Is the VLE dead?

Watching the Alt-C discussion on the #VLE yesterday was interesting apart from the sound going down partway into the session. The copy of the video was useful.
In a way it seemed like a load of bunting and frolics, but the serious points are about the nature of learning and where and how it is / can be delivered. I suspect that there is still a confusion between teaching and learning, at least in the institution’s mind. In many cases the ability of a VLE to deliver ‘attendance statistics’ helps to support funding requirements.
The whole question of whether we need institutions given the availability of the web, and the ability of systems to provide content to learners, is a long and complex discussion. This then links into credentialism, and why we need qualifications at all.
Graham Attwell’s points about the VLE delivering informal learning are valid and important, but I wonder if asking a VLE to span HE, workbased and ACL is the right choice; people are at different stages, and a VLE is a one-size-fits-all approach.
Certainly in Wales, the ability to get a decent signal over broadband in a remote location is an important issue. But I made that comment 10 years ago, and we are only a little further down the road to having fast broadband at present.
Given the range of social networking software available, and several sites to mimic Facebook (grou.ps, Ning, Wetpaint etc), there is no reason that we can’t create a safe, secure environment for learners … But wait a minute. The web isn’t safe and maybe people need to learn how to walk the streets and understand the pitfalls. It’s all a bit parent-child sometimes.
The serious aspect of things is the separation between work and home. The VLE is my teaching space; outside of work I see my friends somewhere else. As a student online, if I want to meet socially, then that crosses into my personal space. I also need to have my teaching materials organised a a coherent way. But that is how I learned how to learn. Given my Swiss ancestry, the structural cuckoo clock ticking inside me (alongside a piece of slate) imposes rules I have difficulty breaking.
However. Do we truly understand the pedagogy of learning and teaching, and have we created a tool to support learning, or are we trying to get learning to fit into a box called a VLE?

Out with the old …

The students came back on Monday to find that the old construction area (paint shops, plastering and bricklaying areas) were being demolished.
The man driving the crane was clearly an expert as he was moving bits of scrap around with a fineness of technique that was awesome to watch.
As the buildings came down, someone asked if R had been seen since Friday? There was a rumour that he was still at his bench. Then it was suggested that he was tied to his bench. Then it was rumoured that someone had found two members of staff locked in a cupboard. Boys, boys. They will have their jokes.
What is more interesting is that construction has moved behind performing arts, and these diverse groups will be sharing the same canteen. Punk meets Artisan meets Artist. Going to be interesting to watch!
But seriously. As the workshops came down, the constructive and creative effort of a generation of craftsmen and women collapsed to dust and big recycle trucks. Sad, maybe. But the old has to give way to the new eventually.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Input, Output or Process?

Well, another year about to start and I’m overwhelmed with the usual raft of admin that always stops me focussing on the preparation of the year’s content. But Hey! Get ‘em in, and get ‘em out. My God how the money rolls in.

That’s the problem really. How do we ‘get ‘em in’? The whole problem of registering students twice (once for the HEI and once for us) is problematic. Payment, registration, gate keeper to check forms (twice), regulations, and find a way to stop people getting bored. The last few years have resembled a bit of a party. The whole admin process has been wrapped up in ice-breakers, coffee, meaningful talks. As a result of this, several students managed to avoid paying their bills for several months resulting in me loosing three days fighting with the bean counters over who should pay what and when, and to whom.

And all this with a member of staff down (and no – we don’t have any admin staff).

So this year, and against all odds (sniping from the back row) we have agreed to just do the paperwork on day one and save the pantomime and frolics for the following week.

Will it work out better? Will the customers be less frustrated? Wait and see …

… there goes another sacred cow …

I’ve added this as it seems to come around every year as I read through research proposals. The link to Chiesa & Hobbs’ work is at the bottom:

Is it time to ditch the Hawthorne Effect?

While use of the term ‘Hawthorne Effect’ is thriving in journals and textbooks, its meaning is so vague as to be unhelpful. That’s according to Mecca Chiesa and Sandy Hobbs, who begin their argument by identifying the first use of the term. This was by John French in 1953, as he described experiments on the productivity of factory workers at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company, Chicago, between 1927-1933.

“From a methodological point of view,” French wrote, “the most interesting finding was what we might call the ‘Hawthorne Effect’….it was the ‘artificial’ social aspects of the experimental conditions set up for measurement which produced the increases in group productivity.”

In other words, certain changes were put in place by the factory to increase productivity, but it turned out the benefit to productivity came not from the deliberate changes, but rather from the mere attention of the people investigating.

At least, that is one interpretation of what the Hawthorne effect is. The trouble, Chiesa and Hobbs allege, is that journal articles and book authors all vary in their use of the term. Whereas I mentioned the causal role of the investigators’ attention, other accounts refer variously to the “presence of an observer”, the setting up of a “warm climate”, “concern” or “friendly supervision”.

There is similar variation in how the Hawthorne effect is supposed to exert its influence. By some accounts, the effect is unconscious, whereas others refer to “feelings of pride”, a “sense of participation” or to “job satisfaction”.

The looseness of the term hasn’t been helped by the fact that its use has spread from industrial psychology to educational and developmental psychology, and even to medicine where it is sometimes confused with the placebo effect.

What’s worse, Chiesa and Hobbs add, when people refer to the Hawthorne Effect, they seldom mention the fact that the original Hawthorne experiments were actually severely flawed. Two of the five participants were replaced mid-study (one of them having allegedly “gone Bolshevik”), so any observed alteration in productivity could have come from a change of personnel.

Given its “multiple, contradictory, and imprecise” meanings, Chiesa and Hobbs conclude that the concept of a “Hawthorne Effect” adds nothing to our understanding of the problems faced when conducting empirical research with human participants, and may actually be a hindrance.

 Chiesa, M., Hobbs, S. (2008). Making sense of social research: how useful is the Hawthorne Effect?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 67-74.

Something from Brixton … and Delhi !!

I’ve just spent the day with one of Greenwich University’s tutors (Priti Chopra) who works between London and Delhi, and we got to talking about education, ethnicity, bilingualism and the impact of gender, class and status on learning. I think the passengers on the tube were impressed as well. Almost surreal to be talking about bilingualism on the tube.
I got to go back to Brixton and to Lambeth College and saw a wonderful ESOL lesson with a great ethnically diverse group of students – full of mischief! Nice to walk through Brixton without the fear I used to have when I lived there – a much brighter and energetic place than it was in the 1980s.

For those interested, the reading links can be found here: http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/staff/martin_jones_marilyn.shtml

Can e-Portfolios support professional and collaborative practice?

Download a copy of the report here

E-portfolios – the final chapter

Well, the ESCalate ITE conference was as close to getting stressed as I’ve been for a while. The night before as I was finishing the presentation (Using OpenOffice Impress) the network argued with something and locked the presentation down.  I didn’t realise this until I was about 90 minutes to go as I couldn’t open the presentation which was there, but wasn’t. Yes, I know I sound like a student – but instead of going into victim mode I sorted it by starting afresh. As I’m getting the workshop ready someone walked past me and I looked up to see Julie Hughes – the PebblePad champion from Wolverhampton. Despite my pleading she wouldn’t go away, and I knew there was no way to bluff my way out of this one.

In the end, it was a really useful session, but interesting to see how many people demonstrate e-portfolios, use and share resources, and what system they prefer.

You can download a copy from here: http://yrathro.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/epf2009_findings_all.pdf

ESCalate ITE Conference Friday 15 May 2009

OMG – three days to go …

For some foolish reason I thought of having a go at getting a conference paper accepted.  At the time this was based on the premise that there wasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of getting anything accepted. There was probably some element of bravado associated with an over-indulgence of Vin Coch. However the bluffer was outbluffed and my proposal to provide a workshop was accepted. At this stage the project was still ongoing, there was some nervousness about whether anything would actually happen. Smoke and mirrors was one way of looking at it.

Anyhow. The paper is written, the poster designed and waiting for me at Bangor, and I’m trying to provide a creative workshop. Maybe I could use TwitterCamp to get audience feedback.

Assuming I get an audience that is….

Using Learning Styles in the classroom; Sound teaching or psycho-babble?

“We must move. . . towards creating an appropriate learning environment; concentrate on understanding better how people learn so that they can be better helped to learn . . . redesigning the very processes of learning, assessment and organisation so as to fit the objectives and learning styles of the students” (Tomlinson 1996;4).

It is not presently known to what extent learning styles inventories are used by staff across our College. The author has used the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Entwistle’s ASSIST, Marton and Säljö’s Deep and Surface Learning and McCarthy’s 4MAT system as well as several other lateralised brain dominance models such as VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in management and teacher education courses over the last ten years. The most common models probably found in the college are Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences, with some lesser use of Myers-Briggs (management courses), Entwistle, and Marton and Säljö (teacher education). Many of the inventories originally designed in the United States tend towards a physiological framework based on brain lateralisation and dominance; UK designed frameworks tend towards a psychological structure based on cognitive choices.

Research into Learning Styles
Coffield et al (2004a, 2004b) undertook a thorough and systematic approach of the literature and models associated with learning styles, and found 71 models, of which 13 could be classed as major styles. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 44 (Coffield et al 2004; 139). Coffield et al’s work was critical of the models found and explored the lack of engagement of researchers with theories other than their own, and the large commercial industry that had grown up around particular inventories. There was also criticism of the application of inventories.

“Many teachers use the most well-known instruments with explicit acknowledgement of the source and a clear idea of why they have chosen a particular model. However, it is also common, particularly on in-service training, management or professional development courses, for participants to analyse their learning styles using an unnamed questionnaire with no accompanying explanation or rationale. In many ways, the use of different inventories of learning styles has acquired an unexamined life of its own, where the notion of learning styles itself and the various means to measure it are accepted without question. Mainstream use has too often become separated from the research field. More problematically, it has also become isolated from deeper questions about whether a particular inventory has a sufficient theoretical basis to warrant either the research industry which has grown around it, or the pedagogical uses to which it is currently put.” (Coffield, 2004b; 2).

Coffield et al were also critical of the use of the various instruments. In many cases the tests were being administered uncritically and in isolation, and in ignorance of their original purpose. In some cases the tests were being used for psychometric profiling, yet the original research indicated that this was not how they should be used. Most of the tests were based on simple self-report questions which relied on the respondent’s ability to categorise their own behaviour accurately and objectively, and to give objective yet socially acceptable responses. Amongst Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) findings is the important statement “we therefore advise against pedagogical interventions based solely on any of the learning styles instruments” (my emphasis). The statistical analysis of the test results, based on possible unreliable test questions also raised questions over any validity of the test results.

Research studies presented at the Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference (Cardiff 2-3 July 2007) described peer-reviewed and statistically valid research into brain activity using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanning technology (Geake, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2007). This showed that the concept of left-right brain activity was a myth as from the images and tests conducted, it could be seen that most of the brain is involved during learning activities. Although some centres of the brain are more active than others during certain processes, there is no brain lateralisation occurring depending on the teaching or learning activity being undertaken, and neural connections occur across the whole of the brain. Other work being conducted at Swansea University using electro-encephalograms (EEG) supports these findings.

Following the author’s return from the Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, he was given an unsourced summary document titled ‘Recommendations for institutions inspected (published reports only – 4)’ . Key question 2, point 3 indicated that tutors should ‘use the information on learners’ preferred learning styles to set more differentiated tasks in lessons’. This clearly goes against Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) advice and also against earlier research from Curry (1987; 17 in Coffield et.al, 2004b, 153) who stated that;

“The poor general quality of available instruments (makes it) unwise to use any one instrument as a true indicator of learning styles … using only one measure assumes [that] that measure is more correct than the others. At this time (1987) the evidence cannot support that assumption.” (my emphasis)

A brief Google search on “Estyn + VAK” discovered a report to Conwy Learning and Creativity Scrutiny Committee (James, 2007) that gives an indication of the possible misuse of a learning style assessment. The background paper suggests that;
“All Conwy schools are addressing the gender issue with regard to the performance of the boys by implementing elements of the following strategies:
Recognition of each pupil’s VAK (Visual and Kinaesthetic) style and that boys respond better to kinaesthetic learning styles.” (James, 2007; 7)”
It could be suggested that this assessment is perpetuating gender stereotyping by supporting the myth that ‘boys are better with their hands’. The only thing that the psychologists agree about is that a primate’s brain tends more towards visual activity. Another example from the Further Education sector is the assertion by another college’s training manager that ‘taking their staff through the Herrmann Brain Dominance Training will get the quality of learning and teaching from Good to Outstanding’ (Witheld, 2007).
In Coffield et al’s there is a specific reference to OFSTED and ALI (2004b; 135).
“OFSTED and ALI – although neither inspectorate appears to have an official view on learning styles, reports on particular institutions reveal simplistic assumptions about learning styles as the basis for judgements about ‘good practice’; these assumptions need to be re-assessed in the light of our report.”

Snake Oil or Something Else?
The Teacher Education team at College (and elsewhere) use Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences in the construction of sound frameworks for teaching and learning. VAK and Accelerated Learning frameworks are used in the management of behaviour through providing a wide variety of different teaching methods. Another College is putting great emphasis on HBDI training for staff and students. It is felt that the use of these approaches (and their alleged success) rely more on a varied and balanced repertoire of teaching and learning activities, and the impact of a more motivated teacher than any possible psychological base. It is also possible that a positive feedback loop created through success in the classroom is being associated with the new strategies, and to deny the use of the strategies might demotivate a committed member of staff. For these reasons it is felt that the strategies be continued, but that staff are made aware of their correct use and the limitations of the chosen strategy.

What is concerning, and there is not yet any evidence that this is taking place within our College (although there are indications that it occurs elsewhere), is where learners are tested and then labelled as (ie) ‘Visual’ or ‘Pragmatists’ and then only taught according to their perceived strength.

At this stage, we are trying to make sure that learning styles information is used within the limitations suggested through Coffield’s work. There is also a progress of educating staff as to the limitations of learning styles tests and the possible damage that could be caused through the use or misuse of an unreliable instrument. What is important is to ncourage staff to use a balanced and varied range of teaching activities.

References
Biggs, A., 2000. Promoting Learning Styles Analysis among vocational students. Education and Training, 42, 1, pp16-23
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004a. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say in practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. (84 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041540.aspx)
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004b. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (182 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041543.aspx)
Geake, J., 2007 ‘Neuroscience and Neuromythology’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
Howard-Jones, P., 2007 ‘Education and Neuroscience: approaching collaboration in the UK’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
James, G., 2007 Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee Report, 18th January 2007. Conwy County Borough Council. Downloaded from http://www.conwy.gov.uk/E_MINUTES/e_post2002/e_scrutiny/e_learning/e_reports/010_Schools%20Test%20and%20Exam%20Perf%20Report.pdf 12th July 2007
Tomlinson, J., 1996 Inclusive Learning: The Report of the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Committee, FEFC, Coventry.

(first posted at http://eduspaces.net/trangwales/weblog/471876.html October 9 2008)

Andragogy and Knowles: Another myth?

Very much like the debate about learning styles, the myth of ‘andragogy’ continues to gather legs and has ‘an unexamined life of its own’.

The fact that it still forms part of much of the accepted framework for teacher training in the lifelong-learning sector is concerning, since like the learning styles debate, there is little empirical evidence to support the assumptions that it brings with it. At worst it creates a simplistic labelling of a complex topic, and at best an illustration of a different set of approaches to teaching strategies.

Whilst Knowles is associated with the term andragogy, the first use of the term ‘andragogik’ was used in 1833 by a German grammar school teacher, Alexander Kapp. The term was used in 1921 by German social scientist Eugen Rosenstock, in 1951 by Heinrich Hanselmann (Swiss), in 1954 by Professor ten Have (Netherlands), in 1956 Ogrizovic (Yugoslav) and in 1957 by Franz Poggeler (German). Knowles’ first work was written in 1950 and looked at informal adult education, and it was only after meeting a Yugoslav educator (Savicevic) at a conference in 1967 that Knowles began to use the term. The problem with Knowles’ work is the notion of pedagogy and andragogy as a dichotomy. Knowles defines pedagogy as ‘literally means the art and science of teaching children’ (my emphasis) by breaking the word down into its Greek roots ‘paid’ – child and ‘agogu’ – leader of. (Knowles et al. 1998; 61). Knowles then compounds the problem by defining ‘adults’ using his psychological definition ‘as being when we arrive at a concept of being responsible for our own lives, or being self-directing’ (Knowles et.al., 1998; 64). Knowles leans heavily on education as a model designed for teaching children, who act in a submissive role, and that the ‘pedagogical model is an ideological model that excludes the andragogical assumptions. The andragogical model is a set of assumptions that includes that (sic) pedagogical assumptions’ (Knowles et.al. 1998; 72). Knowles does not appear to know of the work of Vygotsky and others and of the constructivist models of learning.

The current usage of the term ‘pedagogy’ embraces the science of teaching and makes no assumptions about the nature of the person being taught. Loughran (2007; 1) makes no distinction between any group of learners in his discourses on the pedagogy of teacher education, but talks of gaining ‘a deep understanding of practice through researching practice’ (Loughran, 2007). Entwhistle (1981) focuses on learning, rather than teaching, as does Biggs (2003) and Richardson (2000). Marton’s work (in Entwhistle and Tomlinson 2007) ‘Towards a Pedagogical Theory of Learning’, and Vermunt’s work on the influence of teaching and learning environments to influence student learning are far more illustrative, and all focus on the variation theory of learning, more specifically ‘ways of seeing things differently’ which is what all teachers and trainers are trying to do. What lies behind the problems that many of us have is time, funding and the problematic nature of the curriculum that we are forced to deliver.

Whilst Knowles’ work is problematic from the assumptions that he makes (much of his writing is a tautology since he relies too heavily on his previous writings) there is a lack of credible or empirical evidence to support his approach. The appealing nature of his work is that it makes simple a complex set of contradictory frameworks, and many teacher trainers have fallen into the trap of delivering these as a given to another generation of trainee teachers without challenging the assumptions. There is always something appealing about describing our own sector as being ‘different and needing a different approach’, but it would be more useful in looking at the needs of the learner and what it is they have to learn rather than categorising sectors into boxes. Models of teaching and learning are just as appropriate to young people as to adults and to say that children or adults can only be taught in one way is concentrating on teaching, rather than asking ‘how can I help them to learn better?’

References

Biggs, J., (2006) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd EDN) The Society for Research into Higher Education & OU Press, Maidenhead.

Entwhistle, N., & Tomlinson, T., (Eds) (2007) Student learning and university teaching British Journal of Educational Psychology – Monograph series II, British Psycjhological Society, Leicester.

Knowles, M., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. The Adult Learner: The definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development (6th Edn.) Elsevier, Burlington MA.

Richardson, J., (2003) Researching Student learning ) The Society for Research into Higher Education & OU Press, Maidenhead.

Russell, T., & Loughran, J., (2007) Enacting a Pedagogy of Teacher Education, Routledge, Oxford. Keywords: andragogy, Knowles, pedagogy

(first posted at http://eduspaces.net/trangwales/weblog/196773.html – September 22 2007)