Recommendations 

Theoretically, the transformationist approach, which is consistent with the emerging philosophy evolving from ‘sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ in higher education (King 1993), is supposed to be effective in the T&I classrooms. However, the reality is that some T&I classrooms may not be ready to welcome such an approach. Two obstacles may stand in the way. One is that teachers may hold mixed views of learning, instead of purely constructivist or situated learning views (Allen 2013, Klien 1996, Murphy 2000). The other is that misalignment is evident between teaching beliefs and learning beliefs (Brown 2009, Kern 1995 and Yung 2013 in Li 2017).

I have seen similarities in my work in moving people, along the spectrum from racist to anti-racist. I have found severe resistance (fragility), as views become entrenched through firstly anchoring bias and then a confirmation bias. Once toxic associations are formed even statistical evidence may fall on deaf ears. (Eberhart 2019, p23)

 

I have come to use and advocate an approach which brings people to the conclusion but does not seek to answer the question for them. Similar to Lauren Spring, Melissa Smith & Maureen DaSilva (2017) in feminist-inspired guided art gallery visits for people diagnosed with mental illness and addiction facilitators use VTS (visual, thinking skills), describes ‘VTS uses art to teach visual literacy, thinking, and communication skills–listening and expressing oneself. Growth is stimulated by several things: Looking at the art of increasing complexity; answering developmentally based questions (What is going on in this picture? What do you see that makes you say that? What more can we find?); participating in peer-group discussions carefully facilitated by teachers. (p. 19)

The dialogue around any facilitation in moving beliefs is of utmost importance, ‘Dialogue is more than a conversation; it is the building of learning the centred narrative.’ (Carnell and Lodge p15). If we merge these concepts together, the teachers should aim to fade into facilitators and enables groups of pupils to co-construct meaning.

Yenawine 2013 argues that VTS (visual thinking strategies) offers a ‘new paradigm that nurtures deeper learning’ and gives participants’ permission to wonder’ (p. 163). I would say it does more than this. This process takes time and refusal to become the all-knowing sage (reception model). No matter how many times the participants/students ask. While she (Yenawine) and Abigail Housen discourage facilitators from drawing any tidy conclusions or ‘wrapping up’ a VTS session by pronouncing which participant responses were most accurate (i.e. ‘yes, this actually is his wife’ or ‘the painter had indeed encountered analytic cubism in France before setting to work on this canvass’)  (Yenawine, 2013 in Spring et al 2017).

 

The constructivist ‘teacher’s’ role incorporates the context and lens of both the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’. Without an in-depth knowledge one own ontology, epistemology and their bearing on your beliefs, the job of a co-constructivist ‘teacher’ is near impossible.

Teachers should embrace a model of learning and practice which in part suits their learners, their personal experience and their core purpose, the first step in should be through a personal reflection in which they interrogate their experiences of learning as well as their ontological and epistemological background.

A high starting point is encouraging teachers to start to elicit personal reactions to the critical pedagogy of Paulo Freire who describes informal and formal education as dialogical; this dialogue is fundamentally about making a difference in the world.

 

Coaches/mentors should ask what is the purpose of education? Learning content (knowledge) and the skills to apply them are essential in today’s world. If we take a consequentialist view, and link education to employment and the current global capitalism in play in the world; this point is echoed by the world bank in ‘creating workers for today’s workforce’, Educators today are tasked with developing lifelong learners who can survive and thrive in a global knowledge economy – learners who have the capability to effectively and creatively apply skills and competencies to new situations in an ever-changing, complex world (The World Bank, 2003; Kuit & Fell, 2010 in Blaschke 2012).

 

Is this the sole reason teachers teach to enable pupils to enter the workforce? In my experience teachers as a whole would resist this as a basis and many teachers would hold similar views.

 

‘While such claims do stem from a concern about the ways in which teaching and schools can ‘make a difference,’ they are often linked to rather narrow views about what education is supposed to ‘produce’ taking their cues from large scale measurement systems such as PISA which continue to focus on academic achievement in a small and selective number of domains and subject areas.’ Biesta (2015)

 

A reflexive approach is needed, depending on the answers that surface.

However, this task becomes easier once you have accepted where your own learning has come from. Even a fickle surface level interrogation of your own beliefs can trigger self-directed questions around your position on the constructivist scale.

 

‘Given the nature of case studies, the findings of this preliminary inquiry may not be generalisable to a wider context. However, the value of this study lies in the fact that it inspires colleagues to research their own beliefs in their own teaching contexts and those of their students, and to understand whether those beliefs are enabling or detrimental to the design of a successful T&I course.’ (Li 2017)

 

Belief systems are resistant to change as the groups of traditionalist and progressives have reached a collective status, with both groups, hailing their idols and their respective villains. The issue in moving teacher practice may not be one of convincing someone to the advantages of the co-constructivist model but, ironically, one of asking them to accept and adjust their lens and their position in society.

 

‘How we are seen determines in part how we are treated; how we treat others is based on how we see them; such seeing comes from representation.’ (Dyer 1993:1 in Gilborn 2000)

 

It is vital to recognise one’s own beliefs, as Gilborn 2000 goes on to cite that through encoding, and limiting preferred reading (Hall 1990)’ representation does not reflect (in some neutral way) … instead support a particular idea.’ Which further entrenches these views.

 

Teacher trainers should also learn lessons from Twistleton’s 2002 dissertation, where she discusses three stages of teacher development, this work is centred around trainee teachers but has been extended to experienced teachers.

 

Task Managers– Through a self-identity which heavily influenced by their own experience as pupils, task managers appear to rely on a knowledge of educational contexts. Where they employ teaching priorities that involve authority, order and ‘busyness’, this is typically taught through the reception model.

 

Curriculum Deliverers-Their modus operandi involves a broader knowledge base than Task Managers. Curriculum Deliverers’ primary focus is curriculum knowledge. When working with groups of inexperienced teachers, it is tempting, as a leader, to put this at the heart of the teacher’s daily planning routine and core purpose. However, this is not the aim of teaching, as Counsell (2018) stated, simply distilling the residue of ‘core’ can ultimately lead to teaching being more difficult and detrimental to the whole process. These are also typically delivered through the reception model.

 

With the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy and the National Curriculum in the 1990s. Twistleton (2002) postulates that this possibly explains why there was a cluster of teachers as curriculum deliverers, which are generally traditionalist/behaviourist due to the constraints of time. Which pushes teachers, even those with a constructivist base, towards the reception model and traditionalism.

 

‘Instructors are torn between providing sufficient knowledge and facts to help a student become successful in the next course and delivery fewer facts but creating a learner-centred environment.’ Horton (2001)

 

The above is an extremely pertinent point at the moment with the profound changes to the secondary curriculum and movement to the grade 9-1 system.

 

‘[Teachers] have spent years improving their delivery of method, changing from the chalkboard to overheads, and lately moving to computer projection and online delivery. Moreover, as students they have taken standardised exams to measure learning. However, these teaching styles do not assist the student in becoming lifelong learners relative to a given topic.’ Horton (2001)

 

More and more teachers are forced (and remain stuck) into these categories (curriculum deliverers and traditionalist), through fear of the unknown. As a classroom teacher, middle leader or senior leader, mark schemes and specimen papers provide solace in a world where you know little about the nature of the new assessment framework. In moving towards a co-constructivist model, teachers need to be pushed towards concept and skill builders.

 

Concept/Skill builders – “… they saw the task as important only in so much as it contributed to the ultimate goal of an increased understanding related to the broader framework of the subject Insight allows the expert teacher to see deeply into a problem in order to seek the most effective solution. Selective encoding helps in selecting the relevant information to do this. This provides the expert with an insight into the situation, which will: a) enable her/him to make the most efficient use of the time available and b) draw on the most useful areas of knowledge.” Twistleton 2002

 

As a physicist who was taught for 18 years (for the majority) under the reception model, it is very difficult for myself to incorporate constructivist teaching into my own classroom. My natural tendency is to revert to myself as the font of all knowledge and students as being the passive receptacles of knowledge, through this assignment I have seen the merits of the transformationist, reflexive and interrogative approach.

 

Teachers coaches and facilitators should consider following:

 

1. Creating awareness of the spectrum of the reception model to co-construction.
2. Using techniques used in consciousness-raising activities like VTS, where facilitators do not seek answers but seek thought.
3. An interrogation of the
4. Teacher’s own experiences
5. Their ontology and epistemology.
6. An identification of the teacher’s core purposes.
7. Ameliorate personal resistance to change.
8. Appreciate all of the above factors in both the journey of the pupils and the journey of the teachers.
9. Adapt practices as a result.

 

 

References

 

Carnell, E. and Lodge, C. (2002) Supporting Effective Learning. London: PCP

National School Improvement Network. (2002). Effective Learning. London: UCL Institute of Education. NSIN Bulletin. [Online]. Summer 2002, 17. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83041.pdf …. [Accessed: 30th May 2019].

 

Abbott J (1994), Learning makes sense: re-creating education for a changing future, Letchworth: Education 2000

 

Blaschke, Lisa Marie. (2012). Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 13. 56-71. 10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076.

 

Campaign for Real Education (2019) THE TRADITIONAL AND PROGRESSIVE PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION Available at: https://www.cre.org.uk/philosophies.html (Accessed: 30 May 2019).

 

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E., 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), pp.75-86.

 

Wood, D. (2010). How Children Think and Learn, The Social Contexts of Cognitive Development, Second Edition, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

 

Whitebread, D. (2012) Developmental Psychology and Early Childhood Education: A Guide for Students and practitioners, Los Angeles, Sage Publishing.

 

Sugata Mitra (2013) Build a School in the Cloud. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud/transcript

(Accessed: 30 May 2019).

 

Steve Black & James D. Allen (2018) Part 5: Learning is a Social Act, The Reference Librarian, 59:2, 76-91,DOI: 10.1080/02763877.2017.1400932

 

Barbara M. Wildemuth. (1993). Post-Positivist Research: Two Examples of Methodological Pluralism. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 63(4), 450-468. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4308866

 

Steve Black & James D. Allen (2018) Part 5: Learning is a Social Act, The Reference Librarian, 59:2, 76-91,DOI: 10.1080/02763877.2017.1400932

Miller, P. H. (2011). Piaget’s theory: Past, present, and future. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 649-672). : Wiley-Blackwell.

 

Lauren Spring, Melissa Smith & Maureen DaSilva (2018) The transformative-learning potential of feminist-inspired guided art gallery visits for people  diagnosed with mental illness and addiction, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37:1, 55-72, DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2017.1406543

 

Onwuegbuzie and Daley (2001) Racial Differences in IQ Revisited: Asynthesis of Nearly a Century of Research, JOURNAL OF BLACK PYSCHOLOGY, VOL 27:2. P 210-210.

 

Pajares, M. F. (1992) ‘Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct’, Review of Educational Research, 62(3), pp. 307–332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307.

 

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307

 

Isikoglu, N. (2009). Assessing in service teachers’ instructional beliefs about student centred education: A Turkish perspective. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25(2), 350-356

 

Katherine Schultz, Cheryl E. Jones-Walker & Anita P. Chikkatur (2008) Listening to Students, Negotiating Beliefs: Preparing Teachers for Urban Classrooms, Curriculum Inquiry, 38:2, 155-187, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00404.x

 

Xiangdong Li (2018) Teaching beliefs and learning beliefs in translator and interpreter education: an exploratory case study, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12:2, 132-151, DOI: 10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359764

 

Brett W. Horton (2001) Shifting from the Sage on Stage to the Guide on the Side: The Impact on Student Learning and Course Evaluations, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 13:5, 26-34, DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2001.10696712

 

Lauren Spring, Melissa Smith & Maureen DaSilva (2018) The transformative-learning potential of feminist-inspired guided art gallery visits for people  diagnosed with mental illness and addiction,International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37:1, 55-72, DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2017.1406543

Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform and Equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 

Twiselton, S. (2002). Beyond the curriculum: learning to teach primary literacy. PhD. University of Birmingham

 

Counsell, C. (2018). Senior Curriculum Leadership 1: The indirect manifestation of knowledge: (B) final performance as deceiver and guide. [Blog] The dignity of the thing. Available at: https://thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/senior-curriculum-leadership-1-the-indirect-manifestation-of-knowledge-b-final-performance-as-deceiver-and-guide/%5BAccessed 30 3. 2018].

 

Counsell, C. (2018). Senior Curriculum Leadership 1: The indirect manifestation of knowledge: (A) curriculum as narrative [Blog] The dignity of the thing. Available at:https://thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/senior-curriculum-leadership-1-the-indirect-manifestation-of-knowledge-a-curriculum-as-narrative/%5BAccessed 30 12. 2018].

 

Blashke, L. (2012).Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning . The international review of research in open and distance learning, Volume (13), Page61.

Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development (2018). McLeod. (2018) Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html. (Accessed: 30 March 2019).

 

UNESCO. Learning: The Treasure Within stresses the need for everyone to learn for four different purposes (International Commission on Education for the Twenty First Century [ICE], 1996)

 

Eberhardt J (2019) The New Science of Race and Inequality Biased. London: Penguin Random House UK.

 

Biesta, G.  (2015). What is Education For? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement, and Educational Professionalism. European Journal of Education, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2015 DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12109

What are Traditionalist and Progressive labels?

 

The Campaign for Real Education (2019) summarises the differences between Traditional and Progressive education as follows:

 

Traditional	Progressive
Education should be reasonably authoritarian and hierarchical	Education must be egalitarian
The curriculum should be subject-centred	It must be child-centred and relevant
Emphasis should be on content	Emphasis must be on skills
(Book) knowledge and accuracy are essential	Experience, experiment and understanding are more important
Rationality and the consideration of factual evidence should predominate	Creativity and feelings are more important than facts
Recognition of right and wrong	Right and wrong depend on one’s point of view
There should be a product	It is the process that matters
The product, or knowledge of content, should be objectively tested or measured	Criteria provide a framework for subjective assessment or tasks based on skills
Competition is welcomed	Co-operation must take precedence
Choice between different curricula and/or different types of school is essential to maximise individual strengths	Entitlement for all replaces choice and differentiation; equal opportunities can be used to construct equality of result

 

‘The traditionalist approach, broadly defines teachers as the experts and purveyors of knowledge through controlling stimuli, either through positively or negatively reinforcement, and as a result, stimulus-didactic methods are popular in the behaviourist classroom.’ (Kirschner et al, p11)

 

Then Kirschner et al 2006 go on to describe various aspects of memory and cognition. This is, no doubt, of value; however, this does not address the holistic approach to education.  This is not congruent with the basis of the statement ‘to evaluate the present, so as to shape future action and formulate new knowledge’ (Abbott, 2000). Simultaneously without the facts and knowledge to perform an evaluation the whole concept of learning falls apart.

 

Here it is not difficult to see the links between traditionalism and the reception end of the spectrum. Traditionalist lessons are typically taught through the reception model where ‘the learner is a passive recipient of knowledge which is transmitted by the teacher.’ ‘it is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge, and with memorisation and with reproduction… while the emotional and social aspects of learning are not addressed’ (Carnell and Lodge 2002)

 

Examples of where this reception model is used are,

 

• Terminal examinations GCSE/A Level
• Standard Attainment Tests
• National Curricula

 

 

Historically the standard of transmission of knowledge, using lectures, dictation and the teacher’s role as the ‘sage on the stage’. Any assessment measuring if pupils holistically, i.e. have learned to ‘live together’ or learned to ‘be’ are incredibly complicated, in comparison to assessing if pupils have retained and can reproduce knowledge on any given exam day.

While studying for this assessment I have found myself asking the questions of my own core purpose; My own epistemological view of what learning and assessment should look like. Moreover, where my personal stances, viewpoints and foundations have come from?

 

Did the traditionalism and reception model gain historical prominence because of the way teachers themselves are judged? This leads to how the pupils are judged? I would suspect that the assessment of pupil’s knowledge is more straightforward to measure than the change that education has made to their life? As the adage goes ‘what gets measured gets done’.

 

I, for one, did not become an educator to ensure all pupils receive a bank knowledge and achieve the following qualifications. Educators should first interrogate the purpose of their role if it is to prepare pupils for terminal exams, in which case basing their curricula around knowledge acquisitions and reproduction is a sensible course of action.

 

On the other hand, is the core purpose of educators to produce flexible learners who may use skills to adapt and use knowledge as a tool in their working lives, a different approach is required. If it is to empower them to make a global change, a completely different tact has to be taken.

 

Behaviourists and Traditionalists 

 

Behaviourist Howard Skinner’s (Wood 1998) secret to rapid and sustained learning is when positive behaviour is only subject to an intermittent schedule of reinforcement where the desired outcome is only occasional reinforced. He argued that formal education is based on ‘aversive control’, this leads him to criticise lessons and exams because they are naturally designed to find what pupils don’t know (to ridicule and punish them) instead of revealing what they do know and so we can build upon this — consequently teacher’s fail to shape pupil’s behaviours effectively.

 

This is reinforced by Wood in citing Pribram, who found that in animal studies that a monkey may continue to ‘play’ with a reward lever post satisfaction, to the point where the monkey’s mouth, hands and feet were full, the monkey then started to throw the peanuts at the experimenter, whatever ever the schedule of reinforcement we can speculate was this because of the fun of the lever? (Wood 1998, p4)

 

From my experience as a secondary school leader and teacher, the number of times I have caught myself using phrases like ‘grow up! you’re in year 11’ this is fundamentally flawed as this offers no journey for pupils to correct and build upon their known morality; It also recognises none of the pupils existing learning to build upon.

 

Are some of the pupil’s negative behaviours due to play? A process to check if the reward was intermittent? Alternatively, to have ‘fun’ with the boundaries of behaviour and classroom policies?

 

Whitebread likens this experience to human gambling behaviour if a fruit machine was to return half of your money every third spin the end financial results would be the same, however, but not nearly so many people would travel to Las Vegas for the experience. (Whitebread 2012, p114)

 

I’d argue that there are parallels here with all learning, including forms of adult learning (andragogy/heutagogy), during adult learning the rewards are often intermittent, I’ve spent hours on this very assignment only to delete large swathes of text because I felt it did not fit. Is that because I see the ‘reward’ as the number of quality words I write toward my word limit? This assignment is essentially my trip to Vegas and my slot machine.

 

‘The fundamental problem with the behaviourist approach was that it was characterised learning as an essentially passive process, consisting of forming simple associations between events, and being dependent on external rewards or reinforcements’ (Whitebread 2012, p115)

 

Thinking this through, the purpose of this assignment should not the word count, or even the M level credits (the result of a passive process), but the learning I gained through the process of reading and constructing and co-constructing my meaning from the literature. My mindset has moved towards seeing the slot machine jackpot as being the enhancement of my learning, experience rather than the result.

 

Do Teacher Beliefs Matter?

 

I am bringing this back to the personal ontology of teachers, where teachers who utilise the reception model tends to favour the positivistic ontology where truths and meaning are absolute. ‘… [Constructivist assumption] meaning that there are no ‘universal truths’ but rather that the way human beings make sense of the world depends on their personal experiences and perceptions.’ (Cranton and Taylor 2012, in Spring et al, 2017).

 

‘This [Positivistic] approach assumes that reality is objective, transcending an individual perspective, and that it is expressed in the statistical regularities of behaviour.’ (Wildemuth 1993)

 

The positivistic view described above is challenged by post positivistic view of research, where relativist approaches ‘assumes that reality is subjective and is socially constructed’. As a physics teacher, this really resonates,

 

‘Evidence in research is always imperfect and fallible’. (Phillips and Burbles 2000 pp 29-34 in Real World Research, Robson p22).

 

I will not regale you with nuanced details of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but broadly, this means that there is a fundamental error in the position and momentum of a particle. The ‘truth’ cannot be fully known, this not due to the accuracy of recording tools but a fundamental error. Along with the phenomenon (Bell’s Theorem) that merely observing a particle changes it. This learning moved my stance and leanings, towards the relativist spectrum from a purely positivist one.

 

Teachers should all embrace their ontological and epistemological basis before entering the classroom. It was after university did I look explicitly at how I learn and how I decide what is acceptable as knowledge. As the ontological stance and epistemological viewpoint of a teacher will impact on their core purpose, their ascription to the traditionalist or progressive label and ultimately their practice in their classrooms.

 

Teacher self-identity [self-belief] is of paramount importance in this process, if teachers see themselves as task managers and that their primary role is to keep pupils busy, the connection between classroom learning and the world and beyond will not be made. (Twiselton 2002)

 

I am aware that teachers may hold mixed beliefs around traditionalist and constructivist spectrum. For this assignment,  the broad strokes of traditionalist and progressive, traditionalist, behaviourist, positivist, co/constructivist and relativist (or post-positivist) will and have been used. Recognising that multiple factors construct teacher beliefs, the word beliefs here is problematic ‘Disagreement still exists among researchers regarding the definition of beliefs’ (Pajares 1992)

‘Teachers with traditional behaviourist beliefs are more likely to employ teacher-centred practices, while those with social constructivist beliefs tend to resort to student-centred instruction’ (Isikoglu, Basturk, and Karaca, 2009)

It is not difficult to see that traditionalists are more likely to work on behaviouristic models and have started with a positivistic ontological stance. Teacher practices are generally the result of a negotiation between internal beliefs and the external teacher contexts. (Schultz, Jones-Walker, and Chikkatur 2008)

Legacy of learning 

 

The legacy of learner’s journey impacts the evaluation of teaching and learning, and this has a significant impact on school leaders, learners have preconceived ideas around delivery from their own experiences ‘Such a mismatch may lead to lack of motivation, adoption of surface learning approaches, resistance to certain teaching activities that do not align with their beliefs, and learning ineffectiveness or discontinuation of study.’ (Brown 2009, in Li 2018)

‘Students with memorisation-for-reproduction beliefs tend to have negative learning experiences in higher education and are uncomfortable with teaching approaches that do not correspond with their beliefs (Kember 2001, in Li 2018)

Those students may turn into the very same teachers who experienced a traditionalist/positivistic mindset in their schooling are likely to teach in the same manner. School leaders and trainers should bear this in mind when introducing any initiative which seeks to move teachers towards the co-construction pole of the spectrum.

Looking at the impact of these beliefs on learners is impressive; the misalignment of beliefs, the impact of such can have a more significant impact on learning approaches than the course design. (Campbell et al. 2001 in Li 2018).

Beliefs of teachers should be interrogated before any movement as although Li 2018 concedes that ‘although the findings of this preliminary inquiry may not be generalisable to a wider context.’ The real value is in the interrogation of teacher’s beliefs both as learners and as professional.

Earlier in the assignment, I asked  ‘Is that because I see the ‘reward’ as the number of quality words I wrote toward my word limit?’. I was also bought up in the UK under an education system in which behaviourist pedagogy was implemented; In my adulthood, I should endeavour to move my epistemology to the constructivist model where the learning process, the finding of meaning is the reward (and more ‘fun’). 

 

 

What is Learning? This question has many answers, as it is rarely explicitly defined for or by teachers.

“Learning … that reflective activity which enables the learner to draw upon previous experience to understand and evaluate the present, so as to shape future action and formulate new knowledge” (Abbott, in National School Improvement Network, 2002, p1)

Carnell and Lodge (2002), define the conceptions of learning. These are widely echoed in professional circles; these are what the learner is doing while learning is happening:

• Getting more knowledge;
• Memorising and reproducing;
• Applying facts or procedures;
• Understanding;
• Seeing something in a different way;
• Changing as a person (Marton et al., 1993; Saljo, 1979).

In today’s teacher culture, two schools of thought exist, one which concentrates its attention on content (traditionalist) and the other which puts greater emphasis upon skills (progressive). It is easy to visualise the above points 1-4 being achieved by the sole transmission of knowledge. Where in achieving points 5 and 6 learners will have to embrace the learning and deconstruct/construct their lens and identity as a result. Points 5 and 6 will have to involve a change in the pupils epistemological and ontological stances; pupil reactions will not be addressed in this assignment. I would also point out that teachers will have to be flexible enough in their lens to allow for this to happen.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNESCO (1996) define the purpose of education as:

• learning to know;
• learning to do;
• learning to live together;
• learning to be.

It is difficult to see how the third and fourth points, learning to be and learning to live together can be achieved solely through the transmission of knowledge. The first two points can be, and historically have been, taught in the classroom through a traditionalist approach.

Learning to ‘know’ and ‘do’ are essential, knowing is not necessarily based around the acquisition of academic knowledge, the knowledge that we have already is constantly growing and evolving (Carnell and Lodge 2002 p.8). Consequently, the learning to do is the ability to be flexible and to learn and work with others that is increasingly being required.’ (ibid. p. 9).

Models of Teaching: Reception to Co-Construction

Historically teaching has been based on a system of depositing knowledge from teacher to student, Freire refers to this as banking. Teachers are the bank of knowledge that student that withdraws from and incorporate this knowledge into their balance. Banking has and is taught through a didactic method of lecture, dictation and direction.

Do teachers and adults favour this method of learning? There are various examples of non-didactic teacher/sage led models of knowledge transmission in our society: The offside rule, how to play a computer game? How to build IKEA flatpack, etc. As adults, actually, as humans, in my experience, we rarely reach for the instructions. We construct between our interaction between ourselves and our tools, even when wholly stumped personally rather than follow rote instructions I am more likely to reach out to another human being for help, reaching for an opportunity to co-construct together.

‘Cognitive constructivism suggests that everything individuals learns is due to the mental schemes we construct as we interact with our environment’ (Schunk, 2016, in Black and Allen, 2018).

It could be argued that those people who would reach for the instructions first and foremost are also utilising the social interaction between author and reader and hence a social act. Black and Allen 2017 concludes that ‘learning is also almost always a social act’. (Black and Allen, 2017)

‘effective reading of texts as finding meaningful connections within the text that the author is trying to communicate to the reader, or between the author’s expressions to the reader and the knowledge the reader already possesses.’

(Kintsch 1986, in Black and Allen 2017)

I’d suspect in the reception/traditionalist model of an expert to novice, and the natural preference is towards the other pole of the spectrum (developed from Carnell and Lodge 2011).

Where Piaget explains that children form schema as fundamental building blocks of learning, these then interact with their experiences and environment to cement development — through assimilation, using schemata on a new entity, accommodation, adapting schema, equilibration where new schemata are formed as a result of the new entity being unable to be assimilated or accommodated. Assimilation and accommodation are rarely completed without the aid of the environment and people around children. (Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, 2018)

“To do this (a generality of knowing), teachers need to be able to channel pupils thinking in ways that relate to contexts beyond schools and schooling, classrooms and classroom culture. They need not only to understand the concepts and skills they are trying to develop but also how they relate to broader inter-connected frameworks that are not limited by the boundaries of the curriculum or school.” (Twiselton 2002)

Learning leads to use outside the classroom but also it is intrinsically linked to the learning process within the classroom. This point is echoed by Dennison and Kirk who describe four elements in a learning process, drawing on the model by Kolb and Biggs and Moore (National School Improvement Network, 2002, p1)

‘This cycle highlights activity in learning (Do), the need for reflection and evaluation (Review), the extraction of meaning from the review (Learn), and the planned use of learning in future action (Apply). (ibid.  p1)

(ibid.  p1)

The ‘apply’ falls firmly in the realm of constructivism and co-constructivism. Learning is not confined to the four walls of the classroom it is ‘applied’ within the classroom context and the school and wider contexts. This is even echoed by traditionalist classicists who believe that race is a predeterminer for IQ and success. ‘Surely, one could not learn any cognitive skill, such as learning a native or foreign language, without environmental support. Even in Indeed, the most ardent classicists contend that heritability for intelligence lies between .40 and .80. Assuming this range is accurate, that leaves between 20% and 60% of cognitive ability to be explained by other factors, presumably environmental.’ (Herrnstein & Murray, in Onwuegbuzie and Daley 2001. P213)

My current work is primarily with adults, adult education, andragogy, is generally centred around the learning, the learning ‘to live’ and ‘be’ and as a result generally constructivist in its nature.

‘A key attribute of andragogy is self-directed learning, defined by Knowles (1975) as a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes. (Blaschke 2012)’

If we are to train teachers to teach pupils to be able to adapt in a future global economy; we must move to a more heautagogical model of education, where the aim is to develop capability as opposed to competency (traditionalist to constructivist) for the learner to self-direct and to engage in double-loop learning in both teachers and learners. (Blaschke 2012)

Double-loop learning has its parallels to Kolb’s cycle where learners do, review and apply but with the addition of a second loop in where the learning process changes/impacts the learner’s beliefs and actions for this to happen the learner has to be aware of their original stance.

A key concept in heutagogy is that of double-loop learning and self-reflection (Argyris & Schön, 1996, as cited in Hase & Kenyon, 2000). In double-loop learning, learners consider the problem and the resulting action and outcomes, in addition to reflecting upon the problem-solving process and how it influences the learner’s own beliefs and actions. Double-loop learning occurs when learners “question and test one’s personal values and assumptions as being central to enhancing learning how to learn” (Argyris & Schön, 1978, as cited in Hase, 2009, pp. 45-46).

Moving from Reception to Co-Construction 

There has been a movement towards two further models of constructivism and co-constructivism. Where meaning and knowledge are constructed from one’s experience, co constructivist like the name suggests meaning is constructed within a social dynamic.

Examples of where the models are used,

Reception Model	Construction Model	Co-construction Model
Terminal examinations GCSE/A Level   SATs National Curricula	Formative Assessment   Research Activities Investigative activities Problem- Solving dialogue between;	Dialogue between learners and learners.     Investigative activities Problem- Solving dialogue between; Dialogue between learners and learners

Carnell and Lodge 2011

Earlier, I described the activities within a spectrum of reception to co-constructivist where these two models are at the poles, where the teacher is seen as a facilitator at one end and the other end a holistic guide.

To construct and co-construct schema is a function of humanity, to find meaning in the context of the individual’s whole experience. Sugata Mitra’s project found that Indian pupils learned to construct meaning and learning and picked up a foreign language with no external support in various rural locations.

Sugata Mitra 2013, set up a computer in a hole in a wall and left and returned hours, weeks and months later,

‘And I went away. About eight hours later, we found them browsing and teaching each other how to browse. So I said, “Well that’s impossible, because — How is it possible? They don’t know anything.”‘

In an irritated voice, they said, “You’ve given us a machine that works only in English, so we had to teach ourselves English in order to use it.” (Laughter) That’s the first time, as a teacher, that I had heard the word “teach ourselves” said so casually.

Learners actually picked up a language, albeit with mispronunciations, through constructing a schema through their experience, in Mitra’s TED talk, he described learners first constructing and then co-constructing meaning together. They had utterly skipped the need for the reception model and the need for a sage on the stage.

Learning is a cognitive and a constructive act. That is, people actively build meaning as they learn. This perspective on how people learn is known as individual cognitive constructivism and is based on Piaget’s cognitive development theory. (Miller 2010 in Black 2017).

 

References will be included at the end of the series.

pedagogy

/ˈpɛdəɡɒdʒi,ˈpɛdəɡɒɡi/

noun

1.          the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept. “the relationship between applied linguistics and language pedagogy”

 

The method and practice of teaching, what does pedagogy mean to you? While lots of teachers argue about what to teach our pupils; I would like to talk about the ‘why’ and how. (Yes, I’m aware this sounds like an advert for Simon Sinek).

Starting with the why: As a secondary school teacher, I ask myself this question daily, to realigning my actions towards my own core purpose. Why am I teaching the pupils in my care this lesson?

Here are some over the reasons, I find myself answering with:

1.          I believe all pupils deserve the best possible chances to succeed.

2.          I believe pupils should become great global citizens.

3.          I believe in giving my pupils the academic passport to choose to take the path they choose, whether that be career wise or within academia.

4.          I believe my subject is amazing, and it will be amazing for them to learn this. This will in turn foster a love of learning.

5.          I believe learning the skills and knowledge in this lesson will serve them well in life.

6.          I believe that they can be inspired.

7.          I believe pupils deserve a safe space, where all pupils feel able to make mistakes.

Now to the how. Now we know the why, the how should fall into place. There no one better placed to judge ‘what is right for their pupils’ than a classroom teacher.

Well, Let’s start with planning.

How

1.     I believe all pupils deserve the best possible chances to succeed.

Number 1 is about all pupil inclusion. For me, this means all pupils are challenged and supported to access the tasks you set for them.

To the list: all pupils, differentiation, stretch and challenge, all abilities and needs catered for.

2.     I believe pupils should become great global citizens.

This is important, whether you teach in a cosmopolitan metropolis or you teach in a rural village. Your pupils may and probably will interact with people across the globe as well as people in their locality. Also, to build an environment where pupils have the right to belong in your classroom.

Is your teaching representative of the world? Representative of your pupils? Or even representative of the truth? Here I would think about using varied examples in lessons and in the curriculum. Who are you actively promoting? Are all your examples cis white able middle-class hetero males? Mix it up and be representative.

To the list: the ability to communicate articulately, to disagree respectfully, to resist democratically, to be kind, pupils embrace and appreciate people for who they are, uses different examples of success including all protected characteristics.

3.     I believe in giving my pupils the academic passport to choose to take the path they choose; whether that be career-wise or within academia.

This is being able to answer exam questions –  yes I’ve said that – but notice I haven’t said let’s all now teach to the test.

In the perfect world, assessment would be based on a system where pupils are valued for their skills and thought processes, instead of a simple test of memory and performance on a particular day. However, we don’t live in that world… yet.

I do recognize that there is also an argument to say that if you fulfil the rest of the why quota, outcomes may become a by-product.

To the list: Exam literacy, use of exam questions, zip tests and retrieval practice, and formative exam assessment.

4.  5. 6. I believe my subject is amazing and it will be amazing for them to learn this. To foster a love of learning. That these skills and knowledge in this lesson will serve them well in life. Essentially that they can be inspired.

4, 5 and 6 are about inspirational teaching, I did not start teaching to become an exam coach, a curriculum deliverer or a task manager (Twistleton 2010). I embark on my journey to ignite the fire, a love for learning in young minds within my subject and beyond.

To the list: SERVE method, interesting/engaging, appreciation of the value of learning, to foster profound learning.

7. I believe my pupils deserve a safe space, where all pupils feel equal.

Is your teaching representative of the world you? representative of pupils? Or even representative of the truth? Here I would think about using varied examples in lessons and in the curriculum. Who are you actively promoting? Are all your examples cis white able middle-class hetero males? Mix it up and be representative.

So, all in all here’s my list.

a.    Ensure all pupils receive a fair share of my time. (the use of an interaction tracker is useful)

b.     Differentiation so that all pupils have the opportunity to access the lesson, including stretch and challenge.

c.     Communicate articulately.

d.     To disagree respectfully and to resist democratically.

e.     Using different examples of success including all protected characteristics.

f.      Exam literacy, use of exam questions, zip tests and retrieval practice, and formative exam assessment.

g.     SERVE method, to foster profound learning.

h.     Use varied examples of success.

I am not suggesting that we incorporate all of the above into every lesson on top of the lesson’s objectives, but over a module of work, we should attempt to. In fact, I’ll blog on how I plan a module of work…