Promoting meaningful learning based on collaborative processes of case analysis

The present work takes a sociocultural constructivist conception of teaching and learning in higher education (Coll, 1990, 2001, Cubero, 2005.) From this view, learning is understood as a process of constructing meaning and attribution of meaning to the content and tasks, and teaching as a process aid that adjusts to the needs that arise throughout the process learning that each student performed (Biggs, 1996; Coll, 2001; Rogoff, 1993). One of the basic objectives of the teacher's help is to encourage student autonomy in learning. This requires that students develop the skills necessary to regulate their learning process, planning, monitoring and evaluating it properly and using appropriate strategies and resources (Coll, and Onrubia Mauri 2006). That is, it is necessary for students to develop their metacognitive ability. This capability allows you to be more aware of the choices you make, the knowledge at stake, their learning difficulties and how to overcome them (Monereo and Pozo 2003).

The proposed innovation presented below has as its ultimate significance and functionality improve student learning and ensure that personal meaning can be attributed to it. In this context, considers that the regulatory capacity of students is something that can be taught and learned in the very process of learning the content discipline concerned. To that end, the proposed innovation has attempted to generate a context for learning about ways of organizing classroom activity-based cooperative processes of case analysis.

Through numerous previous experiences (eg., Agüero and de la Torre, 2008, Biggs, 1999, Coll et al., 2006, Garcia-Sevilla, 2008, Prieto et al., 2006b) has shown the usefulness of the teaching-learning process based on the analysis of cases as an effective way of articulating theory and practice. This type of methodology helps the student to conduct a meaningful and functional approach to learning in any subject.

The experience consisted of a combination of lectures, collaborative work and case studies to cover the agenda for the teaching unit of Child Abuse. It was developed along two large group classes (LG) and three small groups (SG), which made a total of 7 hours per attendance. The teachers cooperated in the development of materials for the students, as well as collected material, protocols and reports of child protection. They also elaborated questionnaires oriented to assess students' prior knowledge on Child Abuse and level of satisfaction with the activities. Initially, in a SG session, the students filled out the questionnaire on previous knowledge. At this meeting it was also explained to students how the activity would be carried out and evaluated.

Secondly, in a LG session, they worked in groups of 4-5 people. Each group worked on a real case of child protection. The groups also handed a document which included the objectives to be reached and a series of questions to be answered. Through small group discussion the students had to respond, both individually and cooperatively, to the questions proposed. The teachers supervised the students’ work, obtaining information about the difficulties of the work, the organization of the task, and the cooperation among the members of the groups.

In a third stage, in a SG session, was discussed at group level-class the conclusions reached by the groups. Simultaneously, the teachers presented, aided by the contributions of students in order to generate class-group discussion, the theoretical contents of the unit. Fourthly, in a LG session, the students worked in groups in two different periods:

-From the following documents:
i. Children Needs, obtained from López (1995).
ii. Types of abuse, obtained from De Paul and Arruabarrena (2007);
the students had to identify the different types of abuse as well as the children needs infringed. Additionally, they had to generate a series of risk
indicators for each type of abuse.
-In the second part, the students were given the following documents:
i. Family and Social Action (2003.) Detection, notification and registration of cases of child abuse. Educational Services. Logroño: Gobierno de La
Rioja.
ii. Protocol for detection of abuse from the educational services. Council of Social Services. Government of La Rioja.

They had to compare the product previously elaborated with the new information provided. Again, the teachers supervised the work done by the students. In a SG session; students completed the initial questionnaire about previous knowledge. Then, it was corrected in the classroom, solving the different  doubts that emerged as a result of it. And finally, students completed another questionnaire oriented to evaluate their satisfaction with the activities conducted.

Finally, the students after class group's findings, and with the documentation provided by the teachers (published through the Online Campus), reviewed the results obtained in section 2, amending and supplementing it when it was necessary. The result of the activity was conducted in a separate report from the product group that the students had to include in their portfolios of the subject.

Globally, the results and assessment of students in the implementation and development of instructional design presented were clearly positive. The average scores obtained by students improve significantly with respect to the initial assessment with regard to many hits. Also, the overall student satisfaction was high: they reported to have increased their interest and motivation (They turned my curiosity about the contents of the unit), and to promote more meaningful learning (I have been permitted to retain and better integrate the information, they have helped me learn the content, etc). Similarly, students show higher levels of motivation, involvement and responsibility for their own learning (I have felt more responsible for my own learning). The information provided by students in this study seem to indicate the attainment of high levels of curiosity and motivation, prerequisites for constructivist learning for many authors (eg., Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian, 1978, Bruner, 2004; Novak and Gowin, 2002).

In addition, students especially appreciated the potential that teamwork involves for equally the acquisition and construction of knowledge. Finally, both through the open and closed questions, the students value the learning experience for the development of relevant skills for future professional practice.

02/11/2009; Completed on 30/11/2009