Module: GER229 & GER320, Dutch Language and Culture: The Multicultural Society in the Netherlands.

Transcription

1 Inquiry-based Learning Design Overview The Multicultural Society in the Netherlands 1. The students and the curriculum Level: 2 and 3 Module: GER229 & GER320, Dutch Language and Culture: The Multicultural Society in the Netherlands. Number: 11 students 2. The teaching and learning aims The aim was to bring undergraduate students of Dutch Studies in the UK together for a stimulating, studentcentred learning experience, using advanced technology to facilitate communication and collaboration. We aimed for a form of IBL that takes open-ended tasks as its starting point and based it on cross-institutional group collaboration. Four groups, each consisting of students from both London and Sheffield, engaged in a form of self-organising and self-directing collective learning. The collaborative inquiry resulted in a collectively written report that was subsequently discussed in a plenary session with all the participants of the project. 3. The inquiry/ inquiries At both participating institutions the project was embedded in existing modules. In 2006, in Sheffield 11 level 2 and 3 students following the language module Dutch Advanced participated in the project. In London the project was part of the Level One Cultural Studies module Identities and Communities in the Low Countries, bringing 9 participants to the project. The project ran for a period of six weeks from late February to March. In the first weeks of the project students followed traditional face-to-face seminars at their respective institutions introducing them to various aspects of migration, the multicultural society and the multicultural debate in the Netherlands. In week 1, students were assigned to one of four groups, composed of students from both London and Sheffield. Every group was then assigned a topic (Table 1). Group one: Political Response Consider the current political response to the presence of ethnic minorities and multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Give a brief overview of the viewpoint of the main political parties and include an account of the (political) impact of the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Group Two: Women and Islam The position of women is a hotly debated issue within multiculturalism. In the Dutch context, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a crucial figure. Explore the views of Hirsi Ali on women and Islam, consider her approach and put her position in a more international context. 1

2 Group Three: NL versus UK Compare and contrast the attitude of the Dutch and the British (government) towards integration and the multicultural society. Consider government policy as well as issues arising from the public debate. Group Four: Arts Analyse the representation of allochtonen and autochtonen in the feature film Shouf shouf habibi, Hafid Bouazza s short story The Prodigal Son and in the extract from Abdelkader Benali s novel Wedding by the Sea. Think of image, (cultural) identity, prejudice, etc. Table 1 Groups and Group Topics Each group wrote a joint report of 1,500 words on their assigned topic, using WebCT Vista to communicate. They organised the work themselves. The reports, accompanied by a set of three statements designed to provoke discussion, were posted on WebCT in week four. The reports were discussed during a number of videoconferencing sessions, using the statements as a starting point of the discussion. The last week of the project was dedicated to student evaluation and to general feedback and assessment. 4. The assessment Self- and Peer-Assessment. We used a combination of self- and peer-assessment for the collaborative work in this module. We hoped that using this combination of assessments would increase involvement in both the collaboration and the assessment procedure, and provide more opportunities for reflection. We invited the students to critically reflect their own involvement in the project on several levels (content, collaboration, videoconferencing session) by means of questions they were obliged to answer in writing (Table 2). Content Collaboration Video conferencing session What did you like about your final report? How did it compare to the reports of the other groups? Where do you feel the report could have benefited from more attention to detail? What strength do you think you brought to the collaboration? Where and how, do you feel, did you bring the group forward as a whole? What do you think other group members learnt from you? What do you think did you take away from the experience? How, if at all, would your approach to the project change if you were to do it again? Describe your preparation for the video conference. Describe you strongest moment during the video conference. Table 2 Self assessment questions Students were then asked to award marks to themselves on these three points using the written answers as evidence. They were also asked to award marks to the other members of their group for the collaborative aspect of the project only. Finally, the tutor assessed the reports, the activity on WebCT, the participation to the videoconferencing session and attendance and contribution in general. The final mark was calculated as 2

3 follows and was used summatively as part of the final mark for the language module of which it made up 20% (Table 3). Self- and Peer-Assessment Marks Self-assessment Self-assessment Peer-assessment Self-assessment Quality of report Collaboration Collaboration Video Conference 25% 25% 25% 25% Tutor s Marks Final Report Activity on WebCT Video Conference Attendance & Contribution 25% 25% 25% 25% Final Mark: self- and peer-assessment (50%) + tutor s assessment (50%) Table 3 Assessment Procedure 5. The process support Our learning space was not only designed to facilitate collaboration with peers in the four different groups or learning partnerships, but also to facilitate inquiry and engagement with resources. It contained a thorough introduction to the purposes and structures of the course, outlining the teaching goals, teaching materials and teaching methods used and a timetable indicating all important events and deadlines. It also contained information on the groups and the specific tasks the groups were set. The inquiry was facilitated by a list of resources, links to the Sheffield University Library, and relevant websites. Resources were also available as downloads from WebCT, amongst them key texts everybody was expected to read and a recording of a radio programme. The collaboration was further facilitated by a text outlining a WebCeTiquette, giving suggestions as to how to get the work started, how to organise the group and some dos and don ts to smooth online communication. Furthermore, the VLE facilitated asynchronous discussion through a threaded discussion forum for each group and the learning community as a whole, and synchronous discussions with group chat facilities. A special page was devoted to the final reports that had to be posted for everybody to read before the videoconferencing session took place. 6. The information resources and strategies We chose to combine an IBL project approach with direct teaching about module content, being aware that our students had no previous knowledge of the topic and that, in order to enhance the learning process, to come to satisfactory learning outcomes, and to be able to have a stimulating and constructive discussion, a basic understanding of the subject was vital. In our inter-institutional learning context, it was also crucial that students at both institutions shared a common knowledge basis. We therefore offered students at their 3

4 home institution subject-based, face-to-face seminars organized around a syllabus with reading materials used both in London and Sheffield. 7. The tutoring/facilitation approach The first few weeks of the module incorporated traditional face-to-face seminars. After the commencement of the cross-institutional portion of the module, students engaged in VLE-moderated collaborative work. Videoconference sessions were used to further group work, and for plenary sessions at the end of the module. Week 1 Introduction; WebCT induction; background to and history of the multicultural society Week 2 The current political debate; Women and Islam: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Week 3 Arts/Film Week 4 Deadline: group reports posted on WebCT Vista; discussion and preparation videoconferencing Week 5 Videoconferencing session Week 6 Evaluation, feedback and assessment Table 4 Sheffield Time Table The teaching and learning process had three main phases, not counting the face-to-face seminars that had a facilitating function and ran parallel to phase one: A cross-institutional collaborative inquiry that was facilitated by the Virtual Learning Environment and that resulted in a written report with three statements, A plenary discussion on the basis of the reports and the accompanying statements that was facilitated by a videoconferencing link, A final phase comprised of evaluation of the project and assessment of the learning outcomes, intended to provoke reflection on both the learning process and the learning outcomes. 4

5 8. The learning technology The collaboration between Sheffield and London was facilitated by different forms of communication technology. The inquiry itself took place within the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) WebCT Vista ( This VLE not only facilitated collaboration by means of discussion boards, chat facilities and (collaborative) writing tools such as a chat whiteboard, but could also facilitate inquiry by listing, referring to and containing resources. Plenary sessions towards the end of the project, discussing the results of the inquiry, were organised via videoconferencing links using Access Grid ( We explicitly wanted to work in a Networked Learning (NL) environment not for the sake of using technology or as a nice add-on, but as a tool that was well-integrated in the module, that facilitated cross-institutional collaboration, and that enhanced the learning experience and learning outcomes. 9. The learning spaces 10. What really worked The main advantages proved to be that the blended learning, the inter-institutional collaboration and the accompanying competition element made for an exciting and motivating mix. The video conference was especially instructive and facilitated a fruitful exchange of ideas if organised around a set of statements embedded in the results of the inquiry work. Generally students thought the project was worthwhile. Not only the content, but also the collaborative aspect of the learning process and the use of advanced technology were considered to be assets to their education. 11. Things to build on and/or do differently next time around Collaboration with group members from the other university did not always proceed without problems and collaboration in the VLE was often thought to be time consuming and a hassle. One student expressed the concern that more time was spent on organising than on actually learning. Cross-institutional group work in a Virtual Learning Environment thus proved to be less successful. We hoped this assessment scenario would provide an opportunity for serious reflection and facilitate their involvement in the TLAs. Although it did seem to stimulate their participation in the project, it was not entirely successful. Firstly, students gave themselves and their co-workers in Sheffield high marks with little agreement with the tutor s marks. This was probably due to the feeling that Sheffield students had done all the work, as the evaluation forms showed. In this respect, the quantitative peer assessment used the previous year worked better. Secondly, we wondered whether this assessment really led to serious reflection. The evidence given for the quality of the report showed much attention to structure and coherence, but little to content. Students decided all reports were more or less of the same quality. This is probably due to (a) the fact that although all students had the same background knowledge from the faceto-face seminars and the compulsory reading, they only researched their own topic in depth and could therefore not see the differences in quality between the different reports. 12. Advice to others doing a similar project 5

6 13. Further comments Produced by CILASS (the Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences), University of Sheffield,