Figure 1 - uploaded by Robert N Fitzgerald
Content may be subject to copyright.
Traditional simulation learner engagement model (Findlay, Fitzgerald, Newman & Foster, 2005)

Traditional simulation learner engagement model (Findlay, Fitzgerald, Newman & Foster, 2005)

Similar publications

Conference Paper
Full-text available
A co-creation approach to tackling ill-structured problems (ISPs) for tertiary students is proposed. Key findings of a preliminary study assessing the approach's learning effectiveness are discussed. The new approach is more in line with problem solving in the real world and improves cognitive, meta-cognitive, and epistemic cognitive learning.
Article
Full-text available
Artikkel annab ülevaate ennastjuhtiva õppija hindamisvõimalustest, keskendudes interdistsiplinaarsel ehk valdkondadevahelisel inspiratsioonil põhinevale loomingulisele rühmatööle kursusel „Muusikalise ühisloome praktikum” (Tallinna Ülikooli Balti filmi, meedia, kunstide ja kommunikatsiooni instituut). Tutvustame artiklis rühmatööle keskendunud kurs...

Citations

... This paper reports on a new breed of tool that supports both higher level thinking and, more importantly, human-human interaction in the form of team learning (Elliot et al, 2004;Fitzgerald & Findlay, 2006). We argue that developing tools to support team learning is no longer merely desirable but is now essential if humans are to productively engage with the increasing complexity and uncertainty that arises from accelerating technological and social change. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter outlines the development and use of the Zing team learning system (TLS) and suggests this tool represents a new breed of collaborative tool for the development of useable knowledge arising from group learning and problem solving. A key feature of this tool is that it scaffolds the learner’s use of thinking and decision making processes and encourages them to develop facilitation skills. With these skills they are able to self-facilitate workshops to create their new knowledge. In this process they are given the opportunity to experience and re-invent the world of mathematicians, writers, artists and scientists through real-time public experimentation, dialogue, critique and debate. Groups that work and learn this way quickly develop a sense of community, engagement and self-worth they deem preferable to the boredom, anxiety and alienation they often experience in the conventional meeting or classroom settings. Most importantly these new forms of tools provide users with new contexts for thinking: contexts that have the potential to increase individual and community capacity.
Chapter
Full-text available
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, technological and social change is accelerating faster than ever before. Seemingly isolated and “under control” local or regional issues are now being transmitted throughout global economic, technological, and management systems in minutes and days rather than months and years. The global financial crisis is one recent example of this. Major differences between the experts (scientists and other researchers) about issues such as global warming, the use of nanotechnology or nuclear power often polarize the key debates producing conflict and little action. Decision theory has taught us that expertise is highly domain specific and therefore differences in opinion and strategy are understandable and to be expected. However, the real problem arises when experts move from their descriptive expertise to the normative activity of making predictions as to what constitutes ideal or optimal social practice. Many years ago, Rittel and Webber (1973) made the important distinction between wicked and tame problems. Tame problems are those that can be solved by the technical applications of expertise and knowledge. Wicked problems as those that are contentious and controversial with no clear solution—they are social problems such as welfare or poverty, requiring a social dialogue between experts and nonexperts. Wicked problems are not solved by information alone. In his 1980s best-selling book about the paradigm shift from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, futurist John Naisbitt noted, “We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge” (1982, p. 17). Three decades later, it could be argued that we are now drowning in knowledge, but starved of its wise application to the wicked problems that face us.