Seda presentation. pountney gruszczynska (1)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Seda presentation. pountney gruszczynska (1)

on

  • 483 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
483
Views on SlideShare
483
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
2

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • See last slide - Shulman, L.S. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions, Dedalus, 134, 52-59 - see also Calder, L. (2006). Uncoverage: Toward a signature pedagogy for the history survey. The Journal of American History, 92(4), 1358-1370.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Really interesting looking work here, Richard. Where is the signature pedagogy element referred to in the title? Couldn't see this from a skim through the slides.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • I am Richard Pountney and I am a Principal Lecturer and Teaching Fellow for Curriculum Development at SHU in the faculty of D and S. I lead an OER3 project Digital Futures in Teacher Education. My colleague Anna Gruszczynska manages the project and together we worked on 2 previous phase projects at the Subject Centre for SAP at Bham university. We are here today to talk to you about these 2 earlier phases of work that looked specifically at OER in the Social Science curriculum but we will link that to our current work on digital literacy. The first of these earlier phases looked at the practice of making open and the second looked at cascading these resources for use by others.
  • Before we begin I would like to set the context for our work on OER by drawing out some key findings from our work that have led us towards a particular analytical framework for empirical investigations:Most academics are not concerned with making their materials open for use by others. Where they are there is often a specific context:It has been commissioned b) there is a specific institutional need (e.g. Delivery via Flying faculty or collaborative provision, new staff)The re-use of OERs is cloaked in technicist language e.g. Courseware - that is off-putting in that it equates teaching and learning with content – it dehumanises L and TTeaching by its realisation in HE is a closed affair (team teaching is rare) and a private process ‘The intimacy of the pedagogic relationship’ (Ramsden). We aspire to make the walls of the classroom more porous – we ask is this possible?As a social practice L and T is under-theorised and under-researched – and as a generally held principle constructivism is hard to operationalise (esp in terms of OER and OA). What is missing is a conception of knowledge itself- the underlying organising principles of curriculum and its content – and a recognition that disciplinary differences prevail. Social Realism (Bourdieu & Bernstein) offers some traction on this by offering explanatory power. The comparison between Research and Teaching is an interesting one: R is self-perpetuating – peer reviewed, intrinsic value related to citation, developed cumulatively over time, sharing and re-use integrated into its functions – taking R as a successful eco-system how might we approach T and L content in this way? Subject it to Peer review, give it intrinsic value on recommendation, allow it to be used and reused under licence acknowledging its contributing antecedents we look around and see the impact of our own university on the skyline and the life of the city employability as key driver and how this is skewing the curriculum how the ORF is squeezing out the PRF, showing the dominance of the external on practice – graduateness as a function of the ideal student and how it appears rational These are questions that guided our investigation
  • Fillingin the blanks – the emergence of a practice at SHU where tutors are posting Powerpoints in the VLE that have blanks intentionally left in to ensure students attend lectures – this is an example of how the instructional discourse is embedded in a regulative discourse _ and how this constitutes the pedagogic discourse that is created by the pedagogic device (Bernstein, 1990) Whereas R has a defined language and methodology (its external language of description) T doesn’t. It remains situated, context bound and essentially tacit or at least implicit. And if you can’t describe it you will find it difficult to communicate or share. That most practice in L and T is a borrowing: a transfer from T to T as well as T to L. That in the same way that you might consider data to exist only in relation to a theory, content can only exist in relation to knowledge
  • 18 undergraduate modules in Social Science equivalent to 360 credits of an undergraduate degreeRegulativediscourse as arising from the official recontextualising field (ORF) – this is how L and T is framed Explain implications of horizontal knowledge structure, and social science as a region, as an imaginary field – example of carpentry recontextualised as woodworking Mention the difference between explicit, implicit and tacit – and that this is like ‘filling in the blanks’ The sense that much of our practice is ‘borrowings’ from others – and that the recognition and realisation rules for these were not known to all Making open requires opening to oneself as well as others – That it increasingly involves a high level of digital literacy and facility with technology
  • Mention the 18 modules – 360 credits and how we interpreted this literally – that many others didn’t – that this took place at CSAP – significant itself in that our emphasis was on the development of L and T in Soc Science
  • That the materials were raw and in use – images of Thomas the Tank Engine and Bob the Builder. Meaning very context dependent. Based on external content such as the answers to quizzes
  • show the case studiesState crime – Cathy talking about her module – then show the mappingAnthropological Ideas – Angels talking – highlight 2 sections – then show diagnostic Explain that this description is also deposited in Jorum as XML (syntax)Mention that full versions of the toolkit turn the descriptions into a module handbook for the students, and an official module descriptor for Registry. These might appear quite prosaic manifestations of OERs at a granular level of whole modules but it highlights a number of issues some of which I have already mentioned
  • Angels talks of translation; in Bernstein’s terms this is a recontextualisation in which there is a potential for a ‘discursive gap’ in which can play ideology, the developers’ concerns – it can bypass the teacher and erode confidence in the expert – but it can also be generative .... Edupunks. That practice, left to its own devices is essentially conservative or inert, and that over time this settles into homogenity That practice is an interplay between positional and relational autonomy – and the potential for a code clash in
  • The issue of discoverability -
  • Regulative discourse as arising from the official recontextualising field (ORF) Explain implications of horizontal knowledge structure, and social science as a region, as an imaginary field – example of carpentry recontextualised as woodworking Mention the difference between explicit, implicit and tacit – and that this is like ‘filling in the blanks’ The sense that much of our practice is ‘borrowings’ from others – and that the recognition and realisation rules for these were not known to all Making open requires opening to oneself as well as others -

Seda presentation. pountney gruszczynska (1) Seda presentation. pountney gruszczynska (1) Presentation Transcript

  • Filling in the blanks: signature pedagogies and their impact on understanding and sharing practice in the form of OERs in the Social Science Curriculum Richard Pountney and Anna Gruszczynska Sheffield Hallam University1
  • Introduction and background • The Open Education Resources (OER) movement (2008-) and the release of content for Higher Education (HE) • The ‘idea of the university’ (McCLean 2006) occupying physical and notional space (Barnett, 2005) • Curriculum becoming a techno-economic conception as a ‘vehicle for realising taken-for-granted ends’ (Barnett and Coate, 2005) • The rise of ‘trainability’ and a (second) ‘totally pedagogised society’ in which an ‘ideal knower’ is constituted by the Official Recontextualising Field (ORF) (Bernstein, 2000) • The construction of curriculum knowledge in HE as social practice that raises key questions about the use and reuse of OER: o What are the cultural and social conditions that underpin it? o What are the epistemological and methodological constraints? o What identities and forms of agency do curriculum practices with OER construct for teachers and students?2
  • Evaluating the practice of Opening up Resources for Learning and Teaching • A regulative discourse for the design of courses in UK HE (QAA Code of Practice, Subject Benchmarks, credit tariffs, course validation and approval etc.) • Social Science as having a horizontal knowledge structure, segmentally arranged, with weak classification (-C) and strong official framing (+F) and weak unofficial framing (-F) (Bernstein, 1990) • The potential for an ‘invisible pedagogy’ (-C/-F) in which students (and teachers) do not know the ‘rules of the game’. • Pedagogic practice as emerging from individual ‘repertoires’ developed over time drawn from a ‘reservoir’ of tacitly agreed techniques (Bernstein, 2000, Bourdieu, 1992). The notion of ‘signature pedagogy’ (Shulman, 2005) as a perspective. • The articulation of personally held beliefs and their effect on strategies in pedagogic encounters (Schon, 1987), with emphasis in this study on the process of ‘making open’3
  • Evaluating the practice of Opening up Resources for Learning and Teaching • A regulative discourse for the design of courses in UK HE (QAA Code of Practice, Subject Benchmarks, credit tariffs, course validation and approval etc.) • Social Science as having a horizontal knowledge structure, segmentally arranged, with weak classification (-C) and strong official framing (+F) and weak unofficial framing (-F) (Bernstein, 1990) • The potential for an ‘invisible pedagogy’ (-C/-F) in which students (and teachers) do not know the ‘rules of the game’. • Pedagogic practice as emerging from individual ‘repertoires’ developed over time drawn from a ‘reservoir’ of tacitly agreed techniques (Bernstein, 2000, Bourdieu, 1992). The notion of ‘signature pedagogy’ (Shulman, 2005) as a perspective. • The articulation of personally held beliefs and their effect on strategies in pedagogic encounters (Schon, 1987), with emphasis in this study on the process of ‘making open’4
  • Researching the ‘making open’ process 1. Reflecting and reviewing stage - peer supported review exercise • The activity involved reviewing a sample module from the other partner’s contributed materials, focusing on issues relevant to OERs and reusability 2. Mapping stage • Development activity where project partners created detailed mappings of their modules, using a provided paper-based mapping proforma 3. Case study creation stage • Partners created a case study narrative which documented the process of “opening up” a selected module and showcased the processes behind repurposing/ material transformation. • The narratives offered a rich description’ of the resource in order to increase the possibility of its re-contextualisation by other users, and to develop further insights into tacit practice.5
  • Becoming open: to others and to oneself 1. Embodying cultural capital • Materials relied on repertoires of existing practice and were British culture and politics centric, context based, without captions (cultural colonisation) 2. Subject to housekeeping • The presence of redundant local information (module codes), links to institutional sources (VLE), and the absence of explicit information (duration of lectures, slide numbers, how content is being used) 3. Implicit design for learning • Module design is unclear, especially how this relates to other modules and (prior) learning and how this builds as a body of knowledge, practice or skills6
  • Learning and teaching as social practice involving a pedagogical discourse • The need for a shared pedagogical rationale to enable the pedagogic conversation to take place. The unsuitability of existing pedagogical frameworks (e.g. Goodyear and Jones, 2004) offering models, characteristics and principles of learning • ‘learning design and reusability are incompatible. Design requires specificity and specificity prohibits reusability’ (Downes, 2003) • ‘the transformative educational potential of OER depends on: 1. Improving the quality of learning materials through peer review process; 2. Reaping the benefits of contextualisation, personalisation and localisation ...’ (UNESCO, 2006)7
  • Empirical work in developing shared and open resources in the curriculum • How the proposition emerged that this involved a translation at differing levels: in technical terms (as xml); as a ‘wrapped-up’ or packaged curriculum; and as an articulation of the tacit • How the examination of the 18 modules revealed elements of a signature pedagogy (lecture / seminar / Powerpoint) • The development of an external language of description (Bernstein 1990) and how this is ‘legitimated’ in terms of autonomy (Maton, 2007) as a cline of collegiality (Pountney, 2012) Theoretical Degree of emphasis on: concept Curriculum Content knowledge specified by discipline Positional Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on tradition autonomy Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with teachers’ needs Curriculum Content knowledge specified by educational policy Relational Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on economic and other factors autonomy Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with institutions’ needs8
  • Cascading Social Science Open Educational Resources • Part of Phase 2 of the UKOER programme, which expanded the work of pilot phase around the release of OER material. • Three partners: – Teesside University – University Centre at Blackburn College – Welsh Federation College9
  • Project outputs • Cascade framework: Model of release, discovery and reuse of OERs which can be “cascaded”, that is, taken up and incorporated into new contexts • Cascade tools: Set of tools which will allow academics to reflect upon their own practice and examine conditions in which their teaching resources can be used/reused and shared10
  • Creativity for Edupunks at University Centre Blackburn College • Edupunk - an approach to teaching and learning practices that result from a do it yourself (DIY) attitude • Wiki-based resource primarily aimed at HE in FE staff with 11 activity-based sessions related to – identifying, locating, releasing and putting OERs into the curriculum; – understanding the concept of “openness" – issues around student engagement • "encourages reflection on the research and practice of the working lives of teaching professionals"11
  • Further work in OER •Local teachers and pupils, teacher • For more information: educators and teacher educations • Project blog students involved in: www.deftoer3.wordpress.com •sharing and developing good • Twitter @deftoer3 practice in teaching • Slideshare •understanding more about digital www.slideshare.net/deftoer3 literacy •developing guidance on Open Educational Resources for the school sector •addressing issues of digital literacy in the context of professional development •Project outputs will be shared via an open textbook and the "Digital Bloom" installation12
  • References • Barnett, R. (2005) Reshaping the University. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press • Barnett, R. & Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press • Bernstein, B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge • Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. • Bourdieu, P. (1992) Thinking about limits. Theory, Culture & Society 9: 37-49. • Luckett, K. (2009). The relationship between knowledge structure and curriculum: A case study in sociology. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 441–453 • Goodyear, P & Jones, C (2004) Pedagogical frameworks for DNER (the Distributed National Electronic Resource), Deliverable DC1, EDNER Project. Lancaster: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster University (online at www.cerlim.ac.uk/edner/dissem/dc1.doc) • Maton, K. (2007). Knowledge-knower structures in intellectual and educational fields. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 87–108). London: Continuum. • McClean, M. (2006) Pedagogy and the University. London: Continuum. • Pountney, R. (2012) Constructing the curriculum in Higher Education (in press) • Schön, D.A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass • Shulman, L. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the profession, Daedalus, 134 (3) 52-5913