Guy has an interest in epistemic knowledge and teaching for the development of creative minds in students for longer term impact. The aim in building learning power in students is to get good results by building confidence, capacity and appetite for creative learning. Guy used the metaphor for a classroom in this context which was it was a fitness centre and the lecturer/teacher is a learning coach. The process of creative teaching is making small cumulative modifications to teaching habits and the learning culture.
Learning worth its salt is difficult, slow, uncertain, error strewn, emergent and innovative and requires resilience, patience, imagination, collaboration, self-evaluation and courage.
The rationalistic view of HE is:
- It’s all about transmission of knowledge
- Knowledge leads to expertise
- Student learning is intellectual and incremental
- Lectures are primarily knowledge transmitters
- Universities are the “cathedrals of intelligence
A complementary view is:
- HE is not the mastery of complex bodies of knowledge, it is the development of professional and scholarly habits of mind
- Universities are collections of epistemic “ communities of practice” with students as “new comers” and professors as “old-timers”
- Students serve an epistemic apprenticeship
Layers of apprenticeship
- Knowledge- fact, theory, precedent
- Domain specific skills
- Generic habits of mind
- Attitudes – “role of intuition”
- Values and interests
- Identity
An epistemic craftsman wonders, critiques, researches, stores, imagines, collaborates and story-tells.
We should be looking at students as apprentice researcher/professionals.
What could we do to support this process as lecturers, is:
- Tell the truth about learning/discovery
- Model wondering, not knowing
- Use more “could be” language
- Time to iterate and improve
- Make it safe to wonder
- More problem/project-based learning
- Encourage collaboration and critique
Scholarship is a craft, like gardening, jewellery-making etc , it can be humdrum as well as virtuoso.
You can visit the following website for more information on this http://www.buildinglearningpower.co.uk
The Seda annual conference provides an opportunity to learn from others about the developments they are involved in. The focus of this conference is on creativity in educational development and there are a range of themes that people will be presenting on which include:
- Engaging students creatively as partners
- Creativity in curriculum design
- Experiential learning
- Creativity in technology enhanced learning
- Learning, teaching and developing through games and play
- Creative professional development
- Creative teaching, assessment and feedback
- Creative approaches to quality assurance and enhancement
The conference is on over two days and has three key notes talks as well from
Professor Guy Claxton , University of Winchester
Norman Jackson
Sarah-Jane Dikenson
I will post an outline of these as well as the sessions I attend.
This final plenary was focused on the need to take changing education at a one step at a time pace but that what we must always do what is for the students to enhance their learning and develop our pedagogical practice. Through the use of projects they had led they discussed how they had advanced teaching. There was mention of focusing on what the role of education was, how teaching and learning belonged to everyone and that all involved should want to inquiry into practice and develop this as well as reflect on their own practice. Their shared key messages were:
- Start where others start from
- Listen to what they say
- Collaborate to develop
- Make people you want to influence your partners
- Emphasise the journey you all take
- Organise
The conversations around teaching and learning are the most important you can have so listen to what others have to say and what help/support they need.
An article has been published about this in teaching and learning inquiry following the interdisciplinary writing group working together last year.
The vision of the group was that “inquiry, evidence and innovation in teaching and learning are part of the fabric of everyday life” (Williams et al 2013:50). Evidence based approaches to supporting student learning are essential and the institutional culture is an important element that influences participants likelihood of engaging with SOTL (Haigh, Gossman & Jico 2011). The group considered the term weaving as important in order to bring together multiple threads of institutional culture.
In the workshop they asked groups to discuss is there an institutional culture around SOTL?, why shouldn’t teaching and learning be seen as a clear research priority?, and are there champions in the schools?.
Following our discussion which was wide ranging and generally showed that most felt there were strands of SOTL rather than a culture the presenters provided an overview of the model they had developed within the writing group. This model was informed by social networking theory (Schesis 1990) which requires networks to be built and communities of practice which are groups of people sharing a passion and interacting regularly to learn to do things better.
Primarily at the macro level are VC’s/ PVC’s of education etc who set the direction, at the Meso level are those who interpret key issues and act such as PVC’s/Directors of teaching and learning and some Deans, those at the Micro level are people from communities of practice and individuals. Some individuals are leaders who share ideas and values.
Students have not been included in this model and some in the group felt this was an omission. In the discussion of applying the model may felt there was some value but some also asked about other models such as McKay’s cultural model. There was a good discussion though of how to engage more ISSOTL in institutions.
The views ended with mention of the need for more use of literature reviews to support work such as with research and the need for a clear definition of inquiry in SOTL.
This study aimed to explore academic line mangers role in influencing, motivating and supporting staff engagement in teaching and learning related to CPD.
This was a multi-methodological approach with the use of existing data sets from peer reviews, engagement with events, interviews with line mangers of 1 -2 hours and this sample included representation of all faculty and compasses.
The interviews with managers asked them to reflect on their role in supporting learning and teaching, the UKPSF, CPD opportunities, Teaching and learning excellence and how they address teaching and learning issues and SOTL.
The analysis drew on Gibbs academic leadership activities, leadership, organisational and culture discipline. There were 11 Heads of department and the presenters also used McNay’s work on culture which included views from collegiate to transformational. Each HOD become a case study. The data was review from the transcripts of the interviews but also the CPD of staff around SOTL and recognition as well as events across departments and university and, peer review with the % of staff.
The results showed that line managers do have a role in encouraging staff to be involved. Quotes illustrated the importance of teaching and learning in schools where staff engaged and where staff were not engaged in activities the manager was focused on research only activities. Some managers did not value CPD for teaching for others and recognition and valuing SOTL was seen as important by some but generally it was felt that greater weight should be given to REF.
Some key barriers to teaching and learning SOTL were seen as the issue of research vs teaching, leadership vs management, teaching excellence vs (mis-conceptions of teaching) and SOTL. The barriers need to be addressed to meet strategy and the focus of the University.
This was about an exploratory study undertaken 18 months ago. The presenters were concerned with who were connectors and, who spanned boundaries. The type of connection was important as well as the number and these spanned different worlds. In terms of boundary spanning they recognised that many people worked in silos and have a need for those who can work across conventions.
Boundary spanning and HE is more difficult in the public sector than the private and HE is complex. Watson talked about the paradox of Universities being more business-like and businesses being more university focused. There was also discussion of disciplinary communities often being stronger than institutional communities.
In this study there were 9 educational developers from a range of countries all English speaking, who were willing to take part and ethics approval was obtained.
The participants read two papers one a review of boundary spanners by Paul Williams and a brief summary by Gladwell of connectors. The participants commented on responses to the readings. The questions for the research were “Are education Developers boundary spanners or connectors?
The results of the study are:
- Yes
- There are early vs late career differences
- Some views around spanning boundaries within institution
- Views around spanning boundaries beyond the institution
There was a second question about “what skills / attributes were needed?
The findings were the following in order of numerical response:
- Cultural awareness
- Comfortable with diversity
- Interpretation ( sense making)
- Political awareness
- Relationship building (trust and support
- Network (within and beyond)
- Brokering
- Responsiveness
- Ability to see picture and goals
- Surrender (influence vs control) giving others credit
- Comfortable with change and ambiguity
Whilst these were provided in rank order the literature also supported these themes. This information could be used for those looking at a career.
The two presenters had final concerns about the ethical issues of interviewing colleagues.
Thomas Horejes Visual Deaf Space Classroom Ecology: Lessons in Learning from Gallaudet University
This talk was focused on Gallaudet University in Washington DC which was predominantly for deaf and hard of hearing students.
The speaker talked about issues of design for these students. There was a need to enable visual learning and ensure they could all see each other. This had implications for class design needing circles to be used and for teaching where there was more use of visual display colour and lecturers using hand movements to illustrate points. A traditional classroom would not work and there needed to be a sense of community and collaboration in classes.
The take home message of this talk was that visual capacity for deaf students was important and this needed to be considered for all classes.
Anthony Antonio The New Voc-Ed: Teaching Life as a Vocation
In this talk the speaker wanted to focus on the notion that higher education at its core should be vocational education. He talked about his own education and how he ended up in a career he was not committed to or fulfilled in. He talked about the need to ask students what they really want to do and to provide space for reflection, writing and reading. He suggests that classes are spaces for this and that we should interact and engage our students in Tolstoy’s question, “What shall we do and how shall we live?“ Education is about teaching students the skills and knowledge they need to seek their life’s work and their vocation.
Sian Bayne Digital Essays: Academic Writing at the Edge
This talk focused on the difference of difference of text to digital presentation of work. The discussion and presentation focused on the new media that could be used such as digital essays and how media, images and audio made assessment different now and how different media afforded different approaches such as the essay with link for every word and the essay that used pictures to support different words. The internet permitted so may more approaches to production of work now.
The message of these presentations was different but was around enabling students to consider their future and their media to present this in as well as the classroom environment in which this may be developed.
There were issues around placements for teachers undertaking training this was in part due to changes with high stakes in student assessments in schools and a new evaluation system. So the presenter thought about having co-teaching on the course as an experience. This provided additional support in class and better support and mentoring of the student teachers. The plan was that there should be a shift over time from the student teacher helping to leading the class.
The question for this study was How does co-teaching impact teacher candidate development? In particular there was an interest in identity development and pedagogic skill development. This was a pilot study using a case study approach with mid-term interview and final interview, classroom observations and programme exit interviews.
In 2012-2013 there were 4 postgraduate students and 5 mentors in all from 3 public high schools and 1 public middle school.
The findings were that identity development was positively impacted with confidence and image developing but the development of a teaching philosophy was much more difficult. In terms of skill development there was content and improved planning, teaching and assessment developed and professional communication and trust.
Observations of additional findings however were that personalities matter those who volunteered to mentor were natural mentors and understood their role. The mentor teachers were aware they were accountable for the student teacher.
For the future the presenter wants to develop the scheme with better mentor selection.
These two presenters were not looking for a project but were chatting one day about their courses and how to get students to improve their inquiry skills and create an innovative collaborative learning experience for students in two courses: Fatherhood and Substance Abuse and Human Behavior.
In the first year to the two devised a mini conference for their students but they did all the work. In the second year they decided the students should take ownership of the conference and so they got them to organise this.
Day One
There were rotation stations where students brought in cases for each other to work on. In the afternoon they were put in interdisciplinary groups to share their research and in the evening they showed a film.
Day Two
The students in groups discussed the film they had seen around some questions set by the presenters. After this they then had a community panel where there were people brought in appropriate to both courses so a recovering father who had been on drugs, an adult whose father had been a drug user, someone from social services, a police officer and someone from a drug programme.
The two presenters felt this had been much better and students had worked hard but they were surprised they had chosen to have a film in the evening using their own time and felt that next time they would not have this.
They evaluated this from the students perspective through course evaluations, mini conference evaluations, a course design group, peer consultation and faculty peer-led focus groups. They also asked students one year on what they remembered, what should be kept and what to throw out.
The results were the students wanted the movie kept, all the readings they did should stay and the speakers and, they enjoyed working with others in class but they felt the interdisciplinary connections were contrived.
Moving forward the speakers have continued to develop this and have undertaken a writing retreat to write this project up. One presenter is also involved in another collaboration.
This initiative was about getting more of a focus on teaching and learning and the scholarship of this. They wanted to move the institution to have more of an inquiry approach so have questions rather than problems, inquiry rather than accountability and action not just reporting.
Students were brought in because it was felt they could dig deeper into students’ needs and thoughts, capture their views more accurately and having students as co-researchers would develop their research skills.
The student voice is important in Universities because it thickens and contextualises evidence, challenges faculty and staff narratives about students, enables them to make a difference at their institution and reflect on their own role in their education.
The Wabash Provost scholars scheme was developed in 2008-09.
Students were given training in developing questions, using surveys, undertaking interviews and focus groups and ethics of undertaking studies. They also practised these skills on each other as part of their training.
Once trained, the students undertook research that was a priority for the institution and, they contacted eligible students for studies via e-mail. If they were doing interviews or focus groups they wore T-shirts that indicated they were Wabash provost scholars.
Once all the data is collected the students work together as a group with support to analyse the data including transcribing interviews, identifying appropriate quotes for reports etc. The students write the reports from the study and then they go public with the results. This includes departmental, institution and national/international conferences. They also have a website where all the reports are published.
This scheme engages all types of students but most are undergraduate. The students are not paid but are given 1 academic credit per semester for their involvement as these scholars.
