In my previous post, Defining Learning, I defined learning as a social process. One of the interesting things about social processes is that it is made up of conversations. We hear so much about ‘conversation’ now, but learning has always been this way, even though many of our learning systems seem to be centred around monologues where the teacher teaches and the learners learn, but do so quietly. But even when learners are seemingly passive, they are often engaged in processes similar to conversation, the so-called ‘self-talk’. But I get ahead of myself.
Having defined learning, I start to unpack the ‘conjoined activities’ of teaching and learning because neither is done in a vacuum and although both can occur without the other.
{Begin extract}
As an example of the espoused process of knowledge co-construction, teaching at tertiary level has been described as a conversation between the student and the teacher (Laurillard, 1993). Laurillard (1993 p84) describes a “principled approach to generating teaching strategy”, which incorporates a “continuing dialogue between teacher and student … [which] must reveal both participant’s conceptions [of topic content]” through interaction or conversation. Thus teaching is a social interaction, although teaching can occur without the intended learning occurring in those taught. Conversely, learning can occur without teaching. Neither activity guarantees, nor is guaranteed by, the other. This is because the individual and the social are engaged in a reciprocal process of knowledge construction (Rogoff, 1990, Kuutti, 1991). This changing relationship between teaching and learning is central to the constructivist view. However it also provides one of the problematics of definitions of teaching and learning as a conjoined activity. This is because there is a tendency to discuss the terms as distinct activities rather than two that are mutually entwined. As Grossen (2000 p30) states “learning and teaching are two complementary activities”. Structured learning environments may be more conducive to learning, when teaching is applied effectively, meaning that understanding the learning environment and its role in the reciprocal relations of students and teachers is essential. This distinction of ‘effective teaching and learning’ is becoming a mantra in educational circles (Ballantyne, Bain and Packer, 1999), providing for ways to ensure that any teaching done results in learning by students. The concept of shared understanding, or intersubjectivity, has long been used as a guide for education (Newman et al., 1989), that is, the student will come to share the knowledge of the teacher, although it is rarely fully achieved. It is held that through interactions (Newman et al., 1989) intersubjectivity is achieved over time. However the less visible, immediate and accessible forms of interaction that comprise communication in an electronically mediated environment may be less conducive to a high degree of intersubjectivity, because there are few opportunities to engage in interactions that work to clarify and monitor the response and behaviour of the participants in the interaction.
{End extract}
One of the things that really helps to define ‘teaching’ is the monitoring of students and clarification for them when needed. If we do not do these things, then our teaching efforts revert to the old cynical form where the ideas flow from the notes of the teacher to the notes of the student without touching the minds of either. This is not conducive to learning and I say that based on previous experience (as a learner, although I’m sure there were some early sessions of mine that could be described that way).
I still sometimes shudder when I see ‘effective teaching and learning’ because it seems to imply that there is a recipe out there for doing it right. The problem with that is that each group, and every session is different and what is effective for one group will fall flat for another. Thus, to be ‘effective’ in teaching and learning is to recognise it is a conversation and to engage.
References:
Ballantyne, R., Bain, J. D. and Packer, J. (1999) Researching University teaching in Australia: Themes and issues in academics’ reflections in Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 24, pp 237-257.
Grossen, M. (2000) Institutional Framings in Thinking, Learning and Teaching, in Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge, Cowie, H. and van der Aalsvoort, G. (Eds) Pergamon, Amsterdam.
Kuutti, K. (1991) Activity Theory and its application to information systems research and development, in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Nissen, H., Klein, H. K. and Hirschheim, R. (Eds) Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, pp 529-549.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology, Routledge, London.
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, New York.