Tag Archives: complex context

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.

March 16, 2014

Darling-Hammond (2006) teacher education

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.

I’ve been skim reading a few books on teacher education and so many refer to this article that it jumped to the top of my reading list.

Teaching is often viewed as simplistic by laypeople and novice teachers; however, teaching is non-routine, unpredictable and requires diverse and flexible teaching and reflective skills to handle diverse learners’ needs in increasingly complex contexts.

Novice teachers need to overcome three challenges. First, “the apprenticeship observation” (Lortie, 1975), i.e. past student learning experiences need to be separated from new learning to teach experiences. Second, “the problem of enactment” (Kennedy, 1999), i.e. more than just understand teaching, but be able to actually teach. Third, “the problem of complexity” (Jackson, 1974), i.e. “understand and respond to the dense and multifaceted nature of the classroom, juggling multiple academic and social goals requiring trade-offs from moment to moment (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

Teacher education must address the influence of previous teaching observations, perceived separation of theory and practice, limited cultural perspectives, and the need for multiple tasks in complex settings. In addition, teacher education must focus on knowledge about learning and learners, and skills for curriculum development, classroom management, teaching and assessment. To achieve this, teacher education programs need to use a clear single vision for theory and practice; have transparent achievement standards; integrate theory and extensive, intensive, reflective practice (Ball & Cohen,1999); use real cases and research; confront assumptions; work together with schools to improving learning, teaching and teacher education.

Although novice teachers enter teaching with existing beliefs from student learning experiences, many teacher educators argue that novice teachers who have teaching experience are better prepared to integrate the theory and practice of teacher education (Baumgartner, Koerner, & Rust, 2002; Denton, 1982; Henry, 1983; Ross, Hughes, & Hill, 1981; Sunal, 1980). However, many short cut programs designed for working novice teachers minimize teaching and curriculum theory and focus on survival needs. Furthermore, novice teachers frequently demand classroom management strategies instead of improving teaching and curriculum knowledge, a lack of which may cause classroom difficulties (Shields et al., 2001).

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 18, 2014

Rushton & Suter (2012) learning reflection

RushtonSuterRushton, I. & Suter, M. (2012). Reflective practice for teaching in lifelong learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Focusing on practical applications, UK policies, and detailed cases, the authors see reflection as a cyclic process that allows teachers to think backwards and forwards to improve learners’ experiences and achievement. They define levels of reflection as technical (daily in immediate learning context), organizational (longer-term in management/organization context), and critical (persistent in social/political context). They consider learning contexts as too complex to apply prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions and require teachers to integrate theory and practice (including using action research) to make professional judgments. They identify problems as learner-teachers’ reluctance, low confidence, and ignorance of use of reflective processes; teachers’ tick-the-box attitude and shallow results; and  management’s intermittent and compulsory use.

This book briefly present several theorists:

– Aristotle describes knowledge as techne (to make something), episteme (theoretical knowledge) and phronesis (practical wisdom).

– Dewey (1933) outlines his five steps of feel difficulty, locate and define, suggest solutions, develop suggestions, and experiment, which leads to accept or reject.

– Gadamer (1980) says that individuals are inseparable from their culture and history, and are unable to be objective.

– Schön (1983)asserts that teaching is messy and complex and not easily aligned to theories. Teachers must combine reflection in action, practical and personal knowledge, and knowing in action.

– Kolb (1984) demands that learning should be relevant and use concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

– Boud, Keog, Walking (1985) describe experimental refection as replay experience, reflect on experience, and respond to experience.

– Habermas (1987) seeks a democratic society that accepts all stakeholders voices. He defines human interaction as strategic and instrument interaction (focus on success) or communicative action (focus on understanding).

– Tripp (1993) explores critical incidents, questioning what happened, to who, where, and teachers’ reactions.

– Brookfield (1995) discusses critical reflection, including paradigmatic, prescriptive, and casual assumptions, from the perspectives of self, students, colleagues, and literature.

– Carr (1995) explains critical social science as common-sense conformity, applied science research, practical approaches with reflection/professional judgment, critical approaches to increase rational autonomy).

February 16, 2014

Brookfield (1995) critical reflection

Brookfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

I wish I’d read Brookfield 20 years ago: life changing! In just 300 pages, Becoming a critically reflective teacher gives a broad overview of critical reflection and overflows with theories and antidotes that forced me to take my thinking about learning and teaching to the next level.

General reflection focuses on examining assumptions, our taken-for-granted beliefs. Brookfield classifies assumptions at a variety of depths: at the surface casual assumptions (simple predictive understandings, uncovered easily), then digging down to prescriptive assumptions (expected behavior, obligations, processes), and deeply hidden paradigmatic assumptions (appear as objective reality, resist recognition).

Critical reflection examines power-dynamic assumptions and hegemonic assumptions. Power-dynamic assumptions reveal “how the dynamics of power permeates all educational processes” (p. 9) and hegemonic assumptions appear to work favourably for the majority, but in long term hinder them and instead help powerful minorities.

To reveal assumptions, we examine ourselves autobiographically (as learners and teachers), from students’ and colleagues’ perspectives, and through theoretical literature. Brookfield shares strategies to facilitate critical reflection (pp. 71-227) and introduces the reflective-risks of imposter syndrome, cultural suicide, lost innocence and roadrunning (pp. 229-245).

Several ideas are relevant to TESOL teachers working in foreign language learning contexts.

– The development of authentic voice (p. 47) could be hindered if teachers use second languages professionally and are, therefore, disempowered.

– Genuine learning (p. 50) could be common for teachers learning second languages.

– Role-modelling risk taking (p. 102) could be common for teachers learning second languages.

– Critical reflection as a social process (p. 141) could use digital communication and online communities instead of face-to-face communication and contexts.

– Good Practice Audits (including problem formation, individual and collective analysis of experience, and compilation of suggestions for practice) (p. 160) or parts thereof could be conducted informally without instruction.

– Cultural norms that influence identity and experience (p. 214) could be easier to recognize if teachers have been removed from their original cultures.