31 March--final formal session; Deep and Surface learning, SOLO taxonomy, levels of learning etc. First, a note for those of you who want handouts--all my pages now include printer-friendly versions. Simply click on the "PrintFriendly" button at the very end of the page.

I asked for your suggestions concerning material which still did not make sense, but you had nothing urgent to raise, so we turned to the "loose ends", which we had not heretofore mentioned.

Chief among these was the one respectable "learning style" model, although it is more about learning strategies which may be habitual but students can take up or discard as they prefer. This is the Deep and Surface Learning distinction.

• The page includes a link to the discussion of the SOLO taxonomy.
  

• We also discussed, based on Biggs' "3Ps" model, the idea of "constructive alignment"; here is a paper by Biggs on that. The original reference for the 3P model is BIGGS J (1993) "What do inventories of students’ learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification" Brit. J. Ed. Psych. vol 83 pp 3-19. ("Presage" is usually used as a verb, roughly meaning predict/precede; since both those words begin with "p", I'm not sure why he didn't go with one of them...)

• We did get into a discussion about the legitimacy of the "learning styles" idea; that is discussed relatively dispassionately here, including the spectrum of what are deemed to be "styles" or "strategies" or whatever.
  

• In the second half we explored the issue of levels of learning, with particular reference to Bateson here.

• During the break I got into an interesting discussion with Genna about how the "learning styles" movement concentrates solely on the characteristics of learners, and on their alleged cognitive variability. We discussed how the whole learner/ teacher/ class/ curriculum/ assessment system is the issue, but very difficult to get a handle on. Generally see here, and with particular reference to Pask--whom we have not otherwise addressed--see here.
  

• Apart from that, we also discussed the work of Carol Dweck on "attribution theory", and how to phrase feedback so as to emphasis effort rather than inherent talent; see here for Petty's take on her work.

• And our discussion of motivation took me into the relatively unfamiliar realm of management theories of motivation (although Herzberg is fairly clearly in that category) in the form of Vroom's Expectancy Theory. There's a brief outline here. 

• Elsewhere, the notion of "frame of reference" cropped up, and I was asked whom it was principally associated with. Despite my discussion of the idea here with 33 references in total I was stumped! I was a little reassured to find that a google search put my page almost top of the list apart from three others which were very physics-specific.

We wound up, when the fire alarm tests permitted, with a slightly fragmented evaluation. I eschewed a questionnaire in favour of a "cut to the chase" question--what should I do differently next time (if there is a next time, of course)?

You were, I'd like to think, honest and frank; but also very constructive and helpful. Transcribing the main points from the whiteboard...

• You liked the blog, but thought I relied on it too much; you would have preferred to have handouts available on the spot as well. Looking things up on the blog or VLE, you pointed out, was not the same as having the notes available at the time in class... That is an interesting point which deserves further exploration. Thanks.
• Some of you wanted a clearer focus on the outcomes. OK, but there is of course a balance to be struck; refer back to the deep and surface discussion earlier.
• Some of you wanted more structured activities and group tasks. I admit that for reasons beyond the control of any of us--weather and illness predominating--the reading circle exercise only lasted about four weeks, but I think it was remarkably productive during that period. My rule of thumb is--if you can get the optimum level of discussion going in the class through natural conversation rather than a contrived exercise, go for it. It is I admit far easier to bring off in an HE context than with young learners in PCE. We (I think I speak for colleagues here) do not --when teaching you-- model best practice for teaching 14-19 year olds. We hope to model best practice for teaching you. But the point is well made!
• Jargon. Guilty as charged! But sometimes I didn't understand yours, either... As one of you observed, jargon and language usage in general is an important player in inclusivity/exclusivity.

Thanks for that!

And principally, thanks for being a stimulating group to work with! All the best for preparing your submissions--you may find this page useful--and I look forward to individual discussions about them after Easter.

In the meantime, have a relaxing break--it's important to let the dough rise.

  22:27