Reading Richardson (2005)

Reading Richardson (2005)

Read the article by Richardson (2005), ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education’.

1. Do you think the innovations described in Weeks 8 and 9 as ‘learning design’ would induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students? What do you think Richardson means by 'more desirable approaches'? Desirable to whom? The learner? The designer?

In the H800 course we have discussed a number of technological tools which have been designed with course design in mind and not only facilitation, compendium for example. Judging by the 5 (or 6) ‘conceptions of learning’ (Säljö 1979) which are documented in Richardson (2005) I believe that Richardson is keen to explore the deeper elements of what makes learning a more concise experience, to somehow allow the subject matter the possibility to penetrate the surface and impregnate itself into the core of the learner in a very deep approach to facilitation through memorizing, reflection and therefore understanding.

2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3. What similarities/differences do there seem to be?

Marton (1976) assumes that learning by being involved in the learning process is a way in which learners learn, some actively participate and some are just passively taking part in a sort of ‘Peripheral Participation’ (Wenger 1998). Sfard (1998) argues that a duel metaphor is required to have successful learning through the ‘acquisition’ and’ participation’ metaphors (AM & PM), only using one of these two metaphors would not lead to a successful learning process. The participation is there but not the acquisition, this is however later identified as the sixth learning conception where “A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony and happiness or changing society” Van Rossum and Taylor (1987) or AM.

You may not have encountered the literature that Richardson describes. In Week 4, Chris Jones asked you to think about your own definition of ‘learning’.

1. Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson's paper fit your own experience as a learner? How? How not?

I’m not sure that all of the elements of what Richardson states is appropriate to me as a learner however some of the learning conceptions are present in my learning style, which I think alter from topic to topic, I think these have developed with time however and this leads me to believe that the young undergrads would struggle to come to terms with these theories.

2. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition? Why?

As mentioned above this alters from topic to topic however ‘learning to increase knowledge ‘and ‘learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures’ tend to be present in many of the topics, this is in a way a sort of semi AM and would therefore make sense to be present being that I see sense in the claims of Sfard. Certainly the actual AM metaphor as mentioned by Van Rossom and Taylor as the sixth conception of learning is also often present in my experience.

1. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson's paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer? Why? Why not?

Being that I teach a vocational subject the elements of ‘learning to increase knowledge’ and ‘learning as memorizing’ feature prominently but again I cannot see all of them applying equally or all upon the same subject.

2. Do you find Richardson's argument convincing? Why? Why not?

Elements of it yes for the reasons above, in that some of the theories he claims are relevant for certain topics, however some of them are not always present and this could be detrimental to the learning process, especially if Richardson sees them all as being part of a successful learning process.

3. You may find the similarity between the models in Figure 1 and Figure 2 beguiling, but are the models really justified? Why do you think that?

I just get the feeling that if this is the result of 25 years of research then we really have a long way to go! They seem a little simple and learning seems to me to encompass a more complex (and this is growing) set of skills and tools.