Heuristics – making sense of the complexity of pedagogy

Over the course of a number of posts I have laid out a notion of pedagogy as the interpenetration of a number of complex adaptive systems (see here for the foundation of this expanded definition). Conceptually, what sits at the centre of this characterisation of pedagogy is the idea of complexity. Seminar rooms and the activities which develop within them, and the associated activities beyond (study, reading, discussion, etc) are such that we are not able to capture them in their entirety at any point in time – there are always elements which are beyond our perception. This leads to the idea that to research and understand seminar rooms and pedagogy is akin to looking onshore from a boat on a foggy day.

When we observe or reflect on pedagogic activity we are only seeing some of the elements present, and rely on extrapolation, much as we might use elements of the landscape as a basis for extrapolating and imagining the detail of the whole landscape.

So if pedagogy is the interpenetration of teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment centred on the tutor and students, how are we able to make sense of the inherent complexity in these environments?

When individuals first begin to teach, they often find the process of teaching confusing, stressful, and even, on occasion, disorientating. I would argue that this is because they are faced with the complexity of the task, with little in the way of structures for sense making. However, as they begin to understand the tasks of teaching, they begin to see patterns in the activity, how various elements work together; this leads new teachers to build heuristics. Heuristics are strategies which emerge from experience, emerging out of groups of similar experiences and in this way creating sense making in complex environments. Individuals often problem-solve by using their experience of similar past events, or knowledge they have gained from elsewhere but which appear to have problem solving potential in the current situation. This allows a level of ‘patterning’ to pedagogic work, and as a result, networks of complex relationships are ‘chunked’ to simplify and make sense of practice. This is a form of ‘complexity reduction’ (Biesta, 2010) where the system is understood in simpler terms through the use of personal frameworks of understanding. However, heuristics are prone to approximation and error. This can be the result of biases and systematic errors in the frameworks which have been developed. Therefore, tutors will tend to identify elements of practice which appear not to work well, particularly through the use of reflective practice. In this framing reflective practice is a process by which the errors or approximations in heuristics are identified and developed to improve the heuristic models by which we operate.

The opening up of practice to reflection and to research is a process of reintroducing complexity, of allowing the many interpenetrating systems to become open and explicit once again – it is the conscious reintroduction of complexity as a way of trying to understand practice and process more deeply. The reflection or research is then enfolded into new heuristics which develop and allow complexity reduction to be introduced to practice once more. In this way, cycles of heuristics are developed to make sense of the complexity of pedagogy through reduction, before opening up the same complexity again in an attempt to engage in activity to change practice towards new heuristics and better practice. In this way, new practice is developed through the generation of new insights and knowledge through action (pragmatism), but in the context of interpenetrating complex systems which go to make up pedagogy. Hence, this is a complex pragmatic view of pedagogy and its emergence. In addition, the nature of heuristics is such that theory merely becomes a way of characterising those heuristics. Hence, as we go through cycles of emergent change, practice and theory become different elements or perspectives in relation to modelling and sense making sense of complexity through heuristics. Finally, going back to the image of the coastline, the emergent understanding of complexity and its enfolding into heuristics over time mean that we can blow some of the fog away – over a career, with the development of wise judgement (Biesta, 2014), i.e. the fostering of ever better and more deeply understood heuristics in practice, we extrapolate less and see more. However, we must accept that patches of fog will always remain, the complexity of pedagogic activity is such that we will never reach a clear and full understanding of it.

 

References

Biesta, G. (2010) ‘Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics’ in D. Osberg & G. Biesta (eds) Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers, 5-14.

Biesta, G.J.J. (2014) The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers

 

What do we Mean by Pedagogy?Characterising learning (part 2)

‘One cannot begin to understand the true nature of human learning without embracing its interactional complexity.’ (Alexander et al, 2009: 176)

Alexander et al (2009) attempt to create a series of criteria which together characterise learning. From these principles, they then try to outline the dimensions of learning within which they argue the principles operate. One crucial part of their argument is the notion that no single theory of learning has created a fully adequate representation of learning. They identify nine foundational principles of learning:

1 Learning is change – this is inherent in learning, but has a number of possible characteristics, so can occur at group or social level as well as individual, and can be from the obvious to the imperceptible and can occur over a number of different time scales.

2 Learning is inevitable, essential and ubiquitous – to be alive is to learn as it is an inevitable process, and is also essential if we are to survive as individuals. We learn wherever we are, ‘the processes of learning are in operation whenever and wherever humans are situated.’ (178)

3 Learning can be resisted – Humans can resist learning, perhaps due to a lack of effort/interest, or from a fear of failure. If learning might lead to cognitive, social or cultural dissonance there can be also be a resistance to learning.

4 Learning may be disadvantageous – Learning can be a negative process, for example, learning how to disrupt the efforts of others, or how to cheat. Also, disadvantageous learning can take different forms, for example the learner might wish they hadn’t learned something (e.g. how veal is reared and produced), whilst in other cases, the learner might see their learning as positive even though it might have negative impacts (e.g. excessive use of social media).

5 Learning can be tacit and incidental – Much of our learning falls into the category, particularly outside of formal educational settings. This can include much of first language learning, especially in the early stages, and contextual learning.

6 Learning is framed by our humanness – learning is framed by our neurobiology, but varied between individuals leading to variation in our learning capabilities.

7 Learning is both process and product – As a process, learning is something which happens over time, whilst product is the durable change which occurs as a result of the process. Formal assessment and much research tends to focus on the product. ‘Indeed, much research in which the focus is only on learning as a product may oversimplify our conception of the learning process.’ (180) However, the same bias can occur if we only focus on the process.

8 Learning is different at different points in time – Change occurs over time, and learning is affected by where the learner is in the process. For example, the what and how of learning by young children is different to adults in part as the level or iteration and recursivity is different.

9 Learning is interactional – Learning is shaped by biological, social and cultural factors which interact in a dynamic environment. ‘Learners are influenced by, and at the same time push back, take from, change, control, and create the environment in which learning is situated.’ (180)

These principles interact to give the basis for learning, and show a complex mixture of biological, cognitive, social and cultural dynamics to the process and product of learning. However, in addition to these principles, Alexander et al argue that four dimensions of learning set the context for the principles, the ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘who’ and ‘when’ of learning.

The what of learning – Learning always focuses on something. It can be a simple focus, or a more complex one, and generally speaking as the what is developed over time, it becomes more complex. Take as an example, any academic subject, which becomes increasingly detailed, complex and abstract as expertise develops. The what includes both the process and product of learning and the increasing intricacy involved is defined as interactive complexification.

The where of learning – this is the ecological context of learning. It includes the physical, social and cultural contexts of learning and can be critical to the process of learning. In some cases, the where can lead to problems of learning becoming ‘contextually restricted’

The who of learning – This covers the characteristics of the learner, the biological, cognitive, experiential and affective (including motivational) factors which are important in both the process and product of learning.

The when of learning – This emphasises the importance of time and flow of experiences in learning. Different elements of learning are most pertinently explained over different time frames, from the evolutionary to short term individual.

What the principles and dimensions of learning discussed by Alexander et al demonstrate is that learning is multi-faceted, and cannot be collapsed into a simple process, such as seeing it as synonymous with memory. As they state:

‘objects of learning become increasingly more complex and….the processes and products of learning mirror that growing complexity.’ (185-186)

This leads to the following definition of learning:

‘Learning is a multidimensional process that results in a relatively enduring change in a person or persons, and consequently how that person or persons will perceive the world and reciprocally respond to its affordances physically, psychologically, and socially. The process of learning has as its foundation the systemic, dynamic, and interactive relation between the nature of the learner and the object of the learning as ecologically situated in a given time and place as well as over time.’ (186)

Geary (2009) agrees that the what, where, who and when are important, but adds that there also needs to be the ‘why’. In the short term the why is important in relation to motivation. At a simple level, he distinguishes between the learning which takes/took place in traditional societies and cultures where the why is related to survival and reproduction. Therefore, much of learning was inherently practical and required for a quality of life. This has shifted rapidly in modern societies so that the why is increasingly related to a where, what, and when which is not in alignment with these basic needs. This shift and the complexity it brings with it needs to be considered in relation to enhancing motivation and focus on learning in educational contexts.

The characterisation of learning presented by Alexander et al, and augmented by Geary is one of complexity and interaction. They stress that these various elements should not be seen as ‘independent contributors’ to learning, in other words they cannot be isolated and measured separately – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They describe them as facets of an intricate and fluid system. I would take this further and state that their work very clearly demonstrates learning as a complex adaptive system, one of the four interpenetrating systems which make up the concept of pedagogy.

References

Alexander, P.A.; Schallert, D.L. & Reynolds, R.E. (2009) What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 176-192.

Geary, D.C. (2009) The why of learning. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 198-201.

What do we Mean by Pedagogy?Characterising learning (part 1)

Learning is a very complex area of research due to its ubiquitous presence in what it means to be human. As such, learning is a process which occurs in many different ways and in many different contexts. Here, I am interested in how we might understand learning in relation to the other elements of an expanded notion of pedagogy (i.e. curriculum, teaching and assessment) within the context of post graduate taught study.

Definitions of learning can lead to very broad statements which, whilst they might contribute are so broad as to have only limited practical utility in a pedagogic sense. Some definitions see learning as purely cognitive in nature, for example:

‘We define memory as a behavioral change caused by an experience, and define learning as a process for acquiring memory.’ (Okano et al, 2000: 12403)

Others are more holistic and move beyond the cognitive whilst retaining a central role for cognition, for example,

‘The combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby the whole person – body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, meaning, beliefs and senses) – experiences social situations, the content of which is then transformed cognitively, emotively or practically (or through any combination) and integrated into the individual person’s biography resulting in a continually changing (or more experienced) person.’ (Jarvis, 2009: 25)

Another complexity in defining and characterising learning is its dual nature as both outcome and process. Recently, there has been a tendency to emphasise the outcome perspective of learning, stressing learning as being simply the remnant of information in long term memory. This is an important insight. However, it is deficient in that it can tend towards a downplaying of the process of learning. In pedagogic terms, the process is extremely important as it is only by considering and understanding the processes leading to the outcomes that we can begin to derive insights about processes which might aid learning. Saljo (2009: 206) makes the point in a discussion concerning the difficulty of characterising learning that:

‘The concept of learning has many potential units of analysis, all the way from the molecular level of neurochemistry, via other fields of neuroscience over to various areas of psychology, education, organization studies, and many other social sciences. These levels of inquiry, and their respective units of analysis, stand in very complex relationships to each, and to bridge between them is often a complex affair.’

This leads to a view that we need to be aware of, and consider, the many different perspectives relating to learning, something which is hard to do, and in some circumstances, may be impossible. But by questioning assumptions and attempting to work across, Saljo does reflect that:

‘Behaviors and cognitive processes no longer suffice as basic constructs for providing a coherent and interesting conceptualization of learning; there are many other issues that have to be considered such as time, situatedness, and reciprocity between individuals and cultural practices. Also, in the literature it is no longer just individuals who learn and remember but also collectives such as organizations, societies and systems of people and artefacts.’

Therefore, Saljo emphasises the multi-dimensional processes involved in learning. Cognition is central but not sufficient to understanding learning in a pedagogic sense. Interaction, situatedness and the social need to be attended to. One way of beginning to capture this multi-dimensional view of learning is through the work of Illeris (2003). He argues that what is learned in educational contexts,

‘..is a complex totality of traditional and up-to-date knowledge, orientation and overview, combined with professional and everyday life skills and a broad range of personal qualities such as flexibility, openness, independence, responsibility, creativity etc.’ (Illeris, 2003: 397)

Illeris argues that learning occurs through the fusion of an internal cognitive process and an external interactional process. Learning is seen as an internal process of acquisition which is composed of cognitive and emotional dimensions. Therefore, cognitive functions such as memory and attention are central to learning. However, their effectiveness is in part influenced by the emotional dimension of learning which includes variables such as motivation. ‘…all cognitive learning is, so to speak, ‘obsessed’ by the emotions at stake – e.g. whether the learning is driven by desire, interest, necessity or compulsion.’ (Illeris, 2003: 399). However, it is very rare that we learn through acquisition only, i.e. by ourselves with no interaction with others, be it synchronous or asynchronous. Therefore, external interaction (social, cultural and material) through participation, communication and co-operation is also extremely important.

From this consideration there is a strong suggestion that in pedagogic settings learning as a process needs to be seen as a complex process involving a number of temporal and spatial scales interacting both internally and externally to the individual. In the next post, this consideration of the nature of learning will be extended through a consideration of the work of Alexander et al (2009) and Geary (2009) who both attempt to capture an overarching characterization of learning.

 

References

Alexander, P.A.; Schallert, D.L. & Reynolds, R.E. (2009) What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 176-192.

Geary, D.C. (2009) The why of learning. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 198-201.

Illeris, K. (2003) Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 22:4, 396-406.

Jarvis, P. (2009) Learning to be a Person in Society. Abingdon: Routledge.

Okano, H.; Hirano, T. & Balaban, E. (2000) Learning and Memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(23), 12403-12404.

Saljo, R. (2009) Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 202-208.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY PEDAGOGY? THE PARADOX OF TEACHING

Having previously outlined some thoughts concerning both assessment and curriculum, the nature of teaching within an expanded view of a masters ‘pedagogy’ needs to be sketched out. Teaching can be seen as a process drawing together curriculum and assessment, and bringing to practical fruition the philosophies and intents which reside there. Teaching is also the interface of these elements with the process of learning. Biesta (2014) reflects on the juxtaposition of teaching and leanring, emphasising the weakness of seeing learning as being the only important process in the educative sphere, and yet in this is a trend which is becoming ever more explicit within HE. Biesta identifies a broad move in education towards ‘learnification’ in society, where the process of learning is seen as the only important medium which needs to be considered. This leads to a misconceived idea of teaching as being merely a ‘facilitation’ of learning; the teacher increasingly becomes seen as having little to offer, whilst learning as a process becomes increasingly an individualised pursuit. But to see ‘learning’ as a process alone forgets the fact that it is always positioned as learning ‘about something’ (Biesta, 2014: 126), the focus not only being on the process but also the content and purpose.

In this context, I see teaching as becoming a process of considering and interpreting the interplay of purpose, content, process and need, both in initial framing and planning of a curriculum and possible approaches, but also in the subsequent emergence of pedagogic practice and experience. This distinction between starting points and emergence is important as any initial plan will require change and reflection to suit the needs and agency of the students involved; each time a particular module is encountered the day to day, minute to minute experience and process will be different as the contexts, individuals and needs will to some extent be unique and will certainly shift between groups. To say that teaching is of equal importance to pedagogy as learning is not to suggest that it should be sterile, unchanging, ‘set’, quite the reverse.

Biesta (2104) also highlights the ‘weak power’ of teaching as it is a process which cannot be impressed on individuals, but can only be offered, an offer the student must accept,

‘To receive the gift of teaching, to welcome the unwelcome, to give place to inconvenient truths and difficult knowledge, is precisely the moment where we give authority to the teaching we receive.’ (Biesta, 2014: 55 emphasis in original).

The role of the teacher is to understand and present the spectrum of content, process and experiences which allow students to grapple with the ‘learning of something’. However, there is an apparent paradox here, as whilst teaching is central to the process of learning, it should not be identified as a narrow activity, such as an advocation for ‘direct instruction’, which might be seen as putting the teacher at the very centre of the pedagogic process. This is to see teaching not as a gift offered, but a stance dictated. Teaching instead becomes the complex set of approaches which are most appropriate to meet the purpose, content, process and experience set out by the teacher(s) in planning the curriculum and associated assessments; at masters level (and perhaps well before), this is a process which will also increasingly be a joint activity with students as they become the experts in aspects of the curriculum and not only learn more independently but also act as teachers in their own right. And again, the process from start to finish will be emergent rather than set in stone.

The teaching element of pedagogy therefore needs to reflect the complexity of the process and context involved. At some points an approach which requires direct instruction, be it as a lecture etc may well be the most appropriate and useful pedagogic tool. If students need to engage with a body of knowledge this pedagogic tool may well be a useful first step. However, to begin to use, extend and utilise this knowledge may require other, flexible, research-based approaches, particularly where the new knowledge is being developed to help understand different contexts, or is merely the starting point for personal ‘lines of flight’. At the level of masters study it is untenable to believe that personal research and discovery can be dispensed with, it is the hallmark of study at this level. This does leave an interesting question as to when this form of pedagogy should enter the educative process if it is to be utilised here – undergraduate? A-level? Before?

Understanding the complexity surrounding the interplay of curriculum, assessment, learning and teaching is at the core of the role of the teacher. Knowing when to lead, when to challenge, when to stand away from the process of learning. Therefore, teaching is central but any notion that is can be simplistically defined as operating via one or two ‘archetypal’ teaching approaches is not sustainable. As the context and focus of teaching shifts it does so in relation to the curriculum, assessment and learning of the students involved. Hence, once again, the idea that this act of teaching needs to be seen as an extended series of links between these different elements of an extended view of pedagogy.

References

Biesta, G.J.J. (2014) The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers

What do we mean by pedagogy? (Part 4) Thinking about Curriculum 2

In my last post I suggested that the masters framework developed by the QAA for HE in Scotland (2013) offered a very useful basis for developing pedagogy. I also argued that curriculum needs to be more than a list of content, instead seeing the roles of emergence and process as crucial to the work of masters students and therefore in designing curricula. In developing this perspective on curriculum, how might a practical framework look?

This model is an attempt to capture the complexity and process orientation towards curriculum which is informed by the work of Knight (2001). This model starts from a position of seeing knowledge as a central element of any curriculum. Knowledge is the building blocks on which debate and argumentation are based. Therefore, it is a crucial element in constructing any curriculum. However, by itself it is not enough. Of equal importance is the structure which supports these building blocks – the explicit discussion of concepts. Threshold concepts (Meyer, Land and Baillie, 2010) have become a useful basis for developing the overarching framework for a course, and indeed modules (whilst accepting that in any given module threshold concepts for many may remain liminal). At masters level there is every chance that students will move from a core area of knowledge to pursue and specialise in particular spheres within a module. The explicit use of threshold concepts allows this process to occur within a coherent, wider ‘field’ of study; whilst individuals may begin to investigate different subject areas and contexts the concepts ensure a level of coherence and allow a common point of contact for discussion and engagement with the work of others. The use of an explicit conceptual framework also gives a general scheme for the process of learning to operate within. In this sense, the interplay of a conceptual schema (boundary settings) with individual investigation and growth (freedom) is in keeping with Davis and Sumara’s (2006) identification of factors necessary for emergence in their work on complexity theory.

If knowledge and concepts are engaged with alone however, then there is a deficit in the applied/practical use of the emerging learning. Hence, application is also important as this is where schema, a developing knowledge base and understanding are utilised and ‘tested’.

It is at the intersection of the three dimensions of knowledge, concepts and application where curriculum as process (Knight, 2001; Stenhouse, 1975) can be made real. Together, they give the possibility for emerging understanding (here used in the way I’ve interpreted Van Camp (2014) to emphasise the connection of ideas and knowledge in networks) and application based on engagement with knowledge, concepts and their application. It is in this emerging interpenetration (Byrne and Callaghan, 2014) of these systems that both new insights and new knowledge can emerge. But at this level, this is a personal journey for each student with different contexts, interests and applications driving learning. Hence, curriculum as product (Stenhouse, 1975) makes little sense as the possible outcomes are hugely diverse whilst still operating within a loose framework and from common starting points (For an example of how this model for curriculum has been used in our work so far see an earlier post & our research methods pedagogy website)

As suggested in earlier posts, to understand and develop curricula where diversity and process are key, we need to have a clear understanding of the role of assessment in aiding the emergent process model, but as I’ll also reflect upon in future posts, interpenetration has major ramifications for the way we understand learning and teaching; to reiterate, to suggest that pedagogy can be the study of teaching alone makes little sense.

References

Byrne, D. & Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The state of the art. Abingdon: Routledge.

Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2006) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. New York: Routledge.

Knight, P.T. (2001) ‘Complexity and Curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 369-381.

Meyer, J.H.F., Land, R. and Baillie, C. (2010) Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, (eds), Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2013) What is mastersness? Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/report/what-is-mastersness.pdf [Last accessed 5/7/15]

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.

Van Camp, W. (2014) ‘Explaining understanding (or understanding explanation).’ European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 4(1): 95-114.

What do we mean by pedagogy? (Part 3) Thinking about curriculum

Curriculum is a large and complex area for study and reflection. It is the vision of education made concrete, but as such, Schiro (2013) argues that this leads to conflicting visions about what curriculum should contain or focus upon. I would argue that if curriculum is merely characterised as a list of knowledge (and possibly skills), then it has become a poor representation of a very complex set of ideas and processes. Definitions and classifications of ‘curriculum’ are numerous, but as Stenhouse (1975:1) comments,

‘Definitions of the word curriculum do not solve curricular problems; but they do suggest perspectives from which to view them.’

Curriculum can be seen as a prescribed list of knowledge and indeed there has been a resurgence in characterising curriculum in this way in some jurisdictions and in some phases of education. However, a list of content can atrophy the notion of curriculum to being that of an ‘epistemic shopping list’. This then endangers the distilling out of any notion of curriculum as action or as vehicle for agency. This may still be possible – in the right hands – but may just as easily become a prescriptive list of ‘stuff to get through’, especially if linked to narrow conceptualisations of assessment. It also makes the links between curriculum, teaching, assessment and learning potentially far weaker.

In constructing a curriculum at masters level, a consideration of the wider educational context is crucial. A report by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAAHE, 2013), What is mastersness? gives a strong indication of some of the core features of masters level study. They characterise the main ‘facets of mastersness’ as (for an explanation of how I understand the link between knowledge, understanding, concepts and skills see here):

• Complexity: emergent understanding by the students of the provisionality of knowledge, and the interplay and integration of knowledge, skills and application with an allied mastering of conceptual complexity. Due to the nature of masters level study there should also be an emerging ability to deal with the complexity of the learning process involved in study at this level.
• Abstraction: the emerging ability to extract knowledge and meaning from study to use in synthesising new meanings in new and applied contexts.
• Depth: emerging use of knowledge in new contexts and in new ways, based on development of more in-depth and interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding. This also relates to an increasing capacity to reflect on knowledge and understanding in new contexts.
• Research: the development and emergence of greater skills and capacity in research and enquiry. This includes a wider knowledge and understanding of research perspectives and methodologies beyond the narrow confines of disciplinary or undergraduate approaches, greater autonomy in initiating research foci/agendas and maturing of the resultant methodological approaches, and carrying out more critical and in-depth analyses and interpretations.
• Autonomy: the core of this feature of masters level study is the need for learner responsibility in their own learning. This includes ability to self-organise, to identify and conceptualise problems and to locate and acquire/abstract knowledge to consider and engage with those problems.
• Unpredictability: the understanding that knowledge is often provisional and linked to real world problems which are often complex and ‘messy’. Therefore, students need to learn to use knowledge creativity and critically to deal with real-world unpredictability.
• Professionalism: reflection on and emergence of ethical attitudes, values and behaviour as part of professional development. Also, this is crucial in relation to the process of research itself.

These facets are important in considering the shape and approach of a curriculum at masters level, and are also central to the link between curriculum and teaching, learning and assessment. What the report makes clear is that the emphasis across the facets will contrast between different disciplines, courses, and indeed between individual students as the diversity of prior learning and experiences as students enter masters level means that they will all be on personal and often very different trajectories, even if following the same course.

As I’ve suggested in a previous post, many of the features outlined above are in keeping with the notion of an emergent curriculum (Osberg and Biesta, 2008). By providing some structure and knowledge input as the basis for individual exploration and discovery, students can begin to shape their learning and studies in ways which suit them and which also begins to aid the emergence of autonomy, research, unpredictability etc. This also moves the notion of curriculum far beyond a list of things to be learned (which often, ultimately reduce to knowledge transfer), and one which encompasses much wider educational goals.

In this characterisation curriculum becomes indivisible with teaching, learning and assessment as it includes not only consideration of what is to be taught, but also how and why. Therefore, any conceptualisation of teaching which lacks reference to curriculum is risking an impoverished understanding and discussion of how they relate as emergent and interpenetrating concepts. As suggested in an earlier post, consideration of assessment is likewise tied to these discussions. To separate out is to unravel a complex framework of ideas which have little meaning apart.

References

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2013) What is mastersness? Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/report/what-is-mastersness.pdf [Last accessed 5/7/15]

Osberg, D. &Biesta, G. (2008) ‘the emergent curriculum: navigating complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation.’ Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3): 313-328.

Schiro, M.S. (2013) Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.

Thinking About Action Research and Time

In researching pedagogy, one of the methodological approaches I favour is action research. In some quarters action research is out of favour. It is seen as being too ‘local’, too ‘small scale’, and has little to say in the rush towards finding pedagogic ‘solutions’, the bread and butter of the ‘what works’ movement. But perhaps one of the main perceived problems with action research is its potential for bias, and a lack of structured evidence. These criticisms may be correct – in some instances, but why? I wonder to what degree time and the perception of time in education might be responsible for this.

Action research was initially popularised on the back of the work of Kurt Lewin. As a result of his work, the often summarised ‘process’ of action research became identified by the diagram below:

This diagram can give those wanting a quick fix of research an oversimplified notion of what is involved in action research. It has the potential for a very powerful methodology, but if taken at face value can lead to a seriously atrophied version of the process. Here, the cycle can be read as one focusing on a teacher, or teachers, reflecting on their practice, deciding what deficit might exist, planning for change and then enacting that change before reflecting on how successful they thought it was. But there is no explicit consideration here of the data capture which might be used, the degree of claim to be made at the far end of a cycle of research, or whether the focus chosen was based on personal bias or wider evidence. If it is taken as a personal or group-based reflective process, it becomes a ‘quick’ process. Reflection, planning, acting and observing can become a quick process and can give the impression of moving forward at a rapid rate. This is the illusion of action research as ‘rapid innovation’. However, it also panders to the current vogue in education for making rapid shifts, showing accelerated change with equally certain proclamations of success. But I would argue that true transformation and change is paradoxically a slow, measured process, but one which is also to a great extent contextualised.

I think action research has a huge potential utility in bringing positive change and for acting as a basis for informed discussion of pedagogic practice and change. However, to act as a useful and nuanced tool it is important that action research is approached in the same way as any other research methodology – with care and time. All too often it is seen as a ‘soft’ and ‘easy’ option, something that can be utilised as long as Lewin’s cycle above is followed at face value. I think one useful step we could take in moving action research forward is to abandon Lewin’s cycle within popular accounts and discussion, and replace it with the cycle developed by Andy Townsend (2010). The diagram below is a summary graphic of my interpretation of his framework:

This cycle begins with a consideration of an area for work, with further discussion to refine that idea to one that can become the focus of a piece of research. Importantly, a reconnaissance stage is included. This stage is intended to explore the chosen issue further, do others see the same problem as the person/people who are conducting the research? Does some form of baseline data help characterise the issue in the context in which it is being explored? In discussion with some Chinese ELT tutors, we even discussed the idea of looking at larger-scale quantitative data from within and beyond the organisation involved. This stage helps us to begin to gain a more in-depth and critical understanding of the context we wish to explore and intervene in – but it takes time. Having reflected on the initial focus in relation to this reconnaissance data, we can develop a more focused and meaningful action, or if we find that our initial ideas were misplaced, we might go back to redefining an initial focus, starting the process over. The cycle then involves an intervention, and from this to a reflection and evaluation of the change involved. The evaluation is important as it emphasises the need to include in the planning for action phase a coherent and meaningful framework for data collection. If a coherent data collection framework is developed, this also leads to the need for a coherent data analysis/interpretation framework from which reflection and evaluation has more critical meaning and offers more well-founded insights for future work.

This alternative way of understanding action research makes the need for a deeper and more critical approach much more explicit. But the essential feature for me is the need for a greater amount of time. It is reflective throughout, critical and considered. It makes explicit the need for a data collection framework which extends well beyond ‘reflecting on practice’, and a proper consideration of data interrogation. This model of action research is a slower process; in recently submitted projects as part of a PGCert in action research, students only completed one or two cycles of action research over the course of an academic year. However, the insights they gained were based explicitly in the data they had collected, and also recognised the contextual and nuanced messages their research could offer. By making the complexity of action research more explicit, and by repositioning it as a slower, data-based process the insights we gain may actually lead to more rapid and meaningful change and innovation.

References

Townsend, A., 2010. Action Research. In: Hartas, D, ed., Educational Research and Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Continuum. 131-145.

Also, read the following as a great introduction to action research:

Townsend, A, 2013. Action research: the challenges of understanding and changing practice Maidenhead : Open University Press.

What do we mean by pedagogy? (Part 2) Conceptualising assessment.

As outlined in part one of this strand of posts, I argue that we should see pedagogy as an overarching concept which positions teaching, curriculum, learning and assessment as interpenetrating systems which create a complex whole, making little sense when treated separately. Here, I want to consider how assessment might relate to other elements of pedagogy in master’s level study, particularly in education courses.

The explicit link between learning and assessment has become an increasingly accepted element of pedagogy at HE level, there is even a journal given over to the role of assessment at this level. Assessment, related to both teaching and learning, should begin at the start of a module, using diagnostic assessment to gauge and understand the complexities of prior learning within a group of students. How this is achieved is not the focus of this post, although there are a number of ways in which it can be developed. The diagnosis of prior learning is crucial as the insights gained should feed into both curriculum and teaching development, particularly challenging when working with widely diverse groups of students. By doing this, pedagogy becomes to a degree emergent, developing in response to student need rather than as prescribed by tutor assumption and preference.

Beyond initial diagnostic assessment is formative assessment, a vehicle for helping students take forward their learning, particularly through the use of targeted and well considered feedback/feed forward. The use of formative assessment is well embedded in higher educational practices, but can it be taken further? Dann (2002), working in the primary education phase, takes a view that formative assessment does not go far enough in redefining the link between learning and assessment. She argues that assessment should be fully embedded within learning, describing this as Assessent AS Learning. She sees this as a natural development of formative assessment, consisting of:

– assessment whilst teaching, leading to the directing and modification of that teaching;

– assessment by teaching, derived from an interpretation of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, where once the task has been set, the teacher gauges the amount and type of help required to ensure success and modifies teaching to give the greatest chance of this occurring.

This outline begins to blur the boundary between what counts as teaching and what counts as assessment. Indeed, this view of assessment in many ways suggests that the main focus is actually the process of teaching as informal and minute-to-minute reflection and assessment to inform the emergent direction and structure of the session itself. Hence, the interface between assessment and learning becomes dynamic, complex and collaborative; student involvement in assessment becomes a feature of learning.

The suggestion from the outline above is that there should be a clear synergy between teaching, the conceptualisation of learning and feedback discourses. The table below is a synthesis of the discussion developed by Askew and Lodge (2000) which links the role and approach of the teacher, the associated conceptualisation of learning, and the resultant tone for feedback discourse. To develop a feedback system where feedback is more informal (most of the time), and becomes an embedded element of learning, where a constant dialogue takes place to aid development and progress that is dialogic and iterative, a movement towards the Co-constructive end of the spectrum is a natural trend. In contrast, at the Receptive-transmission end of the spectrum, it can become necessary for staged, written input to make the ‘gift’ of tutor knowledge worthwhile and this may translate to a seminar room dynamic where grades begin to play a major role in feedback with little associated feed forward; students are told what the correct answers should be, with the degree of success mainly demonstrated through a summative indicator. The Receptive-transmission model can become more closely aligned with students playing only a passive role in extending their own learning.

Masters level study, is in part, characterised by a drive towards increased independence and an ability to play a part in a community of inquiry. Given this intention, a Receptive-transmission approach seems out of place, and with it, more traditional forms of assessment. Instead, a more critical and appropriate approach is one which is co-constructive. But for this to be coherent there needs to be a synergy between teaching, views of learning and feedback/feed forward processes in both diagnostic and formative assessment.

References

Askew, S. and Lodge, C. (2000) ‘Gifts, ping-pong and loops – linking feedback and learning’ in S. Askew (ed.) Feedback for Learning, London: Routledge-Falmer.

Dann, R. (2002) Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process, London: Routledge.

What do we mean by pedagogy? thinking through some conceptual frameworks. (Part 1)

‘Pedagogy: the methods and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.’

Over the past year I’ve been involved in a research project developing masters level research methods provision with a colleague in the School of Education. Almost by default we started to refer to what we have been researching and evolving as ‘research methods pedagogies’. Informally, this became a convenient way to refer to our work. This week we ran a one day workshop, trying to open up a space-time for interested staff to reflect on their own approach to research methods and consider how they might take their own practice forward.

Towards the end of the day we asked the group to reflect on some of the ideas we had been discussing. One question we offered for consideration was ‘Is there a separate research methods pedagogy?’. This led to a lot of discussion and exposed some of the complexities concerning what we might mean by pedagogy, and how it, as a concept, fits within wider educational discussion. Following the definition at the start of this post, if pedagogy is specifically the method and practice of teaching it might be agreed that it is a generally generic activity; the context or content of the teaching might change, be it research methods, leadership, policy or inclusion but the underlying pedagogic approach remains overwhelmingly unchanged. This may characterise pedagogy as the consequence of a set of universal principles, such as the utilisation of a set of cognitive principles, e.g. working memory, etc. This opens up the potential for a reductive philosophy based on the principle that we can find the ‘most efficient process/pattern’ for embedding information and knowledge into students which apply for all aspects and contexts in teaching. From this position the idea of a ‘research methods pedagogy’ is highly problematic as it is not a unique approach which is being taken as the pedagogy is probably similar, if not identical, to any other pedagogic context taken by any individual teacher or teachers. Any difference which does occur is due to other elements of a module such as assessment or curriculum; the pedagogy is a constant.

A slightly different argument is that of Shulman’s (2005) ‘signature pedagogies’. Here, there might be commonalities between clusters of disciplines, but at the same time disciplines have particular teaching approaches which are distinct to them and which are responsible in part for the development of habits of mind within each discipline. This sees pedagogy as a hybrid, part particular to a field, part more generic. But where does research methods pedagogy fit within this scheme? Is it a generic pedagogy, similar across clusters of disciplines, or are research methods frameworks actually particular to disciplines? Does it matter? In reply to the first question, does the fact that education is an interdisciplinary field as opposed to a discipline have an impact on how we define and understand research methods pedagogy?

So pedagogy can be seen as a process focused wholly on the act of teaching, underpinned by a series of ‘universals’ relating to learning, or it can be seen as at least partially contextual at the disciplinary level. However, there is another wholly different perspective we can develop. If we go back to the initial definition of pedagogy as the method and practice of teaching, what is the true utility of such a statement if restricted by the statement? If the idea of pedagogy as teaching method is seen in isolation, taken in the context of a masters module on research methods, it becomes ultimately meaningless. If teaching is seen as a system, composed of a series of elements and relationships it can only become useful when considered as interpenetrating with other systems. Cilliers (2001: 143) states that:

‘The cross-communications between hierarchies are not accidental, but part of the adaptability of the system.’

If pedagogy is synonymous with teaching, what are the systems into which it interpenetrates? Teaching is senseless without interpenetration to learning, curriculum and assessment. These are the main systems which together go to make up the seminar-centred process of helping students to gain new conceptual understanding, knowledge and skills. And in each case, they are themselves complex systems rather than unitary features. But if we see these systems as interpenetrating and accept that they need to be treated as such, what is the overarching term for their interplay? One doesn’t exist, but I suggest that we could use the term ‘pedagogy’ as a way of identifying this interpenetrating series of systems, i.e. pedagogy as composed of:

However, in turn, none of these systems make sense without the agency and expertise of teachers and students who make sense of the interpenetration of the systems. Hence, pedagogy might be shown diagrammatically as:

Pedagogy can be defined as the interpenetration of curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment whose contextual emergence depends on the agency of teachers and students. This then suggests that a research methods pedagogy does exist but also that any notion even of signature pedagogies at the disciplinary level are too ‘coarse-grained’ and generic if trying to understand practice and its change. Instead, characteristics, concepts and perspectives relating to each of the systems, such as curriculum design, aims, etc, the cognitive dimensions of learning, or the formative process in assessment all exist at a general level. But the character and process of interpenetration which emerges in time-space due to the agency of teachers and students leads to many and varied pedagogies which are at the same time based upon more general principles and concepts, leading to contingent and emergent pedagogic approaches. In a future post I’ll discuss how such a perspective on pedagogy might help in researching and gaining some understanding of it.

References

Cilliers, P. (2001) ‘Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems.’ International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2), 135-147.

Shulman, L.S. (2005) ‘Signature pedagogies in the professions.’ Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

Participatory Lesson Study – Making the capture of data in Lesson Study more explicit

Whilst Learning Study makes explicit use of variation theory (Cheng and Lo, n.d.) as a basis for analysing and understanding the process of learning, Lesson Study can be vague in establishing a link between learning and methods of analysis. Cerbin and Kopp (2006) use an approach called ‘cognitive empathy’ by developing approaches to teaching in the research seminar which make student thinking ‘visible’, in part by attempting to plan from a student perspective. Lewis (2002) considers the need to watch eyes and faces, and capturing discussion between students. Whilst both of these approaches are important and positive, in neither case will they capture the complexity of the learning process which students experience.

In attempting to base data collection on a more critical foundation regarding the learning process, we have considered the work of Nuthall (2003) and Illeris (2007). Nuthall (2007:158) emphasises the complex process of learning and its relation to teaching,

‘…how students learn from classroom activities is not simply a result of teacher-managed activities, but also the result of students’ ongoing relationships with other students and of their own self-created activities or use of resources.’

This means that a series of levels interact to make each student’s learning highly individualised:

1. A visible layer which is that which is public and teacher-led
2. A semi-visible layer which is the student-led culture, relationships and interaction
3. An invisible layer which is that of the mental processes such as prior learning and working memory which is central to individual sense making.

This last layer is not visible and therefore we need to seriously consider our definition of learning as a starting point for developing a meaningful and critical set of methods for data collection.

Here, we have used the learning theory of Illeris (2007) as a basis for our understanding and capture of the learning process experienced by students. He characterises learning as being the amalgamation of a cognitive dimension which is concerned with content and individual cognitive processes, an emotional dimension which includes elements such as motivation, emotion and a will to learn, what Illeris (2007, 24) terms the ‘… mental energy.. needed to carry out a learning process’, and a social dimension which focuses on interaction between the learner and their social and material environment. This means that data capture based on approaches such as observation are still important as they are essential for gaining insight into the social aspects of learning. However, observation of individuals and their behaviours is not able to search inside the individual to gain insights into their cognitive (and often emotional) processes. The result of taking this stance is that we must say explicitly that any capture and analysis of the learning process will always be incomplete; to complete research on teaching and learning is always to work with the partial, the incomplete. Whilst we feel that this approach is appropriate, we believe there needs to be greater explicit discussion within the lesson study research community concerning the processes of learning which inform our understandings of this central issue.

Our alignment with Illeris’ (2007) theory of learning has direct implications for the methods used to gain insights into the process of learning, and also underpins our desire to develop participative approaches. As shown in Figure 3

The inclusion of student focus groups is seen as helping the lecturers gain an explicit understanding of student prior learning and also which elements in their learning they believe are important for them to take further at a given point in time. The stimulated recall interviews, using artefacts from research seminars as a basis for discussion begin to give insight into the ‘invisible’ worlds (Nuthall, 2007) of students as they engage with the teaching and learning in the research seminar as well as offering extra insights through student afterthoughts. Any discussion which occurs will obviously be incomplete as not all elements of the learning experience will be recounted or remembered and some of the experience may well have been subconscious, or will only be made sense of more fully over time. However, to gain direct testimony from students, particularly when triangulated against research seminar artefacts is an important addition to analysis. These interviews also give the potential to consider the emotional dimension of the learning process, as our experience of this approach to interviewing makes explicit the affective reactions of students to their learning. Meetings, focus groups and interviews are all recorded and sent for transcribing. Transcriptions are then considered thematically to begin to analyse and understand the main insights which a project uncovers.

Other methods used to capture the social dimension of learning include the use of video and audio recording as well as observation itself. We stress that this is a process of augmenting data capture rather than the loss of one approach to be replaced by another.

References

Cerbin and Kopp (2006) ‘Lesson Study as a Model for Building Pedagogical Knowledge and Improving Teaching.’ International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 18(3), 250-257.

Cheng, E.C.K. & Lo, M.L. (n.d.) The Approach of Learning Study: Its origin and implications.

Illeris, K. (2007) How We Learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher Led Instructional Change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Nuthall, G. (2007) The Hidden Lives of Learners. Wellington: NZCER Press.