I would argue that perhaps we need to have a clear definition of what
'learning' means if we are to make any assessment of how much learning has
taken place. Exams these days measure something but I would not be
convinced that they measure 'learning' as I understand it. Exams may
measure a students capacity to remember some key facts and to be able to
demonstrate that they know how to achieve in exams. Put the 'learning' into
new contexts and ask students to offer some comment of the relationships
between their understanding and these new contexts and you may find many
are found wanting.
What I believe we see at exam level is primarily 'surface' learning. As far
back as 1992, Paul Ramsden noted that students can be accomplished at a
range of routine skills, be able to reproduce large quantities of
information, have gained enormous amounts of subject related knowledge and
can pass examinations but somehow they are unable to show that they
understand what they have learned - they demonstrate misconceptions of
important concepts (read any essay on supply and demand or government
macro-economic policies, motivation - especially Maslow - and marketing
for example), have problems applying their knowledge to new problems and so
on.
It is possible to have a question and answer session at the end of a lesson
and if you ask 5 questions and five students give the 'right' answer, then
some learning has clearly taken place. Ask those same questions at the
start of the next lesson to the same five people and see what the retention
rate has been? Or ask again the same questions to the same five people
three weeks later and see what the retention rate is then. Then what sort
of learning has taken place?
While exams are geared to demonstrating essentially knowledge and content
at the expense of understanding this is likely to continue to be the case.
A recent Applied Business GCSE paper I saw had no question worth more than
8 marks. Most of the other questions had boxes to complete, required
definitions or simple sentence answers - none of which, in my opinion,
assessed understanding of the concepts being covered.
We all talk of learning without ever really offering a clear definition of
what we mean and to my mind, this is at the heart of the problems faced -
not just in inspection but throughout education.
For what it's worth, my definition of learning would involve at least some
of the following:
· It is about acquiring new knowledge AND skills - 'knowledge is the know
why, skill the know how' (Boyett and Boyett 1998 p85)
· Learning is about changing behaviour as a result of the learning; this
new behaviour is underpinned by a different set of assumptions about
'reality'.
· Deep learning must involve and have meaning to the individual
· Learning means making connections between unrelated information and
making connections
· Learning is about being adept at dealing with change
· Learning is about being creative and finding solutions to problems
· Learning is about being independent but also about being able to work
well in communities.
Andrew
--On 08 March 2005 08:06 +0000 Anita Pincas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Pam.
>
> It is very commonsense, and based on tried and tested, traditional,
> approaches, including reliance on assessment results, allied with
> observation of learners and their teachers. Ultimately, there is
> reliance on the individual judgement of the observer. As we know,
> classroom observation is a very complex and tricky affair [our Institute
> library has dozens of books offering observation methods], so judgements
> about learning - how? how much? when? whether? who? why? why not? - are
> always going to be tentative. I dont see how they could be otherwise,
> not least given the limited time of any observer, including the class
> teacher.
>
> In other words, we still dont know, and I expect we never will, why
> "able" pupils are doing the things that allow observers to call them
> able. It is self-evidently a mixture of what they bring to the learning
> process and what the teaching process and the context contribute. But
> there are no hard facts, and - as in life - we have to accept fuzziness.
>
> Anita
>
> 21:57 07/03/2005, Pam Craven wrote:
>
> Go to Ofsted site and publications or for Business
> http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.displayfi
> le&id=1049&type=pdf
> pam
>
> In a message dated 05/03/2005 19:07:04 GMT Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Dear Adrian
> thank you for this detailed response, which is very reassuring.
>
> I would be interested in the criteria that are used to judge whether or
> not pupils
> are learning, or have learned. Is there a website to look at?
>
> Anita
>
> At 09:34 05/03/2005, Adrian Lyons wrote:
>
> I fear there may be a little misunderstanding and undue concern over this
> difference between teaching and learning. As am experienced Ofsted
> inspector
> I would reassure you that for each lesson observed we grade both teaching
> and learning and it is unusual for the two grades to differ. Sometimes we
> may make a difference of one grade. ......
>
>
>
> Anita Pincas, Senior Lecturer,
> Lifelong Education and International Development [LEID}
> Institute of Education,
> 20 Bedford Way
> University of London
> London WC1H 0AL
>
> Tel +44 0207 612 6522
> Tel +44 0207-286-5324 {home}
> Personal Web page < http://www.ioe.ac.uk/english/Apincas.htm >
>
> Short course: Online Education and Training
> Full details and application form:
> < http://www.ioe.ac.uk/english/OET.htm >
>
>
----------------------
Andrew Ashwin
Content Developer
Biz/ed
Institute for Learning and Research Technology
[log in to unmask]
http://www.bized.ac.uk
ILRT
8-10 Berkeley Square
Bristol
BS8 1HH
0117 928 7120
|