Do you think the innovations described in Weeks 8 and 9 as ‘learning design’ would induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students?
Well in short it could. But poor design is still poor design even when its planned better. If the designers conceptions are of transmission and the use of interaction is limited then achieving a student focus is unlikely regardless of the tools utilised. Understanding what each tool can achieve and bring to the learning party is central to producing a student focus. The activities we sampled in weeks 8 & 9 were useful to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3
The Acquisition and Participation Metaphors describe well a view of learning but Merton does not describe whether this AM is a passive process or not. My inclination is to assume that AM is passive whereas PM is active in its approach. Where students assume that learning is a passive process, having them engage in learning serials may be more problematic and we may suggest that this is 'not their preferred learning style'. Where this is the case is any Participation methodology useful for these learners?
Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in my paper fit your own experience as a learner?
I have witnessed similar understandings / delineations of what teaching is when delivering train the trainer courses. Furthermore some of the ideas are comparable to my own experience as a learner.
Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?
All five have resonance, but I edge towards the the abstraction of meaning and interpretation of reality. My professional life requires me to down grade and convince engineers of the merit of an approach in sound bites or simple terms. Abstraction of meaning and delivery of a principle behind a way or approach is critical so it can be re-applied next time round.
No comments:
Post a Comment