投票结果出来了!候选人辩论作为大型政策课程的体验式学习方法

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Melissa Redmond, Liz Woodside, Beth Martin
{"title":"投票结果出来了!候选人辩论作为大型政策课程的体验式学习方法","authors":"Melissa Redmond, Liz Woodside, Beth Martin","doi":"10.1177/10538259231202458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Like other professional training programs, social work pedagogy has long recognized the value of experiential learning for professional development. Despite social work's rich experiential learning literature involving field education, direct practice courses, and program evaluation, there is a dearth of literature examining how to make learning in the policy classroom experiential, particularly for large class sizes. Purpose: We asked, “How might electoral candidate debates provide experiential learning opportunities for large classes?” Approach: The authors organized municipal and federal election candidate debates attended in-person and online by over 300 undergraduate students in a social work policy class at a Canadian university. Integrating our experiences as instructors/organizers and a teaching assistant, within a social constructivist framework, we used Kolb's experiential learning theory, and critiques thereof, to analyze reflective assignments from 73 students. Results and Conclusions: Candidate debates, when facilitated appropriately, can encourage students in large courses to work through the stages of experiential learning and consider related concepts and possible links among social justice course content and social policy, social work practice, and political engagement. Implications: The paper contributes to a broader understanding of the opportunities and constraints associated with employing experiential learning in the large social work classroom and beyond.","PeriodicalId":46775,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experiential Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Votes Are In! Candidate Debates as Large Policy Course Experiential Learning Method\",\"authors\":\"Melissa Redmond, Liz Woodside, Beth Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10538259231202458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Like other professional training programs, social work pedagogy has long recognized the value of experiential learning for professional development. Despite social work's rich experiential learning literature involving field education, direct practice courses, and program evaluation, there is a dearth of literature examining how to make learning in the policy classroom experiential, particularly for large class sizes. Purpose: We asked, “How might electoral candidate debates provide experiential learning opportunities for large classes?” Approach: The authors organized municipal and federal election candidate debates attended in-person and online by over 300 undergraduate students in a social work policy class at a Canadian university. Integrating our experiences as instructors/organizers and a teaching assistant, within a social constructivist framework, we used Kolb's experiential learning theory, and critiques thereof, to analyze reflective assignments from 73 students. Results and Conclusions: Candidate debates, when facilitated appropriately, can encourage students in large courses to work through the stages of experiential learning and consider related concepts and possible links among social justice course content and social policy, social work practice, and political engagement. Implications: The paper contributes to a broader understanding of the opportunities and constraints associated with employing experiential learning in the large social work classroom and beyond.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46775,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experiential Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experiential Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259231202458\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experiential Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259231202458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与其他专业培训项目一样,社会工作教育学早就认识到体验式学习对专业发展的价值。尽管社会工作有丰富的体验式学习文献,包括实地教育、直接实践课程和项目评估,但研究如何在政策课堂上进行体验式学习的文献很少,特别是对于大班的学习。目的:我们的问题是,“选举候选人的辩论如何为大班学生提供体验式学习的机会?”方法:在加拿大一所大学的社会工作政策课上,作者组织了300多名本科生亲自和在线参加的市政和联邦选举候选人辩论。结合我们作为教师/组织者和助教的经验,在社会建构主义框架内,我们使用科尔布的体验式学习理论及其批评来分析73名学生的反思性作业。结果和结论:候选人辩论,如果得到适当的促进,可以鼓励学生在大型课程中通过体验式学习的阶段,并考虑相关概念和社会正义课程内容与社会政策、社会工作实践和政治参与之间的可能联系。启示:本文有助于更广泛地理解在大型社会工作课堂及其他地方采用体验式学习的机会和制约因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Votes Are In! Candidate Debates as Large Policy Course Experiential Learning Method
Background: Like other professional training programs, social work pedagogy has long recognized the value of experiential learning for professional development. Despite social work's rich experiential learning literature involving field education, direct practice courses, and program evaluation, there is a dearth of literature examining how to make learning in the policy classroom experiential, particularly for large class sizes. Purpose: We asked, “How might electoral candidate debates provide experiential learning opportunities for large classes?” Approach: The authors organized municipal and federal election candidate debates attended in-person and online by over 300 undergraduate students in a social work policy class at a Canadian university. Integrating our experiences as instructors/organizers and a teaching assistant, within a social constructivist framework, we used Kolb's experiential learning theory, and critiques thereof, to analyze reflective assignments from 73 students. Results and Conclusions: Candidate debates, when facilitated appropriately, can encourage students in large courses to work through the stages of experiential learning and consider related concepts and possible links among social justice course content and social policy, social work practice, and political engagement. Implications: The paper contributes to a broader understanding of the opportunities and constraints associated with employing experiential learning in the large social work classroom and beyond.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experiential Education
Journal of Experiential Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experiential Education (JEE) is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing refereed articles on experiential education in diverse contexts. The JEE provides a forum for the empirical and theoretical study of issues concerning experiential learning, program management and policies, educational, developmental, and health outcomes, teaching and facilitation, and research methodology. The JEE is a publication of the Association for Experiential Education. The Journal welcomes submissions from established and emerging scholars writing about experiential education in the context of outdoor adventure programming, service learning, environmental education, classroom instruction, mental and behavioral health, organizational settings, the creative arts, international travel, community programs, or others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信