 |
 |
Dear Len and All, Yes - I do agree that it is useful to de-construct the constituent practices that make up successful study, the successful graduate - and even perhaps the successful academic and Learning Developer... In fact (as I was saying to Gordon Asher off list) - that is how I came to this field in the first place: asked to teach something called 'study skills' on an early Access programme - whilst simultaneously studying Critical Theory on an MA in Film and Television Studies (for Education). This was 1983 and the field was as yet un-theorised - so the logical step for me was to de-construct the strategies, tactics and approaches that made up successful study or a successful student and to de-mystify them. Similarly to critically deconstruct the various genres of academia such that people could understand with what they were wrestling - and wrestle more powerfully. I found that my mainly mature students were engaged with the world and with their subjects - in many ways they were already deep learners (if we want to use that rubric) - what they lacked if you like was what is often called cultural capital - but what I like to call academic capital. They did not necessarily understand the purpose of academic reading - nor how to make notes in such a way that *they* were enabled to take control of a text for themselves. Unfamiliar with formal academic genres they did not express their thoughts to best effect. I did not think that they were deficit because they did not have this understanding - but I could see that they operated less powerfully in academia because they did not have these strategies. I also saw that they could very quickly grasp the constituent practices that enabled them to engage powerfully with the academic and start to make their own arguments in ways that would meet approval within a formal academic setting. Another thing that these students typically had was a somewhat idealised notion of Academia as a 'better' place than the factory or the building site or the shop in which they had operated before. In fact I had hardened ex-French Foreign Legionnaires drop out of College when they discovered that academia could be as hostile, unfair and unequal as anywhere else (if not more so!). I would argue that the majority of 'my' non-traditional students did not have an understanding of the Academic world as a set of inter-locking systems: socio-political, economic, hierarchical, cultural... oh - and for knowledge-construction. So Foucault helped us understand the discourses in which we were choosing to operate - and the unequal power relations therein ... and Freire enabled us to *act* with our knowledge. This is the complexity of successful 'study skills' teaching I think ... and this in turn is linked to the desires of the student and what they want from the educational experience - and also to our attitudes - I still don't think you can do much better than Carl Rogers who asks us to have empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence when dealing with our students. When we have and show those qualities we are creating a space *for* our students... Best wishes, Sandra On 3 June 2013 19:34, Leonard Holmes <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear all > > good to see that the notion of study skills is (again) receiving some > overdue questioning. But I think we need to go further than 'study skills'. > It's the whole notion of skills that needs to be questioned, as **any** > notion should be questioned as part of intellectual enquiry. > Gilbert Ryle made the useful distinction between technical and untechnical > concepts. Clearly the term 'skill' is used as an untechnical concept in our > everyday, mundane conversation. But once we start to use the term in > **technical** discourse, problems quickly arise. > > One key way in which our thinking goes astray is the use of possessive > language - we talk of 'acquiring' and 'having' skills - and the use of > language of tool-usage - as if skills have some empirical existence. > > Yet clearly the term 'skill' does not refer to (denote) an empirical > object - we can't locate skills **within** any human person (although > perhaps some naive interpreters of neuroscience seem to think we can - much > to neuroscientists' annoyance!). > > So we need to put aside the implicit possessive-instrumentalist > understanding that accompanies the 'skills' talk, and enquire more > seriously about what is going on when, in the current case, students do (or > do not) become better (whatever that might mean!) at engaging in their > studies. That requires a much more sophisticated theoretical framework than > is offered by the skills approach. > > I have argued that the twin concepts of identity and practices provides > for such a framework. Sandra stated that she had found that "sessions that > students engage in voluntarily or at least willingly can be experienced as > transformative". This would seem to me to be understandable in terms of > identity - the students in question aspiring to the identity of a > (successful) undergraduate (at whatever level, first year, second, > finalist), so commiting time, efforts etc to achieving that. > > The various terms used in lists of so-called study skills may be viewed as > linguistic repertoires for the practices appropriate to those who are > positioned in particular identities (students), within particular social > settings (undergraduate - or postgraduate - higher education courses). > > Instead of being mystified by being told that they must acquire/ develop > this or that set of 'study skills', students might then be helped by being > encouraged to recognise that, in order to achieve their desired identity, > they need to engage in certain identifiable sorts of practices. It's what > they should **do**, not **have**; and if they are not good at 'doing it' at > first, then practise (with guidance, examples, etc) will enable them to get > better. > > > regards > > Len > > ------------------------- > > Dr Leonard Holmes > Research Degrees Convenor > Reader in Management > University of Roehampton | London | SW15 5PJ > www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/LeonardHolmes > Centre for Organizational Research > > Tel: +44 (0) 20 8392 8151 | > > Follow us on TWITTER | Find us on FACEBOOK > Watch us on YOUTUBE| Check in on FOURSQUARE > > > > ________________________________ > From: learning development in higher education network [ > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rooney, Stephen [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 03 June 2013 17:44 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: hhhmmm? > > Dear all, > > Now would seem like a good time to remind people that Gibbs contributed a > lengthier, and similarly themed, piece to the inaugural edition of the > always fascinating and stimulating Journal of Learning Development in > Higher Education: > > > http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=issue&op=view&path%5B%5D=8 > > All best, > > Steve > > From: learning development in higher education network [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diana Aronstam > Sent: 03 June 2013 17:02 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: hhhmmm? > > This piece is indeed very helpful, and articulates the issues very > clearly. Gibbs has been critiquing the study skills model since the 70s > and, if my memory serves me correctly, drew attention in the early 80s to > the (then) groundbreaking ‘phenomenographic’ approach of the Goteborg > Group, led by Marton. They too provided a robust critique of this model, > and their perspectives were transformational for me in relation to my > understanding of effective learning in higher education. > > Many thanks, Gordon. > > Diana > > > Diana Aronstam > London College of Fashion > > From: learning development in higher education network [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Gough > Sent: 03 June 2013 16:22 > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: hhhmmm? > > I am new to this list (hello all!) > This encompasses so much of what I have found and have been trying to > convince others of so it is very helpful. > Thank you for sharing > > Mandy > > (Kingston university) > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Janette Myers <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, 3 June 2013, 15:32 > Subject: Re: hhhmmm? > > Thanks for circulating this Gordon. I thought it a very positive piece, > making some succinct key points. It will be of use to me in supporting some > of the things I try to convey about embedding, metacognition and the > non-remedial (and transformative Sandra!) nature of LD > regards > Janette > > On 03/06/2013 13:11, Gordon Asher wrote: > Raising awareness of best-practice pedagogy > 30 MAY 2013 > Graham Gibbs asks what ‘study skills’ consist of and whether they can > actually be learned by students > > http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/raising-awareness-of-best-practice-pedagogy/2004204.article > SOURCE: ALAMY< > http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/raising-awareness-of-best-practice-pedagogy/2004204.article > > > Tunnel vision: giving students ‘how-to’ guides to learning does not > encourage the kind of flexible thinking that is required to get the most > out of higher education > When I was at The Open University in the 1970s, I tried to teach adults > who were studying for the first time in their lives what they needed to do > in order to learn effectively. When I was based at Oxford Polytechnic > (now Oxford Brookes University) in the 1980s, I was teaching students whose > study habits had got them through their A levels but were unequal to the > larger and more complex tasks of higher education. And when I later worked > at the University of Oxford, students were still asking for help with > “study skills”. Their intelligence and achievements were intimidating, so > what was the problem? > The educational interventions that make most difference to student > performance are not to do with improving teachers or curricula, and > certainly not with policy or organisational changes, but involve improving > students: changing what it is they do in order to learn. For example, > teachers can often help students more by encouraging them to tackle > feedback differently than by altering the feedback itself. > So what does “improving students” actually consist of? “How to” guides on > study skills – how to take notes, how to structure an essay and so on – > contain what appears to be sound enough advice (although the similarity > between them is both striking and suspicious). > However, attempts to back up this consensus with evidence of the > effectiveness of the techniques described have had little success. > Students’ scores on “study habits inventories” – questionnaires made up of > lists of the kinds of things contained in these books – hardly correlate > with examination performance at all. An exception is how to be organised > (by managing one’s time, for example). “Organisation” predicts performance > where the use of most “skills” does not. > Students also rarely use the methods they read about in how-to-study books > or are taught on study skills courses, and for all kinds of reasons. Most > importantly, the skills may be too rigid to span the range of demands that > students actually face. > For example, lectures may primarily convey facts, or explain procedures, > or exemplify the use of the discourse of the discipline, and so on. Each > requires a different kind of note-taking, and students have to be able to > spot these varied demands and do something different in response, not > simply use the same methods every time. Disciplines also vary in their > demands and conventions: a student studying sociology and history may find > that their writing gains good marks in one but not the other. > Fit for purpose > It appears that successful students (and successful academics for that > matter) do an extraordinary variety of things when they take notes or set > about writing. They have found, often through trial and error, > idiosyncratic ways that work well enough for them, given their purposes and > the particular learning tasks in front of them. > It is possible to train students to use specific technical skills, but > they transfer very poorly from one context to another (for example, from a > training course back to everyday study, or from studying one subject to > another). It is much better, instead, to develop a learner’s ability to > study a subject within that subject. > For example, efforts at some Ivy League universities to improve students’ > writing by hiring experts in communication who run generic courses in how > to write have tended to be abandoned. Instead, postgraduates within > subjects are trained to give feedback on assignments that leads students to > reflect on their writing, rather than only on the content of the > assignment. > When I acted as a “study skills counsellor” at Oxford Polytechnic, I > noticed that many of the bewildered students in my caseload were unable to > describe what they did when they were studying (such as reading a chapter > in a book, for example). Their studying was habitual and unreflective. In > contrast, effective students can tell you all about how they go about their > task, have a sensible rationale for doing so and change what they do when > they notice that the context or task demands are different. > In the educational literature, this is termed “metacognitive awareness and > control”, and it is the most influential of all aspects of “study skills”. > Improving students appears to involve raising their awareness of what they > are doing, increasing their repertoire so that they can choose to do > different things when it seems appropriate and tuning them in to task > demands so that they can recognise what is required. > Right answer, wrong approach > Two crucial aspects of studying effectively are not about “skills” at all > but about understanding. Research at Harvard University into why its very > bright students sometimes study in unintelligent ways has revealed how > important it is for students to understand the nature of knowledge and > what they are supposed to do with it. > The study found that unsophisticated students would try to spot the right > answers in lectures, which they would note down in order to memorise for a > test, a method described in the literature by the phrase “quantitative > accretion of discrete rightness”. They were fantastically efficient at > this and it had served them well at school, but it was the wrong thing to > do at Harvard. > Similarly, studies at the University of Gothenburg have revealed that > students have quite different conceptions of what “learning” means, and > these conceptions evolved through experience until, ideally, learning is > seen as attempting to “apprehend reality”. > Skills have to serve the purposes associated with these evolving > conceptions of knowledge and of learning: without appropriate purposes, > the skills can be worse than useless. > PRINT HEADLINE: > Article originally published as: Self-reflective improvement (30 May 2013) > AUTHOR: > Graham Gibbs is professor of higher education at the University of > Winchester. > > > > -- > > I work Mon-Thur at St George's > > > > Dr Janette Myers SFHEA > > Senior Lecturer in Student Learning and Support, > > Division of Population Health Sciences and Education, > > Section for Medical and Healthcare Education, > > 6th floor Hunter Wing, > > St George's, University of London > > Cranmer Terrace > > London > > SW17 0RE > > > > 020 8725 0616 > > > > > ________________________________ > > This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient > of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based > upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the > email back to us and immediately and permanently delete it and its > attachments. > > Where this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts > London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in it are > the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of > University of the Arts London (or the relevant group company). > > Where the sender’s signature indicates that the email is sent on behalf of > London Artscom Limited the following also applies: London Artscom Limited > is a company registered in England and Wales under company number 02361261. > Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London > WC1V 7EY. > > Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really > need to. > > ________________________________ > This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for > the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under > applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail > in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system > and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or > its attachments. > > Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. > University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss > arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet > communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. > > Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that > does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to > the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton. > > University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a > company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. > Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt > charity. > -- Sandra Sinfield University Teaching Fellow ________________________________________________________ CELT Learning & Writing Development (www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt) LC-206 London Metropolitan University, 236-250 Holloway Road, N7 6PP. (020) 7 133 4045 Association of Learning Development in HE (www.aldinhe.ac.uk) Essential Study Skills: the complete guide to success at university (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/burnsandsinfield3e/main.htm) http://lastrefugelmu.blogspot.co.uk/ Find me on Twitter - or use @celtstudy & #loveld Companies Act 2006 : http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/companyinfo