Developing a scenario-based approach in a Trades context

Willfred Greyling

Centre for Foundation Studies

Waikato Institute of Technology

Ara mai he tētēkura

Growing leaders

He Wānanga

Leadership in Literacy and Numeracy Education

Tangatarua Marae, Waiariki Institute of Technology

10 - 11 October 2013

Focus: Scenario-based approach to literacy and numeracy

Main aims:• To outline the principles and practices we

applied• To compare outcomes for two groups

(regular cohort and Maori Trade Training students)– LN progress– Perceptions of self-efficacy

Methodology:• Develop Trade-specific scenarios for

Building and Construction– Principles and practices

• Measures of progress: – Gain reports comparing TEC assessment

scores before and after– T tests comparing pre- and posttest scores on a

self-efficacy rating scale (Bandura, 2007; Seligman, 2011)

Scenarios: Use small-scale building projects to develop LN skills

Designing scenarios: Principles and practices

Principles & practices

• Authentic tasks/learning• From mediated to autonomous learning• Awareness of literate and numerate

reasoning in a vocational context • Building relationships of trust

(whanaungatanga)• Make the tradesman’s role and practices

the vision to be pursued• Adopt an holistic view (kotahitanga)• Working together (mahi tahi)• Emphasise diversity and difference.

Seven small-scale scenario-based projects

• A low level deck• A pergola• A fishing kayak shed• A boundary fence• A dog house for two Great Danes• A raised bed• A field shelter for a horse

• Integrating perspectives from the Progressions [Predict, Observe, Analyse, Record and Reflect]

Low level deck: Pre-planning exerciseScenario: A customer has answered your advert in the Waikato Times, asking that you call round to the house to talk about building a small deck at the back of her house, big enough to take a four seat table and chairs with a sun shade umbrella.

Scaffolding: What you need to do now!•Work in your groups. Decide who will speak to the client and go to the address of Mighty River Power house No 6 (Role play)•Work together to measure the area and note the measurements (Collaborate).•Try to visualise the shape of the deck and sketch out with added dimensions (Authenticity)•Go to the computer and check out some of the popular DIY websites (Technology as a resource)

• Websites: www.mitre10.co.nz; www.ehow.com; www.youtube.com; www.bunnings.co.nz

• From the website information, decide as a group on the best way to build the client’s deck. (Talk to your tutor before moving on) (Collaborate)

• Sketch a scaled plan of the deck using the A3 graph paper with appropriate dimensions (N)

• Use the shopping list provided to cost the deck using the pricing guide (LN).

• Add labour costs at your hourly rate (N).• Add reasonable transport and sundry costs (N)• Add GST of 15% to arrive at a total cost. (N)• Prepare a written quote for the client. (N)

Delivery• Who? A carpentry tutor, the LN-

embedding tutor (designer) & student support person

• When? 9-10:30 am 10:30am-12pm for 8 Fridays

• How? [Scenarios; lesson plans; IT]– Week 1: TEC assessments & Self-efficacy rating

scale– Week 2 and 3: Negotiating the role of the

tradesman (role definition and practices) & forming groups

– Week 4 to 6: Mediating project 1– Week 7 and 8: Project 2 (Learners on their own) – Week 9: Feedback, TEC assessments and Self-

efficacy rating scale

Vision: Defining a builder’s role and practices•Communication & collaboration to be effective/efficient•Writing skills & specific texts to become employable•Visualising an object, task or job [using site plans]•Personal safety in the workplace•Numeracy skills [measuring, mental calculations, area, volume, length, width, angles, Pythagoras, etc] for building and construction jobs•Estimating costs, measurements, area and volume.•Problem-solving [i.e. critical thinking, changes in design, delays] to be efficient and effective•Reading the NZ standards, charts, tables, regulations, etc.•IT skills•Professional responsibility & ethics [Standards, ethics, taxes]•Making a living•Why are these important?

Self-efficacy rating scale

• Following Bandura (2008) and Seligman (2011), we developed the Self-Efficacy and Personal Agency Rating Scale which consists of 24 items on a 7-point scale.

• The reliability coefficient for the total scale was 0.849 (alpha coefficient).

• The scale consists of three subscales:

• Total of subscales: Perceived Self-efficacy (alpha: 0.849)

• Subscale 1: Vision, goals and planning subscale (8 items) (alpha: 0.742)

• Subscale 2: Grit subscale (Seligman, 2011) (8 items) (alpha: 0.659)

• Subscale 3: Tenacity and resilience subscale (8 items) (alpha: 0.750)

Improved performance: Maori group & regular group

T-test results: Within-group comparison of means on TEC assessments for MTT & Regular cohort

Group and Assessments

n Mean difference

Standard deviation

t value Degrees of freedom

p (significance)

MTT Read Final – Read Start

16 598.8 – 571.3= 27.5

82 (Read final)77 (Read start)

1.585 15 0.134

RegularRead Final – Read Start

13 610.7 – 612.4= -1.70

101 (Read final)103 (Read start)

0.223 12 0.948

MTT Num Final – Num Start

16 623.7 – 577.3= 46.4

63 (Num final)66 (Num start)

-0.067 15 0.013

RegularNum Final – Num Start

13 639 – 635.3= 3.8

60 (Num final)64 (Num start)

0.223 12 0.827

Between group comparisons at start and finishGroups n Mean differences

comparedStandard deviations

t value Degrees of freedom

p (significance)

MTT v Regular (Read Start)

n = 16n = 13

571.3 (MTT)612.4 (Reg)(41.1)

77102

-1.240 27 0.226

MTT v Regular (Read Final)

n = 16n = 13

599 (MTT)611 (Reg)(12)

85106

-0.346 27 0.732

MTT v Regular (Num Start)

n = 16n = 13

577 (MTT)635 (Reg)(58)

66105

-2.379 27 0.025

MTT v Regular (Num Final)

n = 16n = 13

623.9 (MTT)639 (Reg)(15.1)

6461

-0.661 27 0.514

Self-efficacy ratings

• Between group comparisons: No differences at either start or finish• Within group comparisons for MTT

Group and Assessments n Mean difference

Standard deviation

t value Degrees of freedom

p (significance)

Total Self-Efficacy Score (Final-Start)

12 72.9-73.5= -0.6

11.29.2

-0.298 11 0.771

Vision & Planning (Final-Start)

12 81.5-77.7= 3.8

9.49.8

1.595 11 0.139

Grit Scale [Seligman] (Final-Start)

12 70.8 -72.7= -1.9

12.19.8

-0.762 11 0.462

Tenacity and Resilience (Final-Start)

12 66.4-69.3= -2.9

15.710.5

-1.160 11 0.271

Findings and interpretationWe found that•the MTT group outperformed the regular cohort on progress in reading and numeracy.•numeracy gains for MTT students were statistically significant.•both groups maintained high positive levels of perceived self-efficacy (total scores, as well as vision and planning; Seligman’s grit subscale and the tenacity and resilience subscale)Interpretation and conclusions:•Scenario-based learning and its principles may have had a motivating effect.

• MTT students’ gains could be related to – our focus on collaboration (mahi tahi) and relationship-

building (whanaungatanga) – their sense of urgency.

• Self-efficacy ratings remained positive for the 8-week period. Perhaps we should lift our expectations for these students.

• The vision subscale came closest to a significant result. The tradesman’s role definition may serve as a motivating and transforming vision for students (i.e. a pull factor).

• Follow-up progress assessments and self-efficacy ratings may allow us to gain more insight into what happened to these students.

Thanks for attending

Ngā Mihi