# data[].attributes.body
While there were a few different takeaways this week for each us, I think I did not elaborate enough on my perspective to clearly articulate my thoughts, therefore I will try again. We all know that academic self-efficacy is directly related to a students motivation. My take away this week starts at the beginning of the process when prior knowledge is accessed, I believe that this is when one begins to believe that they can be successful in learning new knowledge or begin to feel enough confidence to push them forward in the learning process. As Lori states, everyone starts at a different place in the process, I now realize the importance of identifying just that with my students. Self-efficacy is just that in my opinion, a process and when you begin the process by recalling prior skills of knowledge it gives you a solid platform to leap from. I appreciate hearing all of your perspectives and the time you have spent participating in this weeks café, it has been great collaborating with you both!

# data[].attributes.body
While Stephanie has focussed on accessing prior knowledge as being key, and Patricia's key take-away is self-efficacy, mine is that a socially constructivist approach which includes accessing prior knowledge, can improve self-efficacy. A socially constructivist framework, providing that care has been taken to be inclusive for all students is one that students can realize that their own prior conceptions are important and that everyone starts learning a new concept from a different place.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lori - follow up on Patricia's comments;

# data[].attributes.subject
Lori - follow up on Patricia's comments;

# data[].attributes.body
Patricia - you wrote: "a teacher may be the beneficiary of students who come to them with a prior learning experience where the students have had the opportunity to be taught in a framework that provided that affirmation of their efforts breeding self efficacy".
I believe that this is key in determining aspects of students' prior knowledge.  One of the ways I begin to figure out where my students are with chemistry in Science 10 is to survey the students and find out who their teacher was for grades 8 and 9.  In our science department, we have pretty open communication and we talk to each other about where the earlier grades can reinforce concepts that will appear in Science 10 (this was especially important when there was a Provincial Science 10 exam in BC).  I know, for example, that Ms. M. next door spends a great deal of time working with her grade 9 students on labs for her chemistry and electricity units, and has students build their skills in writing about their findings, but Mrs. V. focuses more on verbal peer feedback and self-assessment, so student who have been in her classes are comfortable expressing themselves that way.   We are working as a department to try to be more cohesive in our approaches, while still having our own teaching styles, but it's helpful for students' self-efficacy to have had success in certain aspects of their learning environment and then encounter those same approaches in the next grade level.
Good question: "I am curious to know if this is a week or two week (or longer) segment in a science class?  And if so, is this type of framework easily adapted for all the segments in a year long science class or are there certain topics that need a different approach?" This segment of chemistry can be a few days to a week, depending on the group of students, how much scaffolding they need, or, as I move into more inquiry-based version, how much students take on in their own investigations. It's difficult to plan for time, because you don't know how much time a group will need and some groups will declare themselves done after a day, while others' plans will take at least a few classes. Science 10 for my school is a semester, with units on chemistry, physics, biology, and astronomy. I've yet to accomplish a fully constructivist approach for an entire unit, but work toward it with individual lessons and especially labs. I still do quite a bit of direct instruction and skills practice. The elements of constructivism are possible in each area of science, but definitely some areas are more easily adapted to be inquiry-based.

# data[].attributes.headline
Patricia - following up on Stephanie's take on the key takeaway this week.

# data[].attributes.subject
Patricia - following up on Stephanie's take on the key takeaway this week.

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting to me, that Stephanie posited that the key takeaway this week was  to ensure that prior knowledge is accessed to provide a link to new knowledge and then receive feedback .

For me, that is an important aspect, the link between prior knowledge and the new knowledge.  But, my key takeaway was the concept of self-efficacy - which seemed to me to be more about positive reinforcement - how to get adult students to continue in online courses (in face of typical high drop-out rates) and have some enthusiasm to continue with their studies.  What I took away from the reading(s) was the idea (reinforcing the idea for me) that with some positive reinforcement and, for example, useful contact from the instructor, that student self-efficacy may be a key underlying element to continuing adult education - especially on-line education).

Thoughts?

# data[].attributes.headline
Patricia - Following up on Lori's case study (and Stephanie's comments re same).

# data[].attributes.subject
Patricia - Following up on Lori's case study (and Stephanie's comments re same).

# data[].attributes.body
Prior learning.  I thought it was interesting that Lori was going to teach a module where there was possibly no prior knowledge on that exact topic.  My belief is that setting out a basic framework of the issue to be discussed is often necessary - and then testing for prior knowledge.

Self efficacy.  Can we look at it through a broader lens.  While a student may not have had success in a segment on this topic - is it not prior success in learning that gives a student the confidence to press ahead with new and challenging information.  And a teacher may be the beneficiary of students who come to them with a prior learning experience where the students have had the opportunity to be taught in a framework that provided that affirmation of their efforts breeding self efficacy.  Success overall, to me, is what is important.  An attitude that the student can hopefully have.

The program.  I thought Lori's program was interesting.  I am curious to know if this is a week or two week (or longer) segment in a science class?  And if so, is this type of framework easily adapted for all the segments in a year long science class or are there certain topics that need a different approach?

# data[].attributes.headline
Stephanie - In response to Patricia's Case Study.

# data[].attributes.subject
Stephanie - In response to Patricia's Case Study.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for creating such a detailed Case Study Patricia, I have noticed numerous valuable components including: being aware of the affordances of providing less guidance to your adults students, thus fostering 'internal guidance' but yet offering support and clear expectations; including a reflective piece that requires not only self-reflection but reflection on the performance of others (similar to a case review in medicine); and for eliminating the 'red pen' approach and using an advisory mindset, I believe these are exemplary ways of learning using a constructivist model. It was noted in this weeks readings that adult students with previous extensive learning experiences are better able to self-direct their learning and to problem solve (inactive mastery experience) compared to younger students. This specific constructivist factor is a dominant predictor of their academic self-efficacy. As an educator it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that prior knowledge is accessed in learning activities and to provide the opportunity for them to link it to their new knowledge, then receive feedback. I believe this is the key take away from this weeks café. What is your take away?

# data[].attributes.body
Eliciting Prior Knowledge:
Some things that I have included in more recent iterations of this lesson include small group discussions of pH in which each group brainstorms everything they know about acids, bases, and neutral substances in real life and shares with the class either verbally or on a small white-board.  Usually they do know quite a bit - from using pH strips to test the pH of their hot-tubs at home to what substances are acidic and that acids 'eat through stuff'.  The idea that acids neutralize bases will sometimes come up, because they learn this in their safety units in grades 8 and 9. Often they have less prior knowledge of bases and little to none on the pH scale and pH indicators. From there, I have had students explore pH by using pH strips to test different materials for their pH levels, or have them do a simple experiment of adding a metal to an acid and then to a base to get a sense of how acidic or basic some materials are and how they react differently with metals.  The concept of a pH indicator is new to students, but it's the one thing that most will grasp easily as they observe the colour changes during the lab - Litmus paper will turn blue in a base and red/pink in an acid.
Now how would we add a component to make it an activity that would foster self-efficacy?
Stephanie, you are right that students' self-efficacy in science is often based on past successes and failures.  I think this may have a correlation to both the Science Fair experience in elementary school (lots of my students tell me it was anxiety-producing), and the science teachers' expectation of labs being completed in a specific format.  Students struggle with designing appropriate data tables to record their observations, discussing their results (they're sure there has to be a right answer), and writing their conclusions.  When you take away the format and just ask students to notice something, they're quite good at it.  With more lab experiences and more choice and encouragement  for their ideas, they may find that they are capable lab students and therefore be more willing to try things.  My thoughts here are to give them some tools with some initial structure to find out how indicators work, then open up the activity to a more inquiry-based scenario.  Using a question such as "What other substances make good pH indicators and why?", students could do some research, create their own investigations to test different substances, reflect on those substances' usefulness as indicators, and share their findings with other groups.  Both observing the other groups approaches and finding out something for themselves could improve self-efficacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lori - Response to Patricia's Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Lori - Response to Patricia's Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Patricia.  I’m glad that you did the opposite from me and provided an exemplar of a constructivist approach.  You have built reflection and interaction with more experienced others into this process, and you could easily argue that this is an authentic learning experience or assessment, as it is relevant/equal to what lawyers do in the real world.  I don’t know how many articling students you mentor at one time, but if there are more than one, it might be beneficial for them to collaborate (discuss and peer review the others’ draft) before their meeting with you to review their first drafts.  This ties in with the tenet that “learning is a social activity” (Alt, 2015, p. 50).

In line with the notion of involving vicarious experiences to improve student self-efficacy (Alt, 2015), how helpful would it be to have your articling student watch a few more experienced students or lawyers present their motions and reflect on which aspects could be applied to their own scenario?  Their vicarious experiences could be determined in your initial discussion to elicit their prior knowledge, and together you could decide how much observation might be needed.  In terms of scaffolding, I think that you have provided numerous examples, including providing templates, reminders and relevant advice.  One comment from the article by Alt (2015) that I found compelling was that “less direct instructional guidance could act as a potential predictor of undergraduates’ academic self-efficacy perception” (p. 63).  I teach high-school, and I find that students with all levels of ability still need direct guidance depending on the situation.  I would assume that articling students, who have already completed an undergraduate degree and are essentially graduate students would only need slight reminders and suggestions as scaffolding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Patricia - comments on the article (Alt (2015)

# data[].attributes.subject
Patricia - comments on the article (Alt (2015)

# data[].attributes.body
Just a short note.  I thought this was a very good article addressing in particular dealing with older students.  The emphasis of the importance of self-efficacy was an important discussion point in dealing with the types of students with whom in interact.
Patricia McLean

# data[].attributes.body
Articling student  - litigation module, motions.  (An articling student is a law student who has finished law school and is in the provincially required apprentice program with an approved senior lawyer prior to becoming a lawyer).

This is a scenario I have created.  My prior work as a litigation lawyer involved mentoring articling students.  Upon reflection, much of what I did was helpful - and quite close to a constructivist learning model, but there were gaps.  I am therefore going to create what is, in my opinion, the proper learning module in  constructivist learning.

1.  Meet with the law student regarding an assignment - to draft the materials for a motion. (These are the written documents in support for a request to the Court for an Order.  These must be submitted to the opposing Counsel and the Court prior to the Court attendance.  In addition to the substantive portion, there are strict rules about how these documents are formatted, deadlines for delivery to the opposing counsel and to the Court).

At this meeting discuss with the articling student their prior experience, if any, with drafting motion materials and the specific legal issue to be discussed.  In my experience, articling students have a wide range of prior experience - court programs at law school, summer jobs at law firms, prior full-time work in another capacity at a law firm.

Assign a drafting assignment.  Provide minimal guidance (relevant to prior knowledge).  Guidance usually includes:  providing a template motion as an example, reminding the student which legal texts they might use, reminding the student that the Rules of Civil Procedure should be reviewed for all formatting, delivery (there are strict rules on how and when to send documents to other lawyers and the Courts) and deadlines.  Set up a meeting to review the first draft (tell them now there will be a few drafts).

The articling student will draft the motion materials.  This will engage application of their substantive knowledge on the law to a problem.

The lawyer will review the draft motion materials and then meet with the articling student to provide comments (for the re-draft).  In lieu of a "red-line mark-up" an old style senior lawyer's practice that results in the articling student simply editing the documents, the commentary could be more advisory and send the articling student to review other legal materials or procedural texts to improve the written materials.  Following the dictum set out in Alt (2015), the lawyer should provide positive reinforcement to the articling student in regard to the first draft and constructive suggestions for improvement(s) to the draft materials.  Essentially, attitude matters.

Once the materials are done  there are some critical procedural issues regarding delivery of same to the opposing counsel and the Court.  Another meeting between the lawyer and the articling student on this issue.  A key suggestion will be that the articling student (i)  review the procedural texts and the Court Rules and (ii)  work cooperatively with the legal assistants.  These law firm personnel  are often very experienced and knowledgeable with respect to the procedural aspects of legal proceedings.  (It is always surprising to me, the lack of respect some lawyers have for the legal clerks and legal assistants, who are usually very knowledgeable on issues of procedure.  Work with these individuals;  best respectful.)

Going to Court.  Even on the walk or drive over, the lawyer can explain to the articling student how the day may be structured and suggest a few things that the student may chose to observe at Court.

After Court. The opportunity for reflection on what was observed at Court.  Important are observations regarding other lawyers.  Procedural issues are identified.  If a lawyer does not submit documents on time, the Court will (and often does) adjourn the matter to another day.  (Try explaining that to the client).  It is a great lesson to see the mistakes of others.  Further, the opportunity to observe their own senior lawyer's oral advocacy, after having read the materials and understood the arguments, let's the articling student reflect on the process.  On the way back from Court (unless it was a disaster) the senior lawyer and articling student usually discuss how things went;  for themselves and the other lawyers.  As an addendum to that, if the articling student writes a short memo regarding the Court attendance, it may prompt further reflection on the process.

Key reminders for the supervising lawyer:
1.  Let the articling student do the drafting.  Provide feedback and direction to additional research sources.
2.  Attitude and tone.  Be encouraging.  Provide positive feedback.  Let the student know that one draft is not the norm - for students or experienced lawyers.
3.  Provide the opportunity to observe the use of their drafting work - take the articling student to Court.  (Billing at law firms is done on a hourly basis.  The firm needs to appreciate and understand that there will be unbillable time that must be afforded for good training).
4.  Reflection.  Both oral and in writing.

Note to reader - I did do allot of things correctly in my prior life but.... there was typically not effort to ascertain prior knowledge and while there was reflection, a slightly longer written report from the articling student would likely be a better last step.

# data[].attributes.body
Going a little further even with Lori's case study below - As suggested in this weeks podcast, perhaps even creating an authentic assessment task at the end that would mirror a real life situation. A Constructivist educator "would benefit from motivating students to think reflectively, not only in relation to subject matter", as stated in this café's content. I wonder what that would look like for this particular lesson Lori?

# data[].attributes.body
In response to Lori's pH Case Study written below:
For the sake of trying to add a structure to the processes discussed in this weeks café, let's dissect Lori's lesson and see if we can pinpoint the criteria that would help make it constructivist, then lets see where one could add components that would help foster self-efficacy. I am not an expert and I am learning as you are this week, please feel free to question my responses.
- It appears that the first Q & A session is based on the new knowledge they have just been taught in the short lesson. Eliciting prior knowledge on the subject would help link past knowledge to new knowledge through cognitive dissonance. I wonder how one would do this if they have little to no prior knowledge on a subject such as pH?? Perhaps using examples of things that are alkaline and acidic in their environment? If your initial short lesson includes this Lori then you've actually elicited prior knowledge and you are ready to move to the next step which is selecting a task that has a high probability of being problematic ie: introducing the 'unknowns' in the lesson. There is a clear application stage to this lesson where students are asked to think critically about their findings, this would be a great place to provide feedback prior to asking them to reflect upon their learning. Now how would we add a component to make it an activity that would foster self-efficacy? This is where teaching sciences can get even more difficult, one of the most influential components of self-efficacy is a learners past successful experiences, but if it is a new concept to them, they won't be able to base it on past success. Being able to see and model another student or teacher who has been successful in this experiment would foster SE through vicarious experiences and some verbal persuasion during the exploration phase of the lesson, if it is timed appropriately would also foster SE. Your thoughts?