My initial thoughts into critical inquiry were based on the overarching idea that you must delve deep into the topic at hand in order to suck out all the useful information. As long as one paid serious attention to the topic, researched it thoroughly, and added meaningful discussion, you successfully engaged in critical inquiry. I believe there is truth to my initial thoughts, but perhaps clarity of understanding is needed, particularly in the context of learning technology. Selwyn (2010) proposed that critical study within the field of learning technology has been engrossed, although not completely misplaced, in explaining issues on how effective learning technologies are designed, developed and implemented. I believe these topics of study are clearly important, but suggest Selwyn’s case for critical study is not the downgrading of past studies, but rather an upbringing of more personal critical thought and application to future studies. Selwyn’s (2010) further reflections suggest that learning technology studies need to apply critical study into the social scientific, self-reflective, and self-analytical sphere of inquiry. This is where I believe I am starting to understand a different side of critical inquiry, one that is more personal and socially reflective. For example, in asking the question pertaining to my individual learning plan, “is online summative assessments appropriate for phase one terminal or tower air traffic control students?” critical inquiry from a social scientific viewpoint may look at some of the psychological aspects for a student within the air traffic control learning environment. Further critical inquiry might look into aspects of air traffic control culture and the contributions it may have on the air traffic control learning environment, good or bad. Whatever the inquiry may detail, Selwyn has given me pause to make sure I have some type of social scientific or cultural research within my paper to give greater substance into my critical inquiry.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x
May 19, 2020
Hi Mark
I totally understand how you ended up with this conclusion. I share the same experience with you. At first, I was focused on how can UDL be integrated into the design of the debriefing component in simulations in general. Throughout my inquiry and my own learning experience with my team, I learned that collaborative learning pedagogy (group debrief) when embedded into the debriefing design, fosters more meaningful learning. Reflection can start individually and then followed by a group debrief. Teamwork will enhance and enrich the learning experience as Lateef (2010) explained, the role of teamwork training conducted in the simulated environment offers an additive benefit to the traditional instruction by enhancing performance and reducing errors. Group members can learn from their own mistakes in addition to others’ mistakes in a safe learning environment. Accordingly, providing multiple ways of actions and expression (UDL guideline) both as an individual and as a team in the design of simulation debriefings.
However, when embedding a collaborative learning pedagogy, as you mentioned educators need to account for the psychological aspects of learners. For example, Zigmont, Kappus, & Sudikoff (2011) postulated that as performance is exposed to groups, they suggested strategies to help promote the confidentiality of individual performance and cater to the psychological aspects of learners. Such strategies are
“(1) define the goals (ie, assessment or learning) for participants before the course; (2) introduce all facilitators and participants (3) outline expectations for the course, including ground rules for participating in the scenarios and post simulation debriefing; (4) prepare a confidentiality agreement to protect individual performance and issues raised during group discussions; (5) provide an orientation to the manikins and the simulation environment; and (6) disclose how videos are secured and archived” (Zigmont, Kappus, & Sudikoff, 2011, p.49).
Looking forward to reading the findings of your critical inquiry from a social scientific viewpoint!
References
Lateef, F. (2010). Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock, 3(4), 348.
Zigmont, J. J., Kappus, L. J., & Sudikoff, S. N. (2011, April). Theoretical foundations of learning through simulation. In Seminars in perinatology (Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 47-51). WB Saunders.
May 23, 2020
Critical inquiry is new for me as well Mark. I appreciated you taking the time to write your thoughts on the subject allowing for some conversation.
Critical inquiry does seem to demand a deep drive into the subject matter. However, if I am understanding it right, I think that is only one side of critical inquiry. The other side of it is to fully explore the topic and where it can lead. In your work, I can see how critical inquiry has taken you to the questions beyond your initial question Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, and Jenkins (2009) state that “Inquiry as a teaching method seeks to develop inquirers and to use curiosity, the urge to explore and to understand, as motivators leading to learning through personal engagement” (p. 843); using curiosity to engage the learners seems as ideal way to learn. If one is simply forced to work with a topic, then the creative juices will not flow in the same way. Let your creative juices flow and evolve your question as you proceed through your research!
References
ustice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher education, 58(6), 841-855.
May 28, 2020
Mark I think you’re homing in on the idea when you describe your initial thoughts of delving deep to “suck out all the useful information.” As your inquiry developed you started thinking about such things as psychological aspects and workplace culture. Both of these areas can be entryways into critical inquiry as they expand beyond the concept of a learning tool, approach or environment as simply a technical process that leads to a specifically intended outcome. Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the ripples extend beyond the first splash of effect. Tala’s suggestions are an example of where these wider ripples may lead in terms of possible psychological harm caused by poorly-planned simulation group debriefings that don’t take into account personal vulnerability and safety, as is the idea of evolving the research question in a creative process as described by Kathy.