The fact there are five conceptions of teaching is so neat and tidy and convenient as to test credulity. The alarm bells are beginning to sound. Learning and teaching are above all highly social practices, even in their open and distance forms, and social life is seldom so orderly, so reducible to categories or types (or flow diagrams or models).
From my limited experience of teaching, I can remember being all five categories of teacher and not just at different times and in different contexts. Teachers may be all categories in the same hour in the same classroom, so long as that classroom is full of learners who have different approaches, different conceptions, and different interests. I can't see how one can be a Category 4 or 5 teacher without appreciating and making account of learners' individual interests (very broadly defined) and learners' backgrounds. The paper makes little mention of learners' perceptions of their own academic context, their past achievements and future plans, and how this 'learning record' bears on learners' approaches to and conceptions of learning.
2 and 3) The argument and the models
Perhaps the debating habit is a hard one to kick, but as with the Economist debate I find much here that is convincing (or at least seemingly plausible) and much that is not. There are a few lacunae in the argument as well. I've mentioned student expectations, interests and desired outcomes. Similarly, the paper makes little account of learners' perceptions of their own academic context, their relationship with institutions and relationships with teachers, the influence of parents and family (and peers) on approaches to and conceptions of learning, and learners' past achievements and future goals.
Turning to teachers, I'm not convinced by the proposition made here that unlike learners, teachers do not become more mature, more sophisticated in their approaches to and conceptions of teaching as time passes. If it is possible (indeed, necessary) to be all five categories of teacher at once, as I believe, surely the move up the ladder of conceptions of teaching is not going to be blocked by a few difficult or lazy students or disillusioned colleagues.
Regarding models, all very neat and tidy. Too much so. Do the arrows point one way only? Figure 1 implies that approaches to learning are outcomes of the learner's experience of the (institutional) learning experience. I think they must precede such experience and be affected (and possibly changed) by it. Surely our approaches to learning are functions above all of our society and culture, our background, our family and personal influences, experience, preferences, and particular needs and requirements. Learners have a 'before life' and an 'after life', and throughout they have a social life, and these subjectivities are hard to categorise or delineate.
Reading Richardson (Part V)
The final (three) furlongs!
1) Experience of teaching/training
The fact there are five conceptions of teaching is so neat and tidy and convenient as to test credulity. The alarm bells are beginning to sound. Learning and teaching are above all highly social practices, even in their open and distance forms, and social life is seldom so orderly, so reducible to categories or types (or flow diagrams or models).
From my limited experience of teaching, I can remember being all five categories of teacher and not just at different times and in different contexts. Teachers may be all categories in the same hour in the same classroom, so long as that classroom is full of learners who have different approaches, different conceptions, and different interests. I can't see how one can be a Category 4 or 5 teacher without appreciating and making account of learners' individual interests (very broadly defined) and learners' backgrounds. The paper makes little mention of learners' perceptions of their own academic context, their past achievements and future plans, and how this 'learning record' bears on learners' approaches to and conceptions of learning.
2 and 3) The argument and the models
Perhaps the debating habit is a hard one to kick, but as with the Economist debate I find much here that is convincing (or at least seemingly plausible) and much that is not. There are a few lacunae in the argument as well. I've mentioned student expectations, interests and desired outcomes. Similarly, the paper makes little account of learners' perceptions of their own academic context, their relationship with institutions and relationships with teachers, the influence of parents and family (and peers) on approaches to and conceptions of learning, and learners' past achievements and future goals.
Turning to teachers, I'm not convinced by the proposition made here that unlike learners, teachers do not become more mature, more sophisticated in their approaches to and conceptions of teaching as time passes. If it is possible (indeed, necessary) to be all five categories of teacher at once, as I believe, surely the move up the ladder of conceptions of teaching is not going to be blocked by a few difficult or lazy students or disillusioned colleagues.
Regarding models, all very neat and tidy. Too much so. Do the arrows point one way only? Figure 1 implies that approaches to learning are outcomes of the learner's experience of the (institutional) learning experience. I think they must precede such experience and be affected (and possibly changed) by it. Surely our approaches to learning are functions above all of our society and culture, our background, our family and personal influences, experience, preferences, and particular needs and requirements. Learners have a 'before life' and an 'after life', and throughout they have a social life, and these subjectivities are hard to categorise or delineate.