Module Two: Learning Theory and Pedagogy

The approach to the content of this module is somewhat different that you may be accustomed to. While each of you will be responsible for basic understanding of each of the learning theories and associated pedagogies presented in this module, it is anticipated that you will become very well acquainted with two of these and will act as an expert in these as part of a larger collaborative exercise involving all of the learning theories.

Most of the learning activity that you undertake as part of this module will be related to two assessment items. This approach has been taken in order to focus your activity and bring of some of the theory of the course (e.g. situated learning, collaborative approaches, critical reflection) into your learning experience. As part of this process, your participation and contribution to the collaborative effort will be assessed by your peers. Please refer to the assessment guidelines for more information.

As a first step in addressing the questions above, you should read the Zukas and Malcolm (2002) paper. This paper examines the pedagogical approaches for lifelong learning in the form of ‘pedagogic identities' for educators. Zukas and Malcolm identify 5 pedagogic identities and compare them along 9 analytic dimensions. The framework they provide is a convenient way of comparing and contrasting different pedagogies and assessing their applicability for LLL and addressing the needs of learning futures. This provides a convenient starting point for our discussions in this module.

Pedagogies for Lifelong Learning: Building bridges or building walls? (Zukas & Malcolm, 2002)

Accessed online in draft form [.doc]:
http://www.open.ac.uk/lifelong-learning/papers/393BCA95-0009-66D4-0000015700000157_Zukas-MalcolmPaper.doc

And cite as:

Zukas, M and Malcolm, J. (2000) Pedagogies for Lifelong Learning: Building bridges or building walls?, Working Papers of the Global Colloquium on Supporting Lifelong Learning [online], Milton Keynes , UK : Open University. Available from: http://www.open.ac.uk/lifelong-learning [Accessed: (insert date)]

The task: Your task is to compose a paper which compares and contrasts the learning theory and pedagogies associated with the 2 of the 5 suggested pedagogic identities from the framework identified above. Please refer to the Zukas and Malcom (Zukas & Malcolm, 2002) paper for more information. In this task, you will work to develop your understanding of 2 of the pedagogic identities; one chosen by you and one assigned by the course facilitator. You will work both collaboratively and individually: collaboratively in the development of shared understandings of the pedagogic identities and in the preliminary preparation (and refinement, if you choose) of your written submission; and individually in personal reflection and composition of your assignment submission.

The roles: You are cast in the role of aspiring expert in learning theory and pedagogy. Your areas of expertise are the learning theory chosen by you and the one assigned by the course leader. While your knowledge may be insufficient to assume the role of expert at the beginning of this task, it is anticipated that you will learn enough in the activities related to this task to play the expert role in the next assignment. Part of your role is to engage in collaborative activity with other aspiring experts to develop, refine and enrich your understandings of the two theories you are working on.

The process: For this task, you must nominate one of the 5 pedagogic identities that you'd like to study in more depth. Another will be assigned to you by the course teaching team. Then, you will be given access to two collaborative workspaces, each dedicated to one of the pedagogic identities. In each of these workspaces, you will interact with other course participants who are also working to develop understandings of these pedagogic identities. It is anticipated that through a process of discussion and collaborative interaction, your peer learners will provide you with a source of feedback so that you can test out new ideas, refine emerging understandings of the content, identify relevant relationships between pieces of information and construct coherent, cohesive notions of your two pedagogic identities.

An example process might look something like this:

1. Introduce yourself to your peer learners in each group
2. Establish the parameters of the task- collectively identify short term goals, identify roles for members of the group and develop a general timeline for activity
3. Read the provided resources. Also, source and read supplementary resources, sharing the results within your collaborative workgroup. This is a significant portion of the work on this task, but this work should not be done in isolation. It is anticipated that you will engage in dialogue around the issues which arise from your reading.
4. Suggest tentative understandings of the definition of the pedagogical approach. Identify related learning theory and name specific pedagogies associated with this approach.
5. Using the analytical criteria from Zukas and Malcolm (2002) as a guide, develop understandings of where your pedagogic identity sits on each of the 9 continua. Posit your own ideas about each of these analytical criteria and also critically examine the suggestions within your collaborative workgroup.
6. Discuss, as needed, your emergent understanding of the pedagogical approaches. Special emphasis should be made to compare/contrast the various dimensions of each approach.
7. Referring to the understandings you have developed in both of your collaborative workgroups, draft your paper
8. Seek feedback from peers in your collaborative workgroups, make amendments where necessary. While your submission will be individual, it is acknowledged that it is the result of a collaborative process and may bear striking similarity to others' work. This is appropriate
9. Draft your reflection
10. Submit your assignment

The time budgeted for this process is 3-4 weeks. However, you may also be involved in other tasks related to the subsequent assignment at the end of this timeframe.

The product:

The result of this process will be a written paper consisting of two parts:

1. The first part is a comparison and contrast of the two pedagogic identities you have been assigned. This part of the assignment should include a brief description of the two pedagogic identities and a comparative/contrast discussion which refers to 4 of the 8 suggested analytical dimensions identified above. Also, there should be some indication of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The situation of these pros/cons in context (your professional context) may be helpful.
   
2. The second part of the paper is a critical reflection on your experience completing this task. Your reflection should respond to the question: Has a collaborative approach to this activity benefited me? In the reflection you should take a position on collaborative learning based on your personal experience. Support your position with reference to your attitude and approach to collaboration, the contextual factors upon which you based decisions on how to collaborate and any incidents from completing this task that you found influenced your views on collaborative learning.

The length of the total paper should be 1600-1800 words, with the comparison/contrast being approximately 1200 words and the reflection about 400 words.

Special Resources for this assignment:

The following are resources for you to use a foundation for the development of your expertise with two of these learning theories. It is very likely that you will not find these resources sufficient to complete the task. In that case, you must source supplementary materials from local libraries, online readings, online databases and other sources as necessary. Please refer to the Resources page of the study material for some tips on doing this.

Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy

Ultimately in this course, we are interested in Critical Pedagogy, but in order to understand it, it is useful to being with the underpinning Critical Theory. Some resources for both are provided below.

To get you started:
What is critical theory and why study it?

A basic webpage: http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/intr_whystudy_crit_thy.htm

Try the wikipedia on the topic of ‘ critical theory' and ‘ critical pedagogy '.

Critical Theory Overview

Just the basics here and a few of the big names in critical theory literature. Check out the references section for a list of authoritative printed works on critical theory
Access at: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/scheurich/proj3/ct1.html

Some applications and examples:

The Relationship between Critical Pedagogy and Assessment in Teacher Education (Keesing-Styles, 2003) – good background in this article
Access at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/03_keesing-styles.html 

Further Reading :

Critical Pedagogy Reading List
A general list of resources re critical pedagogy…lots of links to explore
Access at: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/crit_ped.html

Radical Pedagogy – ‘A journal devoted to the analysis of teaching and learning'
Access at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/

The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies
Access at: http://www.jceps.com/

Situativity - Situated Learning and Situated Cognition

Situated Learning

a good overview from David Stein: http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-3/adult-education.html

Situated Cognition

A good overview of the basics- Situated Cognition and learning Environments: Roles, Structures, and Implications for design (Jeong-Im & Michael Hannafin)- This web page is a kind of mindmap of the basis of situated cognition
Access at: http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-e/pellerin/staf15/situacogn.htm

Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) – discusses the situativity of knowledge and suggests ‘cognitive apprenticeship' as a possible pedagogical approach
Access at: http://www.educ.msu.edu/DWongLibrary/CEP900/Library/BrownCollinsDuguid1989.pdf
Also here: http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/situated.html

Community Perspectives

An overview of the work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice as a context for Situated Learning
Access at: http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm

Articles with applications of the theory:

Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning (Barab & Plucker, 2002)
Access from EBSCO here.

The situativity of knowing, learning and research (Greeno, 1998)
Access at: http://inkido.indiana.edu/syllabi/p500/Greeno_1998.pdf

Discourse Communities and the social construction of reflection in teacher education (Ovens, 202)
Access at: http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Ovens.pdf

Further reading:
A useful reading list: http://homepage.mac.com/scottlab/situated.html

Print resources- If you have access to a library or are interested in these topics, these books are recommended:

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1997). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge [ England ] ; New York : Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge , U.K. ; New York , N.Y. : Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice . Boston : Harvard Business School Press.

Reflection – Reflective activity, Reflective Practice and Reflexive Activity

Some Basics:

 ATHERTON J S (2003) Learning and Teaching:   Critical Reflection  [On-line] UK : Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/critical1.htm 

A useful page from the UniSA ( South Australia ):
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/11755writing/crit-reflect.htm

An overview from the ERIC Digest
Access at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/reflective.htm

Donald Schon, Reflection and ‘moving beyond the stable state—An excellent resource
Access at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm

Also valuable for linking across these theories:
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-reflect.htm 

Reflexivity

Social Sciences, Reflective Practice and Education Context (Besozzi, 1999)
Access online here via Triangle

Reflexivity: towards a theory of lifelong education (Edwards, Ranson, & Strain, 2002)
Access online here via EBSCO

Some further reading and application of these ideas:

Is reflective practice synonymous with action research? (McMahon, 1999)
Access online here via Triangleat:

Scientific Concepts and Reflection (Wardekker, 1998) Access from EBSCO here.

Beyond Reflection: Teacher learning as praxis (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003)
Access online here via EBSCO

 Discourse Communities and the social construction of reflection in teacher education (Ovens, 202)
Access at: http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Ovens.pdf

Vygoskian perspectives on social and cultural learning

An overview: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock//virtual/trishvyg.htm#hilo

 Socio-cultural learning theory:
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/sociocult.html

http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html

Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula (Jamarillo, 1996)
Access at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199610/ai_n8734319

A large collection of resources from the University of Colorado ( Denver ): http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_cult.html 

Discipline based learning 

What is a discipline? Paul Penfeild Jr deals with basic questions of defining a discipline and linking discipline based needs to education

Access at: http://www-mtl.mit.edu/~penfield/pubs/abet-02.html

The generic meets the discipline – An overview provided by the Higher Education Academy.
Access online here

Cases and Examples:

Discipline based education and education research: The case of Physics (Redish, n.d.)
Access at: http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/nas/nas.htm

A discipline-based undergraduate skills module (Elander, 2003)
Access at: http://www.writenow.ac.uk/assessmentplus/documents/Elander%202003%20PLAT.pdf

The task: Following from the Assignment 2 task, you are asked to continue in your role as an expert in 2 of the 5 pedagogic identities. Working in a group of 3-5 peer learners, you are asked to construct a cognitive map which illustrates all 5 pedagogical approaches and the interrelationships between them. You are addressing the following question: 

What are the relationships between the 5 pedagogical approached named in the framework for Assignment 2?

As part of this task you will need to consider the following questions:

• Which concepts define these pedagogical approaches?
• Which of the concepts are most important in defining the relationships between the approaches?
• How can these concepts and the relationships best be represented?

The 8 criteria for evaluating these pedagogical approaches will be essential for identifying similarities and differences as well as relationships between the approaches.

The process: An example process might look something like this:

1. Introduce yourself to the members of your workgroup and identify which pedagogies you are ‘expert' with.
2. With other members of your group, negotiate shared understandings of each of the pedagogical approaches.
3. Familiarize yourself with the background on cognitive maps and cognitive mapping.
4. Outline a process for creating the cognitive map including roles for each member and a process for discussion.
5. Begin construction of the map.
6. Allow for discussion, revision, discussion, more editing, more discussion and so on until you are satisfied with the product. This sounds simple, but is not easy. You're expected to bring a number of skills into play in this activity as you negotiate and make meaning in the creation of your concept map. It is anticipated that this step may constitute the majority of time/effort spent on this task.
7. Write a brief (one page/450 word) description/explanation to go with your map.
8. Complete the peer critique.
9. Submit your assignment.

The product: The result of this process will be a concept map with an accompanying description/explanation. This will be produced collaboratively.

Also, you will complete a peer critique of your group members. Use the form provided to evaluate your peers' contributions to the collaborative learning activity.

The Resources:

http://intraspec.ca/cogmap.php

Others:

http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm

http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/ACES100/Mind/CMap.html
and the related page: http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/ACES100/Mind/c-m2.html

Links to examples: http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~johnson/misconceptions/concept_map/concept_maps.html