Constructivist Learning and Mantle of the Expert Pedagogy
A Case Study of an Authentic Learning Activity,
the “Brain Game”, to Develop 21St Century Skills in Context
Grace Lawlor & Brendan Tangney
grace@bridge21.ie tangney@tcd.ie
Centre for Research in IT in Education,
School of Education and School of Computer Science & Statistics
Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Ireland
<CSEDU Conference April 2016> slideshare.net/tangney/csedu16-mantle

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
21st Century Learning
“The European framework for key competences sets out the knowledge, skills
and attitudes required in the knowledge society that should be placed at the
core of competence development in schools”.
Improving Competences for the 21st Century, European Commission (2008)

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin 3
Irish Secondary School Education
Year 1
•Age ~13 – Junior Cylce
Year 2
•Age ~14 – Junior Cycle
Year 3
•Age ~ 15 – Junior Cycle
•State Examination – Junior Certificate
Year 4
•Age ~16 – Transition Year – flexibilty in curriculum
Year 5
•Age ~17 – Senior Cycle
Year 6
•Age ~ 18 – Senior Cylce
•HIGH STAKES STATE EXAMINATION
•Grades are sole requirement for entry to 3rd level

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Educational
system/context
Teacher professional
development and pre-
service education
Evidence base
Develop activities
& design principles
Train students
Model of
21st T&L
Bridge21
Longitudinal
Design Based Research
Initiative in Trinity
College Dublin
(Anderson 2012)

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Educational
system/context
Teacher professional
development and pre-
service education
Evidence base
Develop activities
& design principles
Train students
Model of
21st T&L
Presentation Focus
Students & Authentic Learning
Bridge21 Model of 21sT&L
Authentic Learning – The Brain Game
Reaction of Students

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
The Bridge21 Pedagogical Model
(Lawlor et al 2015, Johnston,
Conneely et al 2015)

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Bridge21 Model of Groupwork

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Project Based Learning for 21st Century Skills
Development
The Project Based Learning approach lends itself to the acquisition of
21st Century Skills such as collaboration and problem solving. (Bell,2010)
BUT
“So we need to train our teachers to structure for a learning situation to
happen rather than a sharing of information in a “final” way to take
place. We will have to train them to withhold their expertise to give
their students opportunity for struggling with problems before they
come to teachers knowledge and reach an answer because of the work
they do rather than the listening they have done.” (Heathcote D, &
Bolton 1994)

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Authentic Learning Project Based Learning
Real-life, complex problems
(Herrington, Oliver and Reeves, 2003;
Lombardi 2007)
Complex tasks based on a problem or
challenge
(Jones, Rasmussen and Moffitt 1997)
Collaborative learning
(Herrington, Oliver and Reeves, 2003)
Collaborative learning
(Diel, Grobe, Lopez and Cabral, 1999)
Multiple information sources
(Herrington, Oliver and Reeves, 2003)
Use of real world content within
project (Moursund, 1999)
Deliverable product
(Herrington, Oliver and Reeves, 2003)
Deliverable outcome
((Jones, Rasmussen and Moffitt 1997)

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Mantle of the Expert
• Inquiry based approach to teaching and
learning from field of drama studies
(Heathcote, 1994)
• Students reach learning outcomes by
assuming roles as “experts” within an
imagined enterprise
• Problems are always framed as
professional tasks so that learning has
relevant and immediate purpose
(Aitken, 2013)
• Typically used in Primary school settings

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
The Brain Game – Mantle of the expert role play
compressed time sequence
Brain
Game
Role play
through email
Ill defined
problem
Sustained
pressure and
challenge
Collaborative
Working
Real
information
Sources
Authentic
Deliverables

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Brain Game in Practice…
Brain Team

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Implementation – Through Email

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Research Study

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Context – Social Outreach Project
• Leadership
training
workshops
• 11 Dublin
Schools
• 150 Students
aged 13-14
Training Students To Embark On A Community Based Project

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Implementation – Two Workshops
• Icebreakers
• Brain Game-
directed project
themes
• Discussion
• Post Workshop
Questionnaire
• Project pitches
• 2nd Brain-
Game with real
community
project ideas
• Discussion
• 2nd Post
Workshop
Questionnaire
2 Months

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
An Authentic Learning Experience
The Brain Game - The Task Stage 1
• Teams presented with Broad Topics
a) Helping the Elderly
b) Anti-Social Behaviour
c) Healthy Living
• Teams asked to plan 3 events/initiatives to
promote awareness of topic
• Deadlines set for deliverables at close of
each “month” e.g: report made, venue
booked, budget proposals
• All external communications for project via
email through a “Brain” (Teacher in role)
October
30 Mins
November
30 Mins
December
30 Mins
January
30 Mins

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
An Authentic Learning Experience
The Brain Game - The Task Stage 2
• Two months later
• School groups decide on own topics
and events prior to “Brain Game”
• “Brain Game” played again
• At end of task students prepare a
presentation on their chosen
project, challenges and experiences
during task.
February
30 Mins
March
30 Mins
April
30 Mins
May
30 Mins

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Research Questions
1. How did the use of technology enhance the Brain Game
intervention?
2. Which distinct skills were addressed and developed during
the intervention?
3. How authentic was the experience for participants in relation
to the real community projects they faced?
Questions

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Data Collection Time Line

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Analysis

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Perceived Value of Experience
• Likert choice question with open response in post-workshop 1 and
2 questionnaires, 118 (n=123) answered “Valuable” or “Very
Valuable”
“Great questions by Brain like real life”
“It helps you to be a better leader, to communicate with others and to
organise things”

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Use of Technology
• When asked how useful they considered the application of technology in
both workshops 111 (n=123) participants chose “Very Useful” or “Useful”
• Prevalent theme was “use of email” which could refer to either basic
application or email as a skill in formal correspondence.
“It´s how you communicate with companies.”
“We had access to a lot of useful information and we could make better decisions
with this.”
“We needed to estimate the prices of things we needed to get.”

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Skills Development
• Analysis of Stage1 data suggested that students perceived themselves as
developing skills in four areas
Leading a
project
Using
computers to
manage
projects
Teamwork
Presentation
Skills

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Skills Development Continued
• In Stage2 questionnaires participants indicated on a likert scale how
to what extent they felt they had developed identified skill (n=123).

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Key Findings of Study
• Findings of this study suggest that the “Brain Game”
intervention afforded participants an authentic
opportunity to develop key 21C skills in collaboration,
communication, technology literacy and leadership.
• Focus group interviews suggest that “Brain Game”
intervention served as an impetus for developing skills
and experience for real community projects.

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Limitations and Future work…
• Relies on self-reporting by students
• Limited to one context, advanced study
would apply the intervention to a number
of learning contexts for greater validity to
findings
• Scope to gather more data from students
and examine the “Brain Game”
intervention within the context of ongoing
TA21 research project

Bibliography

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Abbott, L. 2007. Mantle of the Expert 2: Training materials and tools. Essex, UK: Essex County Council.
Aitken, V. 2013. Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert
approach to teaching and learning: A brief introduction. Connecting curriculum, linking learning,34-56.
Bell, S. 2010. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43.
Bennett S., Maton K., and Kervin L. 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology.
39(5): p.
775-786.
Blatner, A. 2013. Warming-up, action methods, and related processes. The Journal of Psychodrama, Sociometry & Group Psychotherapy, 61 (2).
Bruce, C. S. 1999. Workplace experiences of information literacy. International journal of information management, 19(1), 33-47.
Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. 1999. Projectbased learning: A strategy for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth
Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning.
Eisenberg, M. B., Lowe, C. A., & Spitzer, K. L. 2004. Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Greenwood Publishing Group, 88
Post Road West, Westport, CT 06825.
Heathcote D, & Bolton G 1994. Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert approach to
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Press. Heston,
Heathcote, D., & Herbert, P. 1985. A drama of learning: Mantle of the expert.Theory into practice, 24(3), 173- 180.

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. 2003. Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian journal of
educational technology, 19(1), 59-71.
Hong, N.S., 1998. The relationship between well-structured and ill- structured problem solving in multimedia simulation. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
James, M and Lewis, J. 2012. Third Generation Assessment in a Primary Classroom In Gardner, J.N and Gardner J. (Eds.) Assessment and
Learning (2012). Sage.
Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. 1997. Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Johnston K., Conneely C., Murchan D., Tangney B. 2015, Enacting key skills-based curricula in secondary education: lessons from a
technology-mediated, group based learning initiative. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 2015. 24(4): p. 423-442.
Kay, K. 2010. 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn,
2091-2109.
Lawlor, J., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. 2010. Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technology mediated, project-oriented learning–an
overview of the B2C model. In Technology Enhanced Learning. Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform (pp. 602-609). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Lawlor J., Marshall K., Tangney B. 2015. Bridge21 –Exploring the potential to foster intrinsic student motivation through a team-based,
technology mediated learning model, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1-20.

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Lombardi, M. M. 2007. Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, 1(2007), 1-12.
Mitra, S., & Dangwal, R. 2010. Limits to self-organising systems of learning—the Kalikuppam
experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 672-688.
Moore, R., Lopes, J., 1999. Paper templates. In TEMPLATE’06, 1st International Conference on Template Production. SCITEPRESS.
Moursund, D. 1999. Project-based learning using
information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Sullivan K., Marshall K., and Tangney B. 2015. Teaching without teachers; peer teaching with the Bridge21 model for collaborative
technology-mediated learning. Journal of IT Education: Innovation in Practice, 2015. 14: p. 63-83.
Tangney B., Bray A., and Oldham E. 2015. Realistic Mathematics Education, Mobile Technology & The Bridge21 Model For 21st Century
Learning – A Perfect Storm, in Mobile Learning and Mathematics: Foundations, Design, and Case Studies, Crompton H. and Traxler J.,
Editors. Routledge. p. 96-105.
Thomas, J. W. 2000. A review of research on project-based
learning. Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf 1/Feb/2016.
Van Der Meij, H., & Boersma, K. 2002. Email use in elementary school: An analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200.
Wickham C., Girvan C., and Tangney B. 2016. Constructionism and microworlds as part of a 21st century learning activity to impact student
engagement and confidence in physics, in Constructionism 2016. Bangkok. In press