1. Do you think the innovations described in Weeks 8/9 as ‘learning design’ would induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students?
I would firstly dispute what ‘desirable’ approaches are. I am not sure that I would agree that a surface approach is bad and a deep approach is good, which seemed to be the subtext in the article. It really does depend on what is being learnt, how and why. There are times when memorisation is important.(and to be fair to Richardson, he is talking about University students)
At my supervision today we were also discussing how some people are concrete learners and some prefer abstract or problem solving approaches. This may be because of their environment or disciplines or personalities or it may be because they don’t have to think that way in their day to day life. For me, this means adopting a variety of approaches in the learning I design, because the audience are so varied. (hence why I like the hybrid model in the design tools).
Richardson seems to place some importance on the interplay between students and teachers, and so working with teachers to use learning design tools, could be very beneficial in them thinking about how they interact and the roles that they play. Back in Block 1 we looked at a number of different commentaries about how different pedagogies might need different approaches. However, as to whether this would help change learners? Most learners would probably not need to know about learning design – and often are with teachers for a finite time. Can a teacher in that time change perceptions?
I think this is why it’s interesting that all the research tools ask students about their whole experience. It’s very hard to separate the good from the bad when you do this. We all remember our great teachers and our bad teachers – so if asked about our overall experience, it may be very middle of the road.
2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.
Sfard’s discussions about acquisition, participation and identity change noted that one couldn’t package them up – that learning at times is a mixture all of them. If you investigate more about Marton’s discussions on deep and surface learning, you find that he also, doesn’t suggest that the two are independent of each other. However Marton’s approach is more about motivation – the why, whereas Sfard emphasised that the metaphors were the mechanisms for learning – the how.
There are also some links in all of these papers back to Salamon, and thinking about the way we perceive things. Although we were thinking about mediums – this also applies to students understandings of learning and teachers understanding of teachers. We don’t know what we don’t know.
Conole et als mapping tool to pedagogy does reflect Martons ideas of deep and surface – in separating the Active and passive, information and experience, and Individual and Social – although this has more dimensions.
3.Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in my paper fit your own experience as a learner?
As an undergraduate (and in my a-levels) I think I adopted all of these approaches. There were some things that I just had to memorise because I wanted to remember names and dates in order to create some structure in my exams. There were some topics I loved and some that didn’t really engage me – so I chose which approach I would adopt – and that tends to bear out in my results.
Surface learning – tends to be adopted when I need to know something or have been made to do something. I need to ‘suss out’ how much of my time I give to it. It may not be because I am not interested – it may also be because I have so many other things going on, that I don’t have time to give it the attention it deserves. There are also times when you have to be passive.
Deep learning – what interests me now is how much deeper many things have become. So often even in the passive learning environments, I will try and find some level that ties other things together – to find some meaning. The question as to whether this comes from age and experience is a difficult one.
Strategic learning – who hasn’t?! Often if there is a test at the end of a course – I just ask if I can do it first?!! I think it’s also worth noting that some things are designed that way. The theory part of Prince2 Project management is like a logic puzzle game. You need to know some things, but you need to know the right things to be able to answer the questions. For that I mostly did the practice papers over and over, so that the terms and environment sunk in. I did very well in that exam, but I am not sure that I would say my theoretical knowledge of the subject was on parr!
I also find the approach of surveys interesting. I hate filling in surveys as I find that the general tick boxes and happy faces don’t allow me room for manoeuvre. Do any of us ever fill them in correctly? Often there is a fear that this is another test that I need to get right. Again, today in supervision we talked about the culture of feedback, and that in the UK, people find it difficult to give honest feedback. This is true of other cultures too. Can we tryst the feedback we get from students? I think I would find some masters students more reliable than say GSCE students.
The idea of phenomenography is interesting to me, as I am always keen to understand what people think and why – where their ideas come from. I still have a niggling doubt about it as a research method, as it needs experts to exert their understanding and interpretation. Most people really don’t spend a lot of time understanding why they think the way they think.
4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?
"Learning is the process of defining and redefining my knowledge skills and behaviours to the internal and external world around me. It helps me to understand who I am, what I do and how and why I do it. It can change the way I think or feel or do. It is a continual cycle"
My initial definition in week 3 probably leans mostly towards number 5 on the Saljo scale, however I hold my opinion that each of these happen at different times and for different reasons, and not necessarily through a hierarchy. There is some merit in the Bloom approach of needing to develop certain levels of understanding to move to the next ‘level’, but it is very much based on context, and I would be careful of labeling this as a step by step process.
5. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in my paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?
I have a vague recollection of several theories from H807 about teacher development that echo this. I think that for some, the more confidence and experience they get helps them to develop different approaches to teaching. It’s is surely human nature that you learn a new skill and want to show off a bit. I like facilitating. I don’t like stand in front of people and telling them stuff. I like to help people come to their own understand, as mentioned in my blog earlier. How I teach depends on my audience – but at some point it always slips into a facilitative process!
I think it’s also useful to remember some of the things already mentioned about teacher experience. Mason (2012) in the module resources challenged us with the fact that if teachers are the only resource, then the teaching will be teacher centred. And Weisman (2001) explained that the approach that teacher takes often depends on the institution, it’s approach and flexibility and the power relationships within and Travers and Decker (1999) Indeed, teachers may not have an option of how they teach. Our tutor has already mentioned that some activities can’t be changed, as it would give a different learning scenario, or may affect the learning that takes place. Are we rigid in both on and off line environments?
6.Do you find my argument convincing?
I am not 100% sure what the argument was. Yes, research has given us lots of interesting things to ponder about how student and teachers may think about what they do within learning. It may also give us some idea about practical things we can do.
I do agree that we need to think more about the interplay between student and teacher. I think that I may believe a lot in activity theory – through living it – although I may not quite understand it when I see it on a page.
The methods by which Richardson tries to convince me are somewhat lacking. I am not quite confident in the purely quantative approach. I am not sure what the qualitative would be – but I do a lot of research on how our learners find their learning, and we try and integrate qualitative - from learners, trainers and managers with quantative data. This is never easy and it always has missing areas. But that, along with our experience in the field, and combined knowledge and gut feelings – tend to help to build a fairly accurate picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment