Laurillard et al. (2000)
Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium
The first thing I had to ‘get my head round’ was the idea of ‘affordances’; how did I perceive this concept? Well…as how we can use something; what we can ‘take’ from an available set of tools; the value or equity of the way we use something? The affordance could also be a suggestion of how something could be used or be the method most suitable to lend itself to the task. I also saw here one of the key issues of a previous reading I had reviewed (Lave and Wenger, a ‘teaching’ versus a ‘learning’ curriculum) – the issue of the teaching may be designed in a certain way, but does this mean it is accessible (in all dimensions) and of most use to the student?
In reading this paper, I was also struck by the fact that I was carrying out a reading task as discussed by Crook and Dymott; I printed the reading out and viewed the diagram on page 4 with the text on page 5. If I had read this online, I would have been distracted by the technology and used a lot of time in trying to have these pages side by side on the screen. The diagram certainly made more sence when viewed here - http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructtech/lol/laurillard/ (interactive CF diagram).
1. What are the central arguments? How do the authors intend to link these to the framework described?
The central argument is that learning is a process carried out between teacher and learner and a ‘narrative line’ is required for the learning to take place. The process of interaction and feedback is shown diagrammatically, as a conversational framework (although this seems to be cyclical in nature – ‘cycles within a sequence’, p5).
2. What are the key strengths of the CF in terms of what it highlights about the learning process? Can you see any limitations in this approach?
The strengths of the CF is that it is a clear, simple model and could be applicable to almost any learning situation. From the figure (1) on p4, the limitations are that the quantity and depth of interactions cannot be seen (the interactive version assists this understanding).
3. Re the sequence of teacher–student interactions; can you think of an alternative sequence, perhaps from your own experience, which could be mapped using the CF?
There is, of course, the problem of lack of interaction, which can occur at times. The teacher may ask for help from ‘stronger’ students and peer interventions in feedback have also aided learning. Some subject matter lends itself to greater group discussions and peer feedback; also, problem solving activities create different lines of feedback and interaction.
Data collection and analytical techniques – limitations, alternative methods, benefits?
The data collected included dialogue of lesson interactions, observational notes and transcripts of dialogue (video), assignment reviews and feedback on work carried out. Using short dialogue clips can be used to highlight project issues, but there may be a danger of bias, as the whole context is not available to the reader (e.g. prior experience of this type of learning, level of IT skills). It may have been useful to record the number of tasks/process interactions; does this have implications for learning taking place, or taking place at a deeper level?
The pros and cons of the two-stage design process?
If wider data is collected and analysed in the second design, how will it be possible to compare the ‘results’? The second design highlighted ‘testing’ as an integral component, which was not evident in the first design; however, the original design was used to see areas where improvement of the desing could take pace, so there must be an argument of why ‘waste time’ in carrying out the same process, when the potential design benefits have been identified?
I had some other thoughts on this paper.
On page 8, it appears that the author is almost ‘blaming the technology’ when the students did not seem to have goals or progress towards it; is this not just poor teaching practice, that the students were not completely clear on the session objectives? This is apparent on page 11, where the new design included ‘…a clear statement of an overall goal…’. I was unclear here why the use of a Notepad was included – was there not access to a Word or similar method of creating notes? Why use this? Did students already have the skills to use this or not? Would this impact on how students used this method of recording the task? I considered that the use of an audio summary (p 12) a much greater affordance to constructing their conceptual knowledge, rather than ‘writing’ tasks. Will ‘creating affordances’ mean that greater interaction, and therefore learning, will actually occur?
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Tolmie, Crook and Dymott
While Tolmie seemed to take a psychological stand on learning taking place through a constructivist perspective ('in the head'), and looking at how this learning was achieved through technology, the issues raised appeared to lie more strongly with a socio-cultural perspective. I saw this through the issues of differences raised, which were culturally determined, such as gender and background, as well as being set within a pre-existing educational framework. Crook and Dymott appeared to be more transparent in their context setting and stated that the research has its roots in activity theory, where the complex relationship of person, system and culture determine the learning and how it may be achieved. It was clear that one could not view the technology and the various ways in which it might be used, as separate from the society and culture to which it is a part.
The Tolmie reading certainly made allowances for differences and while this may be seen as 'good practice', it led to research evidence which was 'unseen' and this meant it was difficult to draw any solid conclusions - just build awareness of differences. Crook and Dymott appeared to have more visible and recordable evidence, but there still appeared to be an assumption that technology was changing the writing activities, with little input from other aspects of changes in society.
The style of the Tolmie research would be appropriate when there may be identifiable differences between groups to be included in a project, but the measuring tools would need to be reviewed to clarify exactly what is being measured. Crook and Dymott's methods could be realistically used to review other applications, such as the use of software in the financial sector of learning; their narrative style seemed very appropriate for this type of observational study.
The Tolmie reading certainly made allowances for differences and while this may be seen as 'good practice', it led to research evidence which was 'unseen' and this meant it was difficult to draw any solid conclusions - just build awareness of differences. Crook and Dymott appeared to have more visible and recordable evidence, but there still appeared to be an assumption that technology was changing the writing activities, with little input from other aspects of changes in society.
The style of the Tolmie research would be appropriate when there may be identifiable differences between groups to be included in a project, but the measuring tools would need to be reviewed to clarify exactly what is being measured. Crook and Dymott's methods could be realistically used to review other applications, such as the use of software in the financial sector of learning; their narrative style seemed very appropriate for this type of observational study.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Crook and Dymott (2005)
Crook and Dymott (2005) ICT and the literacy practices of student writing
Crook and Dymott adopt a different theoretical approach to learning and context and propose that writing and technology are mutually constitutive; the context is not one which is a ‘surround’, as discussed by Tolmie, but a part of the whole learning.
The current theoretical school of Activity Theory is a modern descendant of Vygotsky’s approach to learning, who suggested things are ‘done through’ (mediated by) cultural artefacts, such as language, manmade tools, socially categorizing and institutionalising. Cultural psychologists define learning as becoming expert in the use of these cultural artefacts and therefore learning is classified as a social activity (even if this involves reading in physical isolation, as the reading and text and the book are culturally determined). Vygotsky (1981) wrote that ‘by being included in the process of behavior, the tool [artefact] alters the entire flow and structure of mental functions’ (p. 137). This is taken further by those who see learning as participation, using artefacts, which are a fundamental part of the learning (‘distributed cognition’ where the team and artefacts work together). If this is the view, then situated learning is specifically dependent on the context (culture and artefacts) within which the setting is taking place (Rogoff, for example); our learning is dependent on the situation we are present in and the ‘way of doing things round here’, in a social world.
The seminal text in situated cognition was Brown, Collins and Duguid’s article in Educational Researcher (1989). The authors described an apprenticeship model of learning closely related to the work of Lave (1988) and the idea of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. Socio-cultural theory does not focus on measuring learning with ICT in terms of what is in an individual’s head or in terms of learning outcomes. Instead the focus is on individuals-using-technology-in-settings (Crook, 1994). Learning is conceptualised as a social endeavour and qualitative research methodologies have been adopted to investigate this area because the focus of inquiry is on the processes of learning and on meaning making in social settings.
As much of the above is very relevant to the reading, this (from the H809 course text) has been included, with some adaptations.
Thoughts on the reading:
The five aspects of reading play very specific parts in describing the activity of writing, to ensure the reader can create a rich picture of the relationship between the technology and how the processes related to writing are carried out. I think it would be fair to say that I had not considered the different ways in which we use text on the screen as opposed to text on a page. The issue of ‘…pages …could be turned without distracting visual attention from reading…’ (p102) is very relevant and may be an insight as to the difficulty I have in ‘screen reading’; there are too many potential distractions and the ease of moving to other tasks is not one which necessarily supports a physical book reading task. The other issue I considered of high importance was in relation to the socialising aspect of using the PC; the use of technology in collaborative activity, but, interestingly, not as in creating essays collaboratively. Perhaps this is still an ‘in the head’ task, whether through exam, personal task or within the classroom context. Overall, the five faces of writing as stated here offer opportunities to develop ideas of writing as a shared, culture-based activity; activity theory that is technologically driven?
The different aspects will necessarily have an ‘effect’ on the writing; this may be to some extent linked with the skills of the learner and the range of tools (technological artefacts) that the individual engages with. The processes carried out, however, may not ‘constitute’ writing; this will depend on the end product and if the text is formatted in a coherent and logical fashion (as dictated by the cultural setting, perhaps?). It appears that, while the information gathering tasks can be viewed as situated, possibly collaborative (distributive, if consensus agreed?), the actual writing is a task carried out ‘from the head’ to the ‘paper’. As students used the resources in such diverse ways, we should firstly ask what learning it is that we are considering? Is it the production of a piece of work or is it learning the cultural construction of this (a ‘learning to learn’ task)? The assignment produced will be mediated through a selected range of artefacts; the prescribed marking scheme for this piece of work may dictate that some marks are achieved by specifically referring to use of some of these or using these explicitly (for example, on line research references or a document formatting expectation), so in this sense the learning is mediated. If I was to assess (I am assuming ‘mark’ and not ‘assess for research’?) some of the students’ assignments described in this chapter, I would be guided by what the assessment criteria was, so necessarily on the end product and not the process.
Crook and Dymott adopt a different theoretical approach to learning and context and propose that writing and technology are mutually constitutive; the context is not one which is a ‘surround’, as discussed by Tolmie, but a part of the whole learning.
The current theoretical school of Activity Theory is a modern descendant of Vygotsky’s approach to learning, who suggested things are ‘done through’ (mediated by) cultural artefacts, such as language, manmade tools, socially categorizing and institutionalising. Cultural psychologists define learning as becoming expert in the use of these cultural artefacts and therefore learning is classified as a social activity (even if this involves reading in physical isolation, as the reading and text and the book are culturally determined). Vygotsky (1981) wrote that ‘by being included in the process of behavior, the tool [artefact] alters the entire flow and structure of mental functions’ (p. 137). This is taken further by those who see learning as participation, using artefacts, which are a fundamental part of the learning (‘distributed cognition’ where the team and artefacts work together). If this is the view, then situated learning is specifically dependent on the context (culture and artefacts) within which the setting is taking place (Rogoff, for example); our learning is dependent on the situation we are present in and the ‘way of doing things round here’, in a social world.
The seminal text in situated cognition was Brown, Collins and Duguid’s article in Educational Researcher (1989). The authors described an apprenticeship model of learning closely related to the work of Lave (1988) and the idea of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. Socio-cultural theory does not focus on measuring learning with ICT in terms of what is in an individual’s head or in terms of learning outcomes. Instead the focus is on individuals-using-technology-in-settings (Crook, 1994). Learning is conceptualised as a social endeavour and qualitative research methodologies have been adopted to investigate this area because the focus of inquiry is on the processes of learning and on meaning making in social settings.
As much of the above is very relevant to the reading, this (from the H809 course text) has been included, with some adaptations.
Thoughts on the reading:
The five aspects of reading play very specific parts in describing the activity of writing, to ensure the reader can create a rich picture of the relationship between the technology and how the processes related to writing are carried out. I think it would be fair to say that I had not considered the different ways in which we use text on the screen as opposed to text on a page. The issue of ‘…pages …could be turned without distracting visual attention from reading…’ (p102) is very relevant and may be an insight as to the difficulty I have in ‘screen reading’; there are too many potential distractions and the ease of moving to other tasks is not one which necessarily supports a physical book reading task. The other issue I considered of high importance was in relation to the socialising aspect of using the PC; the use of technology in collaborative activity, but, interestingly, not as in creating essays collaboratively. Perhaps this is still an ‘in the head’ task, whether through exam, personal task or within the classroom context. Overall, the five faces of writing as stated here offer opportunities to develop ideas of writing as a shared, culture-based activity; activity theory that is technologically driven?
The different aspects will necessarily have an ‘effect’ on the writing; this may be to some extent linked with the skills of the learner and the range of tools (technological artefacts) that the individual engages with. The processes carried out, however, may not ‘constitute’ writing; this will depend on the end product and if the text is formatted in a coherent and logical fashion (as dictated by the cultural setting, perhaps?). It appears that, while the information gathering tasks can be viewed as situated, possibly collaborative (distributive, if consensus agreed?), the actual writing is a task carried out ‘from the head’ to the ‘paper’. As students used the resources in such diverse ways, we should firstly ask what learning it is that we are considering? Is it the production of a piece of work or is it learning the cultural construction of this (a ‘learning to learn’ task)? The assignment produced will be mediated through a selected range of artefacts; the prescribed marking scheme for this piece of work may dictate that some marks are achieved by specifically referring to use of some of these or using these explicitly (for example, on line research references or a document formatting expectation), so in this sense the learning is mediated. If I was to assess (I am assuming ‘mark’ and not ‘assess for research’?) some of the students’ assignments described in this chapter, I would be guided by what the assessment criteria was, so necessarily on the end product and not the process.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Tolmie (2001)
Tolmie (2001) Examining learning in relation to the contexts of use of ICT
If as an educationalist you think of learning as ‘in the head’ (Bredo) and the surroundings being external, you cannot possibly ‘know’ what is being learned without using external measurement tools (some sort of assessment method). This ‘symbol processing’ means that we own have our interpretations and representations; but this must be influenced by the culture we are situated in, as we need common understanding or at least communication (such as language) to share this knowledge. But what, then, is ‘tested’; the knowledge or the skills of communicating these? The context within which the learner is learning – the surroundings and the paraphernalia – and the learner’s ability to use these, may determine the level or ‘grade’ of the knowledge, once it is no longer ‘in the head’.
This article was interesting from the perspective of assuming that a tool, such as a computer, will affect how a learner learns, as well as the making note of the likely impact of other contextual aspects, such as institution and gender groupings. Tolmie’s paper, from the outset, makes an assumption that ‘something is happening in the head’, as opposed to purely mechanical occurrences, (in the abstract the use of ‘interplay’ suggests correlation between a variable and the context). There is, however, an awareness of the ‘…complexities of the educational process…’ and this may have determined why various contexts were assessed, specifically because they were variable.
In the study about gender effects, the learning was physically located within a secondary school; but was this the intended question, or are we suggesting that the location of the learning was situated, due to the interactions, and not ‘in the head’? The focus was on what learning took place as a result of pair work, using physics software (and its associated dialogue?); the software prompts were mentioned as part of the technological toolbox, and were not originally considered as part of the learning process. The issue of gender seemed to be assumed as a ‘female’ culture, as it was generalized, rather than it being viewed as individual, personal characteristics, inputs and/or effects. There are numerous studies related to gender and learning and this view is consistent with one of Murphy, where the females ‘helped each other’.
In taking some sort of sociological stance, it is assumed that a range of variables, not just gender, will be assumed to ‘be dependent on’, ‘be a function of’ or be ‘affected’ by; the context is irreconcilably linked to the learning.
If as an educationalist you think of learning as ‘in the head’ (Bredo) and the surroundings being external, you cannot possibly ‘know’ what is being learned without using external measurement tools (some sort of assessment method). This ‘symbol processing’ means that we own have our interpretations and representations; but this must be influenced by the culture we are situated in, as we need common understanding or at least communication (such as language) to share this knowledge. But what, then, is ‘tested’; the knowledge or the skills of communicating these? The context within which the learner is learning – the surroundings and the paraphernalia – and the learner’s ability to use these, may determine the level or ‘grade’ of the knowledge, once it is no longer ‘in the head’.
This article was interesting from the perspective of assuming that a tool, such as a computer, will affect how a learner learns, as well as the making note of the likely impact of other contextual aspects, such as institution and gender groupings. Tolmie’s paper, from the outset, makes an assumption that ‘something is happening in the head’, as opposed to purely mechanical occurrences, (in the abstract the use of ‘interplay’ suggests correlation between a variable and the context). There is, however, an awareness of the ‘…complexities of the educational process…’ and this may have determined why various contexts were assessed, specifically because they were variable.
In the study about gender effects, the learning was physically located within a secondary school; but was this the intended question, or are we suggesting that the location of the learning was situated, due to the interactions, and not ‘in the head’? The focus was on what learning took place as a result of pair work, using physics software (and its associated dialogue?); the software prompts were mentioned as part of the technological toolbox, and were not originally considered as part of the learning process. The issue of gender seemed to be assumed as a ‘female’ culture, as it was generalized, rather than it being viewed as individual, personal characteristics, inputs and/or effects. There are numerous studies related to gender and learning and this view is consistent with one of Murphy, where the females ‘helped each other’.
In taking some sort of sociological stance, it is assumed that a range of variables, not just gender, will be assumed to ‘be dependent on’, ‘be a function of’ or be ‘affected’ by; the context is irreconcilably linked to the learning.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Jones and Preece (2006)
Jones and Preece (2006)
Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners
1. How do the authors define online communities? Is this different from the way you have encountered the term being used elsewhere?
The term is defined from one stated by Preece (2000): a group of people with aims, guided by policies and supported by computer technology. The key aspects highlighted are ‘people, purpose, policies, computing technology’ and it is suggested that these components should be focused on to create a successful online community. I was interested to note the author’s distinction between COPs and COI and, while I don’t necessarily agree with the assumption of COP being substantially organisational-bound, I do see the necessity to differentiate here.
This definition fits with my understanding of an online community; the flexibility to survive as a solely online entity, but with the capability to exist in a ‘real world’ set-up or to survive in any format between these brands.
2. Note that the Dublin group met in the pub to maintain social cohesion. What challenges does this raise for research methods that might be adopted to track this behaviour?
The research was to analyse online communities; by meeting and being an observer in the ‘real world’ activities of the teacher’s group, the researchers will gain insights into the interactions of the group, which may make it impossible to compare the group’s online interactions to those of a ‘virtual’ group. In tracking on line behaviour, the researcher can remain ‘invisible; not so in the ‘real world’, where the physical presence of ‘others’ could alter the dynamics, interactions and actions of the group.
Additionally, the researchers will have put ‘names to face’ and interpretations of future contributions of individuals could be altered due to this additional knowledge of an individual. As stated in the report, the teacher’s group created the collaboration by meeting face-to-face; very difficult to compare this to groups where collaboration is negotiated online.
? What is meant by the phrase ‘…healthy…community…?’ This is used on a couple of occasions in the paper?
Characteristics of the framework;
Sociability – interactions; personal characteristics; attitude; recognition; reciprocity; social presence
Usability – features and functions of software; information resources; navigation tools; access; format of dialogue
The Conole et al model would not really be useful in relation to this reading, as the emphasis here is not on learning. The Jones and Preece framework was built up to analyse, develop and maintain existing online (and/or blended) groups and their interactions, regardless of any learning outcomes or intentions. The Conole el al. framework looked at pedagogical processes, tools and techniques, and appeared to be aimed at developing education and learning online in a formal manner. The Jones and Preece frame work fits into a socially situated group; but possibly activity based for the Dublin teachers. This appears to highlight the individual, information and non-reflective components for the knee injuries group and the social, experience and reflection components for the teaching group.
Jones, A. and Preece, J. (2006) ‘Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: a framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest’, International Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no. 2–3, pp. 112–37.
Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners
1. How do the authors define online communities? Is this different from the way you have encountered the term being used elsewhere?
The term is defined from one stated by Preece (2000): a group of people with aims, guided by policies and supported by computer technology. The key aspects highlighted are ‘people, purpose, policies, computing technology’ and it is suggested that these components should be focused on to create a successful online community. I was interested to note the author’s distinction between COPs and COI and, while I don’t necessarily agree with the assumption of COP being substantially organisational-bound, I do see the necessity to differentiate here.
This definition fits with my understanding of an online community; the flexibility to survive as a solely online entity, but with the capability to exist in a ‘real world’ set-up or to survive in any format between these brands.
2. Note that the Dublin group met in the pub to maintain social cohesion. What challenges does this raise for research methods that might be adopted to track this behaviour?
The research was to analyse online communities; by meeting and being an observer in the ‘real world’ activities of the teacher’s group, the researchers will gain insights into the interactions of the group, which may make it impossible to compare the group’s online interactions to those of a ‘virtual’ group. In tracking on line behaviour, the researcher can remain ‘invisible; not so in the ‘real world’, where the physical presence of ‘others’ could alter the dynamics, interactions and actions of the group.
Additionally, the researchers will have put ‘names to face’ and interpretations of future contributions of individuals could be altered due to this additional knowledge of an individual. As stated in the report, the teacher’s group created the collaboration by meeting face-to-face; very difficult to compare this to groups where collaboration is negotiated online.
? What is meant by the phrase ‘…healthy…community…?’ This is used on a couple of occasions in the paper?
Characteristics of the framework;
Sociability – interactions; personal characteristics; attitude; recognition; reciprocity; social presence
Usability – features and functions of software; information resources; navigation tools; access; format of dialogue
The Conole et al model would not really be useful in relation to this reading, as the emphasis here is not on learning. The Jones and Preece framework was built up to analyse, develop and maintain existing online (and/or blended) groups and their interactions, regardless of any learning outcomes or intentions. The Conole el al. framework looked at pedagogical processes, tools and techniques, and appeared to be aimed at developing education and learning online in a formal manner. The Jones and Preece frame work fits into a socially situated group; but possibly activity based for the Dublin teachers. This appears to highlight the individual, information and non-reflective components for the knee injuries group and the social, experience and reflection components for the teaching group.
Jones, A. and Preece, J. (2006) ‘Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: a framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest’, International Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no. 2–3, pp. 112–37.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Conole et al (2004)
Conole et al. (2004) Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design
1. Who do the authors see as the main audience for this paper?
The main audience appears to be the practioners.
2. What is the main aim of the paper?
To make more transparent the links between pedagogical theories and e-learning methods; to suggest a model for assessing how current teaching and learning practice could be adapted to make best use of available technology for relevant theoretical perspectives.
3. Fit the readings from the course into Table 1 of the Conole et al. paper?
Mmmm…do they ‘fit’? I could only see two obvious links.
Wegerif and Mercer – socially situated learning – ‘…the joint construction of knowledge in the classroom…’
Roschelle – Activity based (with the focus on ‘…convergence…’) or perhaps ‘…socially situated…’ (re the use of language) or experiential (re experience as a foundation for learning).
This may be a learning point – yes, we can use any theoretical perspective, as long as it is justified.
The model maps the six components - Individual; Social; Reflection: Non reflection; Information; Experience, or the three dimensions – information/experience, reflective/non-reflective and individual/social.
I was concerned about ‘skills learning’ being classified as ‘non-reflection’; maybe unconscious reflection would be fairer, as I see a lot of vocational learning and the passing on of tacit knowledge under the guise of ‘skills’.
I like the ideas of these dimensions and a form of classification; but I found the idea of a ‘cube’ difficult to grasp and an octahedron even more challenging. Perhaps I am used to seeing models of a more linear or 2-D nature. I would see a ‘shape’ of the categorisation more along the lines of
1. Who do the authors see as the main audience for this paper?
The main audience appears to be the practioners.
2. What is the main aim of the paper?
To make more transparent the links between pedagogical theories and e-learning methods; to suggest a model for assessing how current teaching and learning practice could be adapted to make best use of available technology for relevant theoretical perspectives.
3. Fit the readings from the course into Table 1 of the Conole et al. paper?
Mmmm…do they ‘fit’? I could only see two obvious links.
Wegerif and Mercer – socially situated learning – ‘…the joint construction of knowledge in the classroom…’
Roschelle – Activity based (with the focus on ‘…convergence…’) or perhaps ‘…socially situated…’ (re the use of language) or experiential (re experience as a foundation for learning).
This may be a learning point – yes, we can use any theoretical perspective, as long as it is justified.
The model maps the six components - Individual; Social; Reflection: Non reflection; Information; Experience, or the three dimensions – information/experience, reflective/non-reflective and individual/social.
I was concerned about ‘skills learning’ being classified as ‘non-reflection’; maybe unconscious reflection would be fairer, as I see a lot of vocational learning and the passing on of tacit knowledge under the guise of ‘skills’.
I like the ideas of these dimensions and a form of classification; but I found the idea of a ‘cube’ difficult to grasp and an octahedron even more challenging. Perhaps I am used to seeing models of a more linear or 2-D nature. I would see a ‘shape’ of the categorisation more along the lines of
So, theory A might be plotted where this symbol (?) is and have the shape of an uneven arrow.
Not sure what makes me see this more clearly like this, but I am sure there will be a theory about it!
As I found it difficult to see specific theories of learning in each reading, it was again challenging to try to fit readings with the theories. For Wegerif and Mercer, I looked at collaboration, with the characteristics of teacher explaining, exploratory talk, problem solving, sharing information, whole class discussions. I saw these as highlighting the social and experience aspects most strongly, but it could be possible to view a pre and post view of these, which may highlight the other aspects more strongly, when information is given. Perhaps many courses of teaching and learning would be seen in this light and that may be part of the learning journey.
I do agree that in trying to incorporate or expand technology use in any course will be dependent on the design of particular activities, students’ prior knowledge, tutor personality (and skills mix?), group dynamics, learning styles and preference. I also note the author’s comments on the weakness of the model in terms of it being very subjective; however, surely much in teaching is?
As far as developing my own ‘taxonomy’ of learning theories, my first thought is that ‘It’s all been done before’; any phrases I come up with would necessarily be taken from some previous description of types. It would be along the lines of continuums of ‘in the head’ to ‘out there’; ‘passive’ to ‘active’ and perhaps ‘linguistically determined’ to ‘multi-sensory’. This would be a fascinating activity to spend more time on, but – guess what? – no time! It is the last day of week 7 and I feel I have worked non stop on this for two days and I still have another reading to review and analyse. Wish the Easter bunny would come and take me way….
Not sure what makes me see this more clearly like this, but I am sure there will be a theory about it!
As I found it difficult to see specific theories of learning in each reading, it was again challenging to try to fit readings with the theories. For Wegerif and Mercer, I looked at collaboration, with the characteristics of teacher explaining, exploratory talk, problem solving, sharing information, whole class discussions. I saw these as highlighting the social and experience aspects most strongly, but it could be possible to view a pre and post view of these, which may highlight the other aspects more strongly, when information is given. Perhaps many courses of teaching and learning would be seen in this light and that may be part of the learning journey.
I do agree that in trying to incorporate or expand technology use in any course will be dependent on the design of particular activities, students’ prior knowledge, tutor personality (and skills mix?), group dynamics, learning styles and preference. I also note the author’s comments on the weakness of the model in terms of it being very subjective; however, surely much in teaching is?
As far as developing my own ‘taxonomy’ of learning theories, my first thought is that ‘It’s all been done before’; any phrases I come up with would necessarily be taken from some previous description of types. It would be along the lines of continuums of ‘in the head’ to ‘out there’; ‘passive’ to ‘active’ and perhaps ‘linguistically determined’ to ‘multi-sensory’. This would be a fascinating activity to spend more time on, but – guess what? – no time! It is the last day of week 7 and I feel I have worked non stop on this for two days and I still have another reading to review and analyse. Wish the Easter bunny would come and take me way….
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Theories of learning
Theories of learning
· Why are some theoretical approaches more popular than others?
This could be because some have been given greater status than others, either in the public domain or by decision-making bodies. In a more positive vein, the more popular approaches are likely to be those which have been ‘tried and tested’ by practitioners.
· Is it simply, as some practitioners suspect, changing fashion in theories?
Possibly (with links to status, as above); however, are the practitioners who purport that these ‘new approaches’ are a ‘fashion’ the same ones who seem unprepared to embrace new ideas (particularly if these are related to technology and often because they may be required to learn a new set of skills)?
· Does it depend on what you want to do with the theory?
Yes – definitely. As in politics, one can create a ‘case’ for either side of an argument, depending on what you would like to emphasise.
· Or on what types of learner you are dealing with and in what context?
Yes, again. Age of learner is one variable that often makes you focus on the theoretical aspects; for example, the reflections of a 16 year old, with no experience of work are very different to a 35 year old. A learning task would need to be constructed with a different set and volume of questions to stimulate the responses of the learner with less ‘life’ experience. The context is also pertinent, as if the learners are generally highly motivated (such as we OU learners), some theoretical approaches will carry with them assumptions that learners are able and willing to learn and access is assured; many settings cannot assume such and as a consequence, the theoretical approach is perhaps linked with the social and cultural aspects more closely.
Activity 7.2: Building a wiki of key concepts in learning theories
The following resources were accessed, to gain an overview of what was intended as the material.
· Greg Kearsley: ‘Theory into Practice Database’
· James Atherton: ‘Learning and Teaching’ website
· JISC website
· Wikipedia
There are, as I often say to my own students, ‘Too many TOES’ (Theories of everything and something). I was not sure what to post on the wiki; should I concentrate on theories I already know a little about (such as communities of practice) and explore the critics of these in more detail? Or should I look at theories I have never heard of (such as Functional Context theory, Sticht), to widen my knowledge? There is obviously little time to look at a range in any great depth at this stage and so I think I will revisit the theme of social and situated learning and post some thoughts on that topic.
Social and situated learning
A strong theoretical point was made by Lave and Wenger in relation to seeing the community as the learning curriculum and placing the learner as (initially) a peripheral newcomer. The learner finds out about all aspects of ‘the job’ by gradually becoming a more central part of the group, as the ‘old timers’ deliver both formal and informal instruction. This was seen by many as an apprenticeship model, but this was much more; the curriculum is seen not a teaching one, constructed for the learner, but a learning curriculum of ‘situated activities’. This had idea rang strongly with me when I first came across it and had implications for the teaching of HND students; there association with work based modules clearly reflected their application to classroom tasks. It also made me question the curriculum that is set (this certainly linked to policy and power; awarding bodies and industry/sector skills) and if it needs to be more learner-driven.
One paper critical of some of the ideas feeding this perspective was from Fuller and Unwin (2005), who argue that much of the research was in relation to very limited populations (such as the AA and remote tailors) and the associations that could be made with the contemporary workplace were limited. Another paper (Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2004) also point out that Lave and Wenger ignore the crucial element of what the learners brings to the community as an individual and the implications this has for changing the community.
The OU library, and specifically journal articles, is very useful in terms of finding specific information relating to authors and/or concepts; however, I was also intrigued to come across - http://www.learning-theories.com/communities-of-practice-lave-and-wenger.html - where I am sure I will be returning when I am unclear on any theoretical perspective, as I found the site easy to view and navigate.
Fuller, A. and Unwin L. (2005) Older and wiser? workplace learning from the perspective of experienced employees in International Journal of Lifelong Education Volume 24, No. 1 (January – February 2005), p. 21–39, Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
Hodkinson, H., and Hodkinson, P.M. (2004). "Rethinking the Concept of Community of Practice in relation to Schoolteachers’ Workplace Learning". International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 21-31.
Lave J. and Wenger E. (2002) ‘Legitimate peripheral participation in community of practice’ in Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A., Clarke, J. (eds.) Supporting Lifelong Learning Volume 1 Perspectives on learning, London, Routledge Falmer in association with the Open University
· Why are some theoretical approaches more popular than others?
This could be because some have been given greater status than others, either in the public domain or by decision-making bodies. In a more positive vein, the more popular approaches are likely to be those which have been ‘tried and tested’ by practitioners.
· Is it simply, as some practitioners suspect, changing fashion in theories?
Possibly (with links to status, as above); however, are the practitioners who purport that these ‘new approaches’ are a ‘fashion’ the same ones who seem unprepared to embrace new ideas (particularly if these are related to technology and often because they may be required to learn a new set of skills)?
· Does it depend on what you want to do with the theory?
Yes – definitely. As in politics, one can create a ‘case’ for either side of an argument, depending on what you would like to emphasise.
· Or on what types of learner you are dealing with and in what context?
Yes, again. Age of learner is one variable that often makes you focus on the theoretical aspects; for example, the reflections of a 16 year old, with no experience of work are very different to a 35 year old. A learning task would need to be constructed with a different set and volume of questions to stimulate the responses of the learner with less ‘life’ experience. The context is also pertinent, as if the learners are generally highly motivated (such as we OU learners), some theoretical approaches will carry with them assumptions that learners are able and willing to learn and access is assured; many settings cannot assume such and as a consequence, the theoretical approach is perhaps linked with the social and cultural aspects more closely.
Activity 7.2: Building a wiki of key concepts in learning theories
The following resources were accessed, to gain an overview of what was intended as the material.
· Greg Kearsley: ‘Theory into Practice Database’
· James Atherton: ‘Learning and Teaching’ website
· JISC website
· Wikipedia
There are, as I often say to my own students, ‘Too many TOES’ (Theories of everything and something). I was not sure what to post on the wiki; should I concentrate on theories I already know a little about (such as communities of practice) and explore the critics of these in more detail? Or should I look at theories I have never heard of (such as Functional Context theory, Sticht), to widen my knowledge? There is obviously little time to look at a range in any great depth at this stage and so I think I will revisit the theme of social and situated learning and post some thoughts on that topic.
Social and situated learning
A strong theoretical point was made by Lave and Wenger in relation to seeing the community as the learning curriculum and placing the learner as (initially) a peripheral newcomer. The learner finds out about all aspects of ‘the job’ by gradually becoming a more central part of the group, as the ‘old timers’ deliver both formal and informal instruction. This was seen by many as an apprenticeship model, but this was much more; the curriculum is seen not a teaching one, constructed for the learner, but a learning curriculum of ‘situated activities’. This had idea rang strongly with me when I first came across it and had implications for the teaching of HND students; there association with work based modules clearly reflected their application to classroom tasks. It also made me question the curriculum that is set (this certainly linked to policy and power; awarding bodies and industry/sector skills) and if it needs to be more learner-driven.
One paper critical of some of the ideas feeding this perspective was from Fuller and Unwin (2005), who argue that much of the research was in relation to very limited populations (such as the AA and remote tailors) and the associations that could be made with the contemporary workplace were limited. Another paper (Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2004) also point out that Lave and Wenger ignore the crucial element of what the learners brings to the community as an individual and the implications this has for changing the community.
The OU library, and specifically journal articles, is very useful in terms of finding specific information relating to authors and/or concepts; however, I was also intrigued to come across - http://www.learning-theories.com/communities-of-practice-lave-and-wenger.html - where I am sure I will be returning when I am unclear on any theoretical perspective, as I found the site easy to view and navigate.
Fuller, A. and Unwin L. (2005) Older and wiser? workplace learning from the perspective of experienced employees in International Journal of Lifelong Education Volume 24, No. 1 (January – February 2005), p. 21–39, Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
Hodkinson, H., and Hodkinson, P.M. (2004). "Rethinking the Concept of Community of Practice in relation to Schoolteachers’ Workplace Learning". International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 21-31.
Lave J. and Wenger E. (2002) ‘Legitimate peripheral participation in community of practice’ in Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A., Clarke, J. (eds.) Supporting Lifelong Learning Volume 1 Perspectives on learning, London, Routledge Falmer in association with the Open University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)