Planning and teaching for effective learning
Contextual Background
The challenge I am wishing to explore is how to massively reduce over-delivery and over-explaining transmissive teaching in my Creative Portfolio Workshop (prep sheet and exhaustive slides in addendum). I intentionally hope to increase student engagement and participation through active learning rather than passive listening in lecture format. This case study evolved from, and was crystallised through, my tutor observation as part of this unit.
Evaluation
I was somewhat perceptually aware of the limited learning that happens during transmissive lecture-style teaching, particularly when it’s for the majority of a 3hr session — it also tired me out speaking so much, and a niggle had been growing within me to evolve the lesson structure. This was aptly summarised by Dylan Wiliam: “students do not learn what they are taught” (2011).
I had previously made small adjustments, opening more space for students to speak, encouraging group discussion, even so there is maybe only 30-35mins of self-directed learning, with about 40min guided software learning, and the remainder being lecture. This space did allow discussion and reflection amongst the students, but I observe there just wasn’t enough.
Moving forwards
The intention is to evolve the lesson from around 60–65% transmissive style to a participatory, self-directed, task-focused, student-centred learning environment. In effect to reverse the balance, to make transmissive teaching in the session around 20–30%. In this environment my role is evolved into a facilitator of their learning, rather than an explainer. In turn I hope this will increase opportunities that “allow the students to use their own activity to construct their own knowledge” (Biggs, 2007).
I will outline some strategies below.
Designing the session so students constantly refer to, and reflect on, their own work, rather than what I’ve been saying:
- Davies (2012) suggests using discursive decision-making processes how to adapt the learning outcomes apply to the students individually in their own work.
- Having the students respond to series of tasks after shorter lecture sections, some of them could use a technique of inverting my previous explanations: and rather than me joining the dots I get the students to. Akin to a question that came up in my microteach feedback and reflection: ‘how could this relate to graphic design?’ or ‘How might it relate?’
- These types of questions do however, come with a caveat to be conscious that a series of ‘why’ questions can sometimes be perceived as confrontational (Matthewman, 2024) and ‘how might?’ or ‘how could?’ offers more reflection on futurity than just asking why.
Object Based Learning (OBL)
- An approach that Judy Willcocks (2024) introduced, and something I am keen to use in the lesson redevelopment. An example could be that I bring artefacts, print outs, and students bring objects or work, and we analyse and categorise them on appropriateness to various portfolio audiences.
Playfulness
- An underlying theme of my submission, to reinvigorate an aspect of characteristic playfulness in my learning and teaching, or as Sam Alt says: “taking play seriously” (2024). Although there is limited research on this topic, I am looking into the research of Brown and Leigh (2018) and Nørgård and Moseley (2021).
- An example approach could be to generate a game which is playful and expressive with typography, as there is so many bad but hilarious fonts.
Addendum
References
Biggs, Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S.-K. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Brown, N. and Leigh, J. (2018) “Creativity and playfulness in higher education research,” in Theory and Method in Higher Education Research. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 49–66.
Davies, A. (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, Networks, Issue 18. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem (Accessed: March 15, 2024).
Matthewman, K. (2024) TPP Workshop 5. Theories, Policies, and Practices, 1 March. [Live taught lesson].
Nørgård, R. T. and Moseley, A. (2021) “The Playful Academic An editorial,” The Journal of Play in Adulthood, 3(1). doi: 10.5920/jpa.954.
The Failure of the Future: The Economic Dreamland (2024) BBC Radio 4, 23 January. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vm45 (Accessed: 17 March 2024).
Wiliam, D. (2011) “What is assessment for learning?,” Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001.
Willcocks, J (2024) Object-based Learning. Online, 24 January. [Event programme].