflection on professional self-development in the internship in the form of a written assignment (pick on a scale:1-5) 11.How have you perceived the role of the academic supervisor during the internship? (you may choose more than

one alternative).

Mentor/Facilitator/Bureaucrat/Too much focused on theory/Too much focused on practice/Too high expectations/ Absent/Something else: (write your own alternative).

12.To which extent the communication between your organization and the student has been... a.Well-functioning (pick on a scale:1-5)

b.Sufficient (pick on a scale:1-5) c. ...

13.To which extent the communication between your organization and the academic supervisor has been... a.Well-functioning (pick on a scale:1-5)

b.Sufficient (pick on a scale:1-5) c. ...

FINAL REMARKS:

14. Do you experience having an intern from Malmö University has been enriching for your organization? (Yes/No) Comment:...

References

Related documents

It was designed to indicate the relative strengths of students’ approaches in three main dimensions – deep, surface and strategic approaches in which the similar

The effects of the students ’ working memory capacity, language comprehension, reading comprehension, school grade and gender and the intervention were analyzed as a

Its aim was to investigate how interventions based on methods such as a learning study and Content Representations (CoRe) might enhance teachers' reflections and PCK. The

Drawing on findings from an ongoing empirical study of medical students’ experiences of what learning and understanding in medicine entails and on findings from two

The WebUML2 with the feedback agent was used to run an experiment, where two groups of student designed a class diagram for a simple task. One group had access to the feedback

introduction course at term 5) were created during an extended course development process. Knowledge areas and course content from General practice, Medical Psychology and

Specific aims were to analyse students’ descriptive feedback of a Consultation skills course and its development over five years, to explore final-year students’ abilities

This study emphasises jointly constituted learning opportunities in mathematics instruction by analysing learner contributions, and the attention paid to them, in