Week 12: Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching

This week we look at how and why certain areas are researched in educational research. Unlike science, there is no recognised and defined paradigm (or set of questions) which all scientists follow. Instead researchers have to decide what needs to be discussed- they have to justify the question as well as finding the answer. It is because of this reason a lot of research uses emotive language.

A2: Reading Richardson (2005).

 article  by Richardson (2005), ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ This article looked at the convergence of students and teachers approaches to learning.

Student approaches to studying

Interview based research saw 3 approaches to studying:

1. Deep Approach based on meaning of course material
2. Surface Approach based on memorizing course materials for purposes of assessment
3. Strategic Approach based on just trying to achieve the highest grade.

Student would adapt different approach for different contextual circumstances
a. the demands of the course materials. (course design)
b. quality of teaching
c. nature of assessment

thus it could be argued that if students could be manipulated into the correct  way of studying if the above three factors were appropriately devised. (educational interventions). This idea was backed up when looking at research for subject curriculum based education versus problem based curriculum. However educational intervention via course design may not be as effective unless it changes students perceptions of the course sufficiently change. Some students who are studying exactly the same course adapt very different strategies based to studying because they have different viewpoints/perceptions about the course. This was confirmed by Ramsden (1991) Course Experience Questionaire results that show there is an intimate relationship  between perceived quality of a course versus approaches to study.

Even taken into account the variation of perception, some differences in the approach to studying exist because students have differing conceptions of learning. Marton argues that students who have a deep approach take an active role, while students who have a surface approach see learning as something that happens to them. Saljo also identified 5 (later a 6th was added) conceptions of learning that fit into Martons broad categorization.

Säljö (1979) asked 90 people aged between 15 and 73 at institutions of further and
higher education in Sweden what “learning” meant to them. He found five different
conceptions:
1. Learning as the increase of knowledge
2. Learning as memorising
3. Learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures
4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning
5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality.
(p. 19)
6. A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony
and happiness or changing society

 It was found that the older the student the more likely they were to adapt the 'deep' conception of learning. And also they would change there perception as they got more experienced.

Summary:
3 approaches to studying each interchangable based on contextualised materials.
Can be manipulated by course design
But perceptions of the course have to be taken into consideration
Also students ideas of what it means to study,

Tutor approaches to learning

Through the data gained from the ATI (Approaches to Teaching Inventory), it was found that students would adapt the deep approach to studying if the teacher adapted the student led approach to teaching, rather than the teacher led approach. Tutor who adapted the former method of teaching also had a more positive outlook to their profession.

However, all thing being the same, some tutors still adapted a different approach the teaching. This was based on their perception of what it meaned to teach. (see article Kember). Unlike students, there is little evidence to suggest that a tutors concept of teaching changes over time (through experience).

Finally it has been noted that although some tutors may have a student focussed idea of teaching they could be prevented by fulfilling this urge based on an old fashioned head of unit (etc) who prefers a subject based approach, or by the students themselves who prefer a more didactic approach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Would learning design innovations in weeks 8 and 9 induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of students.

 I do not feel that the learning design programmes we were introduced to in Week 8 and 9 would have changed a tutors approach to teaching. Compendium is all well and good, but it is a neutral technology. Likewise Cloudworks (which I found particulary cumbersome and un-user friendly. What I think the problem is that these programmes only provide blueprints to a study programme, they are still up for interpretation by the tutor and if the tutors perceptions led to a teacher orientated approach to teaching then there would be little that a neutral design template could do to change this.

2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.

This does coincide to an extent with Sfard acquisition metaphor, although Martons view is more extreme it almost implies complete passivity of the student. Sfard quite rightly points out that learning is all about a mixure of acquisition and participation, even if the participatory elements are only of the abstract social kind.

3. Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a learner?

I could relate very much to the interchangability of the three main approaches to study. I also adapt either three based on a 'cold' analyse of the job in hand. If I need good grades for a subject then I will adapt a strategy based on this. If I am studying a subject for 'fun' then I would have a selectively deep approach. As a Spanish learner I find by necessity I have to adapt a deep appoach based on the accumulative nature of this study programme.

4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?

For me I think that learning is increasing knowledge. I had a very difficult time 'handling' Sfard's participation metaphor idea's. Everything is about the individual and therefore learning is about gaining individual knowledge. The latter examples are to me a bit wooley and hippified.

5. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?

I would certainly agree with the 3 approached to learning as I certainly adapt these approached myself. The training I give really is about imparting specific knowledge about specific products/procedures. By necessity this leads to a teacher led approach as there is little room for maneavourve within the learning outcomes. Also, even if I wished to adapt a more student orientated approach this would be difficult based on the predictions of my training department.

6. Do you find Richardson’s argument convincing?

Very convincing in is style not not enough statistics for my liking. Another problem I have is that there is a bias towards deep learning. Some learning does not require this as the subject is too simplistic.