Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2015 peer learning and ethical principles of teaching


Published on

peer learning

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

2015 peer learning and ethical principles of teaching

  1. 1. Satu Öystilä 2015 Peer Learning and Ethical Principles of a Teacher Eduta Oy Tel. +35850 564 4887
  2. 2. Peer learning The human being needs a reclection (a mirror) in order to learn
  3. 3. Learning
  4. 4. Dales pyramid • Dales pyramid shows, how active learning processes and methods create best circumstances and environments to learning. • Panadero, C. F., Román, J. V. & Kloos, C. D. 2010. Impact of learning experiences using LEGO Mindstorms in engineering courses, IEEE Education Engineering (EDUCON), 503–512.
  5. 5. The Elements of Collaborative Learning • Peer learning • To take care of the stages of group development • Dialogue • Teacher as an authority (not authoritarian) • The development of self-confidence and self- knowledge • Interpersonal skills
  6. 6. Peer learning • Peer learning means using of such learning strategies, where students can learn from and with each other. Teachers have to organize the process and create a structure for it, but otherwise they keep on the background and do not controll the process.
  7. 7. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning Please, list the barries of peer learning!
  8. 8. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning I  Fear of losing control  Fear, that there is no time to handle all content  Teachers don´t have the ability to use collaborative methods  Lack of suitable learning material  Difficulty to assess peer learning
  9. 9. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning II  Students’ resistance to change (it is so easy to listen to lectures)  Experiences of the non-functional groups  Students experience peer assessment too challenging and unpleasant  According to students peer assessment can be unreliable  Fear that interpersonal relationships in the group affect too much.
  10. 10. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning III  Students are not used to peer learning and peer assessment  Many students are not used to give feedback with their own names. You think in many universities, that the feedback has to be given anonymously.  The students are loyal to each other and don´t want to give criticisism.  Also teachers may think, that they lose the reliability of assessment.
  11. 11. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning IV  ”The teachers don´t do their teaching work”  Group size is too large  Unsuitable classrooms
  12. 12. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning V  Teachers are too careful with students assuming that learning atmosphere gets worse  Teachers can not use transparent criteria for peer assessment, and the target of assessment might obscure (right measures).
  13. 13. Assets of peer and collaborative learning Please, list assets of peer and collaborative learning!
  14. 14. Assets of peer and collaborative learning I Development of: Full understanding of the substance Metakognitive skills Self-directed learning Interpesonal skills Self-knowledge and self-confidence Critical reflection To feel comfort and safe during studies
  15. 15. • Generic skills • Acting later in working life • Motivation • Ability to tolarate diversity • Argumenting skills • Creating new ideas Assets of peer and collaborative learning II
  16. 16. Teachers’ activities as a facilitator of peer learning How teachers can promote peer learning?
  17. 17. Teachers have to take care of I • The aim of the learning process • Group cohesion • Ground rules • The safe atmosphere • Getting to know each other
  18. 18. Teachers have to take care of II • The presentation of him-/herself, practices, agenda… • The own aims of students • Use time to teach peer learning processes • Transparent assessment criteria (assessment matrix)
  19. 19. Teachers have to take care of III • Authority, but shared leadership • The assessment of ground rules • Solidarity and dialogue • Openness
  20. 20. Which are suitable peer learning methods? Eduta Oy Puh. +35850 564 4887
  21. 21. Ethical Principles of teaching
  22. 22. The Values lying behind Ethical Principles (OAJ) • Human Worth: every student is unique and capable of thinking and learning • Truthfulness: search for the truth and honesty to oneself and to others and mutual respect in all interactions with other people • Fairness: promotion of equality and the avoidance of discrimination and favouritism, also in the handling of conflicts and in the evaluation of learners • Rights and Responsibilities: teachers are entitled to their own values and opinions, but are bound by the norms, legislation and the curriculum.
  23. 23. Ethical Principles of a teacher (OAJ) Teacher and student •The teacher accepts the student as an unique human being •The teacher respects students´ rights and treats students fairly and humanely •The teacher tries to understand students´ thinking and opinions •The teacher behaves with discretion concerning students´personality and privacy.
  24. 24. Ethical Principles of a teacher A teachers´s relationship to his or her work •Teachers perform their task in a responsible manner, develop their work and professional skills and reflect their own activities. They realize that their own personality plays an important part in their teaching and they have both a right and a duty to develop that personality.
  25. 25. Ethical Principles of a teacher The working community Teachers value the work they are doing and show respect for their colleagues. Teachers and other interest groups Teachers collaborate with others who are responsible Teachers and society Teachers promote the growth and upbringing of learners and defend their rights Teachers in a pluralistic world
  26. 26. Kirjallisuus I • Anderson, H. 1999. Collaborative Learning Communities. Teoksessa S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen. 1999. Relational Responsibilty. Resources for Sustainable Dialogie. London: SAGE Publications. • Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. 1993. Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. • Bonk, C. J. & Cunningham, D, J. 1998. Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools. • Boud, D. 2007. Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In Boud, D. & Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 14-25. • Brew, A. 2003. Teaching and Research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & development, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1-13. • Divarahan, S. & Atputhamasy, L. 2002. An attempt to enhance the quality of cooperative learning through peer assessment. Journal of Educational Inquiry Vol. 3, No. 2, 72-83.
  27. 27. Kirjallisuus II • Exley, K. & Dennick, R. 2004. Small Group Teaching. Tutorials, seminars and beyond. Key Guides for effective Teaching in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer. • Falchikov, N. 2007. The place of peers in learning and assessment. In Boud, D. & Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 128-143. • Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. 2000. Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70, No. 3, 287-322. • Hanrahan, S. J. & Isaacs, G. 2001. Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students´ view. Higher Education Research and Development Vol. 20, No. 1, 53-70. • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Light, G. & Cox, R. 2001. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The Reflective Professional. London: Sage Publication. • Papinczak, T., Young, L. & Groves, M. 2007. Peer Assessment in Problem-Based Learning: A Qualitative Study. Advances in Health Sciences, Education 12, 169-186.
  28. 28. Kirjallisuus III • Poikela, E. & Vuorinen, H. 2008. Yliopisto-opiskelun laatu. Arviointi oppimisen ja opettamisen kehittäjänä. Teoksessa E. Poikela & S. Poikela. Laatua opiskeluun. Oppiminen ja opetus yliopistossa. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopistokustannus. • Reiter, H. I., Eva, K. W., Hatala, R. M. & Norman, G. R. 2002. Self and peer assessment in tutorials: Applications of a relative-ranking model. Academic Medicine Vol. 77, No. 11, 1134-1139. • Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. 1996. Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling. Teoksessa S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandi (Eds.) International Perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Segers, M. & Dochy, F. 2001. New assessment forms in problem-based learning. The value-added of the students´ perspective. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 26, No. 3, 327-343. • Seppänen-Järvelä, R. 2005. Johdanto: Vertaisuuteen perustuvat kehittämis- ja arviointimenetelmät: innovatiivisia ratkaisuja. Teoksessa R. Seppänen - Järvelä (toim.) Vertaismenetelmät kehittävän arvioinnin välineinä. 2/2005. Hyvät käytännöt. Helsinki: Stakes.
  29. 29. Kirjallisuus IV • Sluijmans, D. M. A., Moerkerke, G. Merrienboer, J. J. G. van & Dochy, F.J. R. C. 2001. Peer assessment in problem-based learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation Vol. 27, No. 2, 153-173. • Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. 2000. Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 25, No. 2, 146-169. • Vygotskij, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 90