 |
 |
Absolutely agree with that now - but not bad for 1983! ;-) S On 4 June 2013 11:05, Eloise Sentito <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I would rather create (or occupy) a space *with* my fellow students in > which we will all *be* curious, creative, critical etc. **** > > ** ** > > (We’re just having a go at changing our ‘online feedback service’ into a > space for dialogue and discussion instead. Surprisingly challenging shift!) > **** > > ** ** > > Eloïse **** > > ** ** > > *Learning Development* *with Plymouth University***** > > www.learningdevelopment.plymouth.ac.uk **** > > ** ** > > *From:* learning development in higher education network [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Sandra Sinfield > *Sent:* 04 June 2013 09:36 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: study skills (RE: hhhmmm?)**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > > ------------------------------ > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > -- 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