kings institute of learning and teaching kilt david b hay the alignment of learning and teaching...
TRANSCRIPT
King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching KILT
David B Hay
the alignment of learning and teaching using
educational technology
1. LearningTheory
2. Methods ofGraphic Organisation
3. CognitiveStructures
4. A Model of Teaching
Technology useIn HE
New Learning Frameworks
that can reveal
to introduce
that explains thedevelopment of
alternative
which we useto explain
illustratedby
5. with considerable implications for
and the design of
Constructive Alignment
to achieve to achieve
Learning Theory
Learning Processand Learning Quality
The Learning Process Jarvis 1987, 1985
the person
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
situation
experience
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
the person
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
situation
experience
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
there are 9 routes through the model
three lead to ‘the person reinforced but relatively unchanged’ and are classed as NON LEARNING
three lead through memorisation to either ‘reinforcement without change’ or to ‘the person changed’: these constitute NON REFLECTIVE LEARNING
three lead to ‘the person changed and more experienced’ and are examples of REFLECTIVE LEARNING
non-learning
presumption, non-consideration and rejection
the person
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
the person situation
experience
the person situation
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
experienceexperience
reasoning andreflection
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
non-reflective learning
preconscious, practice and memorisation
the person
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
the person changedand more
experienced
memorisation
practice evaluation reflection
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
experience
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
the person situation
memorisationmemorisation
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
the person changedand more
experienced
reflective learning
contemplation, practice and experience
the person
the person changedand more
experienced
practice evaluation reflection
the person reinforced
but relatively unchanged
experience
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
the person situation
the person changedand more
experienced
practiceexperimentation
reasoning andreflection
memorisation
evaluation
Learning Quality
Marton and others e.g.. F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.) 1984 The
experience of learning (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press)
Entwistle, 1990; Entwistle, McCune, & Walker, 2001; Entwistle & Tait, 1994; Entwistle, Meyer & Tait, 1991:Marton & Säljö,1976: Marton, 1986; Säljö, 1975.
KNOWLEDGE
APPLICATION
ENDURANCE
an increase in knowledge or information about a subject acquired by gathering unrelated facts and
without integration with what is already known
an ability to apply new knowledge to particular tasks and problems but without transferability
an ability to recall new information but usually only short-term
Surface Learning
KNOWLEDGE
APPLICATION
ENDURANCE
an increase in UNDERSTANDING of a subject involving grasp of underlying principles
an ability to apply newly understood principles in a variety of different contexts and situations
long-lasting personal change
Deep Learning
1. LearningTheory
2. Methods ofGraphic Organisation
3. CognitiveStructures
4. A Model of Teaching
Technology useIn HE
New Learning Frameworks
that can reveal
to introduce
that explains thedevelopment of
alternative
which we useto explain
illustratedby
5. with considerable implications for
and the design of
Constructive Alignment
to achieve to achieve
Concept MappingNovak and Colleagues
e.g. Novak & Gowan, 1986; Novak, 1998
meaningfullearning
Meaningful versus Rote Leaning
Learnersrelevant
prior knowledgemeaningful
materiallearner chooses
network ofneurones
teacher
meaningfullearning
rotelearning
encourages
discourages
to use not to useselected
by
assessedby
produces constructivechanges in
storedin
the concept mapping method
Concepts are arranged hierarchically on a page
Concepts are written in boxes and linked with directional linking statements to form propositions
Each concept can be used only once
Each concept can be linked to as many as is desirable
INVERTEBRATE
ANIMALS
VERTEBRATE
can be
MARINETERRESTRIAL
e.g. crabs, lobsters
e.g. beetles,flies
FEATHERSFUR
e.g. robins, penguins
e.g. sheep,cats
MORE
SPECIFIC
COLDBLOODED
ARTHROPODS WARMBLOODED
can be insulated with
aremostly can be
linkexample
event
link
keyconcep
t
concept
concept less generalconcept
link
less generalconcept
specificconcept
specificconcep
t
link link
link
link link
linklinklink
cross link
example example
object object
linkexample
event
concept
concept
specificconcept
generalconcept
generalconcept
generalconcep
t
cross link
Novak’s scoring system
8
9
14
18
Reducing rich data to a number
= 5/10
= 8/10
= 6/10
= 4/10
= 7/10
= 9/10
= 6.5/10
1. LearningTheory
2. Methods ofGraphic Organisation
3. CognitiveStructures
4. A Model of Teaching
Technology useIn HE
New Learning Frameworks
that can reveal
to introduce
that explains thedevelopment of
alternative
which we useto explain
illustratedby
5. with considerable implications for
and the design of
Constructive Alignment
to achieve to achieve
a qualitative approach toconcept map analysis
Kinchin, Hay and colleagues
Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000
CELLS
DISEASES
invade
causing
MEASLES
ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
only kill
such as
DISEASES
MEASLES
ANTIBIOTICS
invade
cause unaffected by
cause
CELLSMEASLES ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
caused by
invade killed bycause
VIRUSES
DISEASES
caused by
smaller than
not killed by
work outside
A
C
B VIRUSES
not treatable with
smaller thanVIRUSES
CELLSBACTERIA
student maps comprise three basic structures
expert (teacher maps) are network structures
lesson plans however, tend to be chains
CHAINS
LINEAR
CHANGE
are
so
DIFFICULT
RESTRUCTURE
COLLAPSE
because
requires
is
CROSS-LINKS
SIMPLE
LEARNINGREADINESS
CHANGIBLE
indicateare
SPOKES
ARGUMENT CONTRADICTION
COMPLEXITY
sub-subsumes
EXPERTIESE
NETWORKS
is indicative of
amelioratedthrough
A
C
B
have no
indicate
are
NON-LINEAR
are
comprise
justified by
STABLE
which is
A
B C
D E
E
C
A
B
D
EXPERT STRUCTURE
CONVENTIONALTEACHING SEQUENCE
E
C A B D
STUDENT RECONSTRUCTION
PR
E
C
A
B
D
STUDENT NON-ENGAGEMENT
(memorization)
CELLSMEASLES ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
caused by
invade killed bycause
VIRUSES
DISEASES
caused by
smaller than
not killed by
work outside
EXPERT
VIRUSES
CELLS
DISEASES
invade
causing
MEASLES
ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
not treatable with
only kill
such as
LECTURE
DISEASES
MEASLES
ANTIBIOTICS
invade
BACTERIA
cause
smaller than
unaffected by
cause
LEARNING READY
CELLS
VIRUSES
VIRUSES
CELLS
DISEASES
invade
causing
MEASLES
ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
not treatable with
only kill
such as
ROTE LEARNING
VIRUSES
CELLSMEASLES ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
caused byDISEASES
caused by
MEANING MAKER
CELLSMEASLES ANTIBIOTICS
BACTERIA
caused by
invade killed bycause
VIRUSES
DISEASES
caused by
smaller than
not killed by
work outside
using concept mapping
• knowledge and understanding become graphic representations
• change (that is indicative of learning) becomes measurable in quality terms
• and the consequences of different teaching strategies are observable
1. LearningTheory
2. Methods ofGraphic Organisation
3. CognitiveStructures
4. A Model of Teaching
Technology useIn HE
New Learning Frameworks
that can reveal
to introduce
that explains thedevelopment of
alternative
which we useto explain
illustratedby
5. with considerable implications for
and the design of
Constructive Alignment
to achieve to achieve
if the approach is valid
• then some of the predicted outcomes of learning should be measurable
• deep versus surface learning (Marton)
• learning versus non learning (Jarvis)
• meaningful versus rote learning (Novak)
deep, surface and non-learningare observable phenomena
Studiesin HigherEducation
David B Hay (2007) Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-
learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1) due for publication Feb 2007
retained concepts
newly added concepts
old conceptsnow rejected
newly addedconceptnever
incorporated
basic knowledge structure remains unchanged = non learning
new knowledge addedsuperficially = surface learning
non – learning and surface learning are
observable phenomena – but so to is
deep (or meaningful) learning
old links broken
meaningful learning
old concepts rejected
new concepts added
new links forgedbetween old and new
EXPERT NON-LEARNER
SURFACE LEARNER
MEANINGFUL LEARNER
EXPERT
EXPERT
xNO INTERACTION
TRIVIAL INTERACTION
based on undue repetitionof transmission signal
MEANINGFUL INTERACTION
based on meaningfulsharing of cognitive
structures
non learning
surface learning
meaningful learning
concept mapping can be used to measure learning quality
but it also provides a framework for the constructive alignment of
teaching and learning
facilitate sharing of understanding of the rich and complex knowledge
structures that belie prescriptive lesson plans
this is because concept mapping can also:
1. LearningTheory
2. Methods ofGraphic Organisation
3. CognitiveStructures
4. A Model of Teaching
Technology useIn HE
New Learning Frameworks
that can reveal
to introduce
that explains thedevelopment of
alternative
which we useto explain
illustratedby
5. with considerable implications for
and the design of
Constructive Alignment
to achieve to achieve
conventional lesson plans, lectures, practicals and other formal or organised learning activities
tend towards linearity
this promotes a surface approach to learning that is commonly unwarranted
often the student who follows the lecture route is ignorant of any other route through the over-arching knowledge structure
in fact many different routes exist and the knowledge and
understanding developed by an awareness of these routes is not to
be foregone if the novice is to become and expert
Earl’s Court Holborn
furthermore, expert status is only really attained when the learner comes to be able to locate what they know and understand in a
broader context
meaningful teaching
is the art of selecting appropriate routes through complex networks of expert understanding
meaningful learning
is the art of navigation through chains of expression in order to discover underlying
networks of understanding
concept mapping
allows the knowledge and understanding of experts to be organised in systematic
ways that permit the designation of learning routes through rich and complex
subject networks
when they do so they will be able to choose tolearn in ways that are strategically appropriate
students can follow these routesand explore new routes for themselves
this is a justified approach grounded in research and in the
principles of constructive alignment
it aims to balance the goals of self-directed and student centred learning with the traditions of
didactic and expert led teaching in higher education
The approach has application in all areas of teaching and learning but it is likely to have particular impact in the design and development of
educational technology
we would argue that to date there is no such thing as a pedagogy of e-learning, but that when lecturers
are provided with concept mapping tools for organising knowledge and
information and for developing routes of learning through these
networks then e-learning will have pedagogy
far from replacing the lecturer, educational technology will re-
asserting the central role ofthe academic expert as author of meaningful learning experiences
and as the agent of support for student progressiontowards expert status
David B Hay and Ian M Kinchin
expert(teacher)
learningroutes
students
cognitivenetwork
maps plans
choosesIn order to develop
own
through
CONCEPT MAPS
whe
n th
ey t
hem
selv
es b
ecom
e th
e