Secondary learning
Use 'Print preview' to check the number of pages and printer settings.
Print functionality varies between browsers.
Printable page generated Saturday, 11 May 2024, 9:16 AM
Secondary learning
Introduction
In this free course, Secondary learning, you will examine some of the key debates and issues around knowledge, learning and pedagogy. You will have your own preconceptions about knowledge, learning, intelligence and the role of the teacher, and it is important that you are open to examining your views and to considering the evidence behind new developments. Section 1 considers the nature of knowledge. Section 2 focuses on learning and some of the main theories of learning. Section 3 considers the implications of these ideas for teaching and pedagogy.
This course is generic and is designed for people who are learning to be a teacher, are in their first few years of teaching, or who are working in an educational setting and are interested in learning more about some of the theory that underpins good teaching.
At the heart of education are knowledge and learning. Both are complex but how they are viewed has profound effects on what happens in formal educational settings such as classrooms. Together they are manifested in classroom ‘pedagogy’, defined as ‘the science and principles of teaching: instruction; training’ (The Chambers English Dictionary, 1983, p. 938). Leach and Moon (2008, p. 6) defined pedagogy as ‘a dynamic process informed by theories, beliefs and dialogue but only realised in the daily interactions of learners and teachers and real settings’. Pedagogy is essentially, therefore, what goes on in the classroom, underpinned by a complex mixture of the values, beliefs and past experiences of the teacher, as well as the context in which they are working.
How teachers teach depends on their views of knowledge and learning. A teacher, therefore, needs to be clear about the values and beliefs that underpin what he/she does. Learning to be a teacher involves examining and articulating beliefs about knowledge, the subject and how people learn. In this course you will examine ideas about knowledge and learning, and how these manifest themselves in the classroom.
Now listen to an introduction to this course by its author, Kris Stutchbury:
Transcript
An introduction to Secondary learning
As you work through the activities you will be encouraged to record your thoughts on an idea, an issue or a reading, and how it relates to your practice. Hopefully you will have the opportunity to discuss your ideas with colleagues. We therefore suggest that you use a notebook – either physical or electronic – to record your thoughts in a way in which they can easily be retrieved and re-visited. If you prefer, however, you can record your ideas in response boxes in the course. In order to do this, and to retrieve your responses, you will need to enrol on the course.
This OpenLearn course is part of a collection of Open University short courses for teachers and student teachers.
Learning outcomes
After studying this course, you should be able to:
articulate different views of, and aspects of ‘knowledge’ in the context of a subject
outline what it means to learn
summarise some of the key learning theories and how they manifest themselves in the classroom
identify how theories of learning are manifested in classroom pedagogy
explain what is meant by ‘active learning’ and ‘student-centred learning’.
1 Knowledge
Knowledge is fundamental to teaching and learning. However, when people speak of ‘knowledge’, what do they mean by the term? Is there a shared understanding of the concept?
It can be helpful to think in terms of different types of knowledge. From a philosophical perspective, knowledge is typically divided into three categories:
- personal knowledge
- procedural knowledge
- propositional (declarative) knowledge.
Personal knowledge
Personal knowledge can be thought of as ‘knowledge by acquaintance’ – the kind of knowledge someone claims to have when they say things like ‘I know Beethoven’s music’ or ‘I know Mrs Smith’. The importance of personal knowledge has been promoted through the concepts of ‘critical thinking’ and ‘critical pedagogy’, whereby knowledge is conceived of as not fixed and ‘given’ but as something that is personally constructed through the process of the learners’ active interaction with their world and with those who teach them. Personal knowledge has tended to be undervalued in formal educational contexts, as it is individual and tacit – and therefore not easily open to ‘packaging’ as curriculum content or to being assessed. However, the value that a teacher attaches to personal knowledge will impact on how they teach.
Procedural knowledge
Procedural knowledge can be thought of as knowledge of how to do something – the practical skills of being able to ride a bike, kick a football or mend a leaking pipe, for instance. People who possess procedural knowledge are not necessarily claiming that they understand the theory that lies behind the activities they undertake but that they possess the skills to enable them to do these things.
Propositional knowledge
Propositional knowledge is sometimes caricatured as being simply about the acquisition (through memorisation) of isolated facts, such as the date of the Battle of Hastings or that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. However, a higher order of propositional knowledge is ‘conceptual knowledge’. This is demonstrated through an understanding of the interrelationship between ‘facts’ within a larger framework. These frameworks might, for example, be scientific or mathematical theories, the rules of Western musical harmony or the syntactical rules of a particular language.
It is important to remember that these categorisations are underpinned by ideological and value judgements about what is important knowledge. They provide a way of thinking about knowledge rather than a detailed description of a reality. It is also important to note that they rarely exist independently of each other. For example, in order to have personal knowledge of someone, you need to possess some propositional knowledge about them. The relationship between the three different types of knowledge is outlined in Figure 1 below.
Activity 1 Considering different types of knowledge
For each type of knowledge, identify some examples from your subject. Do not restrict your thinking to the way in which your subject presents itself in school but also consider how your subject is presented in the wider world.
Also think back to the experiences of your subject that you had as a student.
- Do you think one category of subject knowledge had a higher status than another? If so, why do you think this might have been?
- Did an emphasis on specific kinds of knowledge lead to particular approaches to teaching?
1.1 Knowledge and teaching
In school, views of knowledge are understood to be encapsulated in the schemes of work. These will almost inevitably reflect the examination syllabus and any statutory curricula requirements that happen to be in force, as well as current political agendas and initiatives. They will also reflect the values and beliefs about the subject held by the teachers in the school and the relative importance attached to different types of knowledge.
Activity 2 What is important in your subject?
Collect the curriculum documents for your nation and/or schemes/units of work used in your subject in school. To what extent do they reflect your own views about what is ‘important’ knowledge in your subject?
Discuss with a more experienced colleague:
- what they consider is important knowledge in their subject
- why they hold these views
- how they reconcile any perceived tensions between their own views of knowledge and those articulated through any statutory curriculum.
Consider how their views and perceived tensions might influence how they teach their subject.
1.2 Knowledge and learning
Your view of knowledge will influence your view of learning. The American philosopher and educationalist John Dewey argued that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner and teacher working together (Dewey, 1910). This is different from empiricist and rationalist beliefs that view the ‘the learner’ and ‘knowledge’ as separate entities. Knowledge is seen as an object waiting to be ‘learned’ and ‘understood’ by the student and learning is an essentially passive process. The teacher does not seek to make connections between knowledge and the learner’s individual and personal world; little importance is attached to personal knowledge or to the higher order forms of procedural and propositional knowledge. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire describes this view of knowledge as leading to the ‘banking’ concept of education, where the teacher is considered to be the possessor of knowledge and the children the receptacles for that knowledge:
Education … becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor.
With this view, the teacher’s pedagogical role is:
to ‘fill’ the students by making deposits of information which he or she considers to constitute true knowledge.
The potential consequences for children’s experience of learning through such an approach were vividly described by Charles Dickens more than 150 years ago:
a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a school-room … and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.
The learner plays little part in deciding what for them is important knowledge, in constructing knowledge or in influencing the way in which knowledge is acquired. In contrast, Dewey promotes the idea of ‘experiential education’, through which students and teachers work together to construct knowledge and skills through making direct connections with the student’s and the teacher’s worlds. The most influential aspect of Dewey’s thinking is the idea that education should not focus on knowledge content per se, but rather on the child as learner and their active engagement with knowledge as a process of discovery.
Reflection point
How were you expected to learn your subject at school?
Was that different from how you learned out of school?
What assumptions about how learners acquire knowledge underpinned the way(s) in which you were taught at school and university?
In order to support students in developing knowledge and understanding, a teacher needs to plan strategies and respond to learners effectively through taking into account the diversity in the classroom and the learning needs of individuals. To do this effectively, it is helpful to understand some of the main theories about learning and how these might manifest themselves in the classroom. This is addressed in the next section.
2 Theories of learning
If the focus of education is not on knowledge content but on the child as a learner and their active engagement with knowledge, then learning theories provide a way to think about how the child might learn. Having knowledge of different learning theories will enable you to analyse and reflect on what is happening in the classroom.
Reflection point
Think about your own learning:
- When do you find learning easy?
- When do you find learning difficult?
- What strategies do you use to help you learn?
It is beyond the scope of this course to go into detail about all learning theories, so what follows is an introduction to some key theories relevant to teachers.
2.1 Behaviourism
Behaviourism defines learning as a change in the behaviour of the learner. It originated in the early part of the twentieth century from the work of Watson, Thorndike and Skinner (e.g. Skinner, 1974) and is based on the premise that learning can be broken down into discrete elements, which can be separated out, taught, practised and fitted together again.
This type of learning might be considered appropriate for learning certain types of knowledge, such as multiplication tables, or certain skills, such as threading a sewing machine. This is because the knowledge or skill can be demonstrated through the student’s observable behaviour – the multiplication tables can be recited or the sewing machine can be threaded.
The main principles underpinning a behaviourist perspective of learning are that:
- learning is best achieved through the teacher taking control of the learning process, breaking down tasks and actively reinforcing the correct response
- learning outcomes are standardised and measurable
- people learn not for the intrinsic value of learning but for extrinsic rewards, such as certificates, merits, gold stars or parental approval
- behaviour that is reinforced positively (for example, by praise or recognition) is likely to be repeated
- behaviour that is reinforced negatively (for example, by being ignored) is less likely to be repeated.
Although behaviourist theory is now considered outdated, and not consistent with Dewey’s conception of knowledge, it has proved extremely resilient and can be seen in many classrooms today. Much of the language in National Curriculum guidelines and other government documents can also be associated with behaviourism.
In the classroom, praising or acknowledging students for following the school’s ‘hands up’ policy to respond to questions, while ignoring those who shout out answers, is a way of attempting to modify behaviour. However, students who are told off for misbehaviour may see this as positive reinforcement (because it has brought attention) and may be encouraged to misbehave further in order to attract more attention. Alternatively, ignoring misbehaviour (providing it is low-level and not dangerous) may lead to the student changing their behaviour.
Reflection point
Can you think of an example of teaching you have seen or experienced that characterises the behaviourist approach?
How did the teacher act?
What did the students do?
What were the students expected to learn?
Behaviourism has been criticised for not giving consideration to changes that cannot be observed, such as changes in attitudes and thoughts, as well as for its view of the learner as passive in the learning process.
2.2 Constructivism
Dissatisfaction with the limitations of behaviourism led researchers to look for ways to explain the unobservable changes that took place when learning occurred. These developments were rooted in the work of Piaget, in the 1920s, and developed by others, including Von Glaserfeld (2002).
Learning, according to constructivist theory, occurs when knowledge is constructed by the individual as a result of their experience in the world. Piaget’s (1953) view was that children’s intellectual development progresses through distinct stages, and that they make sense of the world in different ways as they grow older. Piaget proposed four stages of development, which he termed:
- sensori-motor (around 0–2 years)
- pre-operational (around 2–7 years)
- concrete operational (around 7–11 years)
- formal operational (around 11 years onwards).
Piaget believed that everyone passes through these stages in the same order but that the age at which this happens can vary from one child to the next. ‘Assimilation’ (when new knowledge is assimilated into children’s existing understandings and schema) and ‘accommodation’ (when existing schema have to be reorganised to accommodate new knowledge) are key concepts within this view of learning.
Activity 3 Piaget’s theory of development
The video clip below outlines Piaget’s theory of how children develop. As you watch, pay particular attention to the sections on concrete operational and formal operational thinking. Identify how children learning in this way might influence teaching. List what you might look for when observing teachers and students in classrooms.
Transcript
(New case study.)
(New case study.)
(New case study.)
(New case study.)
Comment
Piaget’s theory of development applies to individuals. It can be a helpful way for a teacher to think about learning when they are working with an individual, helping them to understand a new concept. If the learner is struggling to grasp an abstract idea, finding ways to make it more concrete can be helpful.
In secondary schools, constructivist learning theory relates to young people as they move from the concrete operational stage (7–11 years) to the formal operational stage (11 years onwards). Of course, not all children develop at the same rate: some will develop their thinking more quickly and some more slowly. Teachers taking a constructivist view of learning theory will:
- think about what the child already knows, so that new knowledge can be related to existing schemata (assimilated or accommodated)
- look for any misconceptions in the child’s existing knowledge and provide learning activities that enable the child to understand the limitations of their current conceptions
- prepare learning tasks and activities in which the learners can actively participate; participation might be physical, such as a science experiment, or mental, such as problem solving.
Critics of the theory argue that individually constructed knowledge may not be valid, leading to misconceptions or misunderstandings. Others suggest that teachers can underestimate children’s capability; for example, if their stage of development is not properly recognised or their ‘readiness’ to learn is not responded to. Constructivism has also been criticised for focusing on the individual learner rather than on the social context in which learning takes place, which led to development in the theory.
2.3 Social constructivism
Social constructivism maintains the importance of the central role of the child as an active learner.
However, this theory regards learning not as an individual activity but as a social one, in which language plays a crucial role in developing understanding and learning is not considered to be limited by a child’s stage of development.
Vygotsky (1978) was an important contributor to this theory. He identified the gap between what a child can do as an unaided individual and what they can do with the help of a more knowledgeable other. He called this gap the ‘zone of proximal development’ or ZPD. Bruner (1978) later used the term ‘scaffolding’ to describe the way that the more knowledgeable person can support the child’s cognitive development. This more knowledgeable person might be the teacher but might also be other students, classroom assistants, parents or outside groups. Seen in this way, children’s learning is not bounded by the school but is a continuous process that has a particular focus at school.
Activity 4 Defining social constructivism
Transcript: Interview with Harry Daniels (The Open University, n.d.)
Listen to the audio interview with Harry Daniels, Professor of Education, Culture and Pedagogy at the University of Bath in which he explains social constructivism.
Identify examples from your own learning or teaching, or from your observations of students, that support this theory. An example would be where ‘scaffolding’ was used or where a more knowledgeable ‘other’ person was involved.
This theory of learning has significant implications for teachers, such as knowing the current learning of each student and, through careful scaffolding, enabling the student to progress by providing just the right amount of help. Here, then, the teacher does not adopt a passive role in relation to student learning but actively intervenes to help the student move forward. However, this is not easy. How can we be sure that the intervention falls within the ZPD and does not lie beyond it or, indeed, does not ask too little?
These theories of learning are well established and, as you will have seen, manifest themselves in school in many ways. In the next section we will discuss more recent theories that can also contribute to your understanding of how children learn.
2.4 Situated cognition
Situated cognition theory, developed by Lave and Wenger (1991), takes social interaction a step further. This theory does not regard learning as the acquisition of knowledge but rather that learning a subject is a process of becoming a member of that subject’s community. Learning, therefore, is seen as an active process and occurs when ‘learners’ participate in real-world situated contexts. It involves not only knowledge but also the behaviours and values inherent in the community; context and culture impact on learning, the implication being that learning experiences need to be culturally and contextually authentic.
Following this theory, the role of the teacher is to set up learning environments where students can be initiated into the practices, community and discourse of the subject – that is, not learning history but becoming historians. Similarly, your learning – seen through this theory – is about becoming a member of the community of teachers, feeling a sense of belonging and having an ability to communicate with others in the community through shared meanings.
Teachers aligned with situated cognition theory:
- model the behaviours of the subject community, showing interest and enthusiasm in the subject and ways in which members go about their work (for example, art teachers who practise art in the classroom)
- set up tasks and activities rooted in ‘real-world’ contexts, allowing students to practise working and behaving as members of the community.
The principles of situated cognition can be observed in practice in many classrooms.
Reflection point
Think about what it means to be a member of your own subject community:
- What knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes are involved?
- What activities might take place in your subject that would help students to develop as members of the subject community?
2.5 Embodied cognition
This is a relatively recent theory, emerging in the 1980s through the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), although it has roots in earlier discussions in philosophy, psychology and artificial intelligence.
The theory proposes that cognition (thinking) develops through physical interaction with the world (Thelen, 1995). Lakoff and Johnson argue that our learning and understanding is dependent on our perceptions and our experiences through our sensori-motor systems – we learn by doing/experiencing. More simply, think about learning situations in which we ‘doodle’ or pace the floor or gesticulate; these are all examples of physical activity supporting cognitive activity.
Embodied cognition theory appears similar to that of situated cognition, but whereas that theory regards cognition as concerned with abstract representations of the world, embodied cognition theorists believe that there is more to cognition than mental representation.
This theory seems to imply that a teacher would:
- provide an environment rich in artefacts, tools and equipment
- set tasks in which students are engaged in activity involving their senses (touch, sight, hearing, and so on).
As with the other theories, this one has its critics. Other theorists argue that the complex world in which we live requires us to develop meaningful representations, in which case not all learning needs to be physically embodied.
Activity 5 Learning theories in action
This activity will help you to think about how learning theories can influence classroom teaching.
Download the word document, Learning theories in practice, and complete the table by adding:
- one or two key points about each learning theory
- one example of how the theory might influence classroom practice.
Information on ‘Embodied cognition’ has been completed for you as an example.
2.6 Learning styles
The concept of ‘learning styles’ has been described as students’ ‘tendency to adopt a particular strategy in learning’ (Mutiu and Moldovan, 2011, p. 578) based on their personal characteristics, and suggests that different modes of learning suit different students. It has also been termed ‘learning preferences’ or ‘learning strategies’.
Some people believe that these ideas have implications for the classroom because a student’s preferred learning style may affect the way in which they respond to your teaching. Various schemes have been suggested and are popular in schools. However, despite the popularity of the concept of learning styles, there is very little evidence to support the idea that learners learn more effectively if they have the opportunity to learn in their preferred style (Petty, 2009). You will consider this evidence in the next activity.
Activity 6 Learning styles
Watch the TED talk video below by Tesia Marshik.
Transcript
There’s actually a few different versions – actually, many different versions – of learning styles, but probably the most common one is the one that you've heard of, is that some other auditory learners where we learn best by listening to things and that some of us are more visual learners where we learn best by seeing things, and that some of us might be more tactile or kinaesthetic learners, where we learn best by actually doing things in engaging in physical activities.
How many of you heard of them before? Well, the good news and bad news. Bad news is, if you believe in learning styles, you’re actually wrong, and I'll explain that in just a minute. But the good news is that it's not entirely your fault.
This belief in learning styles is incredibly pervasive. It's so common that few people ever think to even question it. Right – it sounds so logical, it sounds so real, but when put to the test we found that learning styles don't exist and again there are tons of people that believe this. When we survey for example students and teachers, we find that something like 90% of them or over 90% of people believe that they have a learning style and teachers today, many teachers, are still told that part of their job in order to be effective teachers, is the figure out what their students’ learning styles are and then to accommodate them for the classroom. There are even a host of companies and organisations out there that support learning styles and who for a fee will train you on how to maximise your potential, or that of your students, right, by addressing learning styles and learning what yours are. But again, the key is when put to the test these actually these learning styles don't exist, and it doesn't make a difference.
Now I will say that when we survey people, many people say they have preferences, so if I asked you ‘How would you like to learn something?’ or ‘How would you like to study?’, many you might say things like ‘I’d prefer to see it’, ‘I’d prefer to hear it’ or ‘I’d prefer to actually do it’.
So that's true, but the key is that those preferences don't actually enhance your learning. When we test them in experimental conditions, and there are many different ways to test this, but the basic design is this. We bring in a bunch a different people who have supposedly different learning styles. We teach them in a variety of ways and then we see if teaching them in one way somehow was better for them or more effective than others.
So for example, let's say I had a list of words that I wanted you to memorise. In one group I might show you that that list of words I would present the list of words to you. Or in another group similarly I might actually show you images of those words. In yet another group or another condition I might just let you listen to those words and hear them, so you wouldn't actually see anything but you just hear someone saying ‘dog’, ‘hose’, ‘coat’, et cetera. Now if learning styles existed – if it was true – we would expect that visual learners, or so-called visual learners, would be able to recall more words when they saw them, right, so either when they saw the list or when they saw the actual images, and we would expect that so-called auditory learners would be able to recall more words when they heard them, right? But again the finding is learning this actually the same the number of words that you recall is exactly the same regardless of how the material is presented to you. Now I know that's just one example of one particular study, but I'm asking you to trust me that this has been replicated in many different contexts, with many different people of all different ages, and tested in slightly different ways, with exactly the same results. In fact there have been several meta-analyses papers, where they've looked at all the research on this topic for 40 years, and all of them have concluded the same thing: that there's still no evidence that matching teaching styles to supposed learning styles or students’ preferences actually makes a difference. But I would encourage you to look up some of this research on your own in particular these review articles.
So then how is that possible I'm sure some of you are wondering how does that even make sense right because it sound so good and there's a lot of different research on learning and memory to explain this but one of the main ideas is, that most of what we learn in the classroom and most of what teachers want us to know in particular is stored in terms of Meaning and it's not tied to one particular sense or one particular sensory mode. Now it's also true just like people have preferences it's also true that some of you might have better visual memories or better auditory memories or auditory processing skills compared to other people and that might be advantageous for certain types of tasks, so for example if I wanted you to remember what was the colour of the coat on that last slide or how many windows were on that house on the last slide than having a really good visual memory would help with that. Likewise if I had read you the list of words and I said were they read in a high voice or a low voice, or which words were read by a woman and which words were read by a man; then having really good a really good auditory memory would help with that, but those aren’t typically the kinds of questions that teachers are asking you to remember or the things that teachers want you to learn in the classroom.
Mostly what you’re learning in the classroom is much more conceptual or meaning-based right, it's not just what something looks like or what something sounds like and by the way this finding or this whole idea also helps to explain why simple rehearsal strategies like Re-reading your notes or just rewriting your notes, even though they're very commonly used strategies they tended not be very effective; because re-reading your notes or rewriting your notes doesn't necessarily help you understand the material.
In order to retain information right, we have to organize it in a way that's meaningful right we have to make connections to it connecting it to our experiences or coming up with our own examples or thinking of how we're learning something in one class how that relates to what else we now that's what helps us remember it.
Now again there's a lot of researches support this idea that most of what we learned is stored in terms of meaning and not according to visual images or auditory sound but from some of the best most relevant research comes from these classic studies that were done in the seventies.
Now Chase & Simon they were interested in chess players abilities to recall pictures of chess board games in progress, so what they would do is they would show players An image of a game in progress for a short time typically only five seconds or so, and then it would disappear and then they would ask the players to recall where where were all the pictures where were all the pieces in that picture.
And what they found was a big difference between novice players or beginner players and experts beginner players when asked to recall where the pieces were…they can only remember about four pieces right, experts on the other hand could actually identify almost all of them, over twenty of them could they correctly identify and the next game board when asked to recall these.
Now again they were interested in knowing you know why is this difference why do we see this difference between beginners And novices and it wasn't because like you might be thinking that the experts had better visual memories than the beginners, it was because the experts had more experience playing chess and more knowledge. In other words this game board was more meaningful to them right they could see the strategy involved they could imagine what was happening and why the players have their pieces positioned the way they did.
And to further support this idea they did a follow-up study and a follow-up study, they showed chess players pictures of randomly arranged chess boards right and that's this picture here now to you or I or to beginner chess player these might look basically the same.
I mean yeah the pieces are in different places but for the most part they might be equally difficult to to remember right, to an expert though we found big differences when presented with a randomly configured board once it was random experts no longer had an advantage in remembering pieces, because it wasn't meaningful to them. But because there's no meaningful arrangement in the second piece, right they lost that advantage which again is just further evidence that we store information in terms of meaning and not according to a censoring mode.
And this basic finding by the way has been extended to other contexts everything from Chess, to basketball, to computer programming, and to dance right. We store information in terms of meaning and not limited to particular sensory modes.
So that’s the first reason, another reason why this learning styles theory doesn't pan out is that you know the best way to teach something or to learn something really depends on what it is you want to learn right, or depends on the content itself. Now if I wanted you for example to know what a bunch a different song birds looked like, the best way to teach you that is to let you look at pictures of those song birds, to let you see them in real life right but know that that's true for everybody, that's not true just because you're a visual learner; that's because looking at them is what I'm asking you to do is to remember what they look like.
On the other hand if I wanted you to remember what they sounded like are to be able to distinguish between different songs of different sound birds songbirds, then letting you hear them would be the best way, but again that applies to everybody.
Just like if I wanted you to know what different flowers smell like, the best way to teach you that is going to be it to let you experience those flowers by smelling them, right but that doesn't mean you're in all factory learner or that you learn everything better through smelling. I mean take a minute to imagine what that would look like in a math class or in anatomy class right or a physics class right, and as absurd as that sounds it's really important to remember that the same problems the same criticisms apply.
Whether we're talking about so-called all-factory learners or whether we're talking about auditory learners, or visual learners, or even kinaesthetic learners. Right the last three might see more palatable or more reasonable but the same issues apply. It really depends on what I'm asking you to learn the best way to teach it.
But that also brings me to another point and that’s this idea that many things can be taught using multiple senses, so it's not just limited to one. For example so say I wanted to learn the game of football right, probably the best way to teach you football is going to get you out to be to get you out there and play football right to actually practice and having that physical experience playing. But you'd also probably benefit from being able to watch a football game, or being able to look at schematics or drawings of the different formations in the different positions just like you’d probably also benefit from hearing coaching or hearing feedback as you're playing right.
You're getting the kinaesthetic experience the visual and the auditory.
Similarly if a music teacher wanted you to know the different parts of a symphony orchestra Then yeah going to an orchestra and listening to one would be beneficial, but it would also add to the experience if you have the capability to touch the instruments, or maybe to learn how to play them right, or to actually watch one live.
Again it's not that different modes make it meaningful to different people based on their learning style, it's not like all the visual learners are only going to learn by seeing it.
It's because it’s incorporating multiple sensory experiences in to one make it into one lesson makes it more meaningful.
So then you might be wondering why did this myth persists right, and there's a few different explanations; and the first one is quite simply that everybody believes it right, it's so common that you never even think to question it, how could so many people be wrong, if so many people believe it how is that possible that it's wrong. But as you know, just because something is commonly believed doesn't necessarily make it true.
Remember just as an example at one point we used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe right until scientists like, Copernicus and Galileo proved us otherwise right.
Likewise there was a time in which some people actually believed or worried that polio might be caused by ice cream, which we now know is nonsense.
And unfortunately even today one unfortunate myth that still persists is this idea that vaccines cause autism despite the lack of any scientific evidence.
Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true and that might seem really obvious to you but again, the key is the key ideas that when something is so pervasive it doesn't even occur to people to challenge it right, we need to be willing to critically reflect on beliefs even if they're commonly believed.
Another reason why this persist is quite frankly the idea of learning styles is sexy, it sounds good, it feels good right. Saying people have different learning styles is another way of acknowledging that people are different and differences are important, especially when it comes to the classroom.
But me saying that learning styles don't exist, I'm not saying people are the same right people do differ in many important ways learning styles just isn't one of them, and just because some ideas sound really good just because we really want something to be true doesn't make it so.
We have to remember that even when we’re talking about something as appealing as Santa Claus, unicorns, big foot or learning-styles.
And last but not least another reason why this belief persists is something called confirmation bias, and this is this natural tendency that we have as human to want to be right, people don't like to be right so when or don't like to be wrong I should say, so when people have this belief right, or any belief, we tend to look for information that fits our beliefs and we ignore information that doesn't fit our beliefs right we don't really very frequently try to prove ourselves wrong right more often than not we try to prove ourselves right, we look for evidence to support whatever it is that we think.
And sometimes this is deliberate sometimes this bias is very deliberate so you all know that person who deliberately closes their eyes or plugs their ears and says blah blah I’m not listening I don't want to hear that and turns their back. But more often than not this is unintentional this is sub-conscious we don't even realize that we're doing it.
How many of you for example have ever been thinking of someone only to have them call or text you or how many do you have experience déjà vu, or had a dream only to have it come true right and you start to think woah, I've got something going on here right some extrasensory perception telepathic powers right, again I'm sorry to say you don't right. There that's been studied frequently too and there's no evidence to suggest that we have these tele-communicator or tele-communicative powers to talk to each other right.
But the problem has it that we noticed every time it happens right we noticed every time we're thinking of someone and they call us because it’s a cool coincidence right kind of exciting, we notice when we have that moment of déjà vu we don't notice all the times that we're thinking of someone and they don't call us right, or we don't really think about all the dreams that we've had that don't come true.
It's just like that other common belief that full moons are somehow associated with crazy behaviour or increases in emergency room visits, this is also been something that people have scientifically studied and again despite common belief there's there's no significant correlation there between full moons and emergency room visits.
so now you might be wondering why does it matter, right who cares so yeah learning styles don’t exist hopefully you're buying that by now right now I see why it's still so common though but who cares right why not believe in learning styles, and I would argue there's at least two important reasons why we need to stop believing this and stop spreading this idea that people have learning styles.
The first one is that we're wasting valuable time and resources valuable educational resources. Teachers already have a momentous Task of accommodating students from all different backgrounds, of different ability levels different disabilities in their classroom different interest the motivations. That's not easy right, the whole fact that learning styles doesn't matter to some extent should be a relief that's one less thing that teachers have to worry about right.
But at the very least we can’t afford to be wasting our time and resources trying to promote learning styles, when there's no evidence that it actually helps learning. Especially when there are research supported strategies, things that we know we can do that actually do impact learning; so that's the first reason.
The second reason is this whole idea that labelling yourself as a learner or labelling a student as a learner can not only be misleading but it can be dangerous, if I as a teacher think that you have a particular learning style that you only learn in one way, that might prevent me from trying other strategies that could otherwise help you learn the information better. Likewise if you as a student believe that you have a particular learning style that could cause you to shut down or lose interest when a teacher isn't teaching in a way that's consistent with your preferred style, right and that might actually perpetuate your failure but it's not because you couldn't learn that way it's because you gave up and you stopped trying right.
This whole idea that learning styles don't exist in many ways should be further good news because it means that all of us are capable of learning in a variety of ways, we are not as limited as sometimes we think we are.
So in conclusion when I teach about this topic in my classes and even when I talk to other professionals and colleagues, first reaction I get is usually a little bit of surprise, surprised that something that's no common so ubiquitous isn't actually true. But that's often times followed by a little bit of defensiveness, and I am sure there are some of you out there right now thinking okay I hear what she’s saying I don't really care though I know how I learn I know that I still have a learning style.
People don't like to be wrong right, and believe change is really hard especially when it’s a belief that you've held for a really long time or one that’s central to your identity, but again it's really important that we're willing to let our guard down sometime and to challenge our beliefs and to truly consider other perspectives or different ideas.
How often do we get defensive when we hear information or hear ideas that we don't like to hear or that go against our beliefs, how often do we surround ourselves intentionally with likeminded people just so we don't have to face different perspectives.
And in a day and age when information is more readily accessible than ever before, how often do our Google searches take us to show me I’m right dot com rather than unbiased evidence. Thank you
Note your thoughts in response to this talk as it progresses. What strategies would you use to help learners ‘make meaning’ in your subject?
There are many theories about learning and this section has touched on a few of the more established ones. The theories of learning described in this section not only suggest how this might be achieved but also provide a framework to help you to reflect on practice. No single theory should be regarded as ‘right’; in different contexts, with different topics, with a particular group of students, all have something to offer.
As a teacher, your responsibility is to support your students to learn. You can’t make them learn – that is up to them – but you can draw on the various theories of learning in order to create the conditions in which learning is likely to take place. New theories are emerging. For example, in recent years there has been a great deal of focus on neuroscience and what happens in the brain when learning takes place. This is an area that is advancing fast and is controversial. The concepts of ‘learning without limits’ and ‘growth mindsets’ have also impacted on views about learning. The Further reading section provides links and references that might interest you.
3 Learning theories in practice
Learning theories may not be the topic of discussion among teachers in the staff room but the terms ‘active learning’ and ‘student-centred pedagogy’ are often heard in the context of school teaching. What exactly do these terms mean and how do they link to learning theory?
3.1 Active learning
The notion of ‘active learning’ supports Dewey’s conception of knowledge and ‘experiential learning’, challenging the idea that learners will simply absorb knowledge transmitted by teachers. It is closely linked to constructivist theories of learning and the idea that students learn by actively engaging with the world. Depending on how old you are, and on your own educational experiences, you might not have experienced active learning when you were at school, which makes learning to teach in this way more challenging.
Learning through active participation always involves learners being cognitively active – engaging their minds in their learning. It might also involve an actual physical action (such as making a poster, building a model or doing an experiment) but will always involve cognitive action – ‘minds on’ as well as ‘hands on’. Just listening to a lecture is insufficient; understanding is actively constructed by the learner through thinking about the new material, processing information and making connections with previous learning or established ideas.
Reflection point
Think about a lesson you taught or observed recently. What did you/the teacher do to ensure the students were actively engaged in learning?
3.2 Student-centred pedagogy
The modern presentation of Dewey’s ‘experiential education’ is perhaps ‘learner-centred education’ or ‘student-centred pedagogy’. ‘Student-centred’ is a difficult term as it means different things to different people. A common view is that student-centred pedagogy implies a set of particular approaches, such as group work, practical work or discovery learning. This is unfortunate as it has enabled neo-liberal ministers of education to label a large proportion of the education community as ‘the blob’ (Garner, 2014), apparently demanding group work and promoting a lack of rigour in teaching and learning. To the Government ministers in the UK in 2010–2015 ‘student-centred pedagogy’ is associated with a lack of discipline and low expectations. To other governments it represents an aspiration, a vision of education that is very different from what is happening and therefore the means to achieve significant improvements in student outcomes.
Reflection point
What does ‘student-centred’ learning mean to you?
What would you expect to see in a ‘student-centred’ classroom?
Discuss your ideas with colleagues – how much agreement is there between you?
Michele Schweisfurth (2013), in a book that takes an international perspective on student-centred education, defined a set of ‘minimum standards’ for this type of education (2013, p. 146). These are:
- Lessons should be engaging to students and motivate them to learn.
- There is mutual respect between students and teachers, reflected in the way in which both behave.
- Learning challenges build on students’ existing knowledge.
- Dialogue is used in teaching and learning, with students having the opportunity to discuss their ideas.
- The curriculum should be relevant to students’ lives.
- The curriculum should be based on skills, attitudes and content and should support critical and creative thinking.
- Assessment should test skills and knowledge and not be based on rote learning.
The implication here is that ‘student-centred learning’ (or learner-centred education) is about a set of values rather than a set of approaches, and that teaching relies on building productive relationships between the teacher and the learners.
Activity 7 Student-centred teaching
Part 1
With a colleague, consider the following questions:
- What is your response to Schweisfurth’s ‘minimum standards’?
- Consider these ‘minimum standards’ in terms of the learning theories that you have studied – how many are represented?
- How might the ‘minimum standards’ manifest themselves in your teaching of your subject?
Part 2
Thinking back over the last week, jot down some of the activities that you asked students to do in your lessons. How could you have made them more ‘student-centred’?
The ‘minimum standards’ draw on behaviourism, constructivism, social constructivism and social cognition. This is to be expected because if the primary concern is to focus on the learners, then different theories of learning will enable a variety of needs to be met.
A common misconception is that ‘student-centredness’ comes with a set of rules such as: ‘you should be doing group work’ and ‘you mustn’t talk to a class for more than 5 minutes’. This is not helpful. Badly organised group work with ill-thought out tasks is worse than the alternative and whole-class teaching can be ‘student-centred’. Student-centred learning requires a student-centred teacher and manifests itself through:
- what the teacher focuses on when planning
- the nature of communication with students
- the teacher’s attitude to students and their ideas and different needs
- how the teacher views students’ existing knowledge, experience and attitudes
- the teacher’s view of the learning process and the learner
- the teacher’s role as an educator
- what the teacher sees as important (values).
An effective student-centred teacher will help students to see the value of what they are learning and organise success so that the students believe they can learn. The teacher will structure content so that it has meaning to the learner, provide feedback and engage in dialogue about progress (Petty, 2009).
Activity 8 Planning student-centred teaching
Imagine you are working with a novice teacher.
- Explain how to make sure that whole-class teaching is ‘student-centred’.
- Explain how to ensure that group work is genuinely ‘student-centred’. What do you need to consider in your planning?
3.3 Drawing together the key ideas
This course has introduced ideas about knowledge and learning, and how these are brought together to create a student-centred classroom. In the final activity in this course, you will draw together the ideas raised in each section in order to analyse a lesson and to think about how it might be improved.
Activity 9 Analysing lessons
For this activity you will need a lesson plan in your subject or a set of detailed notes on a lesson you have observed. Some examples are provided, which you can use if you wish. If possible, work with a colleague.
Example lesson plans
Read through your chosen lesson plan and then answer the following questions:
- What knowledge is covered during this lesson? Think about what the students will learn and classify it according to the ‘types of knowledge’ described in Section 1. Was each type covered? Could the lesson be changed in any way to cover a broader range of knowledge?
- Analyse the lesson in terms of the learning theories described in Section 2. How could the lesson be changed or developed to take into account a different learning theory?
- Analyse the lesson in terms of Schweisfurth’s ‘minimum standards’. Was the lesson ‘student-centred’? Did it involve ‘active learning’?
Conclusion
As a beginning teacher studing this free course, Secondary learning, you may be preoccupied with planning lessons, classroom management, and learning the rules (written and unwritten) and routines that form the culture of the school in which you work. The purpose of this course was to encourage you to stand back and think about what it is you are trying to achieve. By developing a strong conceptual framework that includes a view of knowledge, learning and pedagogy, you will be in a position to reflect on your experiences and your developing practice and be proactive in learning to become the sort of teacher you want to be.
Further reading
Behaviourism
Exploring children’s behaviour: An OpenLearn free course that contains information about behaviourism (you may have to register and sign in for this)
Skinner, B.F. (1973) Beyond Freedom and Dignity, London, Penguin: an account of behaviourism from one of its founders
Constructivism
Von Glaserfeld, E. (2002) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning, London, Routledge
Social constructivism
Daniels, H. (ed.) (1996) An Introduction to Vygotsky, London, Routledge
Situated cognition
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York, Cambridge University Press
Embodied cognition
Website on embodied cognition
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: an article by Monica Cowart on embodied cognition
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press
Learning without Limits
Learning without Limits website
Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J. and McIntyre, D. (2004) Learning without Limits, Maidenhead, Open University Press
Swann, M., Peacock, A., Hart, S. and Drummond, M.J. (2012) Creating Learning without Limits, Maidenhead, Open University Press
The Growth Mindset
The power of believing that you can improve: TED talk by Carol Dweck
Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: How You can Fulfill your Potential, New York, Random House
Developments in neuroscience
Collins, S. (2016) Neuroscience for Learning and Development, London, Kogan Press.
Sousa, D. and Tomlinson, C.A. (2010) Differentiation and the Brain, Bloomington, IN, Solution Tree Press.
Wolfe, P. (2010) Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom Practice, 2nd edn, Alexandria, VA, ACSD
References
Acknowledgements
This free course was written by Kris Stutchbury.
Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence.
Every effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.
Course image
© Karen Parker
Figures
Figure 1: adapted from: Burnard, P. (1996) Acquiring Interpersonal Skills: A Handbook of Experiential Learning for Health Professionals, 2nd edn, London, Chapman & Hall.
Figure 2: Thislife Pictures/Alamy
Figure 3: Ken Walsh/Alamy
Figure 4: John Birdsall
Figure 5: Brian Mitchell/Corbis
Don't miss out
If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/ openlearn/ free-courses.