Edited by David Alcock, Thursday, 7 Mar 2013, 07:54
Part One.
There is a difference between pedagogy and theories of learning. Simon (1981) suggests that pedagogy is the act and discourse of teaching. That is, it is about the processes and actions that are engaged in when teaching or learning is taking place. From a teaching perspective the design of the stages of learning that the learner is intended to engage in can perhaps be viewed as either an art or a science but either way, there is intend to present to the learner some sort of structural process of engagement with opportunities to learn. On the other hand, theories of learning are about the cognitive processes that individuals go through when acquiring knowledge, attitude and behaviour that will inform or change the individual in some way. These two elements of learning, pedagogy and theory are of course related, they are not mutually independent. Indeed it might easily be argued that learning cannot take place without a measure of both; some sort of cognitive change that is brought about by some sort of process or event, either formally or informally and either intentionally structured or not.
Some of the developments that Sharples (2012) forecasts can be related to not only pedagogy (self-evident in the title of the paper) but also to theories of learning. For example, in predicting an increase in personal inquiry learning Sharples describes a structure of activities around a process of enquiry. This is clearly a statement of a pedagogy and is an example of how Nichols (2003) describes elearning; a means of implementingeducation using various models and philosophies. It should be noted, however that Nichols does not only talk about a means of implementing (pedagogy) but includes specific mention of models and philosophies of learning. I see this as suggesting that the pedagogy must relate to, indeed be founded on, some theory of learning if it is to be innovative.
We can test the above by considering Sharples personal inquiry learning prediction. What is important here is not the use of technology per-se, but how the technology supports, or works with the underlying theory of learning. In this case we might claim that the predominant theory of learning is that of constructivism. Piaget (1957) and Vygotsky (1988) were both interested in how we each construct knowledge. Sharples model of personal inquiry learning, whereby students are guided towards problem solving via enquiry appears to be founded on Piaget’s ideas of the creation of knowledge by the individual and also to lend itself to Vygotsky’s interest in the social construction of knowledge, given that this enquiry could be carried out as a group activity. There is, of course also a strong element of cognitivism embedded in this pedagogy. Whether the inquiry activities are very loosely structured, leaving the learners to create meaning for themselves (Bruner, 1966) or consist of more clearly structured activities and materials (Ausubel, 1960) we are still looking at an example of cognitivism in action.
The above example perhaps suggests that in order to be successful and innovative, elearning must present a pedagogy that clearly makes use of one or more of the tried and tested theories of learning. Incidentally, we could also use the example of badges in elearning. This clearly can be linked to behaviourism and the work of Skinner (1968) and Thorndike (1928) on influencing behaviour with the use of rewards.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960) ‘Use of advance organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful material’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 51, pp. 267–72.
Bruner, J.S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1957) ‘The child and modern physics’, Scientific American, vol. 196, no. 3, pp. 46–51.
Simon, B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in: B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds) Education in the eighties: the central issues (London, Batsford), 124–145.
Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M. and Whitelock, D. (2012) Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report No. 1, Milton Keynes, The Open University; also available online.
Skinner, B.F. (1968) The Technology of Teaching, New York, NY, Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thorndike, E.L., Bregman, E.O., Tilton, J.W. and Woodyard, E. (1928) Adult Learning, New York, NY, Macmillan.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1988) Thought and Language (trans. from Russian and revised and edited by Alex Kozulin), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Part Two.
Partly because there is evidence that my University does support problem based learning I would pick personal enquiry learning as the primary innovation to explore. I would also like to build in to any course design some elements of badges to accredit learning and also assessment for learning.
In practice I could probably start designing some personal enquiry activities right away and I would not need to gain any permission from anyone, I don’t think. The only question on that front would be around the requirement for students to have certain social media accounts in order to engage in the course. The most obvious one to spring to mind is Twitter. I may meet some opposition to that; I have met opposition to using Google Docs due to privacy issues. In terms of both badges and assessment I would need to talk to my Faculty Distance Learning co-ordinator and to our IT department because I have no idea what software we already have access to and that I would be permitted to use. The assessment for learning innovations are related to summative assessment and therefore I don’t think that I would get into any hot water with our quality standards people. Indeed, I think that the extra level of feedback would be welcomed and encouraged.
I can see huge potential benefits of Personal inquiry learning. Not only do I subscribe to the theory of cognitivism but I see the enquiry model working very well as a group activity. Using technology to enhance group cohesiveness will be a further, major benefit. One significant risk, and one that I have experienced this year with my use of twitter is that the communications medium can be abused and hi-jacked for personal use by students. Whilst that is acceptable, we have found that one or two individuals need some education in social media etiquette! A further risk is that there is a possibility that learning outcomes may not be met if group problem solving is not ‘controlled’.
Activity 17
Part One.
There is a difference between pedagogy and theories of learning. Simon (1981) suggests that pedagogy is the act and discourse of teaching. That is, it is about the processes and actions that are engaged in when teaching or learning is taking place. From a teaching perspective the design of the stages of learning that the learner is intended to engage in can perhaps be viewed as either an art or a science but either way, there is intend to present to the learner some sort of structural process of engagement with opportunities to learn. On the other hand, theories of learning are about the cognitive processes that individuals go through when acquiring knowledge, attitude and behaviour that will inform or change the individual in some way. These two elements of learning, pedagogy and theory are of course related, they are not mutually independent. Indeed it might easily be argued that learning cannot take place without a measure of both; some sort of cognitive change that is brought about by some sort of process or event, either formally or informally and either intentionally structured or not.
Some of the developments that Sharples (2012) forecasts can be related to not only pedagogy (self-evident in the title of the paper) but also to theories of learning. For example, in predicting an increase in personal inquiry learning Sharples describes a structure of activities around a process of enquiry. This is clearly a statement of a pedagogy and is an example of how Nichols (2003) describes elearning; a means of implementing education using various models and philosophies. It should be noted, however that Nichols does not only talk about a means of implementing (pedagogy) but includes specific mention of models and philosophies of learning. I see this as suggesting that the pedagogy must relate to, indeed be founded on, some theory of learning if it is to be innovative.
We can test the above by considering Sharples personal inquiry learning prediction. What is important here is not the use of technology per-se, but how the technology supports, or works with the underlying theory of learning. In this case we might claim that the predominant theory of learning is that of constructivism. Piaget (1957) and Vygotsky (1988) were both interested in how we each construct knowledge. Sharples model of personal inquiry learning, whereby students are guided towards problem solving via enquiry appears to be founded on Piaget’s ideas of the creation of knowledge by the individual and also to lend itself to Vygotsky’s interest in the social construction of knowledge, given that this enquiry could be carried out as a group activity. There is, of course also a strong element of cognitivism embedded in this pedagogy. Whether the inquiry activities are very loosely structured, leaving the learners to create meaning for themselves (Bruner, 1966) or consist of more clearly structured activities and materials (Ausubel, 1960) we are still looking at an example of cognitivism in action.
The above example perhaps suggests that in order to be successful and innovative, elearning must present a pedagogy that clearly makes use of one or more of the tried and tested theories of learning. Incidentally, we could also use the example of badges in elearning. This clearly can be linked to behaviourism and the work of Skinner (1968) and Thorndike (1928) on influencing behaviour with the use of rewards.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960) ‘Use of advance organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful material’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 51, pp. 267–72.
Bruner, J.S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Nichols, M. (2003) ‘A theory for elearning’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1–10; also available online at http://ifets.ieee.org/ discussions/discuss_march2003.html (accessed 18 June 2012).
Piaget, J. (1957) ‘The child and modern physics’, Scientific American, vol. 196, no. 3, pp. 46–51.
Simon, B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in: B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds) Education in the eighties: the central issues (London, Batsford), 124–145.
Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M. and Whitelock, D. (2012) Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report No. 1, Milton Keynes, The Open University; also available online.
Skinner, B.F. (1968) The Technology of Teaching, New York, NY, Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thorndike, E.L., Bregman, E.O., Tilton, J.W. and Woodyard, E. (1928) Adult Learning, New York, NY, Macmillan.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1988) Thought and Language (trans. from Russian and revised and edited by Alex Kozulin), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Part Two.
Partly because there is evidence that my University does support problem based learning I would pick personal enquiry learning as the primary innovation to explore. I would also like to build in to any course design some elements of badges to accredit learning and also assessment for learning.
In practice I could probably start designing some personal enquiry activities right away and I would not need to gain any permission from anyone, I don’t think. The only question on that front would be around the requirement for students to have certain social media accounts in order to engage in the course. The most obvious one to spring to mind is Twitter. I may meet some opposition to that; I have met opposition to using Google Docs due to privacy issues. In terms of both badges and assessment I would need to talk to my Faculty Distance Learning co-ordinator and to our IT department because I have no idea what software we already have access to and that I would be permitted to use. The assessment for learning innovations are related to summative assessment and therefore I don’t think that I would get into any hot water with our quality standards people. Indeed, I think that the extra level of feedback would be welcomed and encouraged.
I can see huge potential benefits of Personal inquiry learning. Not only do I subscribe to the theory of cognitivism but I see the enquiry model working very well as a group activity. Using technology to enhance group cohesiveness will be a further, major benefit. One significant risk, and one that I have experienced this year with my use of twitter is that the communications medium can be abused and hi-jacked for personal use by students. Whilst that is acceptable, we have found that one or two individuals need some education in social media etiquette! A further risk is that there is a possibility that learning outcomes may not be met if group problem solving is not ‘controlled’.