Ld@3 Does Learning Development have a Signature Pedagogy?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•330 views
Webinar presented as part of the LD@3 series for ALDinHE
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Ld@3 Does Learning Development have a Signature Pedagogy?
Similar to Ld@3 Does Learning Development have a Signature Pedagogy? (20)
More from Helen Webster
More from Helen Webster (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Ld@3 Does Learning Development have a Signature Pedagogy?
- 1. Welcome to LD@3! Please mute your microphones when you are not speaking. (Your mute button is at the bottom of the meeting screen)
- 2. Writing Development Centre. University Library. LD@3 Does Learning Development have a signature pedagogy? HelenWebster Newcastle University
- 3. Writing Development Centre. University Library. What is your job title as stated on your name badge? If it accurately reflected what you do, what would it say? 3 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 4. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Where have we come from? What do we draw on? 4 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy? LD Subject Teaching Librarian Advice and Guidance work Counselling SpLD and disability Staff/ Educational development EAP Researcher Development Learning technologist Student
- 5. Writing Development Centre. University Library. What IS Learning Development? Are we… • A profession? • A discipline? • A pedagogy? • A community of practice? 5 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 6. Writing Development Centre. University Library. What’s distinct about LD? • Is it just ‘teaching study skills?’ • Is it ‘just good teaching’? • Is it a distinct part of the HE ecosystem? How and why? • What are the concrete implications for practice if so? • Do we want to codify this as ‘good practice’? 6 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 7. Writing Development Centre. University Library. You can’t have a pedagogy if it’s not teaching…. Barkas, 2011: ‘Teaching’ or ‘Support’? The poisoned chalice of the role of Students’ Skills Centres 7 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy? “Teaching, as against ‘telling’, may be defined as a situation where there is a negotiation of meaning between the teacher(s) and the student(s)” (citing Ainley 2000)
- 8. Writing Development Centre. University Library. (How) would you justify Learning Development primarily as ‘teaching’ rather than essentially instruction, support, advice and guidance, mentoring? And what’s at stake? 8 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 9. Writing Development Centre. University Library. So what is a signature pedagogy? ”these are types of teaching that organise the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions. In these signature pedagogies, the novices are instructed in critical aspects of the three fundamental dimensions of professional work – to think, to perform and to act with integrity” (Schulman 2006) 9 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 10. Writing Development Centre. University Library. How could we begin to make it visible? We could start from… • How we’re positioned (?) • The nature of what we teach • Our underpinning theoretical frameworks (to think) • Our values (to act with integrity) 10 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 11. Writing Development Centre. University Library. What is the nature of what we teach? • More of a how than a what… • Skill, literacy, practice, competency…? • Teaching for a wicked learning environment… (Hogarth 2001) • Metacognition, strategic processing, higher level thinking 11 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 12. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Can we articulate what distinguishes LD? [distinguishing features] “notably, the emphasis on examining how students experience and make sense of learning activities and academic practices” (Hilsdon, 2011) 12 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 13. Writing Development Centre. University Library. IF that is so, THEN…. What are the implications for how we enact our pedagogy? • Teaching formats • Techniques • How we use language, space etc 13 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 14. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Principles No single ‘orthodox’ right way, correct/incorrect, Not procedural, not transferrable, diverse and fluid Experiential, experimental, reflective 14 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy? Implications Non-directive, non-prescriptive language Portfolio or repertoire of approaches The workshop, one to one tutorial (online?) Constructivist approaches, Rogerian teaching – coaching, questioning
- 15. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Theoretical Frameworks Academic Literacies (Lea and Street, Ivanic, Lillis) • Not technical or generic skills, not acculturated behavior norms, but • Situated social practices at level of epistemology and identity • Multiple, contested meanings, discourses, power relations and authority Critical Pedagogy (Freire, Giroux, Bourdieu) • Teaching as an intrinsically political act, not neutral. Emancipatory, transformative and participative. Social justice. 15 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 16. Writing Development Centre. University Library. IF that is so, THEN…. What are the implications for how we enact our pedagogy? • Teaching formats • Techniques • How we use language, space etc 16 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 17. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Principles • Multiple, contested meanings • Phenomenological, not positivist or normative • Student perspective taken seriously and valued 17 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy? Implications LDer becomes intermediary between parties – learning outcomes are co-constructed, not ours. Creating spaces for negotiation Formulation – combination of the Lder’s expertise in learning and universities as social sites of discourse and discipline practices with the student as expert in themselves
- 18. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Ethics and values ALDinHE values 1. Working alongside students to make sense of and get the most out of HE learning 2. Making HE inclusive through emancipatory practice, partnership working and collaboration 3. Adopting and sharing effective Learning Development practice with (and external to) our own institutions 4. Critical self-reflection, on-going learning and a commitment to professional development 5. Commitment to a scholarly approach and research related to Learning Development. 6. Other values…? 18 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 19. Writing Development Centre. University Library. IF that is so, THEN…. What are the implications for how we enact our pedagogy? • Teaching formats • Techniques • How we use language, space etc 19 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 20. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Principles Guide on the side – not authority Partnership 20 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy? Implications Facilitative, more questions than answers. Non-directive Whose interests are we working in? How to ensure partners are equal? How do we work interprofessionally?
- 21. Writing Development Centre. University Library. What’s distinct about LD? • Is it just ‘teaching study skills?’ • Is it ‘just good teaching’? • Is it a distinct part of the HE ecosystem? How? • What are the practical implications for practice if so? • Do we want to codify this as ‘good practice’? 21 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 22. Writing Development Centre. University Library. My response… If we see LD as a distinct role… • Distinctive pattern of appropriate teaching approaches, some unique to LD, all at progressive end of pedagogy • What marks us out: Non-judgmental, Emancipatory, 3rd space intermediary to aid negotiation and collaboration • Distinct type and use of expertise and authority • Powerful implications if framed as signature pedagogy, not individual choice 22 LD@3 Does LD have a signature pedagogy?
- 23. Writing Development Centre. University Library. Dr Helen Webster AKA @scholastic_rat blogs at https://rattusscholasticus.wordpress .com
Editor's Notes
- Three things – firstly the diversity of roles among those who see themselves as Lders, and also the fact that for some of us it’s our primary identity, others have other primary professional identities. Thirdly, that often there is a lack of shared understanding within as well as without our community about what we are - contracts, and how our work is positioned and perceived, especially by those who employ us So where we’re in agreement despite our job titles, what is it that unites us other than the term LD? What shared understanding is there?
- Use slide from the training sessions I’ve run to illustrate patterns within LD recruitment, and how these have changed over time as the role has developed from a deficit one for particular parts of the student body to all of it. Some of us are still in our home roles and have brought in LD approaches Note how these professions differ widely in the way they conceptualise and practice what they do. What do they all have in common that would unite them as Learning Development? Or do we have to shed aspects of our professional training for other roles, and acquire new ones?
- Note association of Learning Development, not learning developers – focus on the activity not the role so we really do need to define that activity and how it’s done– and the diversity of roles within the association. This issue has been rattling round since Hartley et al, 2011 and peoples’ answers depend on their job status and professional identity My position – it’s my job and primary/only professional identity, so I’d have to say profession! We need to clarify this to assert our space in the HE ecosystem. But all of these suggest that we have a distinct way of doing things. What is it? And is it a signature pedagogy?
- Fundamental question of whether what we do is support or teaching, giving information or helping others construct knowledge, low-skilled or highly specialized Definition of pedagogy: it’s not just a word that’s better than ‘instruction’ – what do we really mean by it? Is LD just a fancy word for teaching, or is teaching just a fancy word for instruction? What else might it be if not teaching? Advice and guidance work? Based on premise of transactional exchange, and expertise remains in expert as a resource to be drawn on, rather than developing the client Mentoring – more experienced person in field sharing their expertise (any training tends to be more about boundaries and what to avoid than developing skilled practice). LD contains elements of both these, but are they fundamentally either? I don’t think so. Check your contracts and recruitment specs to see how your uni sees what you do… What do we do? Help students understand Develop their thinking (metacognition and strategic processing) Develop their repertoire of practices Make meaning / make sense of academic practices and cultures Deal with threshold concepts Negotiate and navigate genres, disciplines, identities etc This is all constructivist – knowledge and meaning construction, not information delivery, qualitative not quantitative
- And even if the word is used, why are the expectations and contexts we’re working in often set up as if it’s not teaching?
- Why does it matter? And why is it different for LD? as Lders, part of our role is to help our students negotiate the signature pedagogy of their own subject discipline. We are not trained, nor do we share a single professional training, so we can’t technically be said to have a signature pedagogy in the traditional descriptive sense in terms of how we learn to do what we do. We should certainly be aware of any inherited signature pedagogies from our initial discipline and any professional training and how they influence our work – some inherited pedagogies might not be appropriate, or just limited. Do we have a signature pedagogy in a slightly different sense tho, a characteristic way in which we teach students to learn within their discipline? It is emergent and we have a chance to actively shape it? And does having a signature pedagogy mean that we are offering something distinct within higher education? How would we know – we can’t take the observational approach as Schulman and others do, necessarily as we are too new a thing, and not enough concensus has arisen. What I will do is look at our professed values, theoretical basis, and the nature of what we teach to see if I can tease out a signature pedagogy. Being aware that there is a difference between theories espoused and theories enacted…. At the very least we will benefit from deliberately and mindfully questioning our own practice as Learning Developers both individually and as a profession, with a greater shared understanding of good practice and what underpins it
- And what do we do with those implications? Articulated guidelines for good practice? Theories espoused and in practice –a reflective check A shared understanding so we can better position ourselves esp if we feel there is something distinct about it
- So should we take a behaviourist approach? But so much of it is purely abstract, about their understanding of learning, self, knowledge, etc and it’s not procedural
- Roots in Widening Participation, Disability and Counselling, Internationalization Differing interpretations or emphases on Lea and Street – plurality and discipline specific or emancipatory? Generally very much towards the progressive rather than formal end of pedagogy
- In whose interests are we acting?
- Non-judgemental, congruent, person-centred, holistic
- Not an individual choice, but because it’s what works for what we’re doing For LD to be fully enacted, you do need to be in a particular kind of role