Mind the gap

I was invited to do a Google Hangout video interview ahead of the Reform Symposium online event last week. I was interviewed by Shelly Terrell about my work, my teaching philosophy, and yes... the new book I'm currently writing.

Minding the gap was one of my key messages in the interview. The sign stencilled onto the platforms in London's underground stations warns of the gap between the edge and the train. My view is that there is also a gap - a perceptual gulf - between what teachers intend and what students expect. It's a form of transactional distance. It takes a number of forms, including language use, acceptable behaviour, approaches to learning, power structures and the inevitable age differential, but the most visible gap is around the perception of how technology can be used in the classroom. Many teachers and students simply don't agree.

I expressed my view in the interview that teachers firstly need to know and acknowledge that this gap exists. Secondly, they need to be aware of the dangers of the gap. And thirdly, they need to be willing to step across the gap, and cross over into a territory to reach out to learners. This is the terrain where students are allowed to use their own devices, and where technology becomes mundane, embedded and virtually invisible in education. Teachers can no longer afford to see technology as 'special' - students certainly don't. Once the spotlight is off the technology, and on to pedagogy, we will realise that learning can be supported in any number of ways. This is not capitulation, it's common sense. So teachers, please mind the gap between your own intentions and your students' expectations, and be prepared to cross over.

Here's the link to the video.

Photo by Juergen Rosskamp on Wikimedia Commons



Mind the gap by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

From novice to expert

This is number 24 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. The last post highlighted issues around the andragogy theory of Malcolm Knowles. In this post, we review the situated learning theory of Jean Lave. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

Jean Lave's situated learning theory can be located within the social constructivist school of thought. Lave's argument is that most traditional classroom learning is based on abstract knowledge that can be difficult to apply within meaningful contexts. This is ineffective, she suggests, and offers an alternative where the abstract is removed and learning is grounded in an authentic context or 'situated'. She sees this as authentic learning because it occurs within environments or contexts where the learning can realistically applied.

Lave sees the social context of this kind of situated learning as vitally important, because novice learners can be closely supported by experts, and their behaviour and knowledge can be scaffolded by more experienced members of their learning community. As novices become more knowledgeable and begin to apply their knowledge in authentic situations, so they become more confident of their membership and place in the learning community, and they begin to move from the periphery to the core of the group.

How it can be applied in education

This theory relies heavily on social contexts, and shows that learning rarely occurs within a social vacuum. The notion of legitimate peripheral participation could be easily applied to online learning. Where some might see lurking (being present but not directly contributing to discussions or online activities) as a form of social loafing or lack of engagement in the learning community, Lave argues that it is legitimate and can lead to fuller participation once knowledge and confidence has been gained. The role of stronger, or more knowledgeable learners within a learning community (e.g. a student cohort) can be extended by encouraging them to scaffold weaker, or less expert learners, to encourage and lead, in a kind of cognitive apprenticeship.

Subsequent work on the theory has revealed that cognitive tools (learning with, rather than through technology) can be applied to amplify the 'situatedness' of learning, by providing active, engaging contexts. ICTs should also be embedded authentically within and across the curriculum, rather than be used as an isolated, 'special' set of tools.

Reference

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy

Photo by Thomas Hawk on Fotopedia



From novice to expert by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Strictly for adults?

This is number 23 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. The last post featured David Kolb and his cyclical model of experiential learning. In this post, we review the andragogy theory of Malcolm Knowles. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

Andragogy is a well known theory of learning for those working in further and higher education, because it focuses on the supposed differences between adults' and children's learning. When Malcolm Knowles first proposed his model, he argued that the greater experience of adults makes a difference, and that problem centred learning dominates adult learning, when compared to the content centred learning of school age children. Other distinctions are also offered between adult and child learning, including the need for relevance due to adults being employed, and involvement of adult learners in the planning of their own education. Essentially, adult learning is different to children's learning, because it is largely self directed and self-regulated. Adults have skills children are still developing, so the approach should be different, says Knowles.

How it can be applied in education

A few years ago I wrote a critique of the theory of andragogy which can be read at this link. The essence of my argument was that there are fewer differences between adult and child learning than we have been led to believe. Although Knowles tries valiantly to delineate some important distinctions between the strategies and approaches of children and adults, the distinctions he makes are either meaningless or poorly defined.

Clearly, andragogy is a theory that is best located in the adult education sector. It can enable teachers in this sector to plan and implement programmes of study that lock into the needs and cultures of adults. However, some of the principles of andragogy arguably have just as much relevance in the compulsory education sector. Children can be, and often are, involved in the planning of their own learning. In fact, involving children in planning programmes of study will probably help them to learn more than if they were passive recipients of content. One thing we might concede is that many children are not able to direct their own learning, and need some firm scaffolding to enable them to focus. However, many are also able to regulate their own learning, especially if they are inspired and motivated by the subject. Furthermore, many adult learners I have encountered are less able to direct their own learning than Knowles would have us believe.

It is a nonsense to suggest that andragogy is exclusively concerned with relevance of learning because of the needs of adults to focus on their work and careers. Clearly, children also need relevance in their learning, because, although they don't necessarily have jobs, learning that is not relevant is simply a waste of time. And how can you measure relevance? Is learning for adults only relevant if it relates directly to their employment. Of course not. My argument is that learning is learning - and that we should not distinguish between adult and child in this respect. Many of the pedagogical models and theories I have featured in this series (see list of links below) are equally relevant to adults' and children's learning.

Take one of the key tenets of andragogy - problem based learning. If teachers conduct children's education by providing them with learning experiences that are problem based, oriented toward challenge and in which they are actively involved, they will inspire their students to become lifelong learners. If we ignore this, we are missing a huge opportunity.

Reference

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., and Swanson, R. A. (2005) The Adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.), Burlington, MA: Elsevier

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle

Photo by Norwood Adult Services on Wikimedia Commons



Strictly for adults? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Try it and see

This is number 22 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my last post I wrote about Gestalt theorist Wolfang Köhler and his studies into insight and intuition. In this post, we will explore the work of David Kolb on experiential learning. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

American psychologist David Kolb is best known for his work on learning styles and in particular for his cyclical model of learning. The various learning styles theories have been heavily criticised in recent years as we have discovered more about how we learn - so Kolb's contribution in that area does not feature in this post.

What will be discussed is Kolb's best work around the concept of experiential learning, where he identified the components of learning through sensory experiences. Kolb's model is typically depicted as a cyclic process involving four stages of thinking. These are:

1. Concrete experience: This can be either a completely new experience or an experience that has been previously encountered.
2. Reflective observation: Thinking back on the experience and determining whether there is any discrepancy between the experience and one's knowledge/understanding.
3. Abstract Conceptualisation: Reflecting on the experience may give rise to new ways of thinking, or changing of existing though patterns.
4. Active experimentation: Application of new things/skills/knowledge one has learnt through the experience.

A key problem of this model is that it is sequential, the cycle flows in only one direction and is therefore prescriptive. What should be noted is the criticism that has centred on the nature of this flow. Can a learner for example have an experience and then reflect on it before going back and repeating the experience having avoided any conceptualisation or experimentation for example? What is to stop an individual from experimenting and then conceptualising before reflecting (a reverse of the cyclical process). A side issue (one alluded to earlier on in this post) is that many now believe Kolb made an error in deriving four distinct learning styles from these thinking activities. Whether of not such 'learning styles' actually exist is one question, but assigning students to one or two predominant styles of thinking on the basis of a tick box test is a serious error, particularly when we are equally capable of all four.

How it could be applied in education

Teachers should be aware of the power of experiential learning. Doing is far more powerful than simply listening or watching. The ability to reflect on an experience loses its power if no direct experience has occurred. Students should be given the chance to 'get their hands dirty' through direct involvement with their subjects, including time to think, reflect, experiment and observe the results of their ideas in action. Teachers should avoid rigid structures which constrain thinking and limit experimentation. There should be no set sequence of discovery, and learners should be free to ask not only 'how and why?', but also the 'what if?' and 'why not?' questions. They should also be free to go off and answer these questions themselves through active experimentation.  What learners can do with their new knowledge is potentially limitless - how can they apply their learning in new contexts or unusual situations? Ultimately, self-driven learning which encompasses all of the components identified by Kolb, seems to be the most effective for deeper, more reflective learning.

Reference

Kolb D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning

Photo by Steve Ford Elliott on Wikimedia Commons



Try it and see by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Lightbulb moments

We reach number 21 in this series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my last post I featured Gestalt theory - and the work of Kurt Koffka. In this post, we will explore another Gestalt theorist, Wolfang Köhler and his studies into insight and intuition. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

During the First World War German psychologist Wolfang Köhler spent time researching the behaviour of chimpanzees in the Canary Islands, and made some interesting claims about learning. He observed how apes, when presented with problems, would solve them through means which they could not have learnt previously. For example, their ability to use sticks to reach bananas that were beyond their normal reach, or the use of boxes to reach bananas that were out of reach in the roof of their cages led Köhler to conclude that some kind of insightful thinking was present. Köhler also noticed that there was a period of time between being presented with the problem to finding the solution. This thinking time led to a lightbulb moment when the ape suddenly realised the solution to the problem. British psychologist Graham Wallas called this thinking time the incubation phase - time needed before arrival at a creative solution, which is the illumination phase of thinking. Interestingly, the incubation period is not always identified with conscious thinking but is more often unconscious processing of the problem.

How it can be applied in education

Teachers should try to ensure that students are given enough thinking time. Time should be allocated in lessons so they can process problems before they arrive at their own solutions, instead of just being given the answers. Sadly, a large amount of schooling has been directive and didactic. This needs to change. It is what Ivan Illich once called these educational funnels, where there is little room for them to manoeuvre and little time to reflect. Giving students time to figure things out for themselves without being instructed, is very powerful learning. They will remember it for the rest of their lives. This is exemplified in some of the best flipped learning practices, but unfortunately these are rare. Students need that kind of lightbulb learning - thaqt Eureka! moment when they suddenly realise something new for the first time. Often teaching schedules don't have enough time programmed in for students to explore, incubate and then illuminate their learning.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory

Photo by Alan Cleaver



Lightbulb moments by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Joining the dots

This is number 20 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my last post I featured the work of Marie Jahoda on ideal mental health. In this post, we will explore the Gestalt theory of Kurt Koffka. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

German born psychologist Kurt Koffka is credited with his colleagues Max Wertheimer and Wolfgang Kohler for introducing a theory known as Gestalt psychology. Gestalt is German for pattern or shape, and provides a useful explanation for visual perception. The key principle of Gestalt is that the mind organises a 'global whole' of what the eyes see. Gestaltists believe that the human brain is capable of perceiving whole forms even though only partial component parts may have been seen. The phrase 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' is particularly apt in terms of Gestalt principles, although Koffka's original phrase was 'the whole is other than the sum of the parts'. The Gestalt laws of perception are innate, according to Koffka, and introduce an organisation component into the old behaviourist stimulus response links so that S-R becomes S-O-R. There are many examples to illustrate the several laws of Gestalt perception. The law of continuity for example, can be seen when people view rows of spots, and connect them into a line in their minds. Central to this process is the law of Prägnanz which suggests that each of us is seeking order from chaos and meaning from ambiguity.

How it can be applied in education

Teachers can capitalise on some of the key principles of Gestalt to enhance and enrich the learning experience. Students will have an innate need to make sense of what they see or hear, so teachers could provide them with puzzles, challenges and problems to solve that require them to 'close' or make sense of. Joining the dots or filling in the gaps are strategies teachers can use to test understanding, but they can be more powerful methods when used to encourage students to study deeper.

One example would be ill-structured problems, which have several possible solutions. Ill structured problems are deliberately poorly defined. The solution the student chooses to solve the problem must be justified, which requires them to consider other possible solutions before making their decision. Ill-structured problems have been used in a number of educational contexts to promote deeper thinking, critical analysis and the development of more divergent problem solving skills.

Further reading 

Carlson, N. R. and Heth, C. D. (2010) Psychology: the Science of Behaviour. Ontario, CA: Pearson Education Canada.
Koffka, K. (2013 - first published in 1935) Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health

Photo by Clemens Koppensteiner



Joining the dots by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Behave yourself

This is number 19 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my last post I featured the work of Carl Jung and his theories of synchronicity and archetypes. In this post, we will explore the work of Marie Jahoda on ideal mental health. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

What is normal? We all have opinions on this, and these are usually based upon our own unique and subjective experiences. When students behave badly during lessons, everyone is affected. Behavioural management can take up more time in some lessons than teaching. Normal behaviour (read 'acceptable') is therefore something all educators have a vested interest in, and the causes of bad behaviour have become the focus of a great deal of educational research. Some of the answers come from psychological research. Psychologists such as Marie Jahoda were interested in researching the characteristics of 'normal' human behaviour. Jahoda specifically focused on what became known as ideal mental health. She proposed 6 characteristics of normal behaviour:

• Efficient self perception
• Realistic self esteem and acceptance
• True perception of the world
• Self direction and productivity
• Voluntary control of behaviour
• Sustaining relationships and giving affection

How it can be applied in education

The above listed characteristics seem intuitive, but teachers need to be aware of them and their effects on learning. Children need to feel that they belong and are accepted. Teachers should be vigilant to the possibilities that some children may feel as though they are on the periphery of the group and that they don't feel welcome. This may be because of other children's behaviour, but it may also be because the child has a negative self perception or a lack self esteem. Much can be done to improve this, including teachers encouraging children to integrate into the group, meet incremental challenges, succeed and gradually build on their own self-worth. Children naturally and actively seek out friendship, and are happier when engaged in a circle of relationships with other of their own age group. Teachers should be aware of this, and the negative as well as positive aspects of relationships, and their effects on self-esteem. Often simple solutions such as the configuration of tables and chairs in the classroom can optimise good behaviour, promote useful collaborative learning relationships and largely eliminate the marginalisation of individuals.  

Self direction can also be encouraged through the inclusion of student centred approaches to education where children take more responsibility for their own learning. There are more tools and technologies available to teachers than there have ever been, which if used appropriately can promote children's productivity. Learning through making and building is becoming an important component of active learning, and children naturally want to create their own content, whether it is drawings, models and paintings, or blogs and videos.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity

Photo from Wikimedia Commons



Behave yourself by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.