A4: Reading Richardson (2009)

Face to Face versus online tutoring support  in humanities.

Two years after helping to write the previous paper, Richardson presents us with a new paper about online tutors, within humanities courses. On reading this Richardson (who is also the author of this week’s module materials) asks us to consider the rhetoric that is being used to ‘convince us’ of his argument.

Summary

In the opening Richardson tells us that the move towards electronic materials mirrors the move towards online support. (note that there is not much data here – more of a personal perception. However having seen that this is Richardson’s area of study, I feel more comfortable with these implied suggestions).

Alexander (2001) – 3 factors that influence the student experience – communication and support from student, time available to devote to course and the students level of experience and expertise in ICT. (Richardson does provide us with some back up research to support these ideas).

Basically Richardson moves on the Price et al study and asks more questions about the difference in the quality of the student experience when provided with online rather than face-to-face support. It’s interesting that he states there is some anecdotal support the viewpoint in the Price et al paper (does this phrase anecdotal undermine the findings?) but that it is limited in the research it did as it was a single course and multi disciplinary etc. (All points that are pointed out towards the end of the price paper.) The result – that there is no real difference in the perceived quality of online versus f2f support.

So, here Richardson will use a quantative survey for 2 courses (not sure HOW just one extra course might add more weight – or maybe I am being harsh?!) So we have a humanities course(entry level) and a literature course(honours level), each of 9 months duration. Tutorial support was either f2f(14/16 hours), contact by telephone and email or online through mediated conferencing and email – with tutor using their own discretion as to how this time was allocated. The tutors who did the online tuition were experienced f2f tutors, and underwent training for online tuition (although it doesn’t directly state what this training was). Students received a postal survey (2007) – part Course Experience Questionnaire and part Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory – and students were also asked why they chose online or f2f. Once again they were asked about the course as a whole rather than Units, topics, or tutors.

Results – 616 students completed (48% response rate). 70% female, 30% males. F2f – 50% online 45.9%

Why choose f2f? – because I prefer it(67%), because I don’t have reliable access(19%) and because I didn’t know about the online support(11%). Also mentions lack of confidence in own skills, and the need for personal contact with others. (something that we highlighted in the forums and conferencing last week.)

Why choose online? Prefer online (54%), other commitments mean cant make f2f (22%)….also mentioned need for flexible approach, other commitments or disabilities.

Richardson highlights some previous research (2005) that had been done with OU students – which is a useful summary of the general characteristics of OU students. (interestingly most score highly on the deep or strategic approaches.) It should be noted that the students ‘chose’ online or f2f, so there will be some personal motivation in using the particular tuition – they were also briefed on the aims and objectives of tutorial – so probably had a better understanding of the support they should receive.

What Richardson has done is taken some of the questions from Price et al and created a more ‘focused research’, so that questions about tutor training, perceptions of tuition and choice of medium have been addressed – which may suggest that some of the reasons/discussions around the outcomes of the Price et al’s study have been addressed.

Activity 4

Do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?

Probably. I think if I was reading this in isolation I may have more questions. But this is, like much of Richardson’s work , about going deeper into previous assumptions. I think that the paper does suggest that thinking about the right approach helps – the students were given expectations and choice, the teachers given training. But what about if there isn’t choice? What if it’s mandatory? What if these humanities teachers are better at adapting than others? Although this paper does address some of the previous points, it still is a very small study.


Richardson, J.T.E. (2009) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, vol.8, no.1, pp.69–85

H807 - reflections on online activity

In H807 TMA3 was focused on us reflecting about the ways that we have communicated in the forums. Reflecting on our own experiences help us to understand the different dimensions.

Here’s a summary of some of the things I reflected on. It would be interesting to compare how this has changed this year, and I am picking this up following the commenst made in activity 3.

Social presence

I tried to create a social presence by responding to questions, imparting information, referring to posts from others (usually by name), using emotive phrases, giving encouragement and by revealing information and experiences that are personal to me. These characteristics can be seen across several of my posts and echo Walther and Boyd’s (2002) characteristics of face-to-face support that reflect those found in online communication.

Posts that reveal personal information are evident, but I have not consciously controlled this (Ben Ze’ev, 2003), or revealed more information about myself online (Joinson, 2001) in comparison to face-to-face learning environments. Often the ‘revealing’ element reflects or enhances my discussion in different contexts. It also helps to identify with others, for example, where a simple statement about a walkman created some social cohesion with people then sharing similar experiences.

As in face-to-face, the way I have communicated is often emotive, using language like ‘love’, ‘excited’ or inserting exclamation marks or emoticons. These snippets of our own experiences or emotions create a richer online environment, the human element, enabling a sense of play between us, which is important in motivating me and engaging with others (Waltonen-Moore et al, 2006).

I have found it quite frustrating, especially towards the end of Block 2, as interaction in the forums slowed down and lost some of the earlier vigour. For that reason I was keen to revisit the statements I made about how people behave and whether individuals can dominate discussions. This has made me question my perception of commitment, as others may view my ensuring I take part in online discussions, as domineering behaviour. Particularly in week 13, where my enthusiasm for the information ecology metaphor may have alienated others, and I can see how my multiple posts could be perceived as aggressive, and something I need to consider in the future.

This is one of the features of asynchronous communication within distance learning, and a part of general group development. People have differing demands on time, expectations and motivations, and it means that if no one voices their concerns or thoughts, it sometimes gets lonely or misinterpreted. I find that I miss hearing from particular individuals within weekly discussions.

(I have been particularly reminded of this in my current module, where I fight against not wanted to write too much in the forums, versus there being a real lack of presence of anyone is some weeks. Again I am reminded that my behaviour could be construed as domineering, but I really want to involved with others, as I need to feel connected and argue and debate with others to help my own understanding. Often if feels like we are just passing through with a quick hello. The forums motivate me onward – so this means that I need to find new avenues and approached to motivation, when the online presence of others is lacking. The worry is always that one can get disillusioned and then not post at all ).

Engaging with activities

In many ways, despite not being truly anonymous to each other, the tasks have driven our online identities (Lea et al, 2002). I feel more affinity to those who take part in the activities, communicate regularly or in a similar way to myself. That is not to say that I always take part in the activities, as often I will comment and observe on the periphery, rather than engage fully in the activities we have been asked to do, but every week I have contributed in some way.

Upon reflection, my posts display repeated characteristics. They usually involve some kind of general summary on the activity, a reflection on personal experience or how it translates to personal context, then further questions on how to apply what we have covered. Sometimes this involves rethinking my original conclusions. This is very much in tune with my learning style, where I like to investigate and reflect before giving my opinion.  I also apply knowledge to real life situations in face-to-face learning, as much of my training is about behaviour change or knowledge application, so I was not surprised that this materialised in many of my posts.

(This year I think I have done more reflection in my blog than within the forums. I also attend supervision as part of my job, so I often talk to me supervisor about some of the key ideas coming through and how this relates to my own experience and direction. I think that I have posted a lot less than I did last year, and my posts don’t always reflect that activities that I have done, although they are related in others ways. I think this is because I use my blogs more for direct reflection on activities, and the forums for sharing some summary thoughts or trying to get some discussion going between us. I feel that the forum discussions are less focused on unpicking the activities and coming to conclusions, and more about sharing some of our initial thoughts. It would be interesting to hear some of my fellow students take on the role of the forum for this module)

In the early weeks I was constructing messages carefully before posting, sometimes taking several hours, to ensure a quality response (Herring 1999), but this has changed. In Block 1 my postings have a more formal feel to them, which reflects on how the theory fits with my experiences. In Block 2 my posts become more fluid and informal. I respond using a similar structures, but the pace of the message feels faster. This may be because the subject matter is reviewing tools rather than theories, but it is interesting to note the changes.

I have also started deconstructing my posts. Some posts are anecdotes, a characteristic of mine, but it has no reflection around it from me, which leaves it open for comments from others. Some of my posts also highlight that spontaneity often creates more syntax or spelling errors, which holds less importance for me now.

This reflection has proved interesting in seeing how my personality materialises in my posts, and how posts also echo my personal development, moving from reflection to cognitive analysis to a need to share and encourage others in the process of thinking about thinking. Characteristics that have been highlighted by the readings and theories we have studied have materialised in my own experiences to varying degrees, and it would now be interesting to share this with my fellow students and get their views and interpretations.

 

Ben Ze’ev, A. (2003) ‘Privacy, emotional closeness, and openness in cyberspace’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol.19, no.4, pp.451–67.

Herring, S.C. (1999) ‘Interactional coherence in CMC’, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, vol.4, no.4 [online] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html (accessed 16th March 2011)

Joinson, A.N. (2001) ‘Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol.31, no.2, pp.177–92

Lea, M., Rogers, P. and Postmes, T. (2002) ‘SIDE-VIEW: Evaluation of a prototype system to develop team players and improve productivity in Internet collaborative learning groups’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.33, no.1, pp.53–63

Walther, J.B. and Boyd, S. (2002) ‘Attraction to computer-mediated social support’ in Lin, C.A. and Atkin, D. (eds) Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses, Cresskill, NJ, Hampton Press, pp.153–88

Waltonen-Moore, S., Stuart, D., Newton, E., Oswald, R., & Varonis, E. (2006). ‘From virtual strangers to a cohesive online learning community: the evolution of online group development in a professional development course.’ Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14.2. ,287-311 [online] http://www.dastous.us/edtechadvocate/1.pdf  (Accessed 21^st March

Other reflections from H807...

H807 – Telling learners what to do.

H807 – learners life events

H807 talking about talking

Reading Richardson

‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education’. Richardson (2005)

Summary of content.

Richardson's paper brings together a number of theories and research that looks at how learners and teachers approach education. He notes that past research has stated that learners adopt difference approaches depending on the demands of the course, the quality of the teaching and the nature of the assessment, but also brings into play a discussion around their understanding/conceptions of learning. Back in week four we started thinking about this and highlighted that a personals social background/ history/ how learners have been taught before may affect the way they see learning. So we pick up these ideas again with Richardson asking if student’s contextual factors effect their perceptions of learning. This also picks up on some of the discussions in week 11 on the global digital divide, and whether some social inadequacies need to be overcome before one worries about educational digital divides.

Theories

‘Interview-based research carried out in Britain and Sweden during the 1970s had identified three predominant approaches to studying in higher education: a deep approach, based upon understanding the meaning of course materials; a surface approach, based upon memorising the course materials for the purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining the highest grades.’(p674, Richardson,2005)

Richardson then picks up a number theories from Marton (1976), Säljö (1979) and Kember (1997).

Marton (1976) – deep approach students take a more active role and see learning as something they do (possible links here with the Participation metaphors). Surface learners take a more passive role, and often see learning as something that happens to them. (acquisition?)

Säljö (1979) – Conceptions of learning

1. increase of knowledge
2. memorizing
3. acquisition of facts o procedure
4. abstraction of meaning
5. interpretative process aimed at understanding reality

1 – 3 >surface learning; 2-5 >deep learning, and possibly seen more in older learners.

(Van Rossum & Taylor(1987) added a 6. conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony and happiness and changing society – which could be linked to Marton et al (1993) changing as a person)

Kember (1997)

Teachers conceptions of teaching:

1. imparting information
2. transmitting structured knowledge
3. an interaction between teacher and student
4. facilitating understanding on part of student
5. bringing about conceptual change and intellectual development in students

Prosser and Trigwell (1993)

Deep understanding – teachers tend to be student focused. Also these teachers tend to report departments that value teaching, lower class sizes and control over what they taught. (this mirrors some of the discussion in week one, about what education is for, and that organizational structures and environments can effect the perceived quality of teaching. Less flexibility tends to impede teachers becoming more student focused even if they want to be)

Research methods

Richardson also introduces us to a number of research tools.

Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983)

Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987).

Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991) (australian example 2001)

Approach to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell, 1993)

Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education’, Educational Psychology, vol.25, no. 6, pp.673–80;

Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching

'In practice, particular approaches in educational research are often evaluated, not by whether they are ‘true’, but by whether they have interesting or useful applications.' (Richardson , 2012)

In fact Richardson is issuing us we a great challenge this week - to take some of his research papers and critically evaluate them. (A great form of alternative peer assessment maybe?!). I am sure we know that every author will chose the devices needed to convince an audience of their point of view, and I think that in the subject of 'debates', it's important for us to start thinking about the finer details of papers we may read.

(NB - definition of terms will be randomly dotted around!)

 

Definition 1: Paradigm-driven disciplines

A 'paradigm' is a philosophical or theoretic framework. Theories, laws, generalisations and experiments support them. Hence the sciences can be seen as paradigm -driven as ..'there is usually a broad consensus about what the problems are that need to be solved, what methods are appropriate for trying to solve them, and how the results of research should be interpreted. Shifting to a new paradigm happens only rarely, usually resulting from the work of an exceptional individual.' (Richardson, 2012)

Definition 2:Disciplines without paradigms

Basically, disciplines where there is less agreement or consensus - like social sciences and education. Here is the domain where the best argument wins (a broad overstatement I know.) 'Researchers get their work published by making a convincing case that they have formulated an interesting problem, chosen an appropriate method for investigating it, and provided a plausible interpretation of the results. So rhetoric – the art of effective speaking and writing – is important. ' (Richardson, 2012) And thus the debates begin. Sounds quite exciting really - if you like debating!

So this week is about thinking critically about the arguments we are presented with.

OVERLOAD!!!

This is my brain right now.

So I am parking weeks 10 and 11 and will come back to them.

This will include:

Week 10

• The role of 'experts'
• Wikipedia
• Social Bookmarking
• Blogging
• OERs

Week 11

• Debates in academia
• Global differences in educational opportunities
• The Iron Triangle
• Quality, cost and elearning
  
  On to Week 12..........
   

Designing for Learning.

A few weeks back we were asked about how we design for learning.

There are lots of different approaches, and depending on what you adopt, may depend on how you plan, and utilise technology.

Things to consider.......

Types of Learning.

This task asked us to think about how we use technology for, and map these onto a grid. The exercise makes you think about how digital media could be used for each of these things by drawing on our experiences.

·         thinking and reflection

·         experience and activity

·         conversation and interaction

·         evidence and demonstration

Mapping Tools to pedagogy (conole et al,2004)

This task looked at mapping activities, based on three dimensions:

·         individual–social: any learning activity can be located somewhere along a spectrum from being an individual, isolated experience to being essentially social in nature.

·         active–passive: some learning activities involve active engagement, whereas other aspects of learning may occur through some degree of passive immersion.

·         information–experience: learning activities vary in the degree to which they are information or experience based. 

The learning centred approach (Hybrid)

The model focuses on eight key characteristics of learning, from both the learner and the designer perspectives. The eight events are ‘creates’, ‘imitates’, ‘practices’, ‘explores’, ‘receives’, ‘debates’, ‘experiments’ and ‘meta-learns’. (This is my favourite model - because of the resources, but also because it mirrors much in the way that I plan and train others in designing learning.)

Comparing different Schema

Often people think design is difficult. All of these tools break down learning in different ways for practitioners. In my experience, we spend a lot of time with trainers getting then to understand the processes of designing learning from start to finish. Maybe other practitioners don't. Therefore all these tools give insight into breaking done the reasons as well as the activities, tools and technology that could be used in learning design. When you understand what it is that needs to be accomplished - it is much easier to determine whether technology can be used. So in answer to the question " Does it help teachers adopt a less technology driven approach" for me, no - as my trainers are not driven by technology in the first place. I am interested in why this is such key area within educational context, as the design of learning outside education seems to be focused much more on linking the designs to the outcomes. Is this because teachers are only involved in the final stages?

  In fact, activities like the ones we have undertaken, are similar to activities that I undertake in order to get people to understand how technology CAN be used. by understanding more about learning design, and what activities with learning are meant to enable, it helps to develop different approaches, and allows trainers to be more adaptive. Giving people simple structures and templates to do this -- simplifies the activity, and helps to empower them  to be more creative. Certainly in a face to face environment, I know that if one approach isn't working, then I can change the method to be more, or less engaging - to hit the learning outcome in a different way. I am not sure how this transfers across to a digital environment yet!

tools for planning

At the start of the weeks, Conole in the study material, expressed the need for there to be a better understanding of the design process. The activities over the last two weeks have all been about this. 'Learning design' is not just an OU approach. Each context has it's own approach and tools, ;language and pedagogy and the different tools we have looked at can be used in different ways by the different practitioners. Learning design is a "complex, messy and creative process" as Conole suggests, and the approach varies on a number of things, including where in the lifecycle of design you begin.

Yannis Dimitriadis in his interview with Pettit said that learning design should support practitioners in a real context, and that resources are about trying to capture the design process. He also points out that we need 'structure for success'. That, people really won't, on the whole, learn for themselves.

Compendium LD. A visual design tool. The activity we were given was for us to think about one of the activities we have already undertaken and to use the tool to design the activity. The software is fairly easy to use, although not necessarily initiative to start with. It would have been nice to see some designs to start with. Some interesting learning points to come out of this activity, besides the fact that half the group couldn't download the software. As already mentioned, different people came from different viewpoints in how to use this, and how to visually display things. A very useful tool for the 'visual' learners, and those who like mind maps (I hate mind maps, like tables!) This however, proves the point of learning design being messy!

Cloudworks. "Social networking for learning design". Another community based resource from the OU, built on the general principles of social media. Interestingly, most of us also found this quite messy. Although, like most things it takes time to move around and figure things out, we felt that it was not necessarily useful to everyone.  Personally I preferred educause.

With community based resources, you need to be a part of that community, otherwise you feel like you are nosing around someone else front room. I belong to a number of similar forums and closed communities, where resources and discussions are shared with like minded practitioners. So the learning point from this is , that there needs to be enough activity, but also that it needs to be relevant for the particular practitioner.

Pedagogy planners.  London Pedgaogy planner and phoebe. These are more tools for the micro planning. Both of these projects seem to have ended, but both again, give simple tools to enable teachers to plan their learning.

Beethams and me.

The issues

Authenticity of activity. For us this is making sure that there is an authentic context. Learners have for years been saying that it needs to be relevant to the role that they do - and this is also one of our training principles. Can we create activities that allow the learner to develop better skills or reasoning or to understand the issues they might come across better, and their role in problem solving? Can we give them a chance to rehearse? Therefore when writing materials we need to make sure the activities we are suggesting have this authentic context.

Formality and structure. As a volunteer movement we are incredibly flexible. we have principles and criteria for assessment, but this is in the form of other volunteers assessing the individual on how they have applied their learning to their role. The structure of learning has definition, but is not rigid. Trainers can deliver the objectives in the way they think best suits the learner. The danger of this is they design learning that best suits themselves rather than the learners. Certainly when I deliver learning it is very flexible and changed to suit the needs of the learners, even though the general pattern of activities is in place.

Retention/reproduction versus reflection/internationalisation. We do both of these, through role play and group work and through reflection and action planning, and also through the validation process itself. I would maybe add another layer to this which is about actualization - problem solving. Often learning is very group orientated, because the organisation is about team work. So maybe there needs to be some thought about how we design activities that also give the individual room for reflection.

The role and importance of other people. This is especially important in a volunteer organisation. Also because often the trainer won't have any contact with the learner's other support mechanisms. Therefore, it can't be assumed that the learners will experience the 'authentic' activity you have created in the sessions. We came up with some radical ideas about tailoring learning to individuals and having lots of methods. But this relies on the support structures available. More support to supporters is a key part that needs developing.

Locus of control. This a definite area of development and from a central point of view one that needs more guidance. As a volunteer led organisation, it takes about five years for information to be clearly communicated and actioned across the UK, up to the most important ground level people. Even though there may be clear guidance, volunteer managers often do not follow it, and insert their own rules and control. Often this is because of fear of the unknown. This is evident in the distrust that some training managers have in learners using elearning or workbooks to study at their own pace. Again, a better understanding from those supporting and managing the learner process is required for it to work better.

Different approaches

Our learning is a blend of different approaches - very much linked in with Blooms', knowledge, skills and behaviours.. We want people to take on the situative elements - build on their roles and be able to participate in the wider context of their role. We also though want to enable them to solve problems and action plan, as a people orientated organisation, this will be a key skill. And they also need to know the rules and regulations about what they do, as well as develop practical skills.

The learning outcome DOES need to be meaningful to our learners, as they are volunteers, and so the pressure on time is often of huge relevance. When Beetham talks about designing learning, the considerations about experience and motivation and accessibility and skills are ones that we teach our trainers, and is a personal mission of mine. However this is not always easy, as you don't always know who will be turning up to your training sessions. (especially when you are a national development officer for the UK).

Using technology.

So how do we currently use technology.? We do have the dreaded old fashioned instructional elearning programmes. I view these much the same as videos or web page sin content. There may be some exploration or reflection involved, but without any support structures in place during the learning, they are simply informational. Support has to come afterwards as people work through the validation process. We do however encourage exploration and reflection in the newly designed workbooks. It is still a rather simple learning process, but by asking learners to involve others or to explore resources on the website we are introducing a new dimension to the approach.

We use technology a lot in the processes that lead to learning development. Research, data processing, experimentation all play their part is understanding what the needs is, as well as assessing the approached to take. For instance, we know that learners want more group activities and tasks and less passive lecturing through feedback. We know which areas in the UK may not be completing learning and can offer more support and direct development work.

We are also using more conferencing technology and experimenting with one off activities to try things out and get a feel for whether it can work for us.

Beetham - An Approach to learning activity design

Digital tools and materials should not change the fact that designing learning is about the activities the learner does and the outcomes of that activity.

"learners need opportunities to make a newly acquired concept or skill their own: to draw on their own strengths and preferences, and to extend their repertoire of approaches to task requirements"

Tasks are required OF learners (like curriculum in education).Activities are engaged in BY learners in response to the task. Beetham tells us that theorists stress the need for integration across activities, and therefore despite the  fact that people learn in different ways, and that the outcomes may be different, there are issues that cross all learning design:

·         authenticity of activity

·         formality and structure

·         retention/reproduction versus reflection/internationalisation

·         the role and importance of other people

·         locus of control

Beetham tells us that when designing for learning outcomes the activity must be meaningful for the learner and its context, and also that there should be an "identifiable change that is anticipated in the learner". If the learning activity needs to be meaningful to the learner, then so does the learning outcome.

There are no surprises when it comes to designing for learners and the variants to consider, and how these can be co-dependent on each other:

·         experience, knowledge and competence in subject

·         accessibility

·         motivations and expectations

·         prior experience of learning and method

·         preferred approaches to learning

·         social and interpersonal skills

·         confidence and competence (if using ICT)

Beetham states that if we truly want to design learning that is relevant to each individual learner, then we need to provide a flexible approach. This is one in which the learner is allowed to make their own decisions on the tasks they undertake, and one that digital technology could support. Technology allows us to present a wider range of options, however, and this is a recurring theme, there is limited availability of skilled practitioners to provide the relevant feedback and support such a personalised approach takes. Beetham also remind us that most learning involves some form of interaction with another person, often someone who is more expert than the learner.

Beetham links the use of digital resources and technologies with the traditional approach to learning. In a face to face environment you think not only about the resources, but about the layout of the room, the environment within which learning is fostered. This is also true of the digital environment. Different artefacts have different affordances (Gibson 1979), but these affordances can have different meanings in different contexts. Saloman (1997) in week 6 already pointed out that we view different forms of representation in different ways. We know that some people like different things. Technology could allow us to give the learner a choice of medium, or an opportunity to experience different mediums, so that they get a variety of representations rather than just one approach - which may not be suitable for them.

Examples of how we can use technology:

·         Research - databases, evaluating online resources

·         Comprehension tasks - note taking, answering questions and mind mapping

·         Creating tasks - tools used create different representation could also be used by learners to create their own representations, which could then be used as assessment.

·         Analysis tasks - diagnostics, informatics, analytical software

·         Experimentation and discovery tasks - models and simulations (eg.second life), digital environments

·         Communicative tasks - forums, conferencing

Associative learning, being about 'recall' and highly rule based where the learning outcome is about a new skill or concept. The learning involves a teacher who is both the subject matter expert and the guide through the activities.

Constructive learning, being about discovery and based on incidents and strategies where the learning outcome is about problem solving or developing new understandings. In this context teachers need to be facilitators - negotiating outcomes, supporting learner discussion and giving relevant feedback as well as the ability to respond to different learners needs.

Situative learning, being about developing new identities or roles and so the activities are more role based and the learning outcomes are about being able to participate in new situation or play a more expert role. These learners need a sympathetic mentor with insight into their context and ability to support their developing role.

In summary, Beethams remarks that we need to understand the design process if we want to evaluate it and share it with others.