Developing Academic Development
Involving lecturer/researchers in research of student learning
A Report to the Higher Education Academy
Submitted – September 24 2008
Revised and resubmitted – February 18 2009
David Hay & Associates
This report contains copyright material and several of the chapters are taken wholly or in part
verbatim from materials submitted for publication
Cover illustration by participants in the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice
(PGCAP) at King’s College London: personal copyrights (with permission).
Developing Academic Development
Report to the Higher Education Academy from King’s Learning Institute* on
the project The Impact of Higher Education Academy Accredited Learning
among University Teachers on the Quality of their Student’s Learning, HEAGRANTSGEN-EV111, September 07 to 08.
* Previously King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching (KILT)
David B Hay and Associates, September 30, 2008
Address for correspondence: David B Hay, King’s Learning Institute (KLI),
King’s College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road,
London, SE1 8WA, UK.
Associate authors
Andrew Dilley*, Simon Lygo-Baker† and Saranne Weller†
* Department of History, King’s College London
† King’s Learning Institute, King’s College London
Other named participants in research
In King’s Learning Institute: Stylianos Hatzipanagos, Ian Kinchin, Emma
Kingston, Laurie Lomas, Po-Li Tan and Deesha Chada.
In the Schools and Departments of King’s College London: Stuart Jones
(Lecturer in Pharmaceutics), Harvey Wells (Senior Tutor in Psychiatric
Nursing), Jeroen Keppens (Lecturer in Computer Science), Frieda Klotz
(Lecturer in Classics), Jane Henderson (Senior Tutor in Law), Richard
Wingate (Senior Lecturer in Neuroscience), Darren Williams (Senior Lecturer
in Neuroscience), Eric Waites (Senior Lecturer in Dental Radiology), Steven
Keevil (Professor in Medical Imaging), Martin Webber (Senior Lecture in
Social Work).
At the Royal Veterinary College: Kim Whittlestone (Senior Lecturer in
Education) and Karin Allenspach (Reader in Animal Husbandry).
2
Executive summary
1. Background and context
a. This report describes the use and development of a new dialogic
concept-mapping method for:
i. Analysis of the quality of student learning during
university teaching.
ii. Documentation of the changing understandings of
lecturers’ conceptions of teaching during academic
development at King’s College.
b. The data are reported and assessed to explore the impact of
academic development on the quality of students’ learning
experiences and to make recommendations for future academic
development in research led universities.
2. Major findings
a. Engaging elite researchers in studies of the students’ learning
can have direct impacts on the quality of student learning
experiences and promotes research-led and reflexive
development of the curriculum.
b. Where the researchers of the disciplines of higher education are
involved in studies of their students’ learning, the benefits of
developing pedagogy can extend to the wider community
through publication and dissemination internationally.
c. When the lecturers of research-led universities begin to
articulate their personal theories of teaching it is clear that overt
focus on transmission teaching models are gradually replaced
with others that are more participative and dialogic emphasising
the role of both students and lecturers as stakeholders in
development of discipline and field.
d. Our data suggest that the following issues are among the most
important for enhancing teaching quality:
i. Encouraging students and lecturers to understand that
university learning is an issue of participation and that all
forms of university inquiry depend on developing ‘voice’ in
the dialogues of discipline and field.
ii. Equipping lecturers with methods and technologies for
the documentation of their students’ learning.
3
iii. Showing how research of university student learning and
formative feedback both depend on enabling dialogue not
only among students and lecturers and student peer
groups (in conversations), but in the wider dialogic sense
of their subjects.
iv. Supporting lecturers in their efforts to ensure that there is
genuine fit between the teaching and assessment for their
students and the prior knowledge and experience that
students possess as individuals.
v. Helping to show that all human understandings are
purposeful constructions made in relation to specific
contexts, problems or endeavors such that monologic
knowledge of ‘objects’ can only be learnt superficially
while deep understanding is necessarily dialogic.
3. Conclusions and recommendations
a. Future academic development should focus on the broader role
of the academic as an agent in the development and promotion
of learner autonomy and commitment rather than emphasising
‘teaching’ as the lecturer’s role.
b. In elite universities, academic development must subsume both
teaching and research simultaneously.
i. Development in a discipline is simultaneous with
development of the methods, practices, data and
discussions of a discipline and field and the two must be
treated as a single whole.
ii. To this end, individuals’ contributions to research should
be recognised in their academic development at least as
much as their teaching.
iii. Similarly, teaching that is genuinely research-led should
be particularly acknowledged, especially where the focus
of teaching is not so much transmission of a body of
knowledge but rather more geared to helping students
understand and participate in the dialogues of discipline
and field.
c. Since the discourses, methods and practices of academic fields
and professions are shaped by established and emerging
researchers it is appropriate to conclude that these are the
people most needed to encourage the participative dialogue of
university students.
4
d. Surfacing the dialogues of academic practice is one of the most
important contributions that research-led universities can make
since this can lead to efficiency gain and enhancement by
levering-in the traditional advantages of more costly teaching
practice like the one-to-one tutorial.
e. While we acknowledge that teaching and teaching-observation
are both important parts of formal academic development, we
suggest also that these activities gain their significance only
because they provide a focus and prompt for reflexive and
dialogic learning; facilitating and enabling the dialogues of
academic development is the priority.
f. This report concludes that the dialogic concept-mapping method
developed and tested in this project enables simultaneous
academic development and concordant research of student
learning. This is a new model for making the rhetoric of a
teaching-research nexus a tangible outcome and a means of
supporting elite researchers as elite teachers too.
5
Author’s foreword
This report describes the development of a new approach to academic
development. Our approach is rooted in the developing methodology of
dialogic concept mapping and is situated in the disciplinary teaching and
research practices of higher education. The arguments we present to develop
our new model are all underpinned by empirical data collected during teaching
in the disciplines at King’s College London (KCL) and at The Royal Veterinary
College (RVC). While the case we present is local to academic development
at King’s and at the RVC, we also believe that what we have to say is relevant
to all universities in the UK and overseas, and thus to the national and
international work of the Higher Education Academy.
In the Schools and Departments of higher education, it is commonplace to talk
of the two core academic duties of teaching and research. But this is to
suggest, at least implicitly, that these roles encompass different activities and
that even research of teaching is a thing apart from the mainstay of
disciplinary research activity. In research-led universities like KCL and the
RVC such distinctions are antipathetic to teaching quality enhancement since
we can ill afford to make research of teaching an alternative career-path to
study in the disciplines. Moreover, making fundamental distinctions between
teaching and research roles is unwarranted if one argues, as we do here, that
the teaching and research are inextricably linked anyway. The term, the
“teaching-research nexus” is used by some to focus greater attention on
learning as the centrepiece for the whole of the university community, but in
fact the very title “Academic Development” already contains within it all that is
necessary to define the roles of students and of faculty. This is because the
label can refer to both career development of academics (inevitably
subsuming teaching and research), and to the role that academics have in
developing their fields (again through teaching and research simultaneously).
It is using these two meanings together (academic development as career
progression and as development of discipline and field) that defines the work
reported here. We therefore suggest that the most important interpretation of
‘academic development’ is the one of reframing the discipline to encompass
all the different roles of academics in a single whole.
As we have sought to undo notions of teaching and research as a pair of
opposites, my colleagues and I have also been led to challenge other simple
binaries that we find unhelpful. The first of these is a tendency to oppose
notions of internal and external knowledge construction. For us learning is a
continuous and reflexive act and it is therefore unhelpful to distinguish
between the processes of constructing and representing understanding as if
these were different. In fact, the act of explanation is also one of developing
understanding and it is no coincidence that so many people who teach also
describe teaching as the process by which they first began to understand
themselves. Thus in thinking about teaching as a process of learning we must
also reject any fundamental distinction between the roles of teachers and
learners in higher education excepting the inevitable ones that are accorded
by position. For us, higher education is defined by ‘habitus’ (after Bourdieu)
and it is here that the dialogues of discipline and field are developed. Although
6
the relative strengths of individual voices will depend on changing positions of
authority and proffered status, none the less higher education is better defined
by the discourse of participation in community than it is by considering the
separate roles of students-as-learners or lecturers-as-teachers. In researchled universities and in the advanced practices of many professional disciplines
saying who it is that teaches, who is doing research or who is learning, is
misleading. Whether or not this view of higher education is contentious,
debating these issues is important for developing academic development and
these themes are the title and substance of this report.
Our empirical work is grounded in studies done in Pharmacy, Classics,
History, Dentistry, Medicine, Computer Science, Veterinary Science,
Psychiatry, Social Work and Neuroscience. Ten members of staff in King’s
Learning Institute have taken part directly and twelve academics in the
disciplines are named as participants in our research, but many other
members of faculty have been involved along the way. The sheer number of
people sharing in this work has made the report a difficult one to write and the
necessary timing of report-writing is also problematic. Our work was based
around two cycles of data collection. One that was done to document student
learning in the course of teaching was situated within the other, done to
document changing perceptions of teaching among the students’ lecturers.
Inevitably, the collection of student learning data could not be finished until the
end of the academic year in July 2008. This has left us just two summer
months to collect and analyse the academics’ data and to finish and report the
study as a whole. The report is therefore incomplete.
Finally, the scope of this report is broad. It includes reporting the development
of empirical methodology, the collection and analysis of data and the
problematisation of the issue of academic development. I therefore ask the
reader to forgive the many mistakes that are likely to be found here and to
understand that the conclusions of this report remain a work in progress. The
views, arguments and occasional opinions of the work do not and cannot
represent the positions of King’s Learning Institute or of King’s College more
widely. Some of the writing is attributed to particular authors but more
generally the responsibility is my own.
David Hay
King’s Learning Institute
September, 2008.
7
Foreword from the teacher-researchers of one
discipline
Like many disciplines in higher education, neuroscience has seen an
exponential growth in research interest over the last twenty years resulting in
dramatic changes of its theoretical and experimental basis. Keeping pace with
these changes has been difficult even for researchers and teaching an up-todate perspective on neurobiology at university level requires students to
marshal learning from a range of different disciplines. How can teachers
tackle changing and increasingly complex topics while ensuring that students
are still “getting it” – particularly in a background of year-on-year increase in
student numbers? These issues are of increasing importance for the science
teaching and research community at King’s College London and for all the
disciplines of King’s more widely.
One approach at King’s College has been to anchor the practice of teaching
and curriculum design in learning research. In the MRC Centre for
Developmental Neurobiology for example, we have developed and applied a
new approach to concept mapping (developed and explained in this report) to
monitor and facilitate the emergence of students’ personal understanding in
the absence of resources for one-on-one tutorials. Based on the earlier
concept-mapping work of Ian Kinchin and David Hay, we employed a
methodology that puts the student in active dialogue with the discourses,
debates and knowledge structures of the wider research community. In
parallel to lectures and workshops, students are encouraged to map out their
personal and tentative understandings of neuroscience as “dialogic” concept
maps and that can be critiqued from the vantage points of textbooks, lecture
notes and research publications. The approach facilitates feedback from
peers and lecturers but also provides tangible evidence of personal
understanding – and an “early-warning” of individual misconceptions. When
the mapping is done repeatedly it constitutes a learning record for critical
reflection and a transferable skill that can be applied to other subject areas.
We believe that this kind of approach can afford the student the essential
benefits of repeated tutorials without overburdening lecturers. Moreover it
provides a system of monitoring for both learning research and curriculum
enhancement and it grounds academic development where it belongs: in the
teaching and research of the disciplines.
While doing our teaching in neuroscience, however, we have also taken part
in our own academic development. One of us has completed the
Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Development (the PGCAP) at King’s
Learning Institute and the other has sought a less formal route to development
as a teacher / researcher while still in partnership with the Learning Institute
staff. In the same way we problematised our students’ learning as a process
to be visualised and facilitated, so we have also used the dialogic concept
mapping method to surface and frame our own changing perceptions of
university teaching. Undoubtedly, we have been helped to learn about
teaching but we have also begun to say more clearly what academic
development means for us in the discipline of neuroscience. This is not to see
8
teaching as a thing apart from research competing with the other demands on
our time, but as an integral part of what it means to do research and to teach
simultaneously in higher education. For us, taking part in this project has led
to the issue of ‘enculturation’ emerging as a central theme of our own
development in faculty, both as we become better established as teacherresearchers in neuroscience and as we also help undergraduates,
postgraduates and laboratory researchers participate and shape the
knowledge, debates, methods and approaches of our chosen field. In
neuroscience, academic development is continuing to become a better
teacher-researcher of neuroscience.
Darren Williams and Richard Wingate
MRC Centre for Neuroscience
King’s College London
August, 2008.
9
Acknowledgements
All the many participants in the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic
Development at King’s College are thanked for their many and varied
responses to academic development. These have shaped our thinking about
the issue. We are also grateful to the hundreds of students (undergraduates
and postgraduates alike) who have made concept maps in the course of their
learning and given their permission for these to be used for research of
teaching quality.
Special thanks are due to Noel Entwistle who has been more than generous
in conversations about this work.
10
PART ONE
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
PART TWO
2.1
2.2
2.3
PART THREE
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
PART FOUR
4.1
4.2
PART FIVE
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
APPENDIX
Table of Contents
Summary of Deliverables and
Outcomes
Overview of work
Research and Dissemination Outcomes
New Additions in the Report
Budget Report
Developing Methods
The Problems with Concept Mapping
Dialogic Concept Mapping as a Learning
Technology
References for PART Two
Student Learning Data and Analysis
of Teaching Quality
Visualising student learning
A Theoretical Framework
Teaching & Learning Structures in Law
Prior Knowledge in mental health
Nursing
Novice and Expert Understanding in
Neurogenesis
New Approaches to Research of
Learning in Classics
Research methods in Social Work
E-learning Quality in Medical Imaging
References for PART Three
Academic’s Theories of Teaching
Uncovering the Diversity of Teachers
Understanding of their Role
References for PART Four
End Notes
A Note on ‘Socialisation’
A Note on Reflective Practice
An Afterword on Research Led Teaching
References for PART Five
Examples of Dialogic Concept
Mapping in History
i) Students’ ‘readings’ of their studies
ii) Lecturer’s feedback on student
‘readings’
i) Lecturer’s ‘readings’ of the purpose of
teaching
p. 13
p. 15
p. 21
p. 22
p. 23
p. 38
p. 41
p. 43
p. 46
p. 50
p. 54
p. 59
p. 65
p. 69
p. 74
p. 79
p. 81
p. 94
p. 97
p. 99
p. 103
p. 104
p106 - 131
11
PART ONE
Summary of deliverables and outcomes
The project was in two parts comprising: 1) original research and 2)
dissemination. Reporting the research is complex and forms the main-stay of
this report; explaining how we have met our targets is more prosaic and is
done below. Nevertheless a brief review of the data collection and analysis is
necessary first.
1.1. Overview of work
The research plan was sophisticated and proposed using concept-mapping to
measure the impacts of academic development on lecturers’ conceptions of
teaching, but also to document the impacts of teaching by these same
teachers on the personal understandings of their students. We achieved all
our initial goals and the data presented here show that:
1. Lecturers’ representations of their personal teaching theories are
changed in the course of academic development.
2. Concept mapping can be used to record this change and moreover,
dialogic concept mapping (see below) can facilitate it.
3. Concept mapping can also be used to facilitate lecturer’s research of
their students’ learning and when this is done it shows how individual
learning trajectories can be documented to underpin curriculum
design and teaching that is genuinely attuned to student learning.
4. Concept mapping (and dialogic concept mapping in particular) is thus
an empirical methodology for higher education with potential to
engage students and lecturers in the simultaneous processes of
teaching, learning and research.
Our data also suggest that concept mapping does not facilitate learning per
se, rather it only enables it to be recorded. To externalise and facilitate
learning as a process, or perhaps more truly, to make learning a concretised
act of reflexive knowledge construction, a new method of concept mapping is
called for. The research reported here, and the fact we have done it as a
partnership between the researcher-teachers of higher education and the
facilitators of academic development, has led us to develop this new method
and to call it “Dialogic Concept Mapping”. Like process writing, dialogic
concept mapping is a means of surfacing personal knowledge-structures and
by representing them externally, shaping them also. But the dialogic concept
mapping method is more basal than writing and the focus of the approach is
more deliberately centred on the act of linking ideas to create new personal
meanings. Because of this, dialogic concept mapping has utility as a teaching
and learning practice in all the disciplines of higher education, even those that
rarely use essay writing or extended narrative forms. And because it
concretises learning in an autobiographical record of learning trajectory, it is a
learning technology and an empirical research tool simultaneously. The report
of this project is therefore about developing dialogic concept mapping at least
12
as much as it is about reporting on our concept mapping data. The emerging
method is itself a frame for academic development. It can be used to enable
student learning but it also enables lecturers’ learning and development in
academic contexts since as we argue, learning to speak of a thing like
teaching is also to learn how to do it. This is because the behaviours of
teaching and research practice (and of all disciplinary or professional activity
for that matter) are necessarily anchored in understanding. To learn to think of
teaching and research differently is to learn to teach differently: developing in
research and teaching practice is also to change one’s cognisance of them.
Dialogic concept mapping is a means of surfacing this cognisance, and by
surfacing it, developing it also in reflexive dialogue with the self, and with
others; whether this dialogue with ‘other’ is mediated by conversation or by
reading or even the tentative perceptions of the collective discourse of
practice communities. This is summarised below:
THE DIALOGIC FRAME OF ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT
1
2
THE
PERSON
THAT
LEARNS
3
4
5
Dialogic concept mapping is a method of teaching, learning and research located in
the broader ‘habitus’ of academic development. The developing understanding of ‘the
person who learns’ is externalised and developed reflexively, but this understanding
is seen as emerging in dialogue with other people:
1. The professional or academic superior that a person willingly acknowledges
(e.g. Lecturer or Tutor, Head of Department or School, or Principal).
2. Someone’s sponsor (a parent, bank, local authority, charity, entrepreneur or
government funding for example).
3. Students or other dependants in research and teaching like research
assistants, technicians and administrative support.
4. A world-wide community of specialists in discipline and field.
5. The social and economic beneficiaries of university research including
publishers, entrepreneurs and government.
Or with the representational forms of a discipline:
1. Texts or textbooks.
2. Journal articles and other publications.
13
3. Published methods and techniques.
4. Feedback on essays, examination papers, grant applications, publications
etc.
5. Educational policy documents, curricular and other forms of social contract at
whatever level.
1.2. Research and dissemination outcomes
The original project description outlined the use of concept mapping and
interview techniques to document cognitive change in two sample
populations:
1. The various groups of students studying specific topics in their
respective undergraduate disciplines and being taught by new
lecturing staff themselves participating in the Post Graduate
Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) at King’s College London.
2. The same lecturer-researchers whose personal conceptions of
teaching were being shaped simultaneously as a consequence of
participation in the PGCAP and in research of their students’ learning.
We also proposed to use concept mapping to document change in lecturers’
conceptions on a larger scale by using the method among all the 150
participants in PGCAP during 2007-8 whether or not they were participative in
student learning research.
Dissemination activities were also a significant focus in the original bid since
we hoped also to engage both the wider community of disciplinary teacherresearchers and the academic development community in developing and
extending the approach. Thus, for example, we envisioned that the work
would lead to publications in the teaching and learning literature and to
workshops for all eight of the different academic subject networks in which
the empirical studies of student learning were located. Table 1 is a summary
of all the research and dissemination targets we have achieved already.
These are reported against the targets of the original bid and where
necessary changes were agreed with the HE Academy we have also
explained them. Inevitably several of the workshop events and many of the
paper writing activities are still to be completed; where this is so, Tables 1 to
4 below shows all the deliverables already achieved and the timetables for
outstanding events/activities.
Table 1. Subject centre workshops
Subject or
discipline
Pharmacy
Psychology
Medicine*
Comp. Sci
Named participants
Network
Workshop date
David Hay, Stuart Jones,
Harvey Wells, Ian Kinchin &
Simon Lygo-Baker
Health Science
and Practice
October 15, 2008
Styllianos Hatzipanagos,
David Hay & Jeroen
Information and
Computing
October 17, 2008
Due – December 8,
2008
14
Vets. Sci.
Dentistry*
Law
Classics
History*
Keppens
Simon Lygo-Baker, Karin
Allenspach & Kim
Whittlestone
Po-Li Tan, David Hay & Eric
Waites
Laurie Lomas & Jane
Henderson
Emma Kingston, David Hay,
Saranne Weller, Andrew
Dilley and Frieda Klotz
Science Network
Medicine,
Veterinary Science
and Dentistry
Network
UK Centre for
Legal Education
History, Classics &
Archeology
Network
Two events planned
for the New Year
January 12, 2008
October 6, 2008
October 29, 2008
*Note that several of the subject areas were changed for these events
because of the exact disciplines and teaching programmes in which the study
was eventually located (the original bid included English and mathematics
rather than medicine, dentistry and history).
15
Table 2. Other outcomes
a) information-sharing activities;
1. Project reporting to the HE Academy directly – this document.
2. Writing for the Academy Exchange – task outstanding*.
3. Web-site publicity and reporting – task outstanding*.
4. Reporting to the Institutional Research Network (IR Net), the
Learning Development in Higher Education Network (LDHEN)
and the Quality Enhancement Network (QE Net) – data to follow
this report.
5. Availability of data sets to the ESRC Data Resource Centre
(machine readable data to the Data Archive and qualitative data
to the Qualitative Data Archival Resource Centre (Qualidata)
Conference papers (one national and one international) (month
nine and post-project) – data to follow this report.
6. Publicity and promotion at the Annual King’s Conference for
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (July 4, 2008) –
seven posters presented (see PART THREE of this report).
7. Paper at the HE Academy Conference, 2008 – given by Simon
Lygo-Baker (see Table 4 below).
8. Publication in the general higher education literature (two
articles) and in the literature for teaching and learning in specific
disciplines – many papers in press or currently being prepared
for publication (see Table 3 below).
9. A single authored report documenting all of the case studies
compiled in this research – book contract currently in negotiation
with Palgrave McMillan.
* The two outstanding dissemination tasks (writing for the Exchange and the
web site) will be complete in the next three months – and the website in
particular will be an ongoing development continuing to link to the work and
activities of the HE Academy Subject Centers.
16
Table 3. Papers
The following papers have been published or are accepted for future
publication and are among the direct outputs of the project:
Lygo-Baker, S., Kingston, E. & Hay, D.B. (Accepted). Uncovering the
diversity of teachers’ understandings of their role. International Journal of
Learning, accepted, July, 2008.
Hay, D.B. (2008). Developing dialogic concept mapping as an e-learning
technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 1057-1060.
Hay, D.B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M.E., Kinchin, I.M., Hatzipanagos, S., Keevil,
S.F. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Measuring e-learning quality. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39 6), 1037-1056.
Hay, D.B., Wells, H. & Kinchin, I.M. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative
measures of student learning at university level. Higher Education, 56: 221239.
Keppens, J. & Hay, D.B. (2008). Using concept mapping in teaching
computer science. Computing Science Education, 18 (10), 31-42.
Hay, D.B., Kinchin, I.M. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008) Making learning visible: the
role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,
33(3) 295-311.
The following papers are currently in preparation:
Hay, D.B. The problems with concept mapping. Submitted to Higher
Education, June, 2008.
Hay, D.B. & Entwistle, N.J. Visualising ideas made personal: Dialogic
Concept-Mapping. Paper in preparation for the British Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Hay, D.B., Dilley, A., Weller, S. & Kingston, E. Developing dialogic concept
mapping in History. Paper in preparation for Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education.
Hay, D.B., Kandiko, C., Weller, S. & Klotz, F. Developing dialogic conceptmapping as a situated learning practice in undergraduate Classics. Paper in
preparation for Arts and Humanities in Higher Education.
Hay, D. B., Henderson, J. & Lomas, L. Using concept-mapping to surface the
dialogues and pedagogies of university law. Paper in preparation for the
Journal of Legal Education.
Kinchin, I.M., Jones, S. & Hay, D.B. Learning and understanding in
undergraduate Pharmacy. Paper in preparation for Science Education.
17
Table 4. Conference presentations and reports
The original bid described five presentations at an international level, one at
the HE Academy Annual Conference and another four, each to be facilitated
by the National Network of Centres for Teaching Excellence (CTEs). These
CTE events proved difficult to arrange and with the permission of the HE
Academy, the following series of conference events were offered instead:
Hay, D.B. and Kinchin, I.M. (2007) Validating the lecture-seminar
relationship. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association (BERA) Annual Conference, Institute of Education, London,
UK, 5th – 8th September.
Hay, D.B., Wells, H. and Kinchin, I.M. (2007) The importance of
knowledge structures: a case study from Psychiatry. Paper presented at
the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference,
Institute of Education, London, UK, 5th – 8th September.
Kinchin, I.M. and Hay, D.B. (2007) Using concept mapping to make
learning visible. Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher
Education (SRHE) Annual Conference, 11th – 13th December, Brighton,
UK.
Hay, D.B., Kinchin, I.M., Lygo-Baker, S. and Kingston, E. (2007)
Measuring cognitive change in the course of learning to teach at
University. Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher
Education (SRHE) Annual Conference, 11th – 13th December, Brighton,
UK.
Weller, S., Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. and Lygo-Baker, S. (2007) Using
concept maps to bridge theory and practice in peer observations of
teaching. Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher
Education (SRHE) Annual Conference, 11th – 13th December, Brighton,
UK.
Markless, S., Kinchin, I.M. and Hay, D.B. (2007) Mapping professional
practice. Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher
Education (SRHE) Annual Conference, 11th – 13th December, Brighton,
UK.
Kinchin, I.M. and Hay, D.B. (2007) Visualizing the learning process. Paper
presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE)
Annual Conference, 11th – 13th December, Brighton, UK.
Henderson, J., Lomas, L. & Hay, D.B. (2008) Using concept mapping to
research student learning while teaching undergraduate contract law.
Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Conference for the
Subject Network in Law, 7th – 9th January, Leeds, UK.
18
Lygo-Baker, S. & Hay, D.B. (2008) The impact of lecturers’ academic
development of the quality of their students’ learning. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the Higher Education Academy, 1st – 3rd July,
Harrogate, UK.
Hay, D.B. & Hatzipanagos, S. (2008). Using concept mapping to visualise the
quality of student e-learning. Education, Information and Systems Technology
Association, 29th June – 2ndJuly, Orlando, Florida.
Wells, H1. & Hay, D.B. (2008). Using concept mapping in health science
education. Education, Information and Systems Technology Association, 29th
June – 2ndJuly, Orlando, Florida.
1
Paper awarded conference prize for most original contribution.
19
1.3 New additions to the report
1.3.1. The analysis of change in lecturers’ conceptions of teaching
(PART FOUR)
As previously explained, the frame around the studies of student learning
comprised analysis of lecturers’ changing conceptions of teaching. This part
of the project overran and has only now been added (in the resubmission of
this report) as a new chapter – Part Four.
1.3.2. Notes and comment (PART FIVE)
1.3.3. Extension to the dissemination activity schedule
The web site that was part of the project dissemination (see below) is in
production now rather than being complete already. Furthermore, while all the
workshop, conference and other dissemination targets of the project were
met in the given time-frame, we now recognise the importance of continuing
to provide a national and international focus for the types of research
described here and developed using funds from the Higher Education
Academy. We therefore envisage that the developing web site will continue to
be a platform for communication, capacity building and research led inquiry
into student teaching and learning and academic development more
generally. We fully intend to acknowledge the role that our funding from the
HE Academy has had towards this and the site will grow to be carefully linked
to the various Subject Centers of the Higher Education Academy that have
been our partners for the project’s original duration.
20
1.4. Budget report
Staffing costs;
Administrative 0.3 fte for 1 year: CRA 5 PT 27 £8,917.00
Travel & subsistence costs;
Conference fees travel and subsistence: £2,750.00
Consumables;
Telephone, fax and postage costs: £400.00
Other costs associated with presentations to teaching networks (CETL etc)
Travel and subsistence £1,200 (per event) (4 X 1,200) £4,800.00
Other costs associated with the eight subject network workshops;
Room and equipment hire:
£100 (per event)
Publicity and recruitment:
£100 (per event)
Administration support:
£100 (per event)
Refreshments:
£50 (per event)
SUB TOTAL = £350 (per event) (8 X 350)
Salary Costs Dr D Hay @ 2.5 hours per week
£2,800.00
£7, 278.00
TOTAL COSTS: £26,944.00
21
PART TWO
Developing methodology
2.1. The problems with concept mapping
Extracts of a paper recently submitted to Higher Education by David Hay
2.1.1. Abstract
This paper is a critical review of concept mapping theory. Concept mapping is
shown to be a powerful tool for the visualisation of student knowledge-change,
but as a tool for teaching and learning it is constrained by a limited theoretical
underpinning and a fixed hierarchical view of knowledge. The concept
mapping method is also grounded in assimilation learning theory and this fails
to account for transformative learning. Furthermore, most practical uses of
concept mapping have focussed on the acquisition of knowledge structures
that are culturally agreed, not the development of personal understanding.
This paper expands the utility of concept mapping by reframing it theoretically.
At its most basic, concept mapping requires linking ideas together to write
propositions. This is a powerful means of facilitating learning through thinking
with what we know already, but the method requires some considerable
development before it can be a means of learning per se. This report therefore
sets out to lay some of the groundwork for a new approach to concept
mapping that can be used to visualise and develop personal objects of
knowledge rather than to test facts and information that are already agreed.
22
2.1.2. Introduction
In the 1970s and 80s Novak and his colleagues developed a new method for
the analysis of school students’ understanding in science (see Novak &
Musonda, 1991; Novak & Symington, 1982; Novak & Gowin, 1984). The
approach was called concept mapping and is summarised in Figure 1.
CONCEPT
MAPS
represent
KNOWLEDGE
is
combine to form
CONCEPTS
CONTEXT
DEPENDENT
is
to aid
is
TEACHING
PROPOSITIONS
LEARNING
may be
are
are
LABELED
with
with
PERCIEVED
REGULARITIES
in
are
HIERARCHICALLY
STRUCTURED
to show
aids
WORDS
SYMBOLS
OBJECTS
CROSSLINKS
in
EVENTS
is a
basis for
needed
to see
CREATIVITY
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
in
DIFFERENT MAP
SEGMENTS
Figure 1. This concept map is redrawn from Novak (1998). It illustrates the basic rules of
Novak’s concept mapping method. 1. Concept labels are written in boxes. 2. These boxes are
linked in pairs using verbal statements of association to form propositions. 3. Concepts and
propositions are arranged hierarchically so that bigger, more inclusive ideas are at the top of
the map and details or examples at the bottom (Novak, 1998, p. 32).
Concept mapping allows researchers to summarise individuals’ descriptions of
particular phenomena in simple graphic structures. These structures can be
compared through time as a record of learning (Novak & Musonda, 1991;
Hay, 2007). The method is powerful because it makes knowledge-change
visible (Hay, Kinchin & Lygo-Baker, 2008) and enables empirical
measurement of learning quality (Hay, 2007; Hay & Kinchin, 2008).
Nevertheless, Novak’s theory of human constructivism (Novak, 1993) and the
grounding of concept mapping method in assimilation learning theory (Novak,
1998) is limiting. This theoretical underpinning of concept mapping has also
influenced the ways in which the method is taught and assessed. Thus the
broader sense in which concept mapping studies are done is also valueladen. To widen the utility of the concept mapping method it must be reframed
theoretically. This is the purpose of this paper.
2.1.3. Meaningful learning and assimilation learning theory
Ausubel’s theory of meaningful assimilation learning (Ausubel, 1963, 1968,
2000; Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978) is the theoretical bed-rock of
concept mapping (Novak. 1998; Novak & Cañas, 2006). Thus, Novak
describes concept mapping in the broader context of meaningful learning and
states that meaningful learning has the following traits:
23
1. Relevant prior knowledge: That is, the learner must know some
information that relates to the new information to be learned in
some nontrivial way.
2. Meaningful material: That is, the knowledge to be learned must be
relevant to other knowledge and must contain significant concepts
and propositions.
3. The learner must choose to learn meaningfully. That is, the learner
must consciously and deliberately choose to relate new knowledge
to knowledge the learner already knows in some nontrivial way.
(Novak, 1998, p.19)
These definitions of meaningful learning are the essence Ausubel’s view of
reception learning:
Meaningful reception learning primarily involves the acquisition of new
meanings from presented learning material. It requires both a
meaningful learning set and the presentation of potentially meaningful
material to the learner. The latter condition, in turn, presupposes (1)
that the learning material itself can be nonarbitrarily (plausible,
sensibly, and nonrandomly) and nonverbatimly related to any
appropriate and relevant cognitive structure (i.e., possesses “logical”
meaning) and (2) that the particular learners cognitive structure
contains relevant anchoring ideas to which the new material can be
related. The interaction between potentially new meanings and relevant
ideas in the learner’s cognitive structure gives rise to actual or
psychological meanings. Because each learner’s cognitive structure is
unique, all acquired new meanings are perforce themselves unique.
(Ausubel, 2000, p. 1 [revised from a monograph published in 1963])
But meaningful learning (as Novak and Ausubel define it) is only about
locating new knowledge among existing knowledge structures. Change as a
person, as Marton and Booth define learning (e.g. Marton & Booth, 1997), is
not part of assimilation theory. Thus Novak’s view of meaningful learning fails
to include the shifts in personal epistemology and world-view that Jarvis
makes central to his general theory of human learning (Jarvis, 2006). This
limits the utility of Novak’s approaches.
Novak’s view is intended as a theory of education for “all educational settings
including schools, universities, corporations, technology-mediated education
and non-formal education” (Novak, 1998; p8), but the examples Novak uses
to illustrate his theory are drawn largely from school education. This explains,
in part, why Novak rejects learning by discovery “because it is patently
obvious that children in school settings could not discover the concepts and
principles constructed by geniuses in various fields” (Novak, 1998; p56). The
consensus view is that for school level education, notions of discovery
teaching are largely flawed (see Kirschner, Sweller & Clark [2006]) but such a
view of ‘learning by doing’ sets learning apart from personal understanding
and rules out research-led learning at university (since “universities are places
24
where we study things that are not completely known” [see Elton, 2007 after
Humboldt]).
2.1.4. Knowledge hierarchy
Other problems with Novak’s view of meaningful learning are a consequence
of his hierarchical (subsumptive) view of knowledge structure. Hierarchy is a
rule of concept mapping (Novak, 1998) and in concept maps superordinate
(i.e. bigger, more inclusive) ideas are always placed above subordinate ones
(see, Novak & Cañas, 2006 and Appendix I: ‘How to build a concept map’ in
Novak 1998, p. 227). This is what gives concept maps their structure, but it
also means that in Novak’s concept mapping method, knowledge and
understanding are synonymous. In concept maps, understanding is merely
knowledge at a superordinate level of hierarchy. This stance is essentially
positivist and it corresponds with an atomistic theory of knowledge. In this
view, meanings are not synthetic, but emerge absolutely as a product of the
parts they subsume. The approach leaves no room for learners to experiment
as they try to understand. Personal ‘knowing’ is either right or wrong because
facts do (or do not) comprise certain sub-sets of information at a lower level.
It is the rule of hierarchy that allows Novak to argue that “Most meaningful
learning progresses through the process of subsumption, where more
general, more abstract concepts subsume the examples illustrating different
variations of the same concept.” (Novak in an interview with Cardellini
[Cardellini, 2004]). But the stance itself sits uncomfortably with Novak’s
positioning in constructivism (e.g. Novak, 1993). Furthermore, establishing
hierarchies in knowledge structures invites trivial linkage among ideas.
Commonly, the statement includes (or including) can substitute for most (if not
all) of the links in a genuine hierarchy. Figure 3 shows a concept map of
classification in the animal world. It works exactly as a factual statement of
taxonomy (because taxonomy is itself a hierarchical issue), but every link in
the map can be substituted with just one word (includes) without any loss of
meaning.
25
H0
ANIMALS
include
H1
INVERTEBRATES
VERTEBRATES
are
sometimes
are all
H2
ECTOTHERMS
include
H3
H4
include
MOLLUSCS
are
include
REPTILES
are
mostly
include
HOMEOTHERMS
include
BIRDS
include
MAMMALS
include
INSECTS
include
e.g.
e.g.
GARDEN
SLUGS
Culex
(a mosquito)
Boa boa
(the only species of
Boa constrictor)
include
include
HAWKS
MAN
Figure 3. This concept map explains the taxonomy of animals. Most links are merely
statements of inclusion and those that are more complex superficially could be replaced with
the word includes.The statement that REPTILES are ECTOTHERMS can be replaced with
the proposition that ECTOTHERMS include REPTILES, for example.
2.1.5. Alternative knowledge-structures
Another problem with Novak’s view of learning is the failure to sufficiently
acknowledge both the contextual nature of personal knowledge and the
tentativeness of human understanding. There is considerable data to suggest
that humans can maintain alternative (and sometimes contradictory)
knowledge simultaneously. Kinchin (2000) for example, shows that children
can ‘learn’ things at school that it takes them longer to understand. Thus in
learning about plants, many pupils will give a plausible account of
photosynthesis if asked by their teacher, but in other contexts they describe
the apparent fact that plants eat soil or the nutrients they are fed (Kinchin,
2001; Driver, 1987; Driver & Easley, 1978). This is because their personal
theories are constructed in specific situations. In the case of learning about
photosynthesis, cognitive switching from one explanation to another can
persist until the principles of heterotrophic nutrition are deeply understood
(Kinchin, 2001). Seen like this, photosynthesis is a threshold concept (sensu:
Meyer & Land, 2003): it is an idea that is difficult to acquire, but once
established, it acts as an organising principle for future thinking (Meyer &
Land, 2005). If a student grasps how this is so then the concept of
photosynthesis necessarily subsumes all earlier thinking about plant growth.
But to acquire the idea in the first place is transformative. Through
assimilation, the concept of photosynthesis can not be integrated with a child’s
prior knowledge because the extant knowledge-structure is not equipped to
accommodate it. Thus threshold concepts (like photosynthesis) will be
rejected (non-learning) or learned by rote until the entire structure is later
changed (Figure 2). Learning like this is much more difficult than assimilation
26
and the learners’ position is like that of the research scientist who does not
know what they will discover. It is only the fact that what is being learned is
already known (and agreed) by others that gives this learning a superficial
simplicity (see Hay, 1978).
2.1.6. Personal understanding versus target knowledge
The problem with Novak’s theory is that fixed hierarchies of knowledge apply
to knowledge that is culturally agreed, but not to learning. This does not
matter when concept mapping is used to research knowledge-change during
science teaching (e.g. Novak & Mussonda, 1991; Hay, 2007; Hay & Kinchin,
2008). In any formal education context, understanding science requires the
acquisition of agreed hierarchical structure. Many scientific terms are actually
meaningless outside of the structure in which they are used. The label
ectotherm, (Figure 3) is an example: the term is meaningless except to
describe animals dependent on external sources of body heat. There is no
colloquial meaning of ectotherm and the word can be used only to describe a
particular sub-set of animals (since other animals (endotherms) are also
known to science). This is science as fact and it is non-negotiable. Concept
mapping works well in this context because it can be used to visualise the
‘correctness’ of what is known. This view of concept mapping is reinforced by
most approaches to its use in teaching.
2.1.7. Being right or wrong in concept map assessment
With a few exceptions, most approaches to concept map assessment
comprise tests of agreed facts. Thus for many, concept mapping is primarily a
means for ‘experts’ (usually teachers) to identify misconceptions and reward
correctness (e.g. Hay, et al., 2008; Shavelsen et al., 2005; Herl, Baker &
Neimi, 1996). Concept mapping need not be limited to this positivist stance
but it is a view of concept mapping that is somewhat encultured. In fact,
Novak was reluctant to support such a teacher-centred methodology for
concept mapping (see Novak, 1993) and he provides an alternative approach
based on scoring concept-linkage in concept maps (see Novak, 1998; Novak
& Gowin, 1984; Daley, 2002a,b; Dorough & Rye, 1997). As we shall see,
however, even the scoring of linkage illustrates further tensions among both
positivist and constructivist frameworks.
Novak and Gowin (1984) were the first to describe a quantitative method for
scoring concept maps. The approach has been developed by others, but
relies essentially on aggregate scores for the extent of a persons’ knowledge
hierarchy, the number of valid links between concepts and the extent of
knowledge-branching (e.g. Dorough and Rye, 1997). The problem is that all
these measures depend on link-validity and the validity of linking statements is
contentious. As we have seen already, asking ‘experts’ to judge the
‘correctness’ of any particular proposition is to limit the method, but to score
links without assessing their quality is also to ignore the meaning of concept
mapping (Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000). The issue is even more intractable
when one acknowledges the factual nature of knowledge that is culturally
agreed. Novak & Gowin (1984) reward most highly the cross-links that can be
27
written between different parts of ordered knowledge hierarchies. This is
because cross-links are deemed indicative of more complex understanding
than other propositions. If this were true then it would be useful because it
acknowledges more personal and even tentative attempts at understanding.
But if maps comprise facts that are right or wrong then there is no logical
justification for rewarding any right one more than another. In the map of
animal taxonomy (Figure 3), for example, knowing that reptiles are
ectotherms, (a cross-link that spans division of vertebrate and invertebrate
animals) is no more deserving than knowing that mammals are homeothermic
or that Culex is a mosquito.
2.1.8. Concept mapping as an act of learning
Some of the problems with qualitative approaches to concept map analysis
are explored by Liu & Hinchey (1996), Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson (1996) and
Kinchin, Hay and Adams (2000). Kinchin, Hay and Adams (2000) also
suggest an alternative approach that is qualitative. These authors develop a
typology of concept map assessment that is not based on hierarchy. Instead
their approach describes three other knowledge structures: spokes (radial
structures); chains (linear sequences); and networks. This typology is
designed to highlight the richness of more personal or tentative cognition
rather than correctness. The authors describe concept mapping thus:
Regarding representation, Halford (1993) states that ‘to understand a
concept entails having an internal representation or mental model that
reflects the structure of that concept’. A concept map is an attempt to
make explicit such a model, so that it can be reviewed with others.
Johnson-Laird (1983, p. 165) has suggested that there are three kinds
of representations, ‘propositional representations which are strings of
symbols that correspond to natural language, mental models which are
structural analogies of the world, and images which are the perceptual
correlates of models from a particular point of view.’ This view has
been criticised by Halford (1993, p. 23), who proposed that mental
models ‘may consist of any combination of propositional and imaginal
representation’. A concept map can, therefore, be seen as a portrayal
of a mental model. Organisation of knowledge can assist memory
search and so aid recall. It should facilitate learning by making the
material to be learned more predictable and so reducing the learning
effort required (ibid., p7). The construction of concept maps is an
excellent way of helping to organise knowledge and so help
understanding.
(Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000)
2.1.9. Concept mapping and the learning act
Following thus far this paper’s criticism of concept mapping theory, it is
sensible to ask what we retain if we remove concept mapping from its
theoretical and common practical contexts. Actually, we are left with a tool of
considerable power: an approach that has wide utility for facilitating student
learning in any discipline (Hay, Kinchin & Lygo-Baker, 2008) and one that can
28
also be used to document learning processes empirically (Hay, 2007).
Concept maps are made by writing linking statements that explain the
associations between particular ideas. It is labelling of links that makes
concept mapping different from other methods of mental visualisation (e.g.
mind maps [Buzan & Buzan, 2000], rich picture building [Checkland, 1981] or
pattern notes [Jonassen, 1984]). As an act of learning, however, the effort to
make linkage explicit is particularly powerful since it requires “thinking with
what we know” (Perkins, 2007).
To think of concept mapping as a learning act is to break with the practical
limits of Novak’s method. Novak’s rule of hierarchy, for example, proves
useful when concept mapping is used for transcription of the verbal or written
narratives of others since it offers standard procedures for coding text. But it is
problematic if people map their own thoughts as an act of learning. This
reframing of concept mapping as a tentative act of personal reflection is a
non-trivial development; it defines learning independently from Novak’s theory
of meaningful learning and avoids using concept mapping to test agreed
knowledge. Thus the approach can be used where the intended learning is
not subsumption and when personal understandings (as distinct from learning
of culturally agreed fact) are desired learning outcomes. Figure 4 shows a
series of personal theories about the impact of Greek culture in a Roman
world. These cognitive models were made by first year undergraduate
students of Classics. The students were taught the conventional concept
mapping method (after Novak, 1998, p. 227-8) but only seven (among 22)
produced what Novak (e.g. Novak, 1998; Novak & Cañas, 2006) would call a
concept map (Figure 4a). The other students produced models that were
neither hierarchical nor particulate (Figures 4b and 4c). In these models
(Figures 4b and 4c), meaning is a consequence of narrative wholes and the
structures are not composed of subsumptive parts. Most of the students
deliberately broke Novak’s rules of concept mapping in order to explain
themselves more fully.
29
Greek Culture
a
during
during
Greek Literature
Roman Empire
importance of
Rhetoric
bringing status to
Sophists, The
second Sapphics
through
through
through
Philosophic
thought
Biblio
Autobiography
Fiction
by
worked by
could possibly include
Lucian
Longus
Seen as a positive thing : Greeks often educators
b
written
by
Philostratus
worked by
All links back to this
through attempts to
recreate
/ imitate the
‘perfect past’
Aristides
Greek History
Roman Empire
Not only a search for identity
but an admiration of GC
under empire from other
areas.
Pro-Hellenic emperor
(e.g. Hadrian)
Greek Culture
Masters of history
and language in
Greek style. Public
presentation of
Greek intelligence
and ideas.
Often written
for educated
Romans or
commissioned
Often a portrayal
of idolised past
of Greece
Form of sophists amongst
philosophers – mimic e.g.
Plato
References to
Homer a key part
of both early and
late GC
Mimicking early
Sophists from
Greek art of
culture
Atticism / Sophism
attempts to create
‘perfect’ attic Greek
In oratory and lit.
encouraged by
emperors
Education for wealthy very
Important – recognition of
Classical references a sign
of this.
Greek Literature
A display of linguistic
ability and knowledge of
early literature
Demonstrate learning
/ education / wealth.
Novel
Sophistry / Sophists
Longus a semi sophist
perhaps educated
by Sophists
Often responsible for works of
literature (e.g. Aristides / Lucan)
Implication through
reference (e.g.
‘Helens cup)
references
Often classical references in speeches / acting s classical figures in public oratory
30
c
As an approach, ‘going back to the past’ was established by
Pholostratus as a a key characteristic of the
Sophist tradition in the Roman empire. Essentially, the Sophists
were reliving their hero-stories and myths to seek continuity
with the past while allowing their own history
and culture to develop at the same time.
A cultured education was seen as the gateway to the past,
but also as the mark of status in the now.
Greek literature, can therefore be
seen as just literature in Roman
Empire by some sophists! (Lucian)
Greek
Literature
Written to re-establish Greek
identity and...
However, his
literature does not
reflect Greek culture.
As … writes in perfect
Attick Greek, even
though he is Syrian.
composes
within
Roman
Empire
By writing Greek literature, Sophists
and others are attempting to re-establish
their culture and identity within the roman
state, where they have no voice etc…
Greek
Culture
Lucian
Has become a part of Greek culture within the roman Empire.
It is often perceived with prestige. In fact, Pholostratus considers
prestige to be an essential part of characteristic to being good Sophist.
This is possibly because he wants Greek culture to be reflected and
represented in a positive and prestigious light amongst the Romans in
the Roman empire. Thus the Sophists are Roman citizens with a
Greek identity?!. You can perhaps argue that Sophistry is a cry for the
re-establishment of Greek identity (amongst other things).
is Lucan’s sophistry a cry for Greek identity within the Roman state?
Lucan, thus, shows us that Greek literature can be used as a method
to show prestige and education, and is merely looked at as art as
opposed to having any links to politics or Greek identity issues within
Roman empire.
Sophistry
Figure 4. These knowledge-models were made by three first year undergraduate students of
Classics to explain their understanding of ‘the impact of Greek culture in a Roman world’. The
first example (a) satisfies all of the basic rules of concept mapping and is essentially
hierarchical, but it is also simple. The second (b) is not a concept map (because it is not
hierarchical) but it is richer in meaning. The third (b), is a complex personal construction than
can only be read as a whole and looks more like an essay than a concept map.
2.1.10. Conclusions
Set apart from its theoretical grounding, Novak’s concept mapping is a
powerful heuristic for learning. As a method for visualising knowledge change,
the method is also valid. It is Novak’s theory of knowledge (and his
corresponding definition of meaningful learning) that limits the utility of
teaching by the use of concept mapping. For Novak, the knowing of scientific
‘fact’ and personal understanding are largely synonymous. This paper has
tried to show the flaws in this view.
This paper also suggests that Novak’s concept mapping method is more
powerful than the theory that circumscribes it. Fundamentally, making a
concept map is externalised reflection and concept mapping can therefore be
reframed as an act of learning. This view of concept mapping relocates it in a
broader theory of human learning (Jarvis, 2006; Marton & Booth, 1997).
According to Novak, most learning is subsumption (i.e. more general and
abstract concepts subsume details and examples at lower levels of knowledge
hierarchy). But personal understanding is also ontological (Meyer & Land,
2005; Jarvis, 2006) and transformative (Mezirow, 1978, 1981; Boyd & Myers,
1988).
What humans learn is not incremental (as a general theory of subsumption
suggests) but is punctuated by the encounter of troublesome ideas (Perkins,
2007), the acquisition of threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003, 2005) and
personal efforts to understand (Entwistle & Marton, 1994; Entwistle &
Entwistle 2003; Entwistle, McCune & Scheja, 2006). These phenomena can
be visualised using concept mapping because ultimately, concept mapping
provides a declarative record of changing knowledge-objects (Hay &
Entwistle). What Novak’s theory fails to acknowledge sufficiently is 1) the
contextual nature of personal understanding, 2) the transformative effects of
31
human learning and 3) the tentativeness of personal knowledge. Talking of
Novak’s concept mapping method, Wandersee asserts that ‘to map is to
know’ (Wandersee, 1990. p.923), it is perhaps more appropriate to state that
to map is an effort to understand.
32
References for Section 2.1
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel D. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Coginitve
View. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A
cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Boyd, R.D. & Myers, J.G. (1988). Transformative education. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 7 (4), 261-284.
Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (2000). The mind map book. London, BBC Worldwide
Ltd.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, John
Wiley & Sons.
Cardellini, L. (2004). Conceiving of concept maps to foster meaningful
learning: An interview with Joseph D. Novak. Journal of Chemical Education,
81 (9), 1303-1308.
Daley, B.J. (2002a). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Facilitating
adult learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (1), 14-23.
Daley, B.J. (2002b). Facilitating learning with adult students through concept
mapping, Journal of Continuing and Higher Education, 50 (1), 21-31.
Dorough, D.K. & Rye, J.A. (1997). Mapping for understanding. Science
teacher, 64 (1), 36-41.
Dewey, J. (1910, reprinted, 1991). How we think. New York, Prometheus.
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of the literature
related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in
Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver, R. (1989). Student’s conceptions of the learning of science.
International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481-490.
Elton, L. (2007) Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Paper
given at the University of Manchester: synopsis available on line at:
http://portallive.solent.ac.uk/university/rtconference/2007/resources/presentations/lewis_e
lton_paper.pdf.
Entwistle, N. McCune, V. & Scheja, M. (2006). Student learning in context:
Understanding the phenomenon and the person. Instructional psychology:
33
Past, present and future trends: Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Conte
(pp. 131-148).xxx: Elsevier.
Entwistle, N.J. & Entwistle, D. (2003) Preparing for examinations: the interplay
of memorizing and understanding and the development of knowledge objects.
Higher Education Research and Development, 22 (1), 19-41.
Entwistle, N.J. & Marton, F. (1994) Knowledge objects: understanding
constituted through intensive academic study British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 64, 161-178.
Halford, G.S. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental
models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hay, B. (1978). Science and education: The growth of school science – a
distortion of reality. MA Thesis: University of London.
Hay, D.B. (2007). Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and nonlearning outcomes Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1), 39-57.
Hay, D.B. & Entwistle, N. (2008). Knowledge objects and the development of
personal understanding. Manuscript in prep.
Hay, D.B. & Kinchin, I.M. (2008). Measuring student learning quality. In press,
Education and Training.
Hay, D.B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M.E, Kinchin, I.M., Hatzipanagos, S., Keevil,
S.F. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008) Measuring the quality of e-learning. In press,
British Journal of Educational Technology.
Hay, D.B., Kinchin, I.M. & Lygo-Baker (2008). Making learning visible: the role
of concept mapping in higher education. In press, Studies in Higher
Education, 33 (3).
Hay, D.B., Wells, H. & Kinchin, I.M. (2008). Using concept mapping to
measure learning quality. In press, Higher Education.
Herl, H.E., Baker, E. L. & Neimi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an
approach to modeling cognitive structure of US history knowledge. Journal of
Educational Research, 89 (4), 206-218.
Jarvis, P. (2006) Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: lifelong
learning and the learning society, volume 1. London & New York, Routledge.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jonassen, D.H. (1984). Developing a Learning Strategy Using Pattern Notes:
A New Technology. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 21
(3),163-75.
34
Kinchin, I.M. (2000). The active use of concept mapping to promote
meaningful learning in biological science. Doctoral Thesis: University of
Surrey, UK.
Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to
concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of
conceptual development. Educational Research, 42 (1), 43-57.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experimental and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75-86.
Liu, X. & Hinchey, M. (1996). The internal consistency of a concept mapping
scoring scheme and its effect on prediction validity. International Journal for
Science Education, 18 (8), 921-937.
Marton , F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge (1): Linkage to ways of thinking and practising. In C Rust (Ed.),
Improving student learning – ten years on. Oxford: OCSLD.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework
for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49 (3), 373-388.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28 (2), 100110.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult education. Adult Education, 32, 323.
Novak, J. D. (1993). Human constructivism: a unification of psychological and
epistemological phenomena in making meaning. International Journal of
Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 167-193.
Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps
as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Novak, J.D. & Cañas, A.J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and
how to construct them. Technical report, IHMC Cmap Tools, 2006-01, Florida
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Available at:
http//cmaps.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConcept
Maps.pdf.
35
Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J.D. & Musonda, D. (1991) A twelve-year longitudinal study of science
concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28 (1), 117-153.
Novak, J.D. & Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum
development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 43, 3-11.
Perkins, D. (2007). Theories of difficulty. In N. Entwistle & P. Tomlinson
(Eds.), Student learning and university teaching (pp. 31-48). British Journal of
Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 4. Leicester: The British
Psychology Society.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of
concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33 (6), 569-600.
Shavelsen, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Wiley, E.W. (2005). Windows into the
mind. Higher Education, 49, 413-430.
Wandersee, J.H. (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (10), 21-39.
Wittgenstein, Trans, C.K. Ogden, 2005. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Cornwall, TJI Digital.
36
2.2. Dialogic concept mapping as a learning technology
Transcript of a colloquium paper published in the British Journal of
Educational Technology by David Hay
In a recent paper, Laurillard (2008) describes the use of educational
technology for facilitating action research of pedagogy through a
conversational framework. This is an important shift in emphasis for e-learning
which has been previously defined by the issue of ‘appropriateness’ for
enabling learning and teaching rather than researching it (see also Bettham &
Sharpe eds., 2008). In my view this shift is highly desirable but I also think that
the problem of surfacing pedagogy is more intractable. The issue is that the
conversations of higher education commonly presume a knowledge that is
independent of the person who knows. For this reason much of my previous
research has focussed on the role that Novak’s concept mapping method
(Novak, 1998) can play in visualising the mental constructions of students
(see Hay, Kinchin & Lygo-Baker 2008; and Hay et al., 2008 in this edition of
BJET). While I have not changed this position, I have also become
increasingly aware of the limitations of concept mapping for capturing and
enabling the dialogue through which ideas are internalised and understood.
Shalveson et al., (2005) for example, describe Novak’s concept maps (Novak,
1998) as “windows into the mind” (p.413). The implication is that the approach
reveals the inner workings of cognition. I disagree and suggest that Novak’s
methods of map-making are best suited to summarising knowledge that is
already worked-out (i.e. Novak & Musonda, 1991). My reasons are as follows:
1) Novak’s rules of hierarchy and atomic knowledge structure largely preclude
experimentation with ideas that are not yet made personal; 2) the rules of the
proposition (on which Novak’s method depends) lead to explanations of
meaning that are frequently superficial; and 3) Novak’s definition of
meaningful learning depends solely on assimilation learning theory, effectively
excluding transformation or threshold-concept learning (Hay, submitted).
Therefore, I have begun to develop a new dialogic approach to concept
mapping: one that is deliberately focused on the facilitation and externalisation
of ideas that are being made personal. The approach is summarised in Figure
1.
37
B
the ‘other’
A
C
the
person
that
learns
the
speaking
/ writing
self
the
listening
/ reading
self
D
F
E
Figure 1. A summary of the dialogic concept-mapping process
The person who learns is shown in one continuous cycle of dialogue. Sometimes this is with
an actual person (e.g. a lecturer, teacher or peer as ‘other’), but more often it is with a text (or
textbook), a field of study, a learning-community, a professional group or scientific paradigm.
Concept mapping (A–F) is used iteratively to facilitate this dialogue. The act of expressing
and concretising personal understanding (speaking/writing) enables comparison with ‘the
other’ whether feedback is provided by a teacher, a peer-group or the listening/reading self in
dialogue with alternative or ‘authorised’ forms of knowledge.
Dialogic concept mapping is about facilitating and recording the outcomes of
the cognitive processes that underpin personal understanding. The method
enables individual construction and its essence is best conveyed by thinking
about the relationship between an architect and a series of drafts or designs.
Here, making marks on the page externalises a mental image, but in doing so
the representational form also changes the fabric of construction-in-mind (see
Glanville, 1999 from whom the design metaphor is borrowed). The process of
surfacing and concretising representation invariably alters the nature of
internal understanding but this is not a problem with the dialogic approach, in
fact, it is exactly what dialogic concept mapping is designed for.
In practice, the approach is learner-centred and necessarily begins with the
individual attempting to externalise his/her personal understandings however
tentative these may be. In this the dialogic concept-mapping method has
much in common with Marton’s phenomenographic approach, originally
developed for enabling descriptions of specific phenomena in the absence of
a well-developed personal lexicon (Marton, 1986). But using dialogic conceptmapping, the development and surfacing of understanding is facilitated as the
thinker (or speaker) makes maps to encode and summarise his/her personal
38
understandings2. Thus the emerging map is a self-generating source of
prompts for further cycles of explanation and development. Consequently,
dialogic concept mapping is cybernetic (Pask, 1996), enabling the map-maker
to act as both speaker (writer) and listener (thinker) in recursive dialogue. In
higher education, this is inevitably grounded in the individual’s emerging
relationships with discipline and field. Sometimes the dialogue will be with a
teacher or a peer group, but more often it will be carried out with the texts,
debates, and the information of a subject (or the explanation of these in
textbooks and other publications). This is a crucial utility of the method and it
corresponds with what Bakhtin (1981) first described as the dialogic process
in his work in literary theory. At its most fundamental, dialogic concept
mapping means that the learner can move freely between the tentative
explanations of their own understanding and critique of their extrernalised
representations from the perspectives of the ‘other’ including the authorised
form. This is particularly important in educational environments where
opportunities for formative assessment are declining.
For use in teaching, however, the most striking potential of dialogic concept
mapping, is that it enables teachers to look into their students’ learning
process. The maxim that ‘I need to see your workings’ has always been
important in mathematics education but it is probably a fundamental principle
for all of higher education. Dialogic concept mapping makes the workings
visible and enables feedback anchored in a concrete record of learning
processes rather than its finished products. For most disciplines, pedagogy is
subsumed in “ways of thinking and practicing” (Hounsell & McCune, 2002: p
31) and this in turn lives more externally in discourse and writing-practice or in
apprenticeship behaviours. Surfacing and documenting dialogue that is
commonly private means that interactions between teachers and students can
be better informed and since feedback is already externalised, this approach
enables the larger teaching and learning process to be visualised, framing and
informing progressive cycles of dialogue. In my opinion, capturing these
dialogic cycles and using them to develop more explicit pedagogy is where
the real potential lies for development of e-learning.
Several detailed explanations of the methods and technologies of dialogic
concept mapping are now in preparation for publication (e.g. Hay & Entwistle,
in prep and Hay, Dilley, Weller & Kingston in prep). The method can make
implicit teaching and learning processes explicit and may therefore lead to a
new set of educational technologies that are emergent properties of specific
disciplinary discourse and practice. Seen thus, the distinction between
‘internalised understanding’ and ‘external representational forms’ coalesce as
a single definition of higher education grounded in the dialogic process of
ideas made personal, whether one is learning to become ‘a Chemist’, ‘an
Historian’ or ‘a Doctor’.
2
These constructions are still concept maps comprising labels for ideas and objects and
explanations of their relational meanings, but here the rules of mapping are loose and the
emphasis is on self-prompting towards recursive cycles of thinking and explaining rather than
demonstrating achievement of any fixed end-point.
39
2.3 References for Part Two
Bakhtin, M. M., 1981 (1930). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed., M.
Holquist, Trans., C. Emerson and M. Holquist. University of Texas Press,
Austin and London.
Bettham, H. & Sharpe, R. (Eds.), 2008. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age:
designing and delivering e-learning. Routledge, London & New York.
Glanville, R., 1999. Re-searching design and designing research. Design
Issues, 13 (2), 1-14.
Hay, D.B. Submitted. Understanding what we know: using concept mapping
as a learning act. Higher Education.
Hay, D.B., Dilley, A., Weller, S. & Kingston, E., in prep. Using dialogical
concept mapping in History.
Hay, D.B. & Entwistle, N.J., in prep. Visualising ideas made personal:
dialogical concept mapping.
Hay, D.B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M.E., Kinchin, I.M., Hatzipanagos, S., Keevil,
S.F. & Lygo-Baker, S. Measuring e-learning quality. British Journal of
Educational Technology, (available on line 2007, due August 2008).
Hay, D.B. Kinchin, I.M. & Lygo-Baker, S., 2008. Making learning visible: the
role of concept-mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33
(3), 295-312.
Hounsell, D. J. & McCune, V. (2002). Teaching-learning environments in
undergraduate biology: Initial perspectives and findings. ETL Occasional
Reports No 2, available online at: www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport2.pdf
Jarvis, P. (2006) Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: lifelong
learning and the learning society, volume 1. Routledge, London & New York.
Lauriallard, D., 2008. The teacher as action researcher: using technology to
capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (2), 139-154.
Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography: research approach investigating
different understandings of reality, Journal of Thought, 21(2), 28-49.
Novak, J. D. 1998. Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps
as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Novak, J.D. & Musonda, D., 1991. A twelve year longitudinal study of science
concept learning. American Education Research Journal, 28 (1), 117-153.
Pask, G., 1996. Heinz von Foerster's self-organisation, the progenitor of
conversation and interaction theories, Systems Research, 13 (3), 349-362.
40
Shavelson, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Wiley, E.W., 2005. Windows into the
mind. Higher Edcuation, 49, (4), 413-430.
41
PART THREE
Student learning data and analysis of teaching quality
This part of the report comprises a series of posters, each one of them
produced for use in the HE Academy Subject Centre workshop sessions that
were goals of the project. A single list of references for all is given at the end
of this part of the report.
3.1. Visualising student learning in the disciplines of higher
education
Introduction
Concept-mapping was used to document the quality of student learning.
Students made maps of particular focus questions before, during and after
teaching in the following disciplines: 1) Classics, 2) Dentistry, 3) History, 4)
Law, 5) Medical Imaging, 6) Neuroscience, 7) Pharmacy, 8) Psychiatric
Nursing, 9) Social work and 10) Veterinary Science.
Methods
Several different methods were use to assess the quality of student learning
including interviewing and inspection of the students’ concept maps. Figure
2.1.1 shows how the degree of integration between newly acquired ideas and
extant parts of the prior-knowledge structure was used to locate the changes
from one map to the next in a continuum of learning quality from rote to
meaningful learning outcomes (after Novak, 1998).
BEFORE INTERVENTION
AFTER INTERVENTION
knowledge structure
remains unchanged
NONLEARNING
some prior -concepts
are rejected and new
ones are added, but no
new links are made
and the newly added
concepts are not linked
to the prior knowledge
structure
ROTE
LEARNING
new concepts
are linked to the retained
knowledge structure and new
links are made between those
parts of the prior knowledge
structure that are retained
MEANINGFUL
LEARNING
top (organising) concepts
rejected concepts
retained concepts
added concepts
Figure 3.1. A framework for measuring learning quality in students’ maps of specific study
topics before and after learning (adapted from Hay, 2007).
42
Results
Not all 10 of the studies have yet been analysed for reporting here, but the
results of some of them are described in the following pages. The studies are
reported separately and each write-up is the verbatim transcript of a series of
posters presented at the King’s Learning Institute conference in 2008. Poster
one describes an overview of this part of the project and posters two to seven
are located in some of the disciplines: poster two reports studies of student
learning in Law; poster three is in Psychiatric Nursing; four is in Neuroscience;
five in Classics, six in Social Work; and Poster seven is in Medical Imaging.
Conclusions
The following summary of our findings are germane to all 10 studies done in
the disciplines of higher education:
1. Concept mapping is a very important methodology for teaching in
higher education because it allows lecturers to visualise the impacts of
their teaching, to carry out research of learning while teaching
simultaneously and to signal to students that deep learning is about the
construction of personal understanding.
2. Novak’s concept mapping can be used as a means of assessing
student knowledge change in the course of learning but it does not
work for facilitating the learning process per-se.
a. This is because Novak’s theory and practice of concept mapping
works to enable representations of personal understandings that
are already worked-out (i.e. understandings shaped by previous
learning) but the rules of map construction preclude meaningmaking as an act of learning.
b. Developing new concept mapping methodology to enable
learning as a concretised process is therefore a priority (and an
issue addressed in other parts of this report).
3. Concept-mapping can surface the knowledge-objects of individual
learners and shows how the richness of personal knowledge structures
is expanded by the effort to learn. But while a focus on examination
targets helps to strengthen knowledge-structure it also tends to simplify
knowledge-objects by discouraging more tentative linkage among
different parts of an overall understanding.
4. Novak’s theory of meaningful learning is an important framework for
exploring teaching quality in universities and is particularly helpful in
reminding teachers that it is only from prior knowledge that students
make meaning of the things they are taught and study. Nevertheless,
Novak’s theory of meaningful learning does not accommodate concept
formation, transformation learning or threshold concept theory and
ultimately it is not appropriate for underpinning the pedagogy of higher
education.
43
5. Using concept mapping to surface the knowledge structures of ‘experts’
is useful for helping to understand why it is that students find ‘expert’
knowledge inaccessible, but it is also trivial as a teaching methodology
precisely because students lack the situated knowledge that is
necessary to interpret expert knowledge in meaningful ways.
44
3.2. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: I. A theoretical framework
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
1
Hay, D.B. Kinchin, I.M. & Tan P-L.
Abstract: This paper describes a theoretical framework for conceptualising
higher education teaching. The framework includes a new model of teaching
and a set of practical methods for the measurement of student learning
quality. These approaches are described as a backdrop to current research
on the impacts of academic development on student learning quality.
Introduction: Expert status is a common prerequisite for appointment as a
university lecturer. The emergence of expertise among students is also an
important goal of teaching at higher educational level. It is therefore surprising
that so few studies have attempted to document the sharing of expert
knowledge structures among teachers and students in higher education. This
was the primary goal of our research.
Methods and results: The work was done using concept mapping. In our
earlier research, this method was developed by us for the facilitation of
teacher-student interaction at university level (see Kinchin, Hay & Adams,
2000; Hay & Kinchin, 2006; Hay, 2007) and data were collected across a
range of subjects and disciplines. The studies that are the focus of this report
explore the distinction between the rich and complex knowledge structures
indicative of expertise and simple linear chains of exposition that comprise
many lectures and other teaching activities. Change in students’ knowledge
was also documented to assess the quality of learning and to measure deep
versus surface or non learning outcomes. This was done to explore the
associations between teaching and learning that are common to higher
education and to test the pedagogy appropriate for the sector. The general
model that this project set out to test is described in Figure 1.
45
EXPERT (teacher)
[2]
[1]
[5]
TRANSFORMATIVE
LEARNING
CYCLE
MEMORISATION
[3]
NOVICE (emerging expert)
NOVICE
[4]
MEANINGFUL LEARNING
the gradual emergence of ‘expert’ status as a consequence
of shared negotiation of understanding
ROTE LEARNING
the simple repetition
of ‘taught narrative’
Figure 1. The targets of teaching are represented in simple structures [1] like the linear
narrative of a lecture or the list of content in the syllabus; but these structures are actually
constructed out of a rich and complex network of understanding in the ‘expert’ mind [2]. The
student can learn these sequences by rote, acquiring both the teaching structure and its
content as they do so [3]. Alternatively, they can learn to combine new material with prior
knowledge and experience [4]. This means that they build personal understandings for
themselves and in doing this they develop their own personal structures of understanding [5].
46
Conclusions: In our work, we developed the concept mapping method as a
tool for enhancing teaching quality in higher education. In particular, we
describe how concept mapping can be used to transform abstract knowledge
and understanding into concrete visual representations that are amenable to
comparison and measurement. We describe four important uses of the
method:
1. The identification of prior-knowledge (and prior knowledge structure)
among students.
2. The presentation of new material in ways that facilitate meaningful
learning.
3. The sharing of ‘expert’ knowledge and understanding among teachers
and learners.
4. The documentation of knowledge change to show integration of student
prior knowledge and teaching.
We suggest that learning can be visualised as cognitive change and that
change can be of different qualities. This is summarised in Figure 2.
47
PRIOR-KNOWELDGE
NEW KNOWELDGE
LEARNING OUTCOME
a
REJECTION
ACCOMMODATION
INTEGRATION
TRANSFORMATION
NON-LEARNING (REJECTION)
can lead to
b
THE EXPERIENCE OF TEACHING
includes
ACCOMMODATION
includes
INTEGRATION
can lead to
can lead to
ASSIMILATION
can lead to
includes
disjuncture
LEARNING
includes
TRANSFORMATION
can lead to
Figure 2. Cognitive change a) can be visualised as different combinations of new and old
knowledge. Teaching b) can lead to different sets of student learning outcomes depending on
the types of cognitive interaction that occur.
48
3.3. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: II. Teaching and learning
structures in law
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
Henderson, J.E. Hay, D.B. & Lomas, L.
Abstract: This poster reports the use of concept mapping to record changing
student understanding during teaching for an undergraduate module for
contract law. Concept maps were made by the students before and after the
teaching module and these were compared with the teacher’s map of the
module structure. Analysis of the students’ maps showed that their use of
legal terminology was considerably improved by their learning, but many
students also acquired ways of thinking about contract law that were byproducts of the teaching structure. The data highlight tensions between
personal understandings and the targets of teaching.
Introduction: The quality of university student learning depends on
integration of new learning material with prior knowledge (Hay, 2007).
Sometimes this is part of a general assimilation of knowledge within a preexisting framework (e.g. Novak, 1998); sometimes it requires more
fundamental shifts in personal understanding (see Jarvis, 2006). Concept
mapping can be used to visualise knowledge change and to locate learning
more broadly in a spectrum of qualities that includes non-learning (Jarvis,
2006), assimilation learning (Ausubel, 2000), threshold knowledge acquisition
(Meyer & Land, 2003) and learning as personal change (Marton & Booth,
1997; Jarvis, 2006). The work reported here was done to locate the quality of
student learning in law and to develop approaches to teaching enhancement
that are grounded in empirical measurement.
Methods and results: The work was done by concept mapping (Novak,
1998). Concept maps were made by the students before and after the
teaching programme. The teacher also made a concept map to describe the
targets and structures of teaching. This is shown in Figure 1.
49
e
OTHER PARTS OF
THE CURRICULUM
LAW OF
CONTRACT
THEORY OF
CONTRACT
PROCESS OF
CONTRACT
HOW CONTRACTS
ARE WRITTEN
WHAT MAY
GO WRONG
OFFER
ONE PARTY
BREAKING
PROMISE
MIS-
REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTATION
c2
c1
ACCEPTANCE
CONSIDERATION
INTENTION TO
BE LEGALLY
BOUND
APPARENT
CONTRACT
MAY BE
UNDONE
BREECH
BREACH
FRAUD
MISTAKE
NON
EST
MORE
FACTUM
OPPINION
UNDUE
INFLUENCE
FRUSTRATION
NON
EST
MORE
OPPINION
FACTUM
a
b
d
A
B
C
D
E
Figure 1. The lecturer’s map of the course comprised the target of the curriculum arranged
into discrete zones for the delivery of teaching.
After learning, most of the students’ maps comprised many more ideas and
links than they had before. The most common new ideas were: conditions,
estoppels, loss of opportunity, misrepresentation, recission, and rights.
Nevertheless, after learning, the student maps were also much more
compartmentalised than their prior knowledge structures and the organisation
of the new mental structures corresponded largely with divisions between
topics in the teaching (Figure 1). Figure 2 (shown opposite) is a case study
that illustrates this tendency.
Discussion and conclusions: Several studies emphasise the difference
between teaching for personal understanding and the acquisition of the
information in curriculum material targets (e.g. Entwistle & Smith, 2002;
Kinchin & Hay, 2007). The work reported here emphasises these tensions and
suggests that teaching structures can have unwarranted impacts on student
learning. In particular, students fail to put their learning together as a whole
and tend to learn the isolated parts of curriculum largely by rote. Future
research must find ways to help students deliberately disassemble teaching
structures so that they can remake understandings personally.
50
a
OFFER
LAW OF
CONTRACT
involves an
which can
be open to
can involve
problems of
INTERPRETATION
or
NEGOTIATION
sometimes
recognises
concerns
COUNTER
OFFER
due to
ACCEPTANCE
can be
can be
ECONOMICS
e.g.
INVITATION TO
TREAT
relates to
is sometimes problematic (e.g.)
AUCTION
HOUSES
WRITTEN
FISHER
AND BELL
EXPRESSED
SUPERMARKETS
like the
CASE WITHOUT
RESERVE
BID
b
THE
CONTRACT
IS BROKEN
that showed
that if
this can
lead to
LEGAL ACTION
ZONE 2
ZONE 1
UNFAIR TERMS
IN CONSUMER
CONTRACT REGS.
(UTCCR)
LAW OF
CONTRACT
UNFAIR
CONTRACT
TERMS
ACT (UCTA)
may be VOID
by
includes
includes
ZONE 3
PROMISSORY
ESTOPPEL
ESTOPPAL
may be VOID
by
EXCLUSION
CALUSES
HIGH TREES
HOUSE (1949)
RELIANCE
defined by
POSTAL RULE
FORMATION OF
THE CONTRACT
includes
includes
requires
consideration
of the
METHODS (OF
ACCEPTANCE)
is distinguished
from a mere
justified
by
justified
by
INVITATION TO
TREAT
e.g.
BUSINESS
EFFICACY
TEST
is NOT
Inferred from
SILENCE
requires
FISHER
v
BELL
can
not
be
INTENTION TO
BE LEGALLY
BOUND
by
e.g.
by
COMMON
PRACTICE
e.g.
REMEDIES
e.g.
SELF-HELP
DAMEAGES
THIRD PARTY
RIGHTS
changed
since test-case
of
SUFFICIENT
WITHDRAWAL
OF CONTRACT
INCORPORATED
STATUTES
POST
CONSIDERATION
CONSIDERATION
is
unlikely
in
can be
SIGANTURE
if
FAMILY
SITUATIONS
IMPLIED
then evaluate with
OBJECTIVE
PURPOSE
can be
TERMS OF
THE CONTRACT
ACCEPTANCE
OFFER
EXPRESSED
e.g.
e.g.
LOSS OF
VALUE
e.g.
MEASURE OF
DAMEAGES
e.g.
FARLEY
FARLEY
VV
SKINNER
SLAINER
then shows
e.g.
WILLIAMS
V
ROFFEY
JACKSON
V
HORIZON
HOLIDAYS
ZONE 4
Figure 2. One student’s maps before (a) and after (b) learning. After learning, Mike’s map
comprised four distinct areas (ZONES) of knowledge. These patterns of compartmentalised
knowledge corresponded almost exactly with discrete topics of the teaching programme that
were shown in the teacher’s map of the course (Figure 1).
Such an approach is particularly important in undergraduate law: “ …what is
asked, or should be asked of the law student is not that he learn, by heart,
and in all their detail, all the rules in force during his time as a student: that will
51
be of little service to him in his later professional life when many of those rules
will have changed. Of far greater importance to the student will be a
knowledge of the structure within which the rules and the concepts are
organised, the meaning of these categories and concepts, and the
relationship of the rules among themselves.”
(David, 1985: 19)
52
3.4. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: III. The importance of
students’ prior-knowledge structure in mental health nursing
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
1
Wells, H. Hay, D.B.
2
1
Mental Health Nursing, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, Tel: 020 7848 5078, e-mail:
2
harvey.wells@iop.kcl.ac.uk King’s Institute of Learning & Teaching, King’s College London, Tel: 020 7848
3265|3987, Fax: 020 7848 3253, e-mail: david.2.hay@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract: This poster describes concept mapping as a means of visualising
cognitive change in student learning about ‘Dual Diagnosis’. Students made
concept maps during a postgraduate module for professional health care
workers. Their maps were used to create ‘ideal types’ that characterise
assimilation learning (rote accommodation of new material and meaningful
integration of new knowledge) and transformation learning. The data show
how concept mapping can be used to visualise learning of these different
qualities.
Introduction: Ausubel (1962; 2000) provides a theory of assimilation learning.
This distinguishes between rote learning (in which new material is
accommodated by prior knowledge, but not integrated) and meaningful
learning (in which new and old knowledge structures are combined). The
approach has been developed by Novak (e.g. Novak, 1998) who describes
rote and meaningful learning as opposite poles of the same continuum.
However, Novak’s approach also includes the concept mapping method
(Novak, 1998; Novak & Gowin, 1984) that can be used to represent
knowledge change as a series of ‘snap-shots’ of personal understanding (e.g.
Novak & Mussonda, 1991; Hay, 2007).
This study uses concept mapping to visualise student learning quality and to
extend Novak’s approach by adding several other learning types to the rote
and meaningful learning framework. These include non-learning (after Jarvis)
and Transfomation learning (Bruner, 1961).
Methods and results: Concept maps were made by 22 students during the
teaching programme. These were classified using measures of integration
between new and old knowledge structures (Hay, 2007) and gross structural
morphology (Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000). ‘Ideal types’ were constructed as
models of cognitive change of different quality. These were non-learning,
assimilation by rote, assimilation by integration, and transformation.
53
Non-learning
Figure 1 is a vignette of non-learning. The figure is a caricature of real events,
but several students’ maps were so resistant to change in either content or
structure that this remains a realistic summary of several learning outcomes.
simple
hierarchy
simple
hierarchy
simple
hierarchy
simple
hierarchy
simple
hierarchy
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
9
8
9
NON-LEARNING
Figure 1. Non-learning can be visualised as the persistence of prior-knowledge despite
apparent participation in learning
Learning by rote
Ausubel’s theory of meaningful reception learning (ibid.) uses ‘rote-learning’
as a term to describe knowledge that is newly acquired but not integrated with
prior-knowledge. Several of our students showed learning of this type (Figure
2).
simple
chain
simple
chain
simple
chain
simple
chain
simple
chain
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
A
SURFACE
ADDITION
B
SURFACE
ADDITION
C
SURFACE
ADDITION
D
SURFACE
ADDITION
E
ASSIMILATION LEARNING BY ROTE (accommodation without integration)
Figure 2. Rote learning is the simple addition of new material in the absence
of integration.
Meaningful learning
54
Novak (1998) and Ausubel (ibid.) both define meaningful learning by
measures of integration of new material among extant parts of the priorknowledge structure. Figure 3 shows how some of the students were able to
assimilate what they were taught into the structures of prior knowledge that
they had.
network
network
network
network
network
1
2
3
1
2
3
12
2
3
13
2
17
13
2
17
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
10
6
4
15
6
4
15
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
14
12
11
9
12
11
9
10
16
10
16
A
B
SURFACE
REPLACEMENT
C
DEEP
RESTRUCTURE
DEEP RESTRUCTURE
AND SURFACE ADDITION
D
E
NON-LEARNING
(OR REINFORCEMT
WITHOUT CHANGE)
ASSIMILATION LEARNING BY INTEGRATION (meaningful learning in Novak’s (1998) scheme)
Figure 3. Meaningful learning by assimilation depends on integration of new and old
knowledge structures.
Transformation learning
The theoretical frameworks of Ausubel and Novak (ibid.) do not encompass
learning that requires radical shifts in world-view of the acquisition of threshold
concepts (e.g. Meyer & Land, 2003; 2006). Nevertheless, our data show that
concept mapping can still be used to visualise the events of transformation
learning. This can include ‘snap-shots’ of liminality in which learners
experience of disjuncture (discrepancy between new learning and personal
understanding) is so intense that they are unable to explain the study topic in
any meaningful way. This is usually a transition state and the substantive
cognitive restructure that can follow disjuncture is also visualised through
concept mapping. These issues are summarised in Figure 4.
55
2.1. Visualising student learning in the disciplines of higher education
simple
chain
disjuncture
bifurcated
chain
8
spoke
(learning-ready)
9
7
6
5
7
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
8
9
10
4
unlinked
concepts
concepts linked together in an
explanatory knowledge structure
simple
chain
2
4
A
SURFACE
ADDITION
B
SURFACE
ELABORATION
ROTE LEARNING
C
COGNITIVE
COLLAPSE
THRESHOLD
7
8
D
9 10
EMERGENT
RESTRUCTURE
E
MEANINGFUL LEARNING
Figure 4. Some of the transformative events of learning can also be visualised through
concept mapping. Although Novak’s theoretical framework of rote and meaningful learning
excludes radical cognitive restructure, nevertheless, disjuncture and the acquisition of
threshold concepts can also be seen in the concept mapping record of student knowledge
change.
Discussion: Novak’s concept mapping method is rooted in his theory of rote
and meaningful learning (Novak, 1993, 1998) and in Ausubel’s theory of
meaningful reception learning (ibid.). After Ausubel, Novak defines meaningful
learning as follows:
1. Relevant prior knowledge: That is, the learner must know some
information that relates to the new information to be learned in some
nontrivial way.
2. Meaningful material: That is, the knowledge to be learned must be
relevant to other knowledge and must contain significant concepts and
propositions.
3. The learner must choose to learn meaningfully: That is, the learner
must consciously and deliberately choose to relate new knowledge to
knowledge the learner already knows in some nontrivial way.
(Novak, 1998, p.19)
Our data shows that rote and meaningful learning can occur as Novak
describes them, but we also show that non-learning and learning by
transformation are visible learning outcomes. These outcomes are not
included in Novak’s learning theory but they can be documented using
concept mapping since the method is more labile than the theory that
underpins it. Figure 5 is a fuller summary of the types of learning that can be
56
visualised using concept mapping.
REJECTION
NON-LEARNING
ACCOMMODATION
ASSIMILATION
INTEGRATION
CHANGE
TRANSFORMATION
seeing the World
differently
becoming a
different person
Figure 5. An integrated learning theory framework (after Novak, 1998; Jarvis, 2006; Marton &
Booth, 1997).
Conclusions: Novak’s concept mapping method is a powerful tool for the
visualisation of student learning (Hay, 2007) and enhancement of teaching
quality (Kinchin & Hay, 2007). Nevertheless its utility is constrained by the
theory that underpins it. To widen the impact of concept mapping, future work
must aim to re-contextualise the method in broader learning theories that
include non-learning and disjuncture (Jarvis, 1992; 1999), threshold concept
acquisition (Meyer & Land, 2003) and change as person (Jarvis, 2006; Marton
& Booth, 1997).
57
3.5. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: IV. Comparing ‘novice’ and
‘expert’ understandings of neurogenesis
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
2
Wingate, R., Williams, D. , Chadha, D. Haque, M. & Hay D.B.
Abstract: This poster reports the use of concept mapping to document
students’ and teachers’ personal understandings of developmental
neuroscience. Students made individual concept maps of the topic before and
after a twelve week third-year module on the topic. They also constructed
group maps towards the end of the module. Their maps were compared with
others made by their teachers to summarise 1) underpinning theory of
neurogenesis, 2) the teaching structure of the course and 3) the over-arching
targets of the curriculum. The data show how concept mapping can be used
to enhance teaching and learning quality by widening the zone of proximal
development and providing rational frameworks for alignment of teaching and
assessment.
Introduction: Vygotsky’s theory of higher psychological processes describes
the ‘zone of proximal development’ as a space in which the overlap between
teaching orthodoxy and personal understanding is sufficient to encourage
learning (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978). Although this theory was first located in preschool learning it is still important in more general theories of education
including learning at university level. This is because it suggests a framework
for negotiating tensions between learning the curriculum targets and the
development of an understanding that is personal (Polanyi, 1974). In this
study, concept mapping was used to visualise the student’s personal
understandings of the curriculum and to identify relationships between the
course content and future assessment strategies. The data are presented in
two parts, first an analysis of student learning, second a review of the module
from a teaching perspective.
Part one: student learning
Methods and results: Students made concept maps before and after the
course. These maps were personal and the students were invited to use any
concept labels and links that they wanted to explain their individual
understanding of neurogenesis. They also made maps collectively in groups
of four, five or six. For the purpose of this exercise, the groups were instructed
to use just 20 concept labels used by their teachers to describe the targets of
the curriculum. Figure 1 is an example of one of the student groups’ maps. It
shows the richness of understanding that the students achieved collectively
and a few conspicuous misconceptions that were later identified by their
teachers. It also shows how the students went well beyond the given and
used many new ideas to explain themselves more fully.
58
Figure 1. This concept map was made by a group of five students close to the end of their
module in developmental neuroscience. They started by using just 20 labels given to them by
their teachers (open boxes), but went on to add many more (grey boxes) to explain
themselves more fully. Links between concept labels show how the students understood the
topic and misconceptions (shown with dotted lines) were identified by their teachers.
59
The quality of student learning was assessed on a case by case basis by
comparing their prior-knowledge structures with their maps at the end of the
course (using methods described by Hay (2007) and Kinchin, Hay & Adams
(2000)). Six case studies are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Six case-studies of change in students’ map structures before and after learning.
Concept labels are shown as circles and the links as lines. Coded: Grey - existing concept,
Black - new concept, Hollow - misconceived concept
A more detailed analysis of the students’ maps showed how several students
failed to grasp the key and organising principles of the discipline. Where this
happened, it was commonly a consequence of starting from a poorly
developed prior knowledge structure.
Nevertheless, most students maps were much richer at the end of the course
and the changes that occurred were generally complex rather than being
mere extensions of what had been known before. Thus for example, many
prior knowledge maps were simple hierarchical structures comprising labels
for objects (like the axon, dendron and neuron) At the end of the course their
maps went beyond mechanical linkage to describe whole developmental
systems. Most students’ misconceptions had also disappeared by the end and
60
some of the key principles (like the organising role of the neural tube) had
been grasped by nearly all.
Part two: analysis of teaching
Methods and results: Two of the teachers of the module each made three
different concept maps: the first was a model of their personal understanding
of developmental neurobiology; the second was a summary of the teaching
programme; and the third a statement of the curriculum targets. These were
then overlain to create two knowledge and teaching hierarchies as shown in
Figure 3.
The curriculum prescribes
a sequence of teaching and
a set of targets to be achieved
The teaching includes various but
discrete routes through the underlying
theory
The underpinning theory includes
tentative links that are the products
of ongoing research
Figure 3. Each of the knowledge and teaching hierarchies comprised three layers of
information about the module. These were the teacher’s personal understanding of the topic
(at the bottom), the targets of the curriculum (at the top) and the teaching schedule (in the
middle)
Conclusions: In neuroscience, the desire to organise knowledge into simple
visible structures is not new. Figure 4 for example, shows a model of
neurological development suggested by Weiss (1956) reprinted in Purves and
Lichtman (1985). This is not a concept map (because the links are not
labelled) and it contains several sets of ideas that are viewed differently today,
nevertheless it remains an important precedent for the approach to teaching
neuroscience we describe here.
61
Figure 4. A causal model of neurodevelopment after Weiss (1956).
Our data also show that concept mapping can be used to visualise the ways
in which teachers and students construct personal understanding from the
‘facts’ that are more or less known to science. This is important since most
common forms of assessment emphasise testing of knowledge and
information rather than an ability to think from what is known.
62
Concept mapping shows that most students can actually go well beyond the
given and are able to make tentative personal experiments with what they
know and learn rather than merely repeat it. As a teaching tool the approach
has other advantages too:
1. It can be used to identify the individual cases where students may be
disadvantaged because of a poor prior knowledge structure and others
who may fail to learn for other reasons.
2. It reveals prior-knowledge structures that are themselves
misconceptions and barriers that new teaching must overcome.
3. It helps to identify the parts of the curriculum that are not easily
understood by the majority of students.
4. It helps to reinforce the quality of student learning and signals that what
is really important is being able to think with what you know.
5. It invites linkage and integration across the discipline as well as in
specific topic areas.
6. It facilitates case-by-case feedback that emerges from what students
do and do not understand personally.
We have found no need to share ‘expert’ maps with students. Feedback to
students is unnecessary when it merely restates what is already said in
lectures or in text-books, but feedback that is grounded in personal student
constructions is invaluable.
63
3.6. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: V. New approaches to the
research of learning in Classics
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
2
Klotz, F. , Weller, S. Kandiko, C. & Hay D.B.
Abstract: This poster presents maps made by students to describe ‘the
impact of Greek Culture in a Roman World’. This topic was taught and
discussed during an undergraduate module in Classics. The maps represent
tentative writing acts at successive stages of the learning programme. The
analysis shows that the hierarchies of knowledge structure that are
prerequisite for concept mapping do not apply in Classics and that to be
useful, the concept mapping approach must be re-framed as a looser writing
act. We conclude that the values and writing practices of Classics lead
students of the discipline to break the rules of concept mapping in order to
express themselves more fully. Nevertheless, building tentative personal
theories through writing and linking verbal propositions is the essence of the
concept mapping method, and this still has considerable utility for measuring
student knowledge change in Classics.
Introduction: Novak’s concept mapping method is commonly claimed as a
means of teaching and learning in all educational disciplines (e.g. Novak,
1998). But it is also grounded in theory that necessarily encompasses certain
sets of epistemological assumptions and values. The method was also
developed in the practical context of schools’ science teaching and it is likely
that it transfers to some teaching contexts better than others. In this poster we
describe using it in Classics. Our data shows that it works, but only because
the students who used it deliberately broke the rules of concept mapping to
suit their needs for expression.
Methods and results: Twenty two students were taught Novak’s concept
mapping method (Novak, 1998) at the start of a new undergraduate module in
Classics. They made maps of ‘the impact of Greek Culture in a Roman World’
before, during and after the module (Figures 1 and 2).
64
MAP 1
MAP 2
MAP 3
STUDENT A
STUDENT B
STUDENT C
STUDENT D
Figure 1. A summary of three students’ maps before (map 1) during (map 2) and after the
taught course (map 3).
The data show how Classics students made maps that were complex
personal theories, but were not concept maps as Novak describes them (e.g.
Novak, 1998; Novak & Cañas, 2006). Moreover the general complexity and
richness of personal understanding was seen to increase from map one to two
but then declined again toward the end of the module as students began to
focus on target understandings with particular essay targets in mind.
65
Discussion: This reframing of concept mapping as a tentative act of personal
reflection is a non-trivial development; it defines learning independently from
Novak’s theory of meaningful learning and is disassociated from using
concept mapping to test agreed knowledge. Thus the declarative approach
can be used where the intended learning is not subsumption and when
personal understandings (as distinct from learning of culturally agreed fact)
are desired learning outcomes.
a)
GREEK
CULTURE
creation and
admiration of
importance of
included
included
adaptation of
led and adapted
provided to the rest
of the World,
Greek and Roman
created
PLAYS
ART
THE ROMAN
WORLD
GREEK
LITERATURE
included writing
and performing
importance of
RELIGION
POEMS
POLITICS
EPIC
CYCLES
EMPIRE
helped to create
often led to
ARCHITECTURE
WAR
often
endorsed
were created in
relation to events in
POLITICAL
VIEWS
HISTORY
POLITICS
was expanded
through
LITERATURE
ennobled
WARFARE
and public buildings
helped to create
NATIONAL
PRIDE
b)
GREEK
HISTORY
some of the founding notions
of the Roma Empire all
link back to attempts to
recreate and imitate the
idealised or ‘perfect past’
was seen as a very positive
thing (it is also interesting to note
that many of the educators teaching
about Greek culture were Greek
themselves)
was a developing
literary form
for telling
was told
and idealised in
often a portrayal
of an idealised Greek past
mimicking
early
Sophists
from
Greece
GREEK
CULTURE
influenced the…
not only as part of
a search for identity
but also a more
general admiration
of the values of
Greek culture
ROMAN
EMPIRE
developed by
pro-Hellenic
Emperors
(e.g. Hardian)
were masters of history
and language in the
‘Greek style’ - often they were
also part of the Greek
intelligencer and they worked
to promote Greek
ideas and values
SOPHISTRY
(THE SOPHISTS)
Atticism / Sophism attempts to
create ‘perfect’ Attic Greek
in oratory literature and is
a ‘style’ or movement
actively encourages by
Several Roman Emperors
was often written
for educated
Romans or
commissioned by
establishment
figures of
Reference to Homer
was a key part
of both early and late
Greek culture
Longus, was a semi-Sophist,
perhaps education by the
‘Sophist School’ and he
developed the writing form
that is
THE
NOVEL
GREEK
LITERATURE
Involved a display of
linguistic references to
earlier literature,
developed in particular
in the
had a culture in which
education was very important
as a status symbol among the
wealthy – for them Classical references
were important markers of status i.e.
was a place to show
(e.g. Helen’s Cup)
REFERENCE
OR ‘BADGE’
OF STATUS
often using classical references in speeches or acting
Classical figures in public oratory
were responsible for
many works of..
(e.g. Aristeves and Lucan)
66
c)
are examples of
RHETORIC
helped to develop
the methods and
discourse of…
(e.g. tropes)
is developed
as a
functional
form in
BIOGRAPHY
writes and uses
the form of
PLUTARCH
influences Longus
and shapes his
contribution to
produced semifunctional work
in
NARRATIVE
LITERATURE
reflects
e.g. neo-Platonics
etc.
USE OF
HELLENISM
used in
reinforce one another…
creation of zeal –
Sophic texts
in Greek style
such as
epic form
Longus
and
pastoral
images
of Greece
GREEK
LITERATURE
attempts to create
new ideas from
older works
GREEK
CULTURE
from educational
literature to
the dedicational
(to Emperor)
adapted through
new works of
literature
e.g. philHellenic
Emperors
includes
attempts to Romanise
Greek literature and
Culture (e.g. Plutarch)
includes
adopting Greek
as a
method
of
imitation
in
EDUCATION
e.g. Atticism
Longus
reinforces
Attic Greek
links
includes
adapting Greek
leads to new
Roman fitting
ROMAN
EMPIRE
reinvention
of Hellenism
or
Hellenistic
ideas in
THE 2nd
PHILOSOPHY
SOPISTIC ERA
combines with
MEDICINE
Figure 2. Simon’s maps before (a) during (b) and after the course (c).
Students of Classics may subvert the rules of concept mapping because they
write more essays than science students, but it is more likely that concept
mapping fails here because the common epistemology of university level
Classics is difficult to reconcile with a hierarchical view of knowledge.
Furthermore, the writing practices and values of a discipline are difficult to
distinguish. In learning Classics, university students tend to acquire views of
literature and history that are not fixed, hierarchical or right (versus wrong),
but contested and developed through scholarship. Despite the theoretical
underpinning of the concept mapping method, the approach can be used to
visualise changing student knowledge that is tentative, experimental and
personal.
67
3.7. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: VI. Professional
frameworks for understanding research methods in social
work
Poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute Conference, King’s College
London, July 4, 2008. London.
,
Webber, M., Groves, N. Fernando, N. & Hay D.B.
Abstract: This poster documents concept maps of student knowledge-change
during a postgraduate module on research methods and critical appraisal.
Fifteen students took part in the study and all of them were professional social
workers. The teaching was either face to face (12 students) or via e-Learning
(three students). The analysis showed no conspicuous differences in learning
quality as a consequence of the mode of teaching delivery. Instead, student
difference corresponded with prior-knowledge quality before the course and
an approach to learning research methods that was either abstract or
conceptual. Being able to see research methods as part of a wider
professional view of social work is seen as key to both teaching and learning
quality.
Introduction: A number of studies have shown how concept mapping can be
used to visualise the quality of student learning at university (see Kinchin &
Hay 2007 for a review). This is important because it means that teaching
impacts on student understanding can be measured empirically. In the work
reported here, an existing postgraduate course was offered for the first time in
both face to face and e-Learning modes. In an effort to ensure that students of
e-Learning were not disadvantaged by the new approach to teaching delivery
we set out to document the students’ quality of learning using concept
mapping. The work also provided opportunities to document learning in its
wider context.
Methods and Results: Students took part in three concept mapping
exercises during the course of learning. The first exercise took place prior to
the first lesson for face to face students and at the induction session for eLearning students in order to capture their prior knowledge structures. A
second exercise took place at the midpoint for both sets of students where
they were given 23 pre-selected concept labels and asked to produce a
concept map using the labels as the core framework. The final exercise
involved creating a concept map of the students’ knowledge structure as a
result of studying the module.
There were no conspicuous differences in the quality of student knowledge
change that were a consequence of the mode of teaching delivery. Hay’s
framework for scoring meaningful learning (Hay, 2007) was used to compare
all students’ before and after maps and showed an incidence that was
equitable among face to face students and e-Learners. The prior-knowledge
68
maps were divided into two broad categories, however, those that described
research as abstract methodology and procedure and those that were
personal to begin with. The personal ones started with general statements
about social work and research informed decision making. The abstract ones
began with descriptions of tests or procedures out of context. There was very
little shift in these stances during the course and the quality of student
learning was deeply affected by these different starting positions. Students
with an abstract view commonly struggled to understand the targets of the
curriculum (i.e. had difficulty with the mid-point exercise) and found the end of
course maps difficult to construct. Students with a personal view, however,
made more sense of the teaching. These issues are highlighted in the case
study analyses below.
Dan, case study 1: Dan made a very simple map before learning (Figure 1)
comprising 10 labels. None of the links were explained. His view of research
was essentially procedural and his map was more like a flow chart than a
genuine concept map. In his mid-point map, Dan’s structure was more
complex (Figure 2), but again the links were unlabelled (suggesting a lack of
personal understanding) and the various components of his knowledge
structure were highly compartmentalised. Ideas related to an ‘understanding
of research methods’ for example, were not linked to any of the different tests
of measurement approaches of statistics. Dan’s final map (Figure 3) was
almost the same as his first and suggests that he had not learnt from the
course. Dan completed the module but did not complete the assignment.
Visualising his learning in the concept mapping record shows that Dan did not
learn because his prior knowledge could not accommodate new material and
he had not transformed his thinking through change.
Figure 1. Dan’s prior knowledge structure before the course.
69
Figure 2. Dan’s mid-point map using the 23 pre-selected concept labels to frame his
understanding
Figure 3. Dan’s knowledge structure at the end of the course.
Sophie, case study 2: Sophie began with a view of research methods that was
essentially personal (Figure 4). Thus for example, she tried to describe data
collection and analysis in a broader professional context. In her second map
(using the labels of the targets of the curriculum) she was able to categorise
research methodologies and then linked this back to ‘awareness of research
relevant to practice’ and influence on ‘policy and decision makers’ (Figure 5).
By the end of the course the basic framework of her prior knowledge was
expanded and developed so that it integrated all she had learned in a broader
view (Figure 6). Sophie had learnt in ways that were meaningful and as Novak
suggests, the quality of her learning was a consequence of assimilation
among an existing framework.
70
Figure 4. Sophie’s prior knowledge structure before the course.
Figure 5. Sophie’s mid-point map using the 23 pre-selected concept labels to frame her
understanding
71
Figure 6. Sophie’s knowledge structure at the end of the course.
Discussion: Ausubel’s theory of assimilative learning provides a
parsimonious explanation for these data. Prior-knowledge acts as an
advanced organiser for subsequent learning and students do better or worse
as a consequence of how they view the topic to begin with. Visualising priorknowledge (through concept mapping) or using other approaches that are
comparable measures of personal understanding should be used as a
prerequisite. Alternatively, more should be done to help students change and
transform prior knowledge structures where those do not act as helpful
advanced organisers for subsequent learning of course targets.
72
3.8. The impact of lecturers’ academic development on the
quality of their students’ learning: VII. Measuring the quality of
student learning from e-learning resources for medical
imaging
Being the content of a poster presented at the King’s Learning Institute
Conference, King’s College London, July 4, 2008. London.
Keevil S. F., Kehoe C., Miquel M. E., Hatzipanagos S., Kinchin I. M., LygoBaker S. and Hay D. B.
Abstract: This poster describes the assessment of e-learning quality.
Students made concept maps before and after an e-learning programme for
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). These maps were compared to assess
the quality of integration of new learning among the students’ prior knowledge
structures. The data shows how the structure of teaching materials can
influence the quality of subsequent student learning. Assessment of student
learning quality is shown to be a genuine test of e-learning.
Introduction: Many studies have tried to show the quality of student learning
following teaching through educational technology. However, there has been
little research using direct and empirical measures of student knowledge
change following e-learning. This is because methods for visualising student
learning quality having been lacking until recently. Hay (2007), however,
shows how concept mapping can be used to measure learning quality. This is
the approach described here.
Methods: This case study shows how concept mapping can be used to
measure the quality of e-learning. Six volunteers (all of them third year
medical students) took part in a programme of e-learning designed to teach
the principles of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Their understanding of
MRI was measured before and after the course by the use of concept
mapping. The quality of change in individuals’ maps was assessed using
criteria developed to distinguish between meaningful and rote learning
outcomes (Hay, 2007). Student maps were also scored for evidence of
conceptual richness and understanding. Finally each map was compared
directly with the content of the electronic teaching material (Figure 1 and
Appendix 1).
73
introduction
1
MRI was described as an imaging
tool alongside other methods such
as x-ray and CT^ scanning. The
text described visualisation of
different tissues types including
bone, brain and other soft-tissues
a computer
a powerful
magnet
radio
waves
MRI
6
5
Here parallel imaging
was described.
sense
reference
scanning
interactive
real-time
imaging
2
This part of the tutorial
discussed respiratory
and cardiac gating. It
also introduced the
common imaging planes:
coronal, sagittal
and axial.
pulse
sequence
spin
echo
gradient
echo
3
This part of the text described
the origins of the MRI
technique and its use in
imaging of the
great blood vessels.
This section explored
issues of pulse amplitude,
wave form
and repetition
time.
4
Technical issues such as flip
angle, phase contrast, inversion
time, and temporal
resolution were
discussed here.
Figure 1. The e-learning course structure
Results and discussion: Many of the student misconceptions were put right
in the course of their learning, but many of the key concepts introduced in the
teaching were also ignored. Where learning did occur it was largely superficial
(Figure 2) and deeper knowledge change was commonly associated with
more personal understandings that were incidental to the teaching (Figure 3).
74
MRI
A
uses
big magnet
to
polarise
water
causing a
change in
position of
molecules
which is detected by
to get
image
of
crosssection
allows
computer
storage
shown
on
in
digital
form
screen
printed
on
silver
panels
1
B
MRI
uses
uses
big magnet
radio waves
whole
molecule
polarisation
which is detected by
computer
to create
to create
in
3D
images
still
images
can be
body
sections
stored
allows
can be
rotation
colour
in
digital
form
printed
on
e.g.
silver
panels
coronal
e.g.
saggital
e.g.
axial
Figure 2. Emily made a concept map of MRI technology before (A) and after (B) the elearning. In her second map (B) two new areas of knowledge (grey shaded areas) were
added to a prior-knowledge structure that was largely unchanged (hatched zone) and one
new misconception was acquired (black zone). This was rote learning because there was no
integration of new and prior knowledge (Hay, 2007 after Novak, 1998).
75
A
imaging
NMR
ultrasound
is used in
includes
includes
diagnosis
includes
X-ray
includes
give
is
give
MRI
is
high
resolution
has led to
gives
are
more
black
low
density
are
more
white
1
use
magnetic
fields
section
slices
fMRI
are
safe
are combined
to make
is
low cost
3D
4
3
B
high
density
diagnosis
contribute to
technology for
is used in clinical
2
academic
laboratory
studies
that restricted
use to
rare
metals
medical
imaging
includes
includes
includes
includes
because
of the
use of
includes
is very
ultrasound
CT scan
X-ray
is
is
cheap
uses
sound
waves
fMRI
is
MRI
uses
magnetic
fields
expensive
uses
radio
waves
are combined to give pictures of
tissue
margins
that are in
2 dimensions
but can be combined
to make images in
5
3dimensions
Figure 3. Bradley’s maps before (A) and after (B) learning were notably different. In the first
map (A), there were four misconceptions (1-4). In the second (B) these were all gone
although a new one was acquired (5). The second map also comprised personal
understandings of the topic that went beyond the information in e-learning material. This was
deep learning because new and old knowledge structures were integrated (Hay, 2007 after
Novak, 1998), but much of the e-learning content was still neglected.
Conclusions: In all, five of the six students showed patterns of change that
were broadly similar to the rote learning outcomes shown in Figure 2. Only
one case study (Figure 3) showed meaningful learning. The quality of learning
76
was largely attributed to the teaching structure. The e-learning material locked
new ideas in structures and terminology that precluded meaning-making
among non-experts. Our data suggest that students’ prior-knowledge is a key
determinant of meaningful learning. We suggest that this must be
acknowledged if the design and use of electronic teaching material is also to
be meaningful. Ultimately, measures of student learning are the only authentic
indicators of the quality of teaching through technology.
77
3.9 References for Part Three
Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning
and retention. Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213-224.
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive
view. Dordrect: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31 (1),
21-32.
Chicago University Press.
David, R. (1985). Introduction. In David, R. & Brierley, J.E.C., Major legal
systems in the world today (3rd. edition), London, Stevens & Sons.
Entwistle, N.J. & Smith, C.A. (2002) Personal understanding and target
understanding: Mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321 – 342.
Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and nonlearning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39-57.
Hay, D.B & Kinchin, I.M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual
typologies. Education and Training 48, 79-83.
Jarvis, P. (1992) Paradoxes of Learning. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice
New York: Jossey-Bass.
Jarvis, P. (2006) Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: lifelong
learning and the learning society, volume 1 (London & New York, Routledge).
Kinchin, I.M. & Hay, D.B. (2007) The myth of the research led teacher.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 43-61.
Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. & Adams, A. (2000) How a qualitative approach to
concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of
conceptual development. Educational Research, 42 (1), 43-57.
Marton , F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge (1): Linkage to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.),
Improving student learning – ten years on. Oxford: OCSLD.
Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2006), Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge: Issues of liminality, in J.H.F. Meyer and R. Land, (eds.),
78
Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold concepts and
troublesome knowledge. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 19-32.
Novak, J. D. (1993). Human constructivism: a unification of psychological and
epistemological phenomena in making meaning. International Journal of
Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 167-193.
Novak, J.D. & Cañas, A.J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and
how to construct them. Technical report, IHMC Cmap Tools, 2006-01, Florida
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Available at:
http//cmaps.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConcept
Maps.pdf
Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J.D. & Musonda, D. (1991) A twelve-year longitudinal study of science
concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28 (1), 117-153.
Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps
as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy.
Chicago, Chicago University Press.
Purves, D., and Lichtman, J.W. (1985). Principles of Neural Development
(Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc.).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Cambridge Massachusetts, Harvard University
Press.
79
PART FOUR
Academics’ Theories of Teaching
4.1. Uncovering the diversity of teachers’ understanding of
their role
Extracts of a paper recently published in The International Journal of Learning
by Simon Lygo-Baker, Emma Kingston and David Hay.
4.1.1. Abstract
This paper describes how the concept mapping approach has been used for
making visible teachers’ personal conceptions of teaching. The teachers in
question are academic developers and the investigation documents how the
approach was used to demonstrate that conceptions of learning and meaning
are personal. The paper draws on philosophical arguments and shows
through the presentation of data how teachers’ verbal and illustrative
conceptions of teaching vary. It suggests that these variations stem from the
fact that the targets of teaching are understood differently by those who
engage with the teaching of it. The paper demonstrates how different
personalised models of teaching are described through the expression of
individual values using explicit verbal statements.
Key words: Higher education, pedagogy, educational development,
academic practice
4.1.2. Introduction
The work that is beginning to accrue from longitudinal studies using concept
mapping in the disciplines is raising some problematic questions about the
nature of knowledge as it is understood and then declared within the
university (Hay et al., 2007, Hay, Wells & Kinchin, submitted). The evidence
being reported from the empirical data is increasingly demonstrating that
whilst knowledge may be defined by the targets of teaching, understanding is
always personal. It follows that although knowledge can be taught (I can tell
you something) understanding must be constructed individually (you interpret
this). Students taught the same content therefore are most likely to
understand it differently (Hay, Wells & Kinchin, submitted). The understanding
made from teaching is significantly determined by the prior-knowledge held
(Hay et al., 2007, Hay & Kinchin, 2006). Stimulated by these findings it has
also been demonstrated that different ‘expert’ teachers, teaching from the
same curriculum teach things in entirely different ways because their
understandings, that belie their knowledge structures, are personal and
different (Hay & Kinchin, 2006). So fundamental are these issues that Kinchin
et al. suggest that they hold the key to teaching that is genuinely meaningful
and that when ignored make universities centres of ‘non-learning’ (Kinchin,
Lygo-Baker & Hay, 2008).
80
We began to use concept mapping (Novak, 1998) with teachers of different
disciplines on a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP). The
rationale was to help them visualise the ways they make meaning from the
things that they are taught. In the process of these investigations we found
ourselves challenged by the findings and proposing alternative interpretations.
In order to explore the variation in our own personal understandings we report
an analysis of the concept maps of teaching made by eight teachers from the
programme. We do this to explore the variation that is inherent in any
university teaching where different ‘experts’ teach on the same programme.
We demonstrate that the targets of teaching defined by the curriculum exist, in
fact, as different constructs in the minds of the different teachers. Perhaps
inevitably these differences comprise of emphasis on differing parts of the
curriculum, but fundamentally this analysis exposes different personal
epistemologies (Hofer & Pintrich, 2002). Whilst raising quality assurance
issues we argue that such variation has always existed and is part of an
authentic pedagogy for higher education and should not lead to attempts to
neutralise difference (even if this could be achieved). Instead we argue that
this is a definitive feature of teaching that is undertaken by those who are
researchers in their own areas of specialism and gives university teaching its
own distinctive feature. Rather than trying to neutralise the differences, we
argue that the variation in teachers’ understanding needs to be better
researched and explained so that teachers and students are able to make the
learning environment more meaningful. As such it is a fundamental issue for
academic development.
4.1.3. Academic developers and their teaching
4.1.3.1. Linking learning and teaching
Encouraged by recent government pronouncements (DfES, 2003) learning
and teaching in higher education have become increasingly linked. Teaching
has been promoted as a method through which greater learning can be
achieved. A logical follow-through of the arguments presented is that by
enhancing the quality of teaching there will be a corresponding rise in learning
(Dearing, 1997). Whilst undoubtedly this may be the case, it is not a given.
There are explanations that demonstrate how people may reject what they are
presented with when taught (Jarvis, 1992), or that at best they resort to rote
learning (Hay, 2007). The data collected for this study demonstrates how
human understanding is a ‘unique personal construction’ (Ausubel, 2000,
reprinted from Ausubel, 1963) and suggests that through a recognition and
declaration of these constructions of the teacher, students may gain greater
access to learning opportunities.
Although institutional responses differ, most higher education institutions in
the UK provide a postgraduate certificate aimed at those with less than three
years teaching experience in higher education (Gosling, 2001). The
effectiveness of these programmes continues to cause debate and stems
from the considerable difficulty in extricating how teaching has supported
learning and indeed many have argued that the interrelationship is too
complex for any realistic measure to be made (Knight, 2002). There is even
less evidence linking effective student-teacher learning through engagement
81
in programmes aimed at academic enhancement. The few studies that have
been undertaken to consider the notion of the enhancement of teaching
through lecturer ‘training’ do not make any major claims about cause and
effect (Coffey & Gibbs, 2004; Stefani & Elton, 2002; Rust, 2000). Although
more recently Gibbs (2003) suggests that this does not mean that the training
is ineffective, collecting the evidence to prove a link has been, and remains,
problematic.
It was against this background that academic developers delivering a
Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice began to seek evidence to
validate their work. The resultant investigations and research has led to
realisation that ‘expert’ models of higher education are often obscured and
only partially explained by engagement with the curriculum by a studentteacher. As a result, student-teachers should not be encouraged to mimic
these models because of the personal meaning that is enclosed within them.
As we show in this paper, academic developers tend to differ considerably in
the models they describe, based on a variety of self values influenced by
unique personal experience and understanding (Lygo-Baker, 2006).
4.1.3.2. The relevance of academic development
There has been a growing literature that has suggested that educational
development has “come of age” (McAlpine, 2006; D’Andrea & Gosling, 2005;
Macdonald, 2003) without providing significant evidence to support such
claims. Land (2004) has argued that academic development has moved in
from the periphery and become more embedded and recognisable. However,
he acknowledges that such a journey has not been without difficulty and as
Gray and Radloff note:
the nature and status of this work (academic development) at
the start of the twenty-first century remains loosely understood
and organised among both practitioners and their stakeholders
(p.80, 2006).
Although there is recognition of the growth of academic development activity
across many countries (see for example Trowler and Bamber, 2005) there is
the danger that the progress made to date may begin to recede. For academic
development to move from acceptance of existence, to acceptance due to
relevance, requires a clear demonstration to the academic community that
there is a significant benefit from engagement. The evidence needs to
demonstrate that academic development provides more than remedial work
based on a deficit model where a set of skills are rote learned. Academics
need to be convinced that engagement will enable them to learn to bridge the
theory-practice gap in ways that are meaningful to them.
Reluctance to engage in programmes purporting to enhance learning through
a greater understanding of teaching is a common theme reported by
academic developers in the UK. On reflection perhaps such a position should
not come as a surprise but not for the standard reasons that are put forward.
Consider the traditional concerns that are rehearsed by academic developers
engaging with university teaching staff. Concerns are expressed over the
82
motives of staff who attend. It is claimed that many are more interested in their
research. Subsequently the teaching that is witnessed by academic
developers often shows limited interaction with the students, it fails to engage
with their students’ prior knowledge structures and encourages ‘rote’ and
‘surface’ learning approaches that the student-teachers often argue the
students ultimately demand when driven by narrow assessment practices. Are
programmes aimed at enhancing learning and teaching significantly different
in their approaches? As Whisker (2006) asks: “How do we know it’s working?”
and she calls for examples and data to prove to the academic community that
such practice is not replicated by programmes delivered by academic
developers.
If academic development really wants to ‘come of age’ and to be recognised
as relevant, there is a need for those who fulfil the role to demonstrate how
personal meaning can enhance teaching by proving a greater appreciation of
the role that learning plays. Currently definitions of what it means to learn at
university level are often based on individual difference or style; learning
needs to be defined as change, an act of discovery, creation or invention.
Learning is therefore akin to research. In order to understand something
individuals must discover, create or invent something that is at least, new to
them. Academic developers need to acknowledge that the process of teaching
is recognised as one in which people learn about and develop personal
meaning. To do this requires the academic developer to acknowledge the
prior knowledge of the student-teacher.
Research undertaken into the development of personal meaning in learning
has shown the significance of wider interactions of learners than those
encountered when taught formally (Hay, Wells & Kinchin, submitted; Hay et
al., 2007). Drawing on work previously undertaken by Hay, Kinchin and LygoBaker (2008) concept mapping (after Novak, 1998) enables a practical
solution to making complex structures and personal meanings visible and
open to acknowledgement. Learning, often viewed as complex and implicit,
becomes visualised and can be measured (Hay & Kinchin, 2006). The
approach taken provides an opportunity for teachers and students to construct
meaning individually or together. In order to expose the potential
contradictions that exist within the academic development community the
evidence from this study is provided.
4.1.4. This study
This study was developed from a review of teaching in the normal course
evaluation process of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (the
PGCAP) at King’s College London. As participants on the programme had
been obliged to make a concept map to explain their personal understanding
of teaching the academic developers began to question their own
interpretations of the validity of the maps that the student teachers were
providing. During course meetings and general discussions as part of the
PGCAP programme review and development it became apparent that the
variation in maps being produced by the student teachers may be mirrored by
similar variation in the academic developers.
83
To explore whether the academic developers delivering the PGCAP held
similar or significantly different personal models of the purpose of teaching,
the eight staff who delivered the taught element of the programme completed
a concept mapping exercise. The academic developers all worked within the
same team although, as is the case within these units, the developers
themselves had different personal histories and came from a variety of
academic disciplines (e.g. management, theology and computer science).
These staff had worked between six years and three months on the
programme and their experience of teaching ranged from 30 years to less
than 12 months. The eight were all familiar with the concept mapping
technique (Novak, 1998), having used the method as part of their own
teaching. Each was asked to construct a map having been given the starting
concept “teaching”. The eight maps were then examined to consider the
differences and similarities that could be recognised.
4.1.5. Results
A total of 92 concept labels were used by the eight academic developers. With
the exception of teaching, which had been provided, no concept was repeated
in all eight maps. Sixteen labels were used by more than one individual. “Prior
knowledge” was the most common (62%), followed by “students”, “interaction”
and “change” (37% each). Eleven concepts were used by two people
(including “learning”, “research” and “feedback”). There were 77 labels that
were unique. Considering the structure of the maps, six could be described as
“networks” and two were “spokes” (Kinchin 2000; Kinchin et al, 2000).
As the maps are examined it is possible to sense a broad consensus that
“teaching” is related to the facilitation of learning processes, so that what is
new can be seen as related both to and from, the prior knowledge held by the
‘learner’. The three teachers that did not use the term prior knowledge had
within their maps “change” or “reflection” to help explain how new knowledge
is acquired and the role that the teacher has in supporting the acquisition
among students. However, the most striking feature is the diversity in the
description of the teaching and learning process. When the individuals’ maps
are overlaid and the connections between individual academic developers’
labels are checked (Figure 1) it is the number of unique labels that is most
obvious (77 out of 92) rather than areas of consensus. These unique labels
suggest that there are real differences in personal meaning being described
between academic developers working closely together and using the same
curriculum. The differences in the maps are indicative of different personal
epistemologies which may then be translated into different interpretations of
the targets of the curriculum. The implication of such a finding would suggest
that for student-teachers engaging with the individual academic developers
different levels of comfort would be experienced.
84
Figure 1 – Concepts: overlaps and unique labels
A1
4
H8
10
4
The number of unique concepts for each teacher
10
Concepts shared by at least two teachers (as follows):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prior-knowledge (5/8)
The teacher (4/8)
The student (3/8)
Interaction (3/8)
Change (2/8)
Concept mapping (2/8)
Collaboration (2/8)
The expert (2/8)
Feedback (2/8)
Information (2/8)
Learning (2/8)
Monitoring (2/8)
Newness (2/8)
Research (2/8)
Reflection 2/8)
B2
2
5
G7
7
6
7
8
9
6
1
2
12
C3
10 3 4
11
14
15
13
16
13
19
D4
F6
E5
The maps that have been produced are unlike those previously reported
elsewhere by Hay, Wells & Kinchin (submitted). The significant difference is
the absence of ‘content’ knowledge as a concept label upon which to build the
individual map. Here the academic developers are emphasising a ‘process’
rather than particular content. The content knowledge appears implicit and
there is likely to be significant variation in that which is appropriated by each
individual to help demonstrate their own meaning. In informal discussions with
each of the eight teachers it became apparent that describing their own
models to student-teachers was limited. At the same time the academic
developers saw their role as working to understand the knowledge held within
the student-teachers they worked with and that the notion of reflection, a
recurring theme of academic development programmes, requires participants
on these programmes to undertake such action. The lack of declaration of
personal meaning by academic developers has been uncovered before (LygoBaker, 2006). Academic developers were found to describe a range of
significantly different values but felt that these were personal and that it was
not necessary to share these with either colleagues or student-teachers.
For student-teachers attempting to gain an understanding of what the PGCAP
programme aims to achieve, the course documentation offers the most
standard and fixed form. As a result we took the most common concepts
stated by the academic developers in their maps to see if these were
explained and given meaning in the course documentation (programme
handbook). It is clear that there is not a strong correlation immediately
apparent (See Table 1). Prior knowledge is not mentioned once in the
handbook and yet it is the most common concept to the eight academic
developers. The likely conclusion for student-teachers is a need to find their
own meaning. The declared intent of the programme is therefore complex and
open to the interpretation of both the student-teacher and the academic
85
developer. To demonstrate and further explore the variation in personal
understanding demonstrated by the concept maps developed we will look
more closely at three of the concept maps produced by the academic
developers that demonstrate specific differences of epistemology. The
identities of people are protected by the use of pseudonyms.
Table 1
Common
Concepts
Prior knowledge
Student
Interaction
Learning
Information
Feedback
Independence
Research
Academic
Developer
62%
37%
37%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Handbook (16,630
words)
0
91
3 (11 interact)
339
16
13
0
61
4.1.6. Case studies of meaning-making
The selected case studies are three from the eight maps that were produced
by academic developers. They have been chosen to demonstrate the
differences in personal meaning making within the same environment. All
three have worked together as tutors on the PGCAP (with responsibility for
working with individual student-teachers as a teaching observer and advising
on the production of assessed work), teach individual sessions on the
programme and have helped to design teaching sessions.
Figure 2 shows the map made by Eric. The map, a “network” (Kinchin, 2000;
Kinchin et al, 2000) shows a complex statement of personal epistemology that
demonstrates that Eric sees a focus on meaning making and the production of
new understanding which arises from new knowledge. Teaching, although set
at the top of the map, is not seen as the focal point. Teaching is seen as
supporting students with change by facilitating the meaning making through
the presentation of new knowledge. Eric however states that teaching should
be defined by student prior-knowledge and suggests that this will only be
effective when the prior-knowledge is sufficiently related to new knowledge.
When this occurs Eric suggests that new understanding can occur. The map
also suggests that change can be made visible and that meaning making can
be measured.
86
Figure 2 – Eric’s map
defines how
teachers should
go ahead
teaching
involves
identification
of student
is about the facilitation of student
involves presentation of
can be grasped only when it is sufficiently
related to the existing
new
understanding
arises out of
arises out of
produces
student priorknowledge
new knowledge
is combines in
the process of
can be
measured
using
is combines in
the process of
meaning
making
can be
measured using
concept
mapping
can be made
visible by
is about the support of students
during periods of
can be
measured using
radical
structure
is a part of
during periods
of significant
change
Tracy’s map (Figure 3) is another complex “network” of personal epistemology
but very different from that constructed by Eric. Here the concept of power
appears as a focal point because it informs conceptions of teaching and for
the student is achieved through gaining independence which also enables the
individual to develop authority. Tracy makes clear the close relationship for
her between the role of the teacher and that of the student in the construction
of new relationships, with the suggestion that through these the opportunity for
collaborative learning exists. There is within the map a series of competing
notions and tensions between the teacher and the student. For Tracy the
teacher and expert knowledge appear to cause potential tensions when drawn
towards the competing structure as envisaged by the student and the teacher.
The final map made by Dawn (Figure 4) is a “spoke”(Kinchin, 2000; Kincin et
al, 2000) with the focal point being teaching. The map suggests a less
sophisticated integration of concepts, but utilises a wider range of labels to
demonstrate the complexity of personal meaning. The map suggests clarity
over the targets of teaching for Dawn, for example that it should be multifaceted and informative. It makes clear statements that link teaching to
learning. The map itself can be seen as a list of topics that are related back,
generally to teaching. There are clear trajectories for concepts but these are
one-way. For example, we follow from teaching that is for the students to gain
knowledge which results in them being able to reflect. The journey ends at this
point.
87
Figure 3 – Tracy’s map
of
leading to
achievement of
power
informs conceptions of
is often about
involve
performance
intention with
processes
that are
role
as a
teacher
relies
involve
in
relation
to
creates
opportunities
for
actions are
facilitative
empowers student
teaching
leads
to
denies possibility of
engage in
collaborative
learning
student
leading
to
leading to
develops student
independence
developing
authority
develops
in tension with
expert
knowledge
gives performance of
criticality
leads to student
to build
questions
generates
structure
to build own
88
Figure 4 – Dawn’s map
career choice
leads to
obtain degree
reflect
to
and
exciting
pass exams
multi-faceted
gain knowledge
to
can be
to
students
should
be
supportive
fun
is for
should be
should be
is
teaching
is
leads to
important
can be
is
informative
should
be
which should be
which
Should
be
lifelong
can be
can be
should
be
should
be
monitored
learning
new
negotiate
and
individual
2 way learning
for
teacher
evaluated
and
measured
individual
89
4.1.7. Discussion
The three maps (Figures 2, 3 and 4) comprise different levels of structural
complexity that can work in significantly different ways when considered with
the understanding of others. Figure 4 describes the targets of teaching as a
list. It does not provide explanation or begin to develop an appreciation of the
meaning that is held within the map. The result is that whilst at first the
impression given is that it is clear, the reality is that the clarity may be
superficial and any meaning is abstract. The maps represented in Figures 2
and 3 appear significantly more complex in their structures. They suggest
relationships between a range of concepts and describe these in ways that
suggest the problematic nature of learning and teaching. They are however,
although similar in the complex nature of their structures, ultimately
significantly different. Of course that they were constructed by two different
people should maintain that such a result would be expected. However, how
often is the personal difference highlighted and then utilised effectively within
the learning environment?
The maps produced by Eric and Tracy are personal understandings that are
significantly harder to interpret without talking to the two individuals. Even then
the personal understanding is so complex, the interrelationships between
concepts so inter-related and inter-dependent, that for students who
encounter the teaching, the targets are likely to seem obscure. The students
are likely to find an encounter with Dawn far more straightforward and easier
to interpret and to understand what the targets that she is aiming for are. To
gain understanding of the concepts in Dawn’s map anyone can take an
isolated element and gain meaning. Such is not possible for either of the
maps produced by Eric or Tracy, where meaning would only become clear
when the entire map is understood. Dawn’s map may well help the studentteachers to see what it is they have to learn, so that they can construct their
own personal meaning. In contrast, student-teachers working with Eric or
Tracy are likely to find understanding the rich and complex positions reached
by the authors problematic unless they themselves have already acquired
some knowledge of the meaning that is enclosed within the maps.
The maps made by Eric and Tracy should not however be seen as similar in
the meanings that they describe, they are distinctly different. They are also
open to interpretation by the student-teachers, who have their own underlying
personal meanings. The potential for difference is therefore greater as a result
of the richness of the construction of the maps. The difference between the
maps produced by Eric, Tracy and Dawn are significant. These differences
are indicative of different personal epistemologies that lead to different
interpretations of the targets of the curriculum. These conclusions can be
demonstrated by analysing any combination of the eight maps that were made
by the members of the team who participated in this study. The significant
finding is that whilst knowledge can be defined, understanding is personal.
The maps produced by the academic development staff all show an emphasis
upon the “process” of teaching rather than the delivery of any specific
“content”. However, the difficulty for student-teachers is that the process being
90
described in the developers’ maps differs. There appears evidence here to
suggest that these courses may fail to recognise the importance of this
potential confusion which has previously been alluded to in the literature
(Trowler & Bamber, 2005). When presented with the many different personal
models that comprise different teachers’ understanding of the curriculum the
challenge for the student-teachers is to develop their own meaning. The
concern highlighted by the evidence uncovered from this study however is not
just in the relationship between the individual academic developer and the
student-teachers with whom they engage, but prior to this, between individual
academic developers who deliver and contribute to the same teaching
enhancement programme.
This study has demonstrated that when academic developers declare their
personal epistemologies limited overlap occurs (see Figure 1). What is
significant is that an attempt to decrease the gap cannot be undertaken by
merely ensuring that the programmes that are delivered all conform to certain
set standards and cover similar areas, such as curriculum design. What is
apparent from even a cursory examination of the eight teachers’ maps is that
each only has meaning to the individual who constructed it. The construction
of the map and the meaning that it conveys needs to be explained by that
individual. When it is, this begins to demonstrate that although there are
general agreements between some individuals, there are significant
differences as well. By themselves these are not problematic, indeed they
may even be celebrated, but they need to be described for others to hear.
Without these descriptions of personal meaning, the potential for disjuncture
amongst those attending academic development programmes is significant.
Given that these eight individuals work within the same team and are
expected to present an accredited programme this could be seen to raise
serious questions. In reality it is likely that through informal conversations, the
joint development and negotiation of material and formal planning that
differences are not significantly apparent through the delivery mechanisms
used. Subsequently the programme appears coherent and indeed it was
reported that it is evaluated well. Despite this, the study does raise some
important implications. The application of meaning to any situation is made by
each individual and the explanation of the meaning to others, even where it
occurs, remains problematic.
Lygo-Baker (2006) found that academic development staff are often reluctant
to expose their own meaning, for fear that they impose a style that they
believe is not appropriate for another individual. Although such an approach
may appear laudable, suggesting that as a teacher a neutral position can be
held is unrealistic. According to Barnett (1996, in Selmes and Robb) the very
nature of teaching in higher education is related to individual values that
underpin the actions that we take (Inlow, 1972). The delivery of any material
must be influenced by the individual teacher and his/her own meaning and at
the same time will also be interpreted differently by all those who are present.
As such, no delivery can be neutral. To suggest therefore that those delivering
academic development programmes will do so from a neutral position would
91
be disingenuous. It is therefore important that individual meaning is described
and made apparent to highlight difference.
For academic development programmes to develop effective learning
environments that promote change, there is a need for academic developers
to expose their own meanings. The first step is for developers to engage in
the process together. The implication of not undertaking such an approach
can be witnessed in the current programmes aimed at enhancing academic
teaching staff. For student-teachers who do not want to engage in the
programmes there will be the opportunity to expose inconsistency in approach
drawn from the different targets of teaching demonstrated by each academic
developer. This can be destabilising and encourage withdrawal from real
participation. The process that is engaged in becomes one where the student
teachers are trying to get the academic developer to declare their meaning
rather than expose their own. Evidence suggests (Hay, 2007) that both need
to expose meaning for change to occur. Academic developers need to work
out how to manage the declaration of their own meaning and that of those
who they deliver programmes with. If academic developers do not expose
their own meaning to their colleagues, the inconsistency of approach will be
exacerbated by those actually trying to achieve different things, which again
can encourage disengagement by student teachers.
4.1.8. Conclusion
The three maps made by Eric, Dawn and Tracy may appear to have certain
similarities and yet when considered it is difference that becomes more
striking. The significance of personal meaning becomes evident. The salient
fact here is that it is reasonable to expect that two people will have different
perspectives. Different people teach differently and even though they may
have agreed the content of a programme, will teach entirely different things.
The maps shown here demonstrate that this is inevitable as a result of their
different conceptions of teaching. No amount of quality assurance can
neutralise these differences and any attempt to achieve this should be
resisted for two reasons. First university teaching can benefit from
acknowledging that different people see things differently and second that this
acknowledgement can enable teachers of all disciplines to explain difference
to their students in ways that can enhance learning.
The approach taken for this study exposed the differences and similarities of
the academic developers which can then be used for the construction of new
meaning with colleagues and student teachers. Without the construction of
this joint meaning between colleagues delivering academic development
programmes how can student-teacher progress on these reflective
programmes be judged? Until academic developers declare and share their
own meaning the proliferation of programmes that student-teachers regard as
providing “teaching tips” are likely to continue. Although the academic
development community may long to come of age it will continue to act like an
adolescent seeking attention on its own terms.
92
4.2. References for Part Four
Ausubel, D. (1963) The psychology of meaningful verbal learning New York,
Grune and Stratton.
Ausubel, D. (2000) The Acquisition and retention of knowledge: A Cognitive
View, Dordecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barnett, R. “Values in Higher Education: Challenging the discomforted” in
Selmes, C. & Robb, W. (1996) Values in Teacher Education: Volume 1
Sheffield, NAVET.
D’Andrea, V. & Gosling, D. (2005) Improving Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Dearing, R. (1997) National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education,
Norwich, HMSO.
Department for Education and Skills (2003). The future of higher education
Norwich, HMSO.
Gibbs, G.(Ed) (2003) Improving Student Learning Through Assessment and
Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Coffey, M Gibbs, G. (2004) “The impact of training of university teachers on
their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and their approach to learning
of their students” Active Learning in Higher Education 5 (1): 87-100.
Gosling, D. (2001). “Educational development units in the UK – what are they
doing five years on?” The International Journal for Academic Development 6
(1) 74-90.
Gray, K. & Radloff, A. (2006) “Quality Management of Academic Development
Work: Implementation issues and challenges” International Journal for
Academic Development 11 (2): 79-90.
Hay, D.B. (2007) Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and nonlearning outcomes Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1), 39-57.
Hay, D.B., Kehoe, C., Muquel, M.E., Kinchin, I.M., Hatzipanagos, S., Keevil,
S.F. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2007) Measuring the quality of e-learning British
Journal of Educational Technology.
Hay, D.B. & Kinchin, I.M. (2006) Measuring student learning quality Education
and Training.
Hay, D.B., Kinchin, I.M. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008) Making learning visible: the
role of concept mapping in higher education Studies in Higher Education 33
(3): 295-311
93
Hay, D.B., Wells, H. & Kinchin, I.M. (submitted) Using concept mapping to
measure learning quality Higher Education.
Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P. (2002) eds Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of
beliefs about knowledge and knowing Mahwah, Erlbaum.
Jarvis, P. (1992) Paradoxes of Learning San Francisco, Jossey Bass
Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. & Adams, A. (2000) How a qualitative approach to
concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of
conceptual development Educational Research, 42 (1), 43-57.
Kinchin, I.M., Lygo-Baker, S. & Hay, D.B. (2008) Universities as centres of
non-learning Studies in Higher Education.
Knight, P. (2002) The Achilles’ Hell of Quality: the assessment of student
learning. Quality in Higher Education 8 (1): 107-115.
Inlow, G. (1972). Values in Transition London, Wiley and Sons.
Land, R. (2004) Educational Development: Discourse, identity and practice
Maidenhead, OU Press.
Lygo-Baker, S. (2006) Re-evaluating Values: The impact of academic
developers. International Journal of Learning, 12 (4), 11 - 18.
McAlpine, L. (2006) “Coming of Age in a Time of Super-complexity (with
apologies to both Mead and Barnett)” International Journal for Academic
Development 11 (2): 123-127.
Macdonald, R. (2003) “Developing a scholarship of academic development:
Setting the context” In Eggins, H. & Macdonald, R. (Eds.), The scholarship of
academic development Milton Keynes, SRHE & OU Press.
Novak, J.D. (1998) Learning, creating and using knowledge: concept maps as
facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rust, C. (ed) (2000) Improving Student learning. Improving Student Learning
through the disciplines Oxford, The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.
Stefani, L. and Elton, L. (2002), ‘Continuing Professional Development of
Academic Teachers through Self-initiated Learning’, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27, pp. 117 – 129.
Trowler, P. and Bamber, V. (2005) Compulsory Higher Education Teacher
Education: joined-up policies; institutional architectures; enhancement
cultures. International Journal for Academic Development, 10, 2, 79-93.
94
Whisker, G. (2006) “Educational development – how do we know it is
working? How do we know how well we are doing?” Educational Development
7 (3): 11-17.
95
PART FIVE
End notes
5.1. A note on ‘socialisation’ (by Simon Lygo-Baker)
The recent announcement by HEFCE that monies previously made available
for the enhancement of learning and teaching through the TQEF grant would
become part of the main grant provides an opportunity to reflect on what has
been achieved by the funding initiative (HEFCE, 08/28). Award bearing
programmes, stimulated by the Dearing Inquiry (NCIHE, Recommendation 13,
1997), are now commonplace although various different approaches have
been adopted by institutions. The difference in approach is often thought to be
an appropriate response that reflects institutional differences across the
sector.
The focus of the programmes developed has often been almost exclusively on
teaching and learning and subsequently the role of the academic has been
‘compartmentalised’. Developers have concentrated on efforts to enhance
understanding of teaching and to consider the relationship with learning. This
relationship is complex and recognised by developers as such. Given that the
majority of development programmes are attended almost exclusively by staff
who are ‘new’ to academic positions, the developer tends to be on ‘safe’
ground. The developer is less likely to be challenged by new staff over
credentials of expert knowledge related to teaching than more experienced
colleagues. When challenge occurs, it is often on the basis that the developer
knows little of the context within which the teaching occurs – which will tend to
depend on each individual situation and the background of each developer.
As the majority of academic staff at the institution do not engage with the
developers on a regular basis, the equilibrium that becomes established tends
not be challenged.
Through the research undertaken for the HE Academy bid in combination with
ongoing research by developers within King’s Learning Institute (KLI), the
general approach that has been adopted is being questioned. The traditional
separation of the teaching and learning from the role of an academic, whilst
seemingly appropriate, may actually have limited the opportunity for academic
development staff to have made an effective contribution. A revised approach,
recognising how all aspects of the role are interrelated, and therefore as
applicable to those starting or those towards the end of their careers, may be
more appropriate. Such thoughts are drawn from an analysis of the data
drawn from the HE Academy funded research and combined with research
previously undertaken by KLI staff. Through the synthesis of data collected
comes recognition of the significance of s to different discourses that each
academic experiences.
Socialisation into a discipline, the adoption of the behavior patterns of the
surrounding culture, occurs first as a student and then as an academic.
Through this process, shared values become understood that are betrayed
96
through the adoption of certain accepted behaviours and practices. Indeed,
acceptance into an academic role is in part through an adherence to these
shared values and those who challenge these are open to sanction (Piper,
1994). The socialisation causes each individual to define herself through the
groups that are interacted with and helps create the boundaries of a
community of practice (Wenger, 1998). As fragmentation (Rowland, 2001)
occurs the community of practice to which the new academic belongs “readily
lend themselves to developing sets of shared norms, beliefs and values” (Mills
et al., 2005, p.597).’
An academic development programme that fails to acknowledge such a
process is likely to lead the new academic into a place of uncertainty between
discourses that have little, if any commonality. The discomfort that has been
reported towards academic development programmes may be a reflection of
the establishment of a discourse that has no relevance other than to establish
a relationship between the academic and the developer. The discourse, a way
“of thinking and producing meaning” (Weedon, 1987, p.108), does not relate
to the practice that an academic understands herself from the experience that
she has or gains through interactions with colleagues from her own
department. The situation is made worse by academic development
programmes that focus the new discourse primarily on teaching and learning
as separate from other aspects of the academic role. Not only is the new
discourse one that is unknown to the new academic, it is also unknown to the
academy.
Foucault (1979) has argued that discourses can shape and create meaning
that then gain status and currency. If it establishes itself, a discourse can help
to define and organise our social world and how an individual defines herself.
What appears to be needed therefore is not a new discourse for learning and
teaching, as separate from research, but a discourse that allows an academic
to continue to create meaning and develop an understanding of her role. The
challenge for the academic is to ensure that this discourse is then understood
through the interactions that occur with a range of different stakeholders. If the
academic is not expected to establish an entirely new discourse to try and
explain teaching, the likelihood of disjuncture is lessened. For the academic
developer, the challenge is to support the academic as she discovers how to
describe aspects of her socialisation.
Currently little evidence suggests that academic development programmes
have a significant impact upon practice (Rust, 2000; Stefani & Elton, 2002;
Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). These pieces of research may be evidence of the
failure that has been created by programmes that do not recognize the
importance of socialisation that the academic has already undertaken. Rather
than seeing academic development as a function of the socialisation process,
an attempt is made to create a parallel socialisation that refers to teaching.
The separation, often made explicit within academic development
programmes between research and teaching, may actually prove to be false.
As an academic staff has learned about a subject, first as a student and then
as an academic, they have become accustomed to a particular set of
behaviours that are acceptable and appropriate. The certainty that is found
97
within these behaviours is then questioned as the academic finds herself
exposed to a new language and expected sets of behaviours which are based
around ‘genericism’ (Beck & Young, 2005).
This has been recogniesd before by Gibbs (2001), who suggested that much
of the language of higher education pedagogy downplays difference between
teaching different disciplines and emphasises generic capabilities. Bernstein
(1990) warns that when this occurs teaching can become described in ways
that make the role appear more simplistic than the reality demonstrates.
Ironically the result is that the complex interrelationship that developers argue
for between learning and teaching becomes downplayed. Attendance on
academic development programmes disrupts the traditional socialisation
because a new academic not only interacts with academic staff from different
locations and disciplines but a range of academic developers. This is further
complicated, Land (2004) suggests, by staff in academic development units
who interpret their role differently. New academics are therefore faced with a
requirement to take general rules put forward about learning and teaching and
apply these to their own knowledge domain and to do so in the context of
different interpretations offered by a range of people.
What is becoming evident from the research undertaken is that students and
academic staff interact through a variety of means and these interactions
develop meaning. The socialisation occurs through these interactions and
gives rise to the community of practice that each discipline recognises. These
are impacted upon by the immediate context which provides emphasis to
particular aspects of the discourse used. Academic development programmes
that have attempted, for understandable reasons, to concentrate reflection on
what has occurred through this process have asked staff to do this through a
new discourse and one that is generic; understood by all those who hear it.
The problem is that although it may be understood, it has no meaning
because it is not grounded in any set of behaviours that define a role
recognised by other academic staff.
5.2. A note on reflective practice (by Saranne Weller)
Reflective practice has emerged as the dominant paradigm for many
accredited programmes (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004) as a way to bridge the
fundamental theory-practice gap. In Ho’s conceptual change model, for
example, it is through a process of facilitated self-reflection that academics
confront “the mismatch between their ideal and their actual practice” (Ho,
2000, p. 34). It is frequently the experience of academic developers, however,
that a personal theory of teaching, espoused through explicit and structured
acts of reflection, is something that is rarely disclosed or modified by
practitioners during their participation in such programmes. At one level, the
aim of academic development to facilitate the connection between teachers
and their practice rather than create expert teachers (Martin & Double, 1998)
results in practitioners lacking the necessary pedagogic vocabulary to
articulate their prior and developing conceptions. Conversely, the performative
nature of teaching means that practitioners can hide poorly defined
conceptions of teaching behind rich expositions of what they do in the
98
classroom. Arguably, the dominant discourse of reflective practice itself has
contributed to a tension between an ‘authentic’ and a ‘performed’ reflective
practitioner identity within academic development (MacKenzie et al., 2007;
Ball, 2003). In validating the performance of the reflecting practitioner self, the
revelatory orientation of existing reflective strategies within teaching
observation practices can further inflect the disjunction between personal
conceptions of teaching and a practitioner’s reflection on their enactment in
practice for the purposes of achieving an obligatory postgraduate qualification
in higher education pedagogy.
It is this imperative to access and compare a personal theory of teaching with
its enactment in practice that underpins the decision to implement a new
concept mapping approach within academic development within the
Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice at King’s College London that
capitalises on the repeated use of concept maps within a dialogic cycle
between the practitioner and the observer. The approach is based upon the
use of a version of concept mapping (Novak, 1998) to facilitate the explicit
declaration and development of a lecturer’s underpinning theories and values
of teaching and learning. The repeated use of concept mapping to declare
personal theories of teaching generates a concrete record of prior
understanding and personal change during a lecturer’s completion of the
developmental observations. Such a record can be used to anchor observed
teaching acts within a declared and changing theory of teaching. This paper
describes this approach as it specifically relates to the observation of teaching
for the purposes of enhancement. A series of ideal type constructs will
illustrate how the ‘declarative approach’ works in practice. These examples
demonstrate the way in which the use of such concept mapping approaches
within teaching observation can facilitate repeated, experimental statements
of a new lecturer’s evolving personal theories of learning and teaching and
how this relates to his/her teaching practice.
Teaching observation for the development of theory and practice
In the UK tertiary sector, developmental teaching observation is widely used in
postgraduate certificates in higher education teaching and departmental peer
review. The anecdotal experience of many academic developers is that the
observation element of developmental programmes is highly valued by
practitioners because it is grounded in their everyday professional experience.
Whilst the learning benefits of taught programmes are acknowledged, “the
problems of embedding that learning in the workplace are notorious” (Knight
et al., 2006, p. 320). The collaborative processes adopted by observer and
practitioner to reflect on observed teaching facilitates this integration of
practice with the theorising explored in professional development
programmes. The reflective practitioner, in collaboration with their observer, is
able to utilise their experiences to interrogate their personal conceptions of
teaching and learning and how these are translated into their teaching
practice. Such self-knowledge is informed by the comparison of their teaching
with their knowledge of educational theory (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond,
2005). In such ways, the reflection inherent in teaching observation effects a
bridging of theory and practice for the reflective practitioner.
99
Yet despite a widespread confidence in teaching observation as a tool for
integrating pedagogic theory and pedagogic practice, the reality for academic
developers seeking to support the exploration of a practitioner’s beliefs and
assumptions is that the values that underpin their teaching practice are often
difficult to access. Pre-observation and post-observation discussions between
the observer and practitioner attempt to draw out these values, but however
well structured these discussions are it is frequently the experience of
observers that practitioners use these opportunities to focus on the technical,
performance elements of their practice – the preparation, delivery, the subject
matter, the context – rather than divulge discrepancies between anticipated
and experienced outcomes or query the personal values that enable them to
select one strategy over another. If pressed, some practitioners can articulate
sophisticated theoretical models to justify their practice decisions. For
example, student-centred theories of learning are often cited to explain
interactive elements within principally didactic lecture or seminar formats.
However, as academic developers seeking to support enhancement of
practice, it has become increasingly evident that it is only when underpinning
values are declared that academic developers and practitioners can find real
opportunities to engage in discussion about the purpose rather than simply
the practice of teaching. Models of learning foreground personal growth
through changes in perspective or “change as a person” (Marton & Säljö,
1997) as central to the most meaningful learning. The declaration and
intentional modification of personal values and their enactment in teaching
over time, however, is difficult to achieve through traditional expository models
of teaching observation. Despite the publication of numerous research papers
advocating developmental teaching observation, ten years on, Cosh’s (1998)
caveat that there is no evidence that individuals develop their teaching
through the judgements or comments of others still holds true in relation to
teaching observation. As Cosh contends, the emphasis on the novice
practitioner being developed by the expert observer potentially limits the selfawareness and self-development of the practitioner in favour of insights and
values imposed from an observing other. The key is to find methods of
personal declaration that are expedient in these contexts.
Using concept mapping in teaching observation
It was initially understood that the use of concept mapping within a teaching
observation enabled university teachers to articulate previously unexpressed
personal theories of teaching. Within the process of teaching observation, this
explicit declaration would afford the observer and teacher a direct comparison
between the statement of these personal theories of teaching and their
observed enactment in practice. It was the intention that prior to their teaching
observation teachers would construct a concept map explaining their
understanding of learning and teaching. The map would then provide the
framework for discussion of the observed teaching and post-observation
reflection. Maps could be revised during the programme in advance of further
teaching observations as the practitioner’s conception of learning and
teaching developed over the course of the professional development
100
programme. This declaration facilitated the documenting of change in both
personal theory and its realisation in practice across a series of teaching
observations so as to inform practitioner reflection. Ultimately, however, as
this approach to concept mapping was used with practitioners, the academic
developers’ assumptions about the nature of reflection that underpinned the
act of concept mapping began to unravel. As the process of using concept
maps to inform discussion before and after teaching observation evolved it
became clear that the mapping practices were evolving in line with the
typology of reflection articulated by Jay and Johnson (2002). This typology
identifies three dimensions of reflective thinking – descriptive, comparative
and critical. The “descriptive” dimension of reflection is a process of setting
the problem and identifying what will be the focus of the reflection. The
“comparative” dimension of the typology requires thinking about the issue
under review from multiple and comparative perspectives. The third dimension
of the typology – “critical” reflection involves “the constant returning to one’s
own understanding of the problem at hand” (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 79). Yet
whilst the priority of “critical” reflection, as described within Jay and Johnson’s
typology, is to understand experiences within the wider historical, sociopolitical and moral context, the nature of criticality achieved within the concept
mapping approach to teaching observation ultimately encapsulates Barnett’s
idea of “critical being” (Barnett, 1997). It is the capacity for using concept
maps to develop practitioners’ way of being as teachers.
101
5.3. An afterword on research led teaching (by David Hay)
In 2007 Dr Ian Kinchin and I published a paper with the title, The Myth of the
Research Led Teacher (Kinchin & Hay, 2007) In this work we tried to suggest
that presuming a simple correspondence between ‘expert’ research status
and ability as a teacher was risky. I stand by this opinion but the title for the
work was also sufficiently leading to suggest that excellence in both teaching
and research were not concordant. To explain our view better we should have
distinguished more clearly between a view of teaching as accurate, organised
and succinct delivery of content and the broader dialogic issue of doing
teaching and research simultaneously. If the view of teaching is focussed only
on transmission of facts and information then good teaching can be measured
by assessing how well it is explained; how logical it is in structure; and how
likely it is that that the academic ‘pitch’ will correspond with the student’s prior
knowledge and experience. In this there is no a-priori relationship between
the skills of a researcher and the attributes of good teaching beyond any
incidental overlap in intelligence or commitment. But if our primary definition of
teaching is focussed towards the enabling of student learning in the researchled situations of discourse, practice and methodology, then the best university
teachers can only be those who are also research active. In the disciplines of
university research and study, understanding emerges in a continued dialogue
with subject and field and in this context the people best able to facilitate
learning must be those who are already part of developing the dialogues of
higher education. At its most fundamental, this conclusion is an outcome of
this project. I therefore end this report by suggesting that the most important
measure of excellence in teaching at King’s College is not accordance with a
transmission model of teaching quality assurance, but a deeper and more
practice-based commitment to the dialogic forms of higher education. One of
the most important contributions that King’s can make to the wider scene of
academic development is through continued research to surface and develop
the dialogues of respective disciples thereby encouraging a vision of teaching
and research as one single whole. This is to underline the issue of
participation in a research-led community as the fundamental issue of
university pedagogy.
Because we have come to think of teaching and research as part of a single
academic whole, we have sought to problematise the issue of academic
development in a broader dialogic frame; one that envisions teaching and
research as participation and contribution to the shaping of disciplinary
practice and knowledge. To see university teaching and research like this is to
think of higher education as the place in which the personal epistemologies of
students and lecturers are shaped simultaneously through enculturation but
also to suggest that teaching and research are the very processes by which
the epistemologies, methods, practices and debates of a discipline emerge.
As a result we also argue that dividing the academic job description into
teaching and research as discrete activities is fundamentally unhelpful to
academic development because it sets up teaching and research as opposing
duties.
102
5.4. References for Part Five
Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity, Journal of
Educational Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A critical business (SRHE/Open
University Press, Buckingham).
Beck, J. & Young, M. (2005) “The assault on the professions and the
restructuring of academic professional identities: a Bernsteinian analysis”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 26 (2): 183-197.
Bernstein, B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse London,
Routledge.
changes to the teaching funding method 08/28 Bristol, HEFCE.
Cosh, J. (1998) Peer Observation in Higher Education – A Reflective
Approach, Innovations in Teaching and Training International, 35(2), 171-176.
Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The birth of the Prison
Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Gibbs, G. (2001) Analysis of strategies for learning and teaching Bristol,
HEFCE.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004) “The impact of training of university teachers
on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to
learning of their students” Active Learning in Higher Education 5 (1): 87-100.
Hammersley-Fletcher, L. & Orsmond, P. (2005) Reflecting on reflective
practices within peer observation, Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213224.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), (2008) Consultation
on
Ho, A. (2000) A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model
for programme design, International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1),
30-41.
Jay, J. & Johnson, K. (2002) Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective
practice for teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.
Kinchin, I.M. & Hay, D.B. (2007) The myth of the research led teacher.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 43-61.
Knight, P., Tait, J. & Yorke, M. (2006) The professional learning of teaching in
higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319-339.
Land, R. (2004) Educational Development: discourse, identity and practice
Maidenhead, OU Press.
103
Mackenzie, H., McShane, K. & Wilcox, S. (2007) Challenging Performative
Fabrication: Seeking authenticity in academic development practice,
International Journal for Academic Development, 12(1), 45-54.
Martin, G. & Double, J. (1998) Developing Higher Education Teaching Skills
Through Peer Observation and Collaborative Reflection, Innovations in
Education and Training International, 35(2), 161-170.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1997) Approaches to Learning, in: F. Marton, D.
Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds) The Experiences of Learning: Implications for
Teaching and Studying in Higher Education 2nd Edition (Edinburgh, Scottish
Academic Press), pp. 39-58.
Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J.W. & Nolan, R. (2005) “Experiences of Academic
Unit Reorganisation: Organisational Identity and Identification in
Organisational Change” The Review of Higher Education 28 (4), 597-619.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher Education
for a Learning Society, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education (The Dearing Report) London, HMSO.
Novak, J. D. (1998) Learning, creating and using knowledge: concept maps
as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (Mahaw, Lawrence Erlbaum).
Piper, D.W. (1994) Are Professors Professional? London, Kingsley.
Rowland, S. (2001) “Surface learning about teaching in higher education: The
need for more critical conversations” International Journal for Academic
Development 6 (2), 162-167.
Rust, C. (ed) (2000) Improving Student learning. Improving Student Learning
through the disciplines Oxford, The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.
Stefani, L. & Elton, L. (2002), “Continuing Professional Development of
Academic Teachers through Self-initiated Learning”, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27, 117 – 129.
Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory Oxford,
Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning and Identity
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
104
APPENDIX 1
DIALOGIC CONCEPT MAPPING IN HISTORY – SOME
EXAMPLES
Student 1
105
A Comparison of Student 1's Maps
Morphology
Before
Network
Connectedness Highly interconnected.
Useful blend of abstract
Concepts:
concepts (omits British
Nature and
empire as a central
Content
concept).
After
Network
Highly interconnected.
Concepts now a mix of abstract and
concrete. Most make good historical
sense (imperial goods perhaps is one
that does not).
Most linked and (I suspect)
constraints of space and time explain
some missing links. Interestingly links
are often similar highlighting similarity
of concepts. One or two 'missing
links’, i.e. between expansion and
rebellion.
Commercial shipping has the
strongest set of links.
All concepts linked
strongly, although one or
Link Quality/
two of the individual links
Variety
might be questioned.
Hard to see a hierarchy
Orientation
here.
Interestingly this map
breaks the rules: the
A historian might question some of
phrase British Empire is
the specific arguments and content: it
omitted, or replaced by
is hard to elaborate an argument in
dominant nation. The map this format. There is again a focus on
concerns power and offers British power and the forces driving
Overall
a rich and integrated
expansion, rather than on impacts
Comments
starting point.
and resistance.
The overall structure has remained similar with some changes in
content. What has changed is the number of concepts and links;
and also some concrete concepts have been drawn in. The
willingness to bend the rules of the exercise to present an
Dynamism
appropriate approach is a strength.
Course Assessment Mark
Ab (72)
Note on the categories in the tables:
The categories of analysis used in these tables follow Hay and Kinchin’s typology as
follows.
Morphology: The overall structure: spoke, chain, or network.
Connectedness: The degree of integration within this structure.
Concepts: Nature and Content: This has been added to Kinchin and Hay's scheme.
Given the need for each historian to coin a vocabulary to describe the subject, an
assessment of the concepts offered, their nature (factual/abstract), clarity, and
success, is made.
Link Quality/Variety: Assesses the linking phrases in a similar way.
Orientation: Considers the degree of hierarchy shown in the maps.
Overall Comments: An assessment of each map as a whole.
Dynamism: An assessment of the changes between the two maps.
106
College Assessment Mark: Average of the students’ best six essays during the
course. An alphabetical mark scheme is used. The approximate percentage
equivalent is in brakets.
107
Student 2
108
A Comparison of Student 2's Maps
After
Network
Two densely linked clusters, one
A few cross-links but
broadly connected with causation and
Connectedness basically a spoke structure. another with consequences.
Concept:
Mostly abstract, to do with broad
Nature and
manifestations of empire and the
Content *
Vague in terms of detail.
processes underpinning this.
Varied linking phrases.
Mostly concern causes
and effect. Few are
Again, generally consistent, linking
Link Quality/
simplistic though, e.g.
phrases describe the interactions
Variety
USA- hated- imperialism.
between concepts.
Less of a hierarchy here but an
interesting and useful, integrated
whole. Although not immediately
visually apparent, there are a number
of useful and appropriate distinctions:
Little hierarchy or
e.g. International, Metropolitan and
integration but some
Colonial levels of analysis;
Orientation
attempts.
interactions of officials, traders, etc.
This map captures well many of the
Lack of content natural for abstract connections underpinning the
before but beginnings of
history of the British empire,
Overall
reflections on power,
especially the causes of imperialism,
Comments
impact and connections.
and the way it provoked resistance.
Before and after maps show a willingness to think about the
processes underpinning the history of the Empire. The later map
reveals matured reflection but has many similarities – holistic
orientation, and some similar concepts (merchants- monopoly
Dynamism
trading company).
Morphology
Before
Spoke or 'weak' network
Course Assessment Mark
ba (69%)
109
Student 3
110
A Comparison of Student 3's Maps
Before
Spokes
Some cross links, mainly
regional categorisationsi.e.. part of the
Connectedness commonwealth.
Morphology
Concepts:
Nature and
Content *
Mainly regional
descriptions. None
abstract.
After
Mainly multiple chains.
Some cross-links here but really a
series of isolated chains.
A combination now of the concrete
(regions, events, historians – Cain
and Hopkins) and a few more abstract
categories (British Economy and
Indigenous people, patriotism).
All links are labelled. Possible that
one or two links may be omitted due
to time - Gentlemanly Capitalism is
the central concept in the work of
Cain and Hopkins, it is surprising
these are not linked and not linked to
the British economy. The links
combine description (some simplistic)
and argument (e.g. patriotism a key
support for the British empire). Many
of the links are weak and would need
clarification in argument.
Again not that varied,
mainly a geographical
description. Section on
Navy, USA and revolution
beginnings of reflections
on power. India-Ghandi a
weak description
historically but beginnings
Link Quality/
of thoughts about
Variety
nationalism?
There is little hierarchy
here. The Commonwealth
is the most linked concept
but this is purely for
British Empire and the Dominions are
Orientation
geographical reasons.
the main focus.
Overall clearly little
knowledge. Marginal
Overall, this remains an attempt to
evidence of the beginnings transmit information with some
of reflections on power and attempts at analysis. Nationalism and
resistance and certainly an (perhaps) Gentlemanly capitalism
awareness of the
seem possible concepts from which to
Overall
geographical dimensions
build some integration: although each
Comments
of the British Empire.
would run into heavy historical fire.
Considerable elaboration of content between the first and the
second maps. This has, ultimately taken the form of the creation of
sets of chains. The geographical orientation remains, there are few
abstractions in the new map. The categories in the chains don't
Dynamism
offer easy ways to integrate but this is possible.
Course Assessment Mark
B+?+ (66)
111
Student 4
112
A Comparison of Student 4's Maps
Morphology
Before
Spoke
Limited. A few concepts
Connectedness are very weakly linked.
Link Quality/
Variety
A mix of abstract and
concrete. Clear little prior
knowledge. There is an
attempt to abstract.
Weak/ many concepts
unlinked. Overall, no clear
picture emerges.
Orientation
Little linkage. The most
linked concept is 'Loss of
independence' and its
linked cluster, oppression.
Are there seeds here of
more abstract reflections?
Overall
Comments
Clearly little prior
knowledge but also of
some, rather unstructured,
reflection on the meaning
of empire.
Concepts:
Nature and
Content *
After
Multiple Chains
Long chains established, but few
attempts, even unlabelled, to
establish connections.
Large number, a mix of abstract and
concrete. Some of the more abstract
concepts are crudely deployed, e.g.
Indian nationalism -> Indian rebellion.
Frequent use of 'hybrid' concepts e.g.
'war in South Africa’.
Very few links. Those that do exist
seem weak and at times historically
simplistic.
Little hierarchy. The chains very
closely resemble particular topics on
the course, e.g.: India in the c18,
Slave trade, British imperial
expansion, etc. Some similar
concepts recur: trade, rebellions,
which might in the future be
integrated.
The task has been perceived as
attempting to summarise the content
of particular sessions on the course.
The map focuses on particular topics
and knowledge but does not
successfully integrate these or pick up
on patterns within them.
There has been much change here in terms of the number of
concepts and the structure has shifted from spoke to sets of chains.
On a broad level some similar concepts recur, trade/resistance.
Interestingly it is these – present in the original map (trade,
Dynamism
rebellion) – which offer the potential for integration.
Course Assessment Mark $
b+?+ (64)
113
Student 5
114
A Comparison of Student 5's Maps
Before
Isolated Concepts/ weak
Morphology
network lay out
Isolated Clusters are linked
by a few links, mainly
Connectedness unlabeled
Very Abstract. The
Concepts:
concepts themselves are
Nature and
to do with power and
Content *
control.
Link Quality/
Variety
Orientation
Very few concepts are
linked and the links are
weak/ indeed hard to
understand.
It is hard to see a definite
hierarchy although
imperialism seems the
central concept.
After
Weak Network'
Arguably, composed of two clusters
above and below British empire with
some interlinking of two.
Again all abstract but few remain
similar to the old concepts. Many are
discipline specific (formal/informal
empire; direct and indirect rule).
Most are labelled now, however the
quality of the links is perhaps
questionable. The meaning is unclear
(map with British race, a survivor from
the first map). Some of the links show
a misapplication of conceptsindirect/direct rule.
Overall
Comments
British Empire is at the heart.
Again, this map is hard to classify. It
again shows a strong orientation
A map that defies easy
towards abstraction, but also towards
classification. It looks like a the simplification of relationships
network but given that the
between concepts. At several points
concepts are unlinked, it
one can see where the specific could
might equally be seen as a be brought in. There remains little
set of essentially disparate evidence of dialogue with the subject
abstractions.
matter.
Dynamism
The two maps are almost totally different in content and the latter
one has more explicit links. Both seem weak and hazy. Some
refining has gone on in terms of the individual concepts, but little
development of strong links between concepts, or of a dialogue
with the specific.
Course Assessment Mark $
B/4 (58%, student only completed
four essays during the semester)
115
Anna (B+) – (Number in brackets = mark in sessionals)
Map 3
Each chain is effectively a different narrative about the causes and effects of
expansion in four different case studies. Listening to the student this does not
preclude the other approaches, she says she can draw different maps. There
is an interest in the process of expansion and there is a general model implicit
(economic expansion generates resistance which precipitates more formal
expansion). This is closely related to that offered by Robinson and Gallagher.
Given the student's awareness of the differences between regions, asking her
how the common features implicit in her map (rebellion, trade, etc) might be a
way to encourage her to make her model more explicit. It would also be
interesting to ask her to draw some of the other maps from other perspectives
(what perspectives does she consider possible). This ought not only be a
focus on other themes (e.g. the ways in which different societies overseas
interacted with empire is largely unexplored etc) but her approach, to present
a causal chain of events rather than an unfolding process.
There are a number of interesting contrasts here e.g. how and why does
Canada have a different fate from the 13 colonies? Can we really talk about
missionaries under the general heading of ‘economic causes of expansion’,
where do they fit in the theories alluded to, etc. In other words, there are a
number of points of detail that can usefully be expanded.
The boxes display some knowledge, but we might ask the student to
reconsider certain points – i.e.- Lenin and Schumpeter don’t offer conspiracy
116
theories; and most obviously perhaps the relationship between rebellion in
1830s Jamaica and 1807 needs reconsidering!
The approach in the dialogue, and here, shows a sense of the interplay of
fact/events, interpretation (her own and of other historians although these
seem disintegrated), and the historical processes which these events reveal
and these interpretations describe.
Maps 1-3
Very interesting and self-aware comments on progression. There is a sense of
progression through the maps, of greater knowledge, but also of the
limitations of approaching empire primarily through the issue of economics.
She notes links between separate concepts, and also emphasises the
possibility of other maps and other approaches, especially those concerning
identity, rebellion and culture. This is excellent, it shows a sense of an as yet
occluded whole which might be pursued through further study and revision –
she certainly should not be asking to revise economics when the revision
seminars come around.
It is curious that the course is perceived as emphasising the economic. I think
the lecture circus is more varied – although my own lectures always have an
economic element (this is one of my key interests). Other colleagues though,
Jon Wilson and to a lesser extent Andrew Porter, will have different
approaches. Yet this is not relevant – the main context for teaching was the
supervision. Were these slanted to the economic? I ask this not in selfdefence but to clarify an important issue. This student, along with two others
in the study (Susan is the odd one out), was in the same supervision group.
We study one topic weekly, the aim is to produce an essay but students don’t
always (they are required to so six in an 11 week term). I unfortunately have
no records of the run of topics (it is impossible given that we negotiate as we
go along and the one stipulation is that, because of limited library resources,
no two groups study the same thing). So it is hard to know whether we talked
about economics and expansion more, whether the students found this more
accessible, whether I am better able to facilitate discussions on this, etc. What
I will say is that I don’t exclude other topics deliberately and the student
mentions on the diagram the Indian ‘mutiny’, Canadian Rebellions,
missionaries, the impact of settlers on Aboriginees and Maori, suggesting
some material for a different approach. The course book as a whole has
plenty of non-economic material that can be pursued and I regularly set topics
on gender, the construction of ‘tribal identities’, resistance in India and Africa,
Britain’s imperial culture etc. That said, given the ad hoc method of choosing
materials, it is possible this group took a particularly economic ‘route’, or that
the more memorable discussions were the economic ones. This is not to
blame the student, but to suggest that my recollection and understanding of
the course, and that which made the greatest impact on her differ. I suspect it
is my own image as an economic historian (I’m actually a historian of the
economic culture of empire), and the fact that I provided a hand out written by
myself (from a book) which summarised the theories on the diagram has
perhaps counted for much here.
117
It is also worth noting that her first map contains several references to
economics and resistance, which persist in the later maps. It is equally
possible that her later focus on economics has arisen because the economics
session tied in more closely with her initial thinking.
The critical issue here is that, for whatever reason, the perception of the
course (and possibly its execution) is out of alignment with its aims (which are
not just to teach about the economics of empire). (This all ties in with my
sense that we need to be much clearer discussing the key themes or
questions running through the course.)
Yet there was, perhaps, enough, to make the student very aware of the other
approaches. A key question for the follow up is what she does next. Does she
pursue the non-economic issues, or make the strategic decision that it is
better to stick to what she knows?
Overall, one is struck by the confident way in which the maps have enabled
the student to reflect upon her own learning, identify possible weakness or
gaps, and discuss these openly.
118
Peter (B+?+)
Map 3
The map and its construction is a free flow of ideas. Curiously this student too
puts expansion at the heart but other issues, nationalism, and resistance
begin to creep in. Again there is the awareness that the map is only partial
and obvious ‘sweating blood’ in its constructions.
Again there are one or two slips or factual errors – he needs to check what
Cain and Hopkins argue for example… But the process he is going through is
useful and encouraging – details can be checked but should not mask this. He
is seeking to integrate history, literature, processes and more abstract
concepts, and these are held in creative tension. The best example was the
way nationalism arose out of Quebecois resistance but we might well want
him then to talk about India, or ask why there was no nationalism in America
to develop this.
Nice to hear that the teaching ‘struck a chord’ and interesting to note that for
him the focus on expansion is explained by what ‘struck a chord’ with him. (I
include this purely for my own purposes.)
Peter- Maps 1-3
119
Fascinating discussion. He (rightly) analyses the progression between maps
from a list of places through to an interlinked set of concepts. The comment at
the end that it’s ‘not about the countries any more’ is interesting – as I argued
this identification of common themes if very much a part of a big picture paper
(did you use this phrase). It is interesting that he wishes he did more of this
when revising to help him think how topics linked together: this is exactly what
KCL History department examiners’ reports bemoan! The emphasis on the
map being a personal understanding ties in with definitions of a deep
approach to learning. Interestingly it is in revision as much as in the
supervisions that he seems to locate the shift. It is beginning in the 2nd map
but not the end.
He seems also to come up against the limitations of what you can say in a
concept map – he comments on trying to express whole sets of ideas rather
than one or two individually.
120
Edwin (B)
Map 3
Three things seem striking from this map. Firstly the ease with which it was
constructed (and its close similarity to the second map). Secondly, compared
to the previous two, the certainty with which a focus on expansion is
presented. Finally, the relative absence of references to ‘history or
historiography’. Initially this looks a better map – it is tidier – but in some ways
it suggests an over emphasis on abstraction, and less of a sense of dialogue
with historiography or history. Perhaps this helps explain the slippage in the
sessional exam into 2:2 – the others are holding the subject in greater tension.
As a model of the issue of expansion though it is a useful exposition and basis
for discussion. The feedback to this student would involve a strong challenge
to explain and justify these links, and perhaps the question as to whether the
focus on expansion is justified.
It is curious that this is ‘basically what we were taught’.
Edwin Maps 1-3
Again definitely a sense of having ‘learnt’. It is interesting to hear him talking
about his prior expectations on the map – Grandparents’ views on
imperialism. Again he considers the central theme of his third map to be
power and economics (and considers this to be the central emphasis of the
teaching – not my perception but see comments above). He certainly feels
this to be more his own, but also exhibits a certain cynicism – he could argue
other lines but is going to argue this. Thinking of Parry’s famous hierarchy this
121
suggests he is in a phase of relativism, and also has his approach coloured by
exams – he’s imagining a question not seeing the course as a whole. It would
be interesting to ask him, from his own map whether ‘expansion’ really is all
down to economics, and whether this is the only story to be told about the
empire. Although more coherent, it would be worth asking him about this and
suggesting the need (and given recent examiners reports, the strategic value)
to take other approaches.
In some ways this interview is less revealing than the others, less reflective,
and again a key piece of feedback here would be the dangers of
overconfidence.
Overall so far
These three together, taught together, are curious. One can see that many
profitable discussions could be had on the basis of these maps – not least
whether the particular emphasis which has emerged is appropriate.
Sara
Map 3
I think my initial reaction on seeing this was overly harsh. There are lots of
interesting ideas here and as a whole many big themes are addressed – yes
economics and expansion, but also cultural difference and racial ideology.
This student has taken an admirably broad view of the task and is presenting
an argument (I think) that empire is both an economic and cultural system. In
122
a curious aside – of all the students, this map shows the closest resemblance
to my own map, and to the goals of the course.
That said there are a number of issues which might be used to offer feedback
to the student. 1- There are one or two missing themes: e.g. resistance, or
more generally the effects of empire overseas. This begins to emerge in the
discussion of ‘tribalism’. 2- We might want to explore some of the linkages and
concepts in more detail. For example – the relationship between ‘racism’ and
‘racialism’ or wealth and the creation of goods. 3- On a trivial level, we might
want to question some of the terminology here. For example what is meant by
‘superiority of race’. From the context it is clear that the student means the
ideas of racial superiority underpinning British views of the world, however he
ought to be aware that less charitable interpretations are possible. 4- Perhaps
most fundamentally – the map and the dialogue were very abstract. We might
want to encourage this student to engage in more of a dialogue with evidence
and with historiography; i.e. to ask the questions ‘where’s your evidence’ and
‘how does this relate to other interpretations’? For example the discussion of
difference could interestingly be situated in relation to the work of, say,
Edward Said and post-colonialism more generally. 5- Finally, one feature less
present here than in other maps is the diversity of the empire – the student is
(bravely and admirably) determined to present a whole but how will he
account for diversity. This interplay of the general and the specific is at the
heart of history.
It terms of learning history, and of a Kolb cycle, these ideas need testing
against evidence (and discussion of evidence to support), and abstraction can
fruitfully be compared to the work of others to help refine one’s ideas and
interpretations. In other words there are several dialogues this student could
engage in further which would help him to progress.
Maps 1-3
These comments are interesting, in some ways modifying what I said above.
Firstly Sarah offers a frank and useful analysis of the development of her
maps, and especially the way in which map three is much more linked. The
emphasis on history as argument as opposed to a set of facts is useful,
although perhaps (given what I have said above) the next step is to think
about the inter-relationship between the two. The comment that the map could
be used to explain any particular episode is also insightful.
This raises the question of Sara’s relatively weak exam performance. Having
seen this, (and marked the paper), I think that this is as much to do with her
conceptions of what should go in an essay – which when I began teaching her
she had not previously written – as it is to do with her abilities as a historical
thinker. In other words, it is the skills of presentation and argument which she
needs to hone – especially the need to re-incorporate evidence. This ties in
very closely with the analysis of the map above.
Overall though, the maps show striking progress, masked to some extent by
Sara’s essays. This ultimately is part of their value as a diagnostic tool.
123
Overall comments
There are a number of points to be made about this.
1- The differences between Sara’s map and the other maps are interesting. I
think it is worth nothing that she took a very different route through the course,
studying later topics. I suspect that as the course progresses the economics
and issues of expansion become less dominant.
2- The maps both individually and together are valuable in a number of ways.
The first is how acutely all the students analyse their own maps, and how
powerfully they prompt them to reflect on their own learning. All to greater or
lesser extent associate their third maps with increasing confidence and see
them as increasingly personal. They also are often aware how their own
preconceptions have been incorporated into a broader framework. If learning
is the personal construction of meaning upon prior knowledge and
understanding, then the maps seem likely to promote deep learning.
3- The ‘content’ and emphasis of the map (and the predominance of
economics and expansion in the first three) raises issues about revision,
reading lists, and course design. This group (all taught together) for one
reason or another seem to have come away feeling some issues have been
over-emphasised. This information is a useful basis for reflection for teachers
(what sessions do I run?), students (what do I need to revise, what topics and
sessions might I want to revisit in the process), and course designers (have
we got the balance right, are some sections of the list better than others).
4) As an aid to teaching they would be useful as a basis for dialogue between
student and teacher and between students. A conversation between, say,
Sara with her interlinked and generalised map and Anna – with a focus on
specific episodes and unsure how to escape a focus on economics and
expansion, could clearly be advantageous as a means of testing and revising
one another’s ideas. There are a number of forms these interactions might
take.
a) Holistic comparisons of maps as a whole e.g. – what’s the big
picture being presented here? Is anything missing? Does this big
picture hold against the evidence?
b) Comparisons and expositions of particular sections e.g.. – this bit on
economics: is anything missing (i.e. what about capital exports)? Are
the links strong? Are there other things we might like to say? Again,
does it hold good against the evidence?
c) Analysis of particular concepts and links. Do they make sense? Do
they pan out in practice (again as tested against the evidence)?
These together provide a framework to allow the maps to facilitate dialogue on
a number of fronts.
124
a) Dialogues concerning the arguments we want to make – and such
dialogue might be expected to promote greater nuance than the
maps show. (i.e. testing against the abstractions of others).
b) Dialogues about the relationships of these arguments with evidence
– e.g.. particular episodes, statistics, and so on (i.e. testing against
further observations)
c) Dialogues about the language used to express our ideas. Can we
find modes of expression to encompass the complexity and nuance,
to present general ideas in a sensitive and concise way, etc? This is
an equally important part of learning in any discipline. Here the
limited amount of test in maps is a postitive advantage. They beg
questions from others about means of terms and about evidence
which become questions about style. Therefore, discussions of
language and style become related to discussions about history and,
crucially, can help illustrate why particular conventions exist.
125
APPENDIX 2
DIALOGIC CONCEPT MAPPING AN ACADEMIC’S MAPS OF
TEACHING
Before
Contributes to:
Subject
knowledge
Style of
presentation skill
Subject skills
Facilitates
Process
through
Critical
reasoning
Imported /developed and ? Through
These media with my emphasis
lecturer/ /
Supervisor
Lectures
Monitors
outcome
Exams
Supervision
Individual
Studies
E-mails /
Challenge
ideas
?
Assessment
i.e. exams,
Coursework's etc
Demonstrating
outcome
Seeking
to acquire
?
?
?
Undergraduate
students
?
?
Graduate
Students
taught
?
?
?
Graduate
Students
research
Seek to develop
& demonstrate
126
Seeks to establish and participated in
Teacher
Learning History
The recorded
remnants of the past
in the present
may be defined as
Is still
Takes place through
for the
Learning
Process
Conducive Contexts
for
Together
record
Primary
Sources
of
constructed from
A cycle of
Secondary
Sources
Observation
includes
Historiography,
lectures, any other
non—pramary
source material
generates
A particular approach to
Through further
Generates increasing
of
Abstraction/
hypothesization
/ reflection/
analysis
Refinement
Against other
Leading to
Historical
Knowledge
generates
then
informs
has
acquired
Historical
methodology
Tested
Dialogue
(with self
and
others)
which are
through
which enable
Both of which
are
presented
through
Contested
includes conventions on
Oral and written
communications
Together constitute
In and through
Understanding/
knowledge and
experience
of
History
127
Students
Seek to develop
Degree
Programme
Engage
in
comprising
comprising
Courses
/
Modules
(including
Take place through
curriculum)
Learning
Process
requires
Dialogue
seeks to facilitate
HE Context
Activities
takes place in
seeks to facilitate
engages in
Participates in and helps
shape
Teacher
collaborate
i.e. Lectures, Seminars,
Private Study, Formative
assessment etc
Colleagues and
Institution
of
Historical
Knowledge
has acquired/ is informed by
Experience/ Knowledge/
Understanding
of
Historical
Method
are selections
from
128
Students
often labelled
Surface Learning
will adopt
Equated
with a lower
Approach to Learning
may be
contribute to
possess
May shape
Deep
Learning
Equated
with higher
possess
Past Approaches to
and Experiences of
learning
will affect
Peer Perceptions of context
will shape
Institution
may affect
will also possess
Colleagues
Quality of learning
May or may not
be seen as
affording
an interpretation of
Teacher
Perceptions of
context
can affect
of
Features of Context
Collectively extablish
May or may not
embodied in and comprising
Assessment
(hidden curriculum)
Learning
Activities
Teaching Strategy
Course Design
Curriculum
Align
may affect
129
seeks to record
Testing and
refinement of
ideas
Integral to
Learning process
Engages in
which enable
Student/ learner
requires
Oral and written
communication
through
Dialogues
a particular form of
Feedback on work
with
generating
Formative
Others
Teacher
Peers
Self:
‘inter
nal
dialo
gue’
may be
conducts
includes
Assessment
may be
Summative
not directly a part of
Seeks to record outcome of
130