Using Case-Based Learning to Facilitate Clinical Reasoning Across Practice Courses in an Occupational Therapy Curriculum

Although occupational therapy educators have historically used cases as a means to prepare students for clinical practice, there is little evidence that this instructional method actually facilitates clinical reasoning. This convergent, parallel mixed methods study examined how the use of varied case formats, built on the tenets of case-based learning, facilitated specific components of clinical reasoning, and explored how the cases contributed to readiness for professional practice. Case formats included text, video, role-playing, simulated patients, and a client. Case-based learning activities included application of models and frames of reference, conducting assessments, planning and implementing interventions, clinical documentation, and identification of reasoning used. All cases included the opportunity for instructors to provide direct and appropriate feedback, and facilitation of student reflection on their performance. The Self-Assessment of Clinical Reflection and Reasoning (SACRR) was used for quantitative data analysis and detected statistically significant changes in the use of theory and frames of reference to inform practice and in student reasoning about interventions, following case-based learning. Student surveys allowed for pragmatic qualitative analysis, and identified the themes of self-awareness, confidence, and developing competence related to readiness for fieldwork and clinical practice. Student preferences for case format and benefits of varied types of cases were identified. Case-based learning used different case formats, and contributed to the occupational therapy student transition from a clinical reasoning novice to an advanced beginner. Knowledge of this process is useful to occupational therapy educators in structuring case-based learning activities to influencing reasoning

Reasoning Strategies in the Context of Engineering Design with Everyday Materials

‘‘Making’’ represents an increasingly popular label for describing a form of engineering design. While making is growing in popularity, there are still open questions about the strategies that students are using in these activities. Assessing and improving learning in making/ engineering design contexts require that we have a better understanding of where students’ ideas are coming from and a better way to characterize student progress in open-ended learning environments. In this article, we use a qualitative analysis of students’ responses (N = 13) in order to identify the origins of their ideas. Four strategies emerged from this analysis: unexplained reasoning; materials-based reasoning; example-based reasoning; and principle-based reasoning. We examine key characteristics of each strategy and how each strategy relates to learning and expertise through in-depth case studies. Furthermore, we identify how these four strategies are a complement to prior work on analogical problem solving and creativity, and offer a number of unique contributions that are particularly relevant for engineering education. Finally, we include two coding schemes that can be used to classify students’ responses. Studying reasoning strategies in this way is a fruitful means for characterizing student learning in complex learning environments. Moreover, understanding reasoning strategies impacts the nature of student–teacher discussions and informs how to help students progress most effectively

Scaffolding School Pupils’ Scientific Argumentation with Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps

This chapter reports pilot work investigating the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping to scaffold young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Our research objective is to better understand pupils’ usage of dialogue maps created in Compendium to write scientific ex-planations. The participants were 20 pupils, 12-13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. Through qualitative analysis of three case studies, we investigate the value of dialogue mapping as a mediating tool in the scientific reasoning process during a set of learning activities. These activities were published in an online learning envi-ronment to foster collaborative learning. Pupils mapped their discussions in pairs, shared maps via the online forum and in plenary discussions, and wrote essays based on their dialogue maps. This study draws on these multiple data sources: pupils’ maps in Compendium, writings in science and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Our analysis highlights the diversity of ways, both successful and unsuccessful, in which dialogue mapping was used by these young teenagers

Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps as a research tool to evaluate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation

This pilot study focuses on the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping as a participatory action research tool to investigate young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping is a technique for representing graphically an argumentative dialogue through Questions, Ideas, Pros, Cons and Data. Our research objective is to better understand the usage of Compendium, a Dialogue Mapping software tool, as both (1) a learning strategy to scaffold school pupils’ argumentation and (2) as a method to investigate the quality of their argumentative essays. The participants were a science teacher-researcher, a knowledge mapping researcher and 20 pupils, 12-13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. This study draws on multiple data sources: discussion forum, science teacher-researcher’s and pupils’ Dialogue Maps, pupil essays, and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Through qualitative analysis of two case studies, we examine the role of Evidence-based Dialogue Maps as a mediating tool in scientific reasoning: as conceptual bridges for linking and making knowledge intelligible; as support for the linearisation task of generating a coherent document outline; as a reflective aid to rethinking reasoning in response to teacher feedback; and as a visual language for making arguments tangible via cartographic conventions

APPLICATION OF BURHANI REASONING BY ABID AL-JABIRI IN DEVELOPING MI CURRICULUM

This research examines the implementation of the concept of Burhani reasoning by Abid al-Jabiri in the curriculum development of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI) School. Through a qualitative approach and case study method, this research explores how Burhani reasoning has been successfully applied by teachers, principals, and students in MI. Data collection techniques through in-depth interviews, participatory observation, and curriculum documentation study. The research results show that Burhani reasoning has been successfully applied in the MI curriculum and the integration of teaching methods based on Burhani reasoning with traditional methods has been successful. This has an impact on increasing students' critical and logical thinking abilities. This study suggests the importance of continuous training for teachers in applying Burhani reasoning in teaching and suggests further research to see the long-term impact of the implementation of Burhani reasoning on student learning outcomes. In conclusion, the application of Burhani reasoning has been proven to improve the quality of education in MI

Case studies of cycles in developing a physics lesson.

Children\u27s reasoning and learning about levers and simple machines were investigated in this study. The study included several cycles of design, test and clinical interview tutoring sessions and the two final cycles are presented here. The methodology combined the use of qualitative clinical interviewing data and quantitative summative data: quantitative evaluations provided an overview of the lessons\u27 effects, while qualitative, formative lesson evaluations allowed deeper insights into learning and reasoning processes. Three groups of participants were interviewed about the pretest, lesson and posttest. The pre- and posttests were standardized, and several new and widespread misconceptions about levers have been discovered that are less accurate or general than conventional conceptions. In experiment 1 the pre-posttest comparison between the control group and experimental group 1 showed that there were no differences and the instruction in experiment 2 was revised considerably as a result of the formative evaluation findings. Significant improvements were apparent for experimental group 2 with regard to conceptual change and for transfer when compared with experimental group 1--evident in group 2 students\u27 ability to transfer their acquired knowledge to complex and compound levers and in conceptual changes apparent in simple levers questions. Lesson 1 was essentially a bridging lesson where intuitive anchoring examples were extended analogically via intermediate bridging cases to a target situation. The findings from lesson 1 suggested that reasoning from extreme case situations of levers might be instructionally useful, and this hypothesis was confirmed by results from experiment 2, where the instructional sequences based on extreme case reasoning proved to be powerful facilitators of the construction of mechanistic models by the students that fostered conceptual change and learning. The following directions for further research are suggested: students\u27 conceptual models have implications for teaching and learning that are poorly understood at this stage, and research on instruction that employs experts\u27 non-formal reasoning strategies should be encouraged

Correlation neglect and case-based decisions

In most theories of choice under uncertainty, decision-makers are assumed to evaluate acts in terms of subjective values attributed to consequences and probabilities assigned to events. Case-based decision theory (CBDT), proposed by Gilboa and Schmeidler, is fundamentally different, and in the tradition of reinforcement learning models. It has no state space and no concept of probability. An agent evaluates each available act in terms of the consequences he has experienced through choosing that act in previous decision problems that he perceives to be similar to his current problem. Gilboa and Schmeidler present CBDT as a complement to expected utility theory (EUT), applicable only when the state space is unknown. Accordingly, most experimental tests of CBDT have used problems for which EUT makes no predictions. In contrast, we test the conjecture that case-based reasoning may also be used when relevant probabilities can be derived by Bayesian inference from observations of random processes, and that such reasoning may induce violations of EUT. Our experiment elicits participants’ valuations of a lottery after observing realisations of the lottery being valued and realisations of another lottery. Depending on the treatment, participants know that the payoffs from the two lotteries are independent, positively correlated, or negatively correlated. We find no evidence of correlation neglect indicative of case-based reasoning. However, in the negative correla- tion treatment, valuations cannot be explained by Bayesian reasoning, while stated qualitative judgements about chances of winning can

How exemplary teachers promote scientific reasoning and higher order thinking in primary science

There is an emerging interest in the development of STEM capabilities to drive Australia’s future economy and workforce. As a consequence, the focus on the teaching of higher order thinking and scientific reasoning has intensified. Despite these efforts, Australia’s level of achievement on international benchmarking tests has not improved. The aim of this PhD research was to investigate how exemplary teachers develop higher order thinking and scientific reasoning in primary science. The study drew on video data from the EQUALPRIME international research project, which explored quality primary science education in different cultures (ARC Discovery Project DP110101500). This qualitative research examined how Year 4 teachers in two contextually different schools scaffolded, supported and created opportunities for higher order thinking and scientific reasoning during the teaching of a physical science topic. Teacher beliefs, pedagogical strategies and contextual factors were viewed through the multiple theoretical lenses of social constructivism, sociocultural theory and social semiotic theory. The central data source was video which was subjected to micro-ethnographic analysis. These data were supplemented with interviews and classroom artefacts, and from these, case studies were compiled. Using a cross-case analysis and an interpretivist approach, assertions were drawn from which the research questions were answered. The study identified that the teaching of these skills was a complex multifaceted process influenced by the combination of teacher beliefs and contextual factors. Based on safe and supportive learning cultures, the teachers employed inquiry-based approaches and a combination of language- and body-based pedagogies that built students’ thinking and reasoning in parallel with conceptual development, across the unit. Outcomes of the research will contribute to new and deeper understanding of effective scaffolding, support and promotion of higher order thinking and reasoning in primary science which can inform enhancements to pre‐service and in‐service teacher professional learning