Would the innovations in 'learning design' described in Weeks 8 and 9 'induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students'?
First of all, what are these 'more desirable approaches'? And to whom are they desirable? Second, it would be interesting to turn the question on its head, and ask if learning design innovations would induce more desirable approaches to teaching – could they induce such approaches – on the part of teachers. However, staying with the plot, let's assume 'more desirable approaches' are to be understood as more engaged, open, receptive, 'deep' or otherwise serious-minded approaches to learning, resulting in more effective, enriching learning and development.
Richardson paints a mixed picture on this score. He points to some published research to suggest that 'interventions aimed at inducing desirable approaches to studying have proved to be largely ineffective' (2005, p. 674). By contrast, in his discussion of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), Richardson claims that there is 'an intimate relationship' between the way students approach their study and their perceptions of the quality of learning materials, i.e. the better the materials, the more likely it is that students will adopt 'deep' or 'more desirable' approaches to study. If learning design results in the production of high-quality learning materials as one would hope, it follows that good learning design may induce 'desirable' or effective learning. In theory, learning design can change and develop people.
Coming to the question of whether learning design innovations might induce teachers to adopt more desirable approaches to teaching (for which read student-focussed approaches aimed at fostering conceptual development, or 'change as a person'), Richardson's discussion (2005, p. 677) of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) offers room for hope. The research he discusses shows that when teachers adopt a student-focussed approach, their students are more likely to be 'deep' learners who shun shallow, superficial, assessment-motivated learning. And vice versa, teachers whose conception of teaching is to impart information, and who adopt accordingly teacher-focussed approaches – these teachers will produce students whose approach to learning is to cram and Google. As good learning design is most likely to result in engaging, student-focussed activities and learning materials, it follows that teachers who engage with innovations in learning design are likely to adopt 'more desirable' approaches to teaching.
But can adoption of learning design innovations really change and develop teachers? Maybe, maybe not, to judge from the literature reviewed by Richardson. As he says (2005, p. 677), there is 'little evidence that teachers' conceptions of teaching really do develop'. Here is speaking of age and experience, and there seem to be other impeding factors, like conservative colleagues and other sticks-in-the-occupational-mud, and students who would rather have an easy life in the classroom (Richardson, 2005, p. 678).
Reading Richardson (Part II)
Would the innovations in 'learning design' described in Weeks 8 and 9 'induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students'?
First of all, what are these 'more desirable approaches'? And to whom are they desirable? Second, it would be interesting to turn the question on its head, and ask if learning design innovations would induce more desirable approaches to teaching – could they induce such approaches – on the part of teachers. However, staying with the plot, let's assume 'more desirable approaches' are to be understood as more engaged, open, receptive, 'deep' or otherwise serious-minded approaches to learning, resulting in more effective, enriching learning and development.
Richardson paints a mixed picture on this score. He points to some published research to suggest that 'interventions aimed at inducing desirable approaches to studying have proved to be largely ineffective' (2005, p. 674). By contrast, in his discussion of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), Richardson claims that there is 'an intimate relationship' between the way students approach their study and their perceptions of the quality of learning materials, i.e. the better the materials, the more likely it is that students will adopt 'deep' or 'more desirable' approaches to study. If learning design results in the production of high-quality learning materials as one would hope, it follows that good learning design may induce 'desirable' or effective learning. In theory, learning design can change and develop people.
Coming to the question of whether learning design innovations might induce teachers to adopt more desirable approaches to teaching (for which read student-focussed approaches aimed at fostering conceptual development, or 'change as a person'), Richardson's discussion (2005, p. 677) of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) offers room for hope. The research he discusses shows that when teachers adopt a student-focussed approach, their students are more likely to be 'deep' learners who shun shallow, superficial, assessment-motivated learning. And vice versa, teachers whose conception of teaching is to impart information, and who adopt accordingly teacher-focussed approaches – these teachers will produce students whose approach to learning is to cram and Google. As good learning design is most likely to result in engaging, student-focussed activities and learning materials, it follows that teachers who engage with innovations in learning design are likely to adopt 'more desirable' approaches to teaching.
But can adoption of learning design innovations really change and develop teachers? Maybe, maybe not, to judge from the literature reviewed by Richardson. As he says (2005, p. 677), there is 'little evidence that teachers' conceptions of teaching really do develop'. Here is speaking of age and experience, and there seem to be other impeding factors, like conservative colleagues and other sticks-in-the-occupational-mud, and students who would rather have an easy life in the classroom (Richardson, 2005, p. 678).