17 March--briefing for assessment and "inclusivity" We spent the first hour in a group tutorial looking at actually doing the submission; it was a pity not everyone could be there, and we did think about the "inclusivity" implications of doing it, but--as was pointed out several times in the inclusivity discussion--that's life...

I pointed you in the direction of http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/baking.htm as one approach to "Baking an essay".

As we discussed it, this model emerged;

(We could debate endlessly which way up the triangle "ought" to be. And whether it "should" be equilateral) 

• I suggested that you make your account of your practice be the driver of the whole submission. You pointed out that you had already described that in your submission for Unit 1; that's fine. No need to do it again if it will serve--include that part (only!) of your Unit 1 submission as an appendix and refer to it from the main text.
• We discussed the relationship between this unit and Unit 1; that was broad and shallow, this (and Unit 3) are narrower and deeper. I went through the Unit outcomes and we looked at how you might approach them.
• "Approach" is the key word. I warned against attempting to address each of them in turn; it leads to repetition and fragmentation. Checking that you have addressed the outcomes is a late stage in the writing and revision process. Again, let the account of practice be the spine of the submission.
• The triangle suggests that each of the three elements has an impact on the other two; so if you start from practice, that implies both technical theories about how learning happens, and also values about how it ought to happen, for your learners. But your choice of theory (because theory is not a monolith) will depend on what fits with your practice and your values (most clearly when you go for a humanistic approach...) And your values may set the parameters for acceptable theory and practice... Each implies (or is in tension with, or opposition to, or is constrained by...) the other two. Tell that story.
• We've covered a lot of stuff in this Unit, some of it necessarily superficially. I know some of you would rather I pre-selected the material more tightly and addressed it more directly. I'm not apologising, though. It may be confusing and disorienting at this stage, but it does work out in the end, and I think it does so more effectively that a more focused approach. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? But for the submission, concentrate on what is relevant to your practice.
• That may mean the theories and values which do underpin and guide that practice, or the alternative ones which could do so but have been rejected, or the ones which you now aspire to incorporate... 
• If material is simply irrelevant, don't put it in (except perhaps to say that it is irrelevant.) This device, of explicit exclusion (nothing at all to do with the jargon sense of "inclusion" in ed. policy) is useful. "Mention of this topic raises issues about x, y and z; but they are not central to the present discussion and for reasons of space, time, life, the universe and everything, I am not going to deal with them here" This forestalls the marker who wants to criticise you for never even considering x, y or z.
• Don't regurgitate what you have been taught in class or read for the sake of it. We are interested in what you are doing with it in your practice.
• Don't produce endless bullet-point lists... Oh! Sorry!

Inclusivity

After the break! Inclusivity.

(I take that term to refer to the practice-based end of the principle of "inclusion". What either of them actually mean, however, is a different matter.)

I referred to the excellent Coffield et al (2008) Improving Learning, Skills and Inclusion London; Routledge (shelved at 370.1130941 IMP; ISBN 978-0-415-46181-8) which exposes much of the confusion in both policy and practice in this area. It is a minefield, and it should be no surprise that it is a mess. That in itself says nothing about the value of the policy itself, of course.

Our way in to the discussion was to consider eight scenarios which impinge fairly directly on the teaching/learning encounter, and rate them as to their contributions to inclusivity or their presentation of obstacles to inclusivity. Quite rightly, you transcended the immediate scenarios and questioned whether you could judge given the level of detail offered, and so the discussion focused on what lay behind the skeletal incidents reported --that was of course the point.

Two major principles emerged from the discussion, in terms of judging inclusion/inclusivity;

• Infrastructure; it's all very well to proclaim entitlement to support/funding/etc., but does it exist? Experience within the group suggested considerable variability, and many inconsistencies. We did not get into the negative/positive freedom discussion (half-way through http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/equal_opps_1.htm) but it is worth checking out.
• Relevance. aka Context. As your approach to the scenarios indicated, nothing means anything without a context, and subject matter, risk, level etc. all enter into the equation.

In relation to risk, I cited the issue of how over-emphasised inclusivity policies in social work education had put lives in jeopardy. This is the relevant transcript from the Climbie enquiry (I copy it because for some reason the full transcript has disappeared from the web):

MR GARNHAM: How are you going to achieve this? I ask because Mary Richardson told us that some staff had a real difficulty with the written word, that guidance -- and we have seen this time and time again -- guidance is not always followed or even read, so how are you going to make these improvements? Do you agree with Ms Richardson by the way?

16 MS BRISTOW: I believe any large organisation you will always have some staff with literacy problems and I think one of the difficulties in our society is it is very hard for people to admit to that. There is a social stigma attached to admitting difficulty with literacy or numeracy.

22 MR GARNHAM: Difficulty with literacy and numeracy is a problem in trained social workers, is it?

24 MS BRISTOW: I believe that does in some cases occur.

More discussion/polemic (read the disclaimer!) at http://www.doceo.co.uk/heterodoxy/supporting.htm

Next week

We decided that the "show and tell" was going on anyway outside the sessions. Great! So we have some time next week to address some material which has been missed so far.

• Evidence-based Practice; at the very least read http://www.learningandteaching.info/teaching/what_works.htm 
• Marzano's monograph can be downloaded at http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Instruction/5982RR_InstructionMeta_Analysis.pdf
• Hattie's "Visible Learning" (You will need to log on to BREO and navigate to the Library to find this at http://library.beds.ac.uk/search~S20?/aHattie/ahattie/1%2C1%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=ahattie+john&2%2C%2C2) but there is one copy on the shelves
• Geoff Petty's (2006) Evidence-based Teaching Cheltenham; Nelson Thornes

But how does that relate to learning from experience? After all, that is learning from what just happens, rather than what is taught. And how can that be utilised within taught learning?

• We'll start from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm, but this could go in several directions...

Enough for now! Have a good week!  21:14