Wk12, A4

Notes on Richardson (2009)

• As with Price et al (2007), this data was collected using the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)/ RASI tools, and uses similar methodology in the parameters and constant for data gathering and comparison, but in these data no significant difference between quality of f2f and online was found.

• It is suggested (p.82) that Price et al (2007) yielded the results it did because of the ‘particular demands of a multidisciplinary course.’ This is because students have adiopted similar approaches to studying – however, is this not directed by the activities set, the assessment tasks and the expectations of the dicpline? It is later argued that broad attitudes to studying remained the same regardless of mode – in an attempt to mitigate a weakness in the data that referred to the predisposition of the learner to work online or f2f. However, given that the discpline, content, assessment etc were the same I didn’t think this was particularly surprising.

–

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.69–81 [online] Available from: http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/69 (accessed 7 May 2009)

Wk12, A3

Notes from Price et al, (2007)

• I sometimes find it a little difficult to get around statistical analysis because I think it can overlook some of the human subtleties inherent in teaching and learning, but I understood it in the context of this article. There is certainly a convincing pattern in the data, and it is not contrived as it is removed from the context. The authors are careful to disclaim methodological anomalies.

• The questions in the survey seem to be designed to extract affective responses in a simplified way. These are a mechanism for capturing the learner experience and use the Lawless & Richardson’s (2002) version of the ‘Course Experience Questionnaire’ (CEQ). So I got the impression that this was quite a good mechanism for capturing statistical data on the learner experience.

• The value of pastoral care is significant as it reflects the learner’s notion of wehat their learning experience will be. They expect things of their tutors and therefore the learning experience. The data reveals that students perceive this to be less effective online. To an extent this mirrors my own experience. I am far more reliant on self-motivation, self- and peer-assessment/feedback through reflection. Perhaps I am subconsciously building mechanisms to support my own learning because I have certain beliefs and expectations about how I learn online, and what my relationships with other people will be also.

• Student beliefs about teaching seem to reamin the same regardless of delivery mode. As the article suggests, perhaps it is down to tutors not fully understanding how to deliver on these expectations when online. The authors suggest that one factor in this is the trend to deliver technical support training rather that pedagogy. I think that it is about a clash between expectations, and understanding what is practically possible online. The article’s conclusion suggests online successful communication is the underpinning factor that will enable learners to see online learning as successful as face-to-face.

–

Price, L., Richardson, J.T.E. and Jelfs, A. (2007) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education’, Studies in higher education, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp.1–20 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004366 (accessed 7 May 2009)

Wk12, A2: Richardson (2005)

All in all, I enjoyed reading a concise and well-cited article. I think Sharon mentions in Emma’s blog, in a reply to one of her postings, that Sfard’s Acquisition and Participation metaphors were apparent in the Richardson (2005) article too. I picked up on this too, and I think it makes sense, as both of those pieces of writing refer to the work of others, and come to similar conclusions about how beliefs in knowledge are understood. I think Sfard conceptualizes this more than Richardson, although there is perhaps a danger in just seeing AMs and PMs.

My focus was more on the approaches to study rather approaches to teaching, not sure why, I just found it more intersting. And what I found very interesting in Richardson, was that it appeared that learning approaches seemed to have a link to the perceived value of “the content, the context, and the demands of particular tasks.” (p.674) What I mean by that is that if student exhibit different approaches to learning, whether it be surface, strategic or deep, they choose that based on their understanding of what will be valuable to them.

In another serendipitous happenstance, earlier today I attended a lunch time seminar with Dr Cathal O’Siochru, a psychology lecturer from Liverpool Hope, who was talking about ‘Belief and belonging’. (I read the Richardson article about two hours later). He referred to a link he believed existed between student’s individual epistemological beliefs about knowledge in subject disciplines, and the way teachers perceive knowledge in subject cultures. His argument was that where student’s beliefs aligned with the culture of the subject, they would achieve better grades. In other words, those students who ‘understood’ the teaching culture of their discipline performed better.

For me this raised questions about the value of teaching to learners. What is it that they value? Does this change from subject area to subject area? Do different teaching and assessment approaches affect the way that learners’ approach their work? My thoughts on this are a little rough and ready at the moment, not sure if it even makes sense yet and its probably way of topic because I haven’t really referred to the activity questions! Nevermind… I may return after tonight’s Elluminate session to add more.

–

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; [online] Available from: http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344720 (accessed 6 May 2009)

4 A1: Defining learning

“Learning is a process of development concerned with physical and mental competencies of individuals and groups. It may occur in unlimited contexts, but commonalities of learning relate to individual cognition. Teaching catalyzes the learning process, but is not intrinsic to it. The externalization of individual learning may influence the learning of others, the extent of which may depend on interpersonal competencies.”

As I have been thinking about this definition, I could not help but return to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). I’ve resisted the temptation to include it in the definition, but it has made me think about the relationship between learning and teaching. In trying to identify the essence of learning, I tested my definition by considering it in other contexts, e.g. an animal’s learning. One can learn without help or guidance through acquisition and experience, however teaching may catalyze learning by ‘scaffolding’ learner’s development in a ZPD.

I might also decide to evolve “physical and mental” to reflect a wider diversity of competencies more substantially reflected in Gardner’s description of multiple intelligences (1993), although I have already begun to include the necessary interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences that I would, here, associate with participatory learning, and skills intrinsic to teaching.

–

Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple intelligences: new horizons, [revised ed. 2006], New York, Basic

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

3b A2: Notes on Sfard

a) Acquisition metaphor (AM)

Initially, I was really struggling to get my head around what exactly a metaphor for learning was. However, reading Sfard’s paper has helped in my understanding of this now. As that understanding has developed, I recognise that even this reflection is an example of the acquisition metaphor. I consider this in terms of a concept, in terms of wanting to acquire it and then repurpose it in a “continuing interaction with peers, teachers and texts.” And I am writing about it using the discourse that Sfard describes (knowledge, concept, development, grasp).

To summarize the acquisition metaphor, Sfard identifies that learning has been seen in terms of concepts upon which further development and learning may take place. Passive knowledge delivery, constructivist theories, social to internalized learning models, formative self-regulated development – they all come back to a focus on the “development of concepts and on acquisition of knowledge.”

Reflection: Interestingly, although I feel I am getting to grips with this now, I am looking forward to comparing my notes to those of others in the group, and having a chat about it in Elluminate. I hadn’t really thought about it before, but I think this process really helps to consolidate my learning. There is an opportunity to tell other people how I interpreted things, and I have no doubt that this will differ from how other people interpreted the paper, so I’ll get some new perspectives on it.

b) Participation metaphor (PM)

Sfard’s opening statement in defining the participation metaphor is that “the acquisition metaphor is so deeply entrenched in our minds that we would probably never become aware of its existence if an alternative metaphor did not start to develop.” Honestly, before having read on, I could begin to think how a participation metaphor would work. However, it became clear to me that this was something that I was already familiar with, I had just not conceptualized in the same way.

I have a working knowledge of Lave and Wenger’s community of practice concept, but was interested to read how one can determine a difference between AM and PM in the kinds of language used to describe them. This shift in discourse ultimately describes the pattern for describing participatory metaphor – learning as action, “the process of becoming a member of a community” or legitimate peripheral participation. I have only come across Lave and Wenger before, so I’m interested to follow up the other participatory conceptual frameworks. However, Sfard does go on to say that the metaphors “should not be mistaken for the well-known distinction between individualist and social perspectives on learning.”

c) What learning is / how learning happens

There is an emphasis one way and the other with the metaphors. The acquisition metaphor inherently describes an onus on the student as a receiver of knowledge. I would go as far to say it implies that the responsibility for this acquisition lies with the learner. Conversely, the PM suggests shared responsibility for learning, and implies that participants in a community are greater than the sum of their parts. A paraphrase of the activity prompt provides an insight into the metaphorical paradigms Sfard puts forward. AM suggests learning is, PM suggests learning happens.

d) Favourite quote from the paper:

“The basic tension between seemingly conflicting metaphors is our protection against theoretical excesses, and is a source of power.”

–

Sfard, A. (1998 ) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational Researcher, 27(2), March 1998, American Educational Research Association

1b A9: Reflecting upon and learning from your experience

Activity 8 Tables (stitched)

1. To what extent have the teaching practices you encountered and your own ways of behaving as a learner influenced the ways in which you now support the learning of others?

A few years ago, when I began to teach Graphic design at FE, I based my teaching on my experiences of being a student, particularly whilst studying on a degree programme. I found myself emulating my lecturers and using similar methods to promote learning. This had some success, but I felt at the time that I did not have a fundamental grasp of how these methods linked with broader pedagogy.

Since this time, I have developed an understanding of my own learning through studying on a PGCE, and continuing practice in other roles such as the one I occupy now (research assistant). The skills of analysis and evidencing understanding have been underpinned by reflection and pedagogical theory, and this has latterly been demonstrated with more resonance in recent workshops I have facilitated. Writing this now, I feel this metacognitive awareness has played a big part in my professional development in the past few years, and this has been reflected in the delivery / support work I have been involved with.

2. How have your practices (as a learner and/or as a supporter of learning) changed over time, particularly in terms of your use of various digital technologies and resources?

My uses of web based resources and technologies have grown considerably. However, I realize that this is largely due to the environment that I am learning / teaching in. I work in an office with access to the Internet, and I deliver workshops in the field of e-learning, so it makes sense that I use relevant technologies. I operate in a distributed community of practice so I have adapted the use of blogs to include this. However, learning a language was an informal thing, and the only dedicated time I knew I would be able to expend on this activity would be whilst I am driving. I only have a CD player in my car, so I bought a CD set to help me learn the language. (As it happened I did not get very far!)

3. Can you derive any useful lessons from your personal experiences about the impact of technologies upon teaching and learning practices?

From my own experiences of implementing technology use, and acting as a catalyst for change in teaching and learning practice, I have begun to realise the significance of collaborative learning and being present within a community of practice. An incident working with drawing students helped me to see that prompting a group to investigate a principle of learning may have unexpected results (in this case they used a different technology to the one we proposed and tested), but it does yield results nonetheless. The critical component to this is allowing flexibility in response. However this does present a similar tension to that which I encountered in critique sessions in art and design. Community responsiveness can deviate from specific learning objectives.

Activity 8 Tables (stitched)

Readings on reflection…

Johnson, G. and DiBiase, D. (2004) ‘Keeping the horse before the cart: Penn State’s e-portfolio initiative’, Educause vol. 27, no. 4. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm04/eqm0443.asp (accessed 2 October 2008)

Smith, M. (1996) ‘Reflection: what constitutes reflection – and what significance does it have for educators? The contributions of Dewey, Schön, and Boud et al. assessed’ [online], The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-reflect.htm (accessed 2 October 2008)

Smith, M. (2001) ‘David A. Kolb on experiential learning’ [online], The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm (accessed 1 October 2008)

JISC (2008) ‘Effective practice with e-portfolios’

JISC (2008) ‘Effective practice with e-portfolios’, Joint Information Systems Committee [online] Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/effectivepracticeeportfolios (Accessed 26 September 2008)

The study celebrates (p12) the diversity of the function and application of e-portfolios in education currently. The case studies represent perspectives of user, institution and audience, embedding e-portfolios into the curriculum, lifelong learning, reflection and skills development.

Effective practice e-portfolios

Key purposes are identified but are summarized as being at different points of uptake, for example, e-portfolios used in transitional and application roles are described as “emerging” rather than embedded like some examples of PDP practice (p8). Considerable attention is paid to the value of e-portfolios as a tool for learning, promoting the e-portfolio as a tool to enhance learner understanding of their own course and context, build communities of practice, develop reflective skills and personalize learning. “As learners experience critical moments in their learning, they can express their responses, collect and organise information, and plan their next steps.” (p9) The model identified puts communication and dialogue between the owner and audience at the centre of the learning portfolio.