I was intrigued enough by the discussion here to go out and find this video.  It is at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5629273206953884671
 
Because I came upon it via this list and  Google I am not privy to the email that David refers to which alerted others to its potential.  I do wonder whether it is the claims made in that communication which are exciting people here.
 
Going only by the video I feel that this should be judged as a 20 minute video which is available online and free of charge.  I would expect some compromise in the quality on that basis.  Its actually pretty good. (My opinion). 
 
This is a resource that I would imagine could be used very effectively to raise discussion (it has here)  - some of it doubtless quite critical discussion about stereotypes.  Since lively discussion between students seems to be a good thing I guess that this comes into the category of those resources which I use to show people things which are perhaps a little different from what they are used to.  I don't have to agree with what it says in every respect. 
 
I can't see why I would use it as the only means of 'transmitting' information about the concepts presented here, so I am thinking of this as something that would be blended with other elements, including the academic books or articles that it touches on so lightly.  In that context I could see myself using it. 
 
I realise that I may be alone in this. Perhaps there are much better resources out there. 
 
Chris
 
 
Chris Pegler
Institute of Educational Technology
[log in to unmask]
http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/c.a.pegler
01908 654015
 

________________________________

From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association on behalf of Cooper, Alison
Sent: Wed 04/07/2007 15:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: award winning film



I have to completely agree with David's points below.
I also found the goody-two-shoes female and lay-about Robert really
problematic in terms of reinforcing the very concepts of personality
stereotypes that we have to take pains to ensure are not associated with
the concepts of learning approaches in different contexts and
situations.

Apart from which I found it very amateurish in its quality. What award
has it won, and from whom?

Ali

Ali Cooper
Teaching Development Adviser  
Programme Director for Certificate in Academic Practice (CAP)
Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT)
Room C63 Furness College
Lancaster University
Bailrigg
Lancaster LA1 4YG
email: [log in to unmask]
tel: (01524 5) 93441
fax: 01524 594748
Professional Programmes website:
<http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/CELT/profprog.nsf
CELT website: http://luvle.lancs.ac.uk/celtweb



-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Gosling
Sent: 04 July 2007 12:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: award winning film

I have had several interesting responses to my e-mail. Can I urge anyone
wishing to respond to my comments to do so via the SEDA list.

I do concede that there is one point the film makes quite well, and that
is that even if Robert is a disinterested student he can be engaged if
he is taught in a more interesting way. However, I don't think
'alignment' is enough to make teaching interesting and I don't think
aligned teaching makes it inevitable that he will learn anything.

The second point I want to make is that there is an assumption in the
film that widening access to HE  brings in more Roberts. We are in
danger of overgeneralising about widening access students when we think
they are necessarily like the Robert in the film. There have always been
surface learners even in more selective times, and plenty of WP students
can be engaged if taught in an interesting way.

Part of the problem in the film and much of the literature about deep
and surface learning is that there is a conflation of a deep approach to
learning and so-called 'deep learners'. No-one is always either 'deep'
or 'surface' in their approach to learning - it is not like a
personality type. When 'deep learners' are then further conflated with
'good students' we end up with a meaningless category. 'Deep learner' is
simply a 'hooray' term with very little content.

Equally poor Robert in the film is not only taking a 'surface approach'
(which may not be surprising, and not necessaily a bad thing) but he is
also late to his lectures, he smokes, he's patently bored and listens to
his i-pod in stead of working. They could have gone the whole way and
shown him shop-lifting at the local supermarket when he should have been
doing his homework. All of this is irrelevant. A student can be very
punctual and conscientious (and a non-smoker!) and still adopt a surface
approach - not least because their assessment requires them to reproduce
what the lecturer has given them and because it is strategically the
best way to survive. By associating Robert's surface aaproach with other
personal features of his life, the film reprodices the conflation of
deep=good student and surface=bad student.

Can someone offer to make a film about approaches to learning which does
not resort to stereotypes?

David Gosling
Higher Education Consultant
Visiting Research Fellow
University of Plymouth
tel/fax: 0161 456 6148
mobile: 0784 1647275