Category Archives: adult learning

January 30, 2015

Hoskins & Fredriksson (2008) learning to learn

Hoskins, B., & Fredriksson, U. (2008). Learning to learn: What is it and can it be measured? Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.jrc.ec.europe.eu/

The transfer of knowledge and skills from teachers to learners is no longer effective education. We need to empower learners for an unknown future in a rapidly changing technological and global world. Education needs to empower learners to learn to learn.

Learning to learn is not a skill, but a complex competency. Not content nor context based, but transdisciplinary. Competencies are broad and complex, combine knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, and require high levels of cognition (Tiana, 2004). Competencies are measured in real world tasks not general theoretical abilities. Learning to learn is a key European competency necessary and beneficial to individuals and society (Eurydice, 2002).

Defining and measuring learning to learn is difficult. An interdisciplinary theoretical approach is required. Stringher (2006) collected over 40 definitions which spanned metacognition, socioconstructivism, sociocognitive and sociohistorical approaches, lifelong learning, assessment studies, learning strategies, and cognitive psychology and social cultural paradigms. Cognitive psychology examines collecting, processing, constructing, storing and retrieving of knowledge. Whereas, social cultural paradigms examine social contexts and interactions.

Learning to learn includes managing time and information, learning individually and collaboratively, being aware of needs and processes, pursuing and preserving, using guidance, building on prior learning and life experiences, applying knowledge and skills in different contexts, being motivation and having confidence (Educational Council, 2000).

Learning to learn is not intelligence: a fixed mental capability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience (Gottfredson, 1997). Learning to learn is not problem solving: use of cognitive processes to confront and resolve realistic cross-disciplinary situations with unclear solutions and disciplinary areas (PISA, 2003). The European assessment framework includes cognitive domain (identifying proposition, testing rules, using mental tools), affective domain (motivation, strategies, self-esteem, perceived support), and metacognition (problem solving, accuracy).

The University of Helsinki defines learning to learn as ability and willingness to adapt to novel tasks, and self-regulation of cognitive and affective perspectives (Hautamäki, 2002). The Helsinki assessment framework includes context-related beliefs (societal frames and perceived support), self-related beliefs (motivation, action-control, identity, assignment acceptance, self-evaluation, future orientation), and learning competencies (learning and reasoning domain, self management and affective regulation).

The University of Bristol defines Learning Power as a complex mix of dispositions, lived experiences, social relations, values, attitudes, beliefs that shape engagement (Deakin, Crick, Broadfoot, Claxton, 2006). The Bristol assessment framework includes growth orientation, critical curiosity, meaning-making, dependency and fragility, creativity, relationship/interdependence, and strategic awareness.

November 6, 2014

Hase & Kenyon (2007) self-directed learning

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of Complexity Theory. complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-118.

Hase and Kenyon argue that the notions of pedagogy and andragogy are deficient. Teachers merely facilitate students to acquire knowledge and skills, which they maintain is not learning. Acquiring knowledge and skills allows students to be competent to recall and use that knowledge and those skills in familiar situations. In contrast, learning demands change. However, we need to remember that comfort hinders change. Change occurs in response to distressful needs (and intense desires). Hase and Kenyon define learning as an emergent and integrative process that changes behaviour, knowledge, understanding and becomes incorporated into people’s existing attitudes and values. Learning empowers students to be capable to react and adapt to unfamiliar and unanticipated situations drawing on all their holistic knowledge, skills and values. Hase and Kenyon define capability as beyond competency: being able to adapt to unknown and changing contexts, having appropriate values to work collaboratively, and knowing how to learn.

Pedagogy and andragogy appear to remain teacher-centered with little micro or macro involvement from learners. Curricula are inflexible, which is disappointing because “it is impossible to predict the extent and effect of bifurcation”, i.e. separation of planned curricula and learners’ changing needs. In contrast, heutagogy is self-determined learning. Learner-centered and learner-directed learning which occurs as result of personal experiences. Students become the key drivers and designers of learning processes, activities, objectives and assessments. Heutagogy requires a living flexible curriculum that is able to change as students learn.

Hase and Kenyon recommend action research and action learning as meta-methodologies to empower learners to experiment with real experiences in real world contexts. Action research and action learning provide flexibility to understand unpredictable and complex social phenomena, give ownership and control of the learning to the students, and can also be trialled and tested in subsequent cycles. Alongside action-learning, teachers need to provided personal coaching.

Adaptive systems (Bertanafly, 1950; Akoff & Emery, 1972; Emery, 1971, 1986; Emery & Trist, 1965) and Complexity Theory are worth investigating in relation to learning (Davis & Sumara 1997; Doll 1989; Doolittle, 2000). At the time of writing, Hase and Kenyon were still researching the usefulness of heutagogy as a concept, and questioning how learning occurs in complex adaptive systems and how these systems harness and facilitate learning.

July 5, 2014

Knowles Holton & Swanson (2011) teaching adults

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

photo

Adult learner reinforces my beliefs about learning. The terms learn and teach are not interchangeable. Learning can occur without teaching: Teaching can occur without learning. Learning theories examine ways people learn, whereas teaching theories examine ways people influence others’ learning (Gage, 1972). Teachers’ learning beliefs influence their teaching beliefs and practice.

Learning theories are often fragmented; however Hilgard (1966) identified common principles. Stimulus-Response theory emphasizes learning actively not passively, incorporating repetition, using positive reinforcement, generalizing and discriminating in different contexts, imitating models, recognizing drive, and accepting inevitable frustrations. Whereas, cognitive theory emphasizes ensuring transparency, organizing content from simplified to complex wholes, respecting cultures, providing feedback, and facilitating goal-setting. Finally, motivation and personality theory emphasizes acknowledging learner’s abilities and motivation, recognizing genetic and environmental influences, respecting cultures, managing anxiety, accepting learners’ motives and values, and managing group learning atmosphere.

Although, 21 Century teaching movements push for innovation, learning theories have been recommending similar changes for decades (and I need to read about Comenius who published similar ideas in the 1600s).

Rogers (1969) states that teaching is overvalued and prefers teachers to be facilitators of learning. He values relationships and facilitators that are genuine, caring, respectful, understanding, and attentive listeners. Facilitators need to create learning contexts, manage group atmosphere, clarify purposes, allow freedom (including guidance), organize learning resources, be flexible, and respond to content and attitudes. Ultimately, facilitators become equal participant learners who accept their limitations.

Tough (1979) prefers teachers to be ideal helpers: accepting and caring, valuing learning as serious, taking time to be helpful and friendly, treating learners as equals, believing in learner’s ability to manage own learning, continually learning themselves, and remaining spontaneous authentic people. Ideal helpers do not control learners nor address learners in inexhaustible monologues nor treat learners as objects.

Dewey (1961) values experience, democracy, continuity, and interaction.

Bruner (1970) values hypothetical modes (rather than expository modes) that focus on heuristics of discovery, increase intellectual powers, use intrinsic motivation, and make memories more accessible.

Brookfield (1986) values critical reflection to enable adults to reflect on self-images, change self-concepts, question internalized norms, and reinterpret behaviors from new perspectives.

Finally, no educational institution teaches only through its courses. Institutions also teach by example and frequently role-model behaviors and organization that go directly against what they endorse in their educational programs.

July 3, 2014

Knowles Holton & Swanson (2011) adult learning

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

photoI recommend The adult learner and will re-read and blog more to cover other adult learning issues. This post is the beginning. A big thanks to the digital library services at Monash university for making e-books so accessible.

Historically  teachers (such as Confucius, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato), guided adults’ learning (using interactive inquiry processes, such as case methods  and Socratic dialogue); however, adult learning was neglected and was finally established as a field of study in the 1920s. Knowledge about learning usually focuses on and is mostly derived from the study of animals’ and children’s learning.

Learning is defined as processes that change behavior, knowledge, skills and attitudes (Boyd, Apps, et al 1980), which can be retained and are not the result of growth (Gagné, 1965), which often run counter to or replace what was previously known (Bruner, 1961). Intellectual growth is the increasing capacity to describe what was and will be done (Maslow, 1972), and autonomous learning is self-regulating continuous learning (Jourard 1972). Learning theories are basically split into behaviorist/connectionist theories and cognitive/gestalt theories, and elemental models (pieces of a machine) and holistic models (interactive and developing organisms).

Andragogical models of learning centralize learners’ experiences, focus on content that is meaningful for real word problems and contexts, support learners’ need for autonomy, rely on intrinsic motivation, and adjust curricula to learners’ needs. Children and  youth can also benefit from andragogical models of learning; however, schools and teachers frequently conform to pedagogical models, which expect teachers to direct learning content and processes, rely on extrinsic motivation, and expect learners to adjust to curricula. Adult learners should be active participants rather than passive recipients. Adult learners need humble teachers, active co-learners, that share authority and guide learning to discover meaning and examine preconceptions. Adult learning contexts should be informal, comfortable, flexible, and nonthreatening (Knowles, 1050). Time restraints, inaccessible learning resources and opportunities, ridge curricula and education systems that violate adult learning principles, and adults’ negative self-concepts all can hinder adult learning and create high drop-out rates. The core of adult learning challenges ideas about fixed intelligence and the restriction of education to certain classes.

This reading has left me pondering the educations systems I have learned or taught in and how well they were aligned to the principles of adult learning.

June 27, 2014

Woodward (1988) loop input

Woodward, T. (2003). Loop input. ELT Journal, 57(3), 301-304. and Woodward, T. (1988). Loop-input: A new strategy for trainers. System, 16(1), 23-28.

I entered the Teacher Training Education Day at the IATEFL conference in Harrogate with no expectations.  After a morning directed by Tessa Woodward, I was curious to read about her loop input concept. It turns out that loop input is a simple idea that is tweet-able:

Woodward

Woodward explains loop input as experiential learning where content is mirrored in processes and then made more obvious through discussion. Loop input to me is common-sense for teachers. Adult learners have limited time and expect meaningful learning that can be applied in their context, so it is logical to exploit learning experiences and resources in multiple ways. I am continually integrating learning English language with learning second language pedagogy. Although, some of my teacher educator colleagues will argue that standing and telling what is known about learning is fast and efficient, it is bizarre contradiction to lecture that lecturing is a poor teaching method! Teacher educators must role-model effective management of learning-experiences. In addition, teachers manage the learning of others, so they must be able to manage their own learning. As teacher educators, we need to ensure that our ongoing learning is visible to teacher trainees, through for example, displays of books we are reading and blogs of our reflective processes.

I believe that learning is complex and exists in contexts. Too often in teacher education, learning processes and contexts are often simplified beyond reality. Teacher trainees are shown learning processes as cheese, tomatoes, and pasta, but in reality, learning is a mixed-up dish.

pasta

I purposefully do not remove all complexity from learning for teacher trainees: they need to raise their awareness of the complexities of managing learning experiences. Also, I include choices to increase learners responsibility and motivation for learning.

This is an example of how I’d adapt Woodward’s loop input to my 2014 complex context.

Objective:
Investigate cooperative task-based learning, using digital video technologies, focusing on balancing Nation’s Four Strands.

Process:
Make a group video presentation in English and uploaded to social media.

Content:

Select a presentation topic or combine topics or negotiate another relevant topic: discuss advantages and disadvantages of a) cooperative learning or b) task-based learning or c) using digital technologies for learning or d) using social media for learning or d) using Nation’s Four Strands.

Reflection:
Give feedback on all videos through social media.

March 22, 2014

Fiore (1989) procrastination

Fiore

Fiore, N. (1989). The now habit: A strategic program for overcoming procrastination and enjoying guilt-free play. London: Penguin Books.

 
So we’ve heard it all before: small pieces, set priorities, and JUST DO IT! But it ain’t that simple! Nobody procrastinates due to laziness or disorganization. We procrastinate to relieve stress from negative self-beliefs, resistance to authorities, imbalance of work and play, perfectionism, and fear of success and failure.

Failures to perfectionists are like paper cuts to hemophiliacs. Perfectionists equate average tasks with compete personal failure. However, procrastination protects us from self-criticism because we don’t have time to do our best.

Successes are often rewarded with more and harder work. Like high jumpers who have just cleared the bar, no time to rest, the bar is immediately raised. However, procrastination protects us by reserving energy for subsequent tasks.

Fiore believes that procrastination is a learned behaviour and can be unlearned.

1st. Become aware of avoidance behaviors, e.g. excessive preparation.

2nd. Focus on positive rewards, not negative punishments.

3rd. Reduce imagined risk. Anyone can walk at ground level along planks that are 10m long x 30cm wide x 10cm thick. But procrastinators raise planks high up between buildings, making tasks impossible and freezing with fear. But when buildings burst into flames, procrastinators rush across planks, with less self-judgment. Place safety nets under your planks.

4th. Accept consequences, and choose to do tasks your way.

5th. Improve self-talk. Replace ‘I must finish’ with ‘when I can start’, ‘this project is huge and important’ with ‘I can do one small part’, ‘I must be perfect’ with ‘I may make mistakes’, and ‘I don’t have time to play’ with ‘I must take time to play’!

6th. Plan tasks backwards. Start at deadlines, estimate all parts, including now.

7th. Schedule only play activities. Only record work after 30 minutes of uninterrupted on-task-time. No drinks. No Facebook. Start and complete 30 minutes and then break. I know can do anything I dread for 30 minutes. I say to myself, ‘okay 30 minutes, from now, go’, and then magically several hours pass. This simple mind-trick gets me on-task every time.

If you work with people who procrastinate, encourage choices, praise achievements and avoid criticism (procrastinators self-criticize enough). Ask for commitment not compliance, and express achievable objectives not overwhelming expectations.

I hope that helps. Veel succes.

March 13, 2014

Claxton (2008) inside/outside schools

Claxton Claxton, G. (2009). What’s the point of school? Rediscovering the heart of education. Oxford: Oneword Publications.

I read Claxton for relief from my heavy-going reading list, but Claxton’s comparison of learning inside and outside schools was worth reading.

Claxton says schools offer learning just-in-case for its own sake in narrow pre-graded pieces, with prejudged students achievement levels, and smooth learning that avoids mistakes. Whereas, learning outside schools is just-in-time for real achievement in broad complex ungraded contexts, with gradual increasing skills, and steep zigzagging learning filled with risks. Learners outside schools are curious, collaborative, and seek unknown answers.

Historically, schools are monasteries and factories.  As monasteries, schools preside over knowledge, select knowledge, sever knowledge into subjects, dispense knowledge, and examine knowledge. As factories, schools forge standardized subject production lines for batches of students to manufacture workers who will do the bidding of authorities. Successful students copy, memorize and reproduce (soon outdated) knowledge, but are not prepared for our messy complex real-world. However, Claxton proposes Epistemic Apprenticeships with guides who role model learning and encourage learners to be curious, resilient, balance creativity with logic, handle feedback, approach problems calmly, and be emotionally engaged.  Learners need responsibilities, respect, reality, choices, challenges, and collaboration, which is what I strive for, but many students still demand spoon-feeding and prefer to regurgitate pre-packaged knowledge.

I live outside my original learning culture, and even after ten years, occasional culture-clashes surprise me. Here many teachers appear to believe in the fixed intelligence and predetermined achievement levels that Claxton is so against. Beliefs are powerful self-fulfilling prophecies. For me, the basic core of teaching is believing people can learn and then helping people learn. Piaget defines intelligence as knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do. Intelligence is not what learners can do easily: intelligence is how learners respond to unknown and difficult situations. Grit, resilience and perseverance are better predictors of performance than IQ tests. Believing in labels as valid and fixed only encourages people to give up in difficult situations (the Pygmalion effect).

I’ll re-read Building Learning Power soon.

 

February 27, 2014

Whitton (2010) digital game learning

WhittonWhitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London: Routledge.

 

 

I was curious to read Whitton’s ideas because I’ve investigated vocabulary learning in digital games, but I was surprised by issues relevant to my current research.

Whitton disagrees with Prensky (2001) that generations are digital natives or immigrants: labeling generations is not helpful but limiting. Ability to use technology is not fixed: exposure level and time affect competency and confidence. Whitton also reminds us to consider people involved, organizational issues, the learning context, and nature of technology whe using learning technologies. She offers ideas about how to evaluate the suitability of learning-technologies, based on accessibility and usability.

Whitton summarises general and adult learning theories, which I’m listing as a reminder to revise the originals. It’s time to start writing parts of my thesis: general, adult, digital and community learning!

– Knowles’ (1998) theory of adult learning, andragogy, including purpose, control, awareness of diversity, practical applications, and tasked- focus.
– Savery and Duffey’s (1995) constructivism model, including situated cognition, cognitive puzzlement, social collaboration.
– Grabinger et al (1997) and Land & Hannafin (2000) assertion that online learner-centered learning is influenced by constructivism principles, including support taking responsibility, present multiple views, encourage ownership, offer relevant learning, based on real-life experiences, support collaboration, use multiple digital-tools and rich media.
– Kolb’s (1984) Experimental Learning Cycle, including actively planning, reflecting and integrating theories.
– McConnell (2000) and Palloff & Pratt (2003) state that social constructivism facilitates collaborative learning, allows people to work to their strengths, develops critical thinking skills and creativity, validates ideas, and values different learning styles, preferences, perspectives, and skills.
– Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism states that learning occurs first socially and the later individually, and the Zone of Proximal Development is between what learners can do autonomously and with support and guidance.
– Lave & Wagner (1991) Communities of Practice are apprenticeships and learning groups’ norms, processes and identity.
– McConnell (2006) discusses online learning communities.
– Boud & Feletti (1991) define problem-based learning as collaborative solving of real-world, multidiscipline problems, where teachers are facilitators not experts.
– Bloom (1956) separates learning into psycho-motor, affective and cognitive domains, and further defines cognitive for step-by-step objectives as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
– Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy is remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

February 27, 2014

Kear (2011) online communities

Kear

Kear, K. (2011). Online and social networking communities: A best practice guide for educators. New York: Routledge.

The internet is not transmission and reception. Users are not passive: they learn interactively and create supportive communities using email lists, newsgroups, podcasts, e-portfolios, social bookmarking, media sharing, chat rooms, instant messaging, conferencing, virtual worlds, shared documents, micro-blogging, VoIP, discussion forums, social network, wikis, and blogs. Digital communication is synchronous and/or asynchronous, private or public, and shared one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many. Digital tools constantly evolve and converge, are convenient, flexible, collaborative, can mimic face-to-face contact, engaging, community building, and integrative with everyday life. However, digital-technologies can discourage participation, be impersonal, delay responses, and be overwhelming (information-overload/failure to filter). Formal digital-learning is improved by making navigation simple and transparent, encouraging social participation, providing face-to-face meetings, integrating online activities with everyday activities and assessments. Be aware that learners’ ages, attitudes to studying (deep and/or surface), topic, and discussion and skill development affect learning.

Communities were based around locations; however, people linked by shared beliefs, values, purposes, practices and interaction are communities: “network of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, belonging, and social identity” (Wellman, 2001), and include digital groups (Preece, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Renningar & Shumar, 2002; McConnell, 2006). Online communities are groups (mutual commitment) or networks (known/unknown connections) or collectives (aggregations/actions performed by unconnected individuals) (Dron, 2007; Wiley, 2007). Traditionally information is filtered then published; however, internet information is published and then filtered (Shirky, 2008). Digital communities use stygmergy, contributions from many to develop something valuable.

Communities of practice have mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire: members share common purposes, initially observe, actively learn through ‘legitimate peripheral participation, and develop identity (Wenger, 1998). Social presence is required to be perceived as real in digital contexts (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Digital learning communities integrate social, cognitive and teaching activities by including open communication, group cohesion and affective responses. Communities of inquiry move through a cognitive trigger-event, exploration, interaction, resolution cycles (Garrison et al, 2000). The Conversational Framework explains dialogue, interaction, and feedback (Laurillards, 2009). The Five Stages Model explains learning with digital-communication: access and motivation, online socialization, informal exchange, knowledge construction, development/reflection (Salmon, 2004).