Interpersonal action learning cycle – Notes

If I understand the ‘trap’ correctly, it is that whatever is presented, may be perceived differently depending on who reads it? So the issues that arise from it are:

-    That difference of opinion sparks debate at the expense of collaboration
-    I assume what I’ve heard is what is meant
-    That I might not listen to others at all.

Ways to mitigate this are:

-    Offer my understanding
-    Offer perception of others’ understanding
-    Listen to responses, get own perceptions included.

Underpins collaborative learning.
In assessment of learning, use of the cycle clarifies the distinction between:
1. teacher-centred assessment, wherein the learner is required to show understanding of the teacher’s thinking
2. learner-centred assessment, wherein the learner is invited to share his/her own perceptions and thinking.

A7: Simon A: To invite thinking, attentive comprehension

“As participants increasingly come to see themselves as consumers, it appears to me that they expect to have knowledge delivered to them in this way… They expect to be taught rather than helped to learn.” (Zimmer, 2008, p282) <– I liked this.

Even putting the ‘IALC’ aside, I think Zimmer’s chapter brings up some really interesting points. It helps clarify a perspective of learner-centred vs teacher-centred, which is very useful, particularly when linked to assessment. I had never thought of assessment as something that is designed to gratify the teacher before – It seems so obvious now that in some instances the learner is assessed purely on their understanding of what the teacher has told them – spoon-feeding. I had a GCSE geography teacher that did this once. She used to spend the lesson copying the text-book onto the blackboard and then getting us to copy it into our workbooks! I got a decent grade, but maybe that highlights a problem of using exams as a method of assessment – do you just need a good memory?

–

Zimmer, B. (2008) ‘Using the interpersonal action-learning cycle to invite thinking, attentive, comprehension’, in Luppicini, R. (ed.), Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Applications, pp 264–88. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference (IGI Global)

2.3 Reflection and learning

The course guide says that H808 aims to support our development in “your capacity to assess and transform your e-learning context, through reflection on your practice.” (Open University, 2008) This indicates that the course places an emphasis on the ’self’ and applying knowledge developed during the course activities to the learner’s own context, thus personalizing their learning experience.

There are two reasons why I would want to reflect on this course. One is that I would want to reflect on my actual participation on it – my involvement with the learning activities, my interactions with other students, how I feel I’m coping, that sort of thing. The other is to reflect on what I am learning in context with my regular professional practice.

Moon (2005) states, “The issue of assessment of reflection needs careful thought. The most important decision is whether or not to assess it… and how you will ensure students engage.” That the course embeds reflection of contextualizing learning activities serves to personalize it and emphasizes ownership. Moon also comments on how reflection enables learners to achieve ownership over knowledge, and the parallels to the capacity of an e-portfolio to deliver ownership of content cements the relationship between the two. She goes on to say, “it is important that [reflection] is signalled possibly in the aim, but particularly in the learning outcomes for the module” (Moon, 2001)

Interestingly, as I write this I have become aware of the reasons why I may reflect, supporting the notion that “ability in reflection often implies ability in metacognition”. (Moon, 2005) The feature of ‘second-order reflection’ is explained in Moon (2001) and has a commonsensical relationship with underpinning theory (Kolb, 1984), where a well-established tradition of reflection is part of professional teaching practice, for example.

So, some key points:
• Reflection can be used to think about a concept, challenge or subject more thoroughly, and therefore learn more about it. (Taking a step back)
• In doing so, it becomes a personal experience. New knowledge is developed and is made unique by the individual experiences brought to existing knowledge.
• Reflection engenders metacognition.
• The underpinning theory of reflection and learning are well-established in existing professional practice.

–
Moon, J. (2001) ‘PDP working paper 4: reflection in higher education learning’ [online], The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id72_Reflection_in_Higher_Education_Learning.rtf (accessed 30 September 2008)

Moon, J. (2005) ‘Guide for busy academics no. 4: learning through reflection’ [online], The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/id69_guide_for_busy_academics_no4_moon (accessed 30 September 2008)

Open University (2008) ‘The e-learning professional, H808 course guide 2008′, Institute of Educational Technology: Postgraduate Available online from the H808 course website (Accessed 1 October 2008)

Acker, S. (2005) ‘Overcoming obstacles to authentic e-portfolio assessment’

Acker, S. (2005) ‘Overcoming obstacles to authentic e-portfolio assessment’ [online], Campus Technology. Available from: http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=10788&typeid=155 (accessed 25 September 2008)

Acker outlines the idea that there are 3Rs to which an e-portfolio can successfully contribute: representation, reflection and revision. The nature of a portfolio is such that representation is intrinsic, and I am beginning to think that reflection is actually the key driver to successful implementation of e-portfolios. In addition, easily editable digital content provides means for frequent revision.

The author also refers to three barriers to institutional uptake: ownership and privacy (IPR), workload issues and what is described as “the ‘inverted value’ of e-portfolios for students.” (That perceived benefits to portfolio use are greater toward end of career) The challenge of workload returns to the need to apply consistent assessment criteria. But perhaps most significantly Acker recognises that “Most students are outcome, rather than process, oriented. They want to graduate, rather than track their academic growth…” Highlighting these challenges, the author reslects that they be tackled at the earliest stage of impliementation, indicating a need for clearly defined protocols for use.