learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Differing definitions and models of pedagogy<br />
Within the general literature of education, definitions<br />
of pedagogy abound, but they can be placed on<br />
a continuum, from definitions which concentrate<br />
narrowly on teaching techniques to those which deal<br />
with broader issues such as the significance of culture,<br />
power, social structure and identity. The treatment<br />
of pedagogy in the <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> literature leans<br />
heavily towards psychological rather than sociological<br />
definitions of the term. For example, when Kolb,<br />
a psychologist, is discussing the implications of his<br />
research for ‘training design’, he envisages the following<br />
four roles for the teacher, whom he prefers to call<br />
the ‘facilitator’ – communicator of information,<br />
guide or taskmaster, coach or helper, and role model<br />
(2000, 17). Zukas and Malcolm (2002), who are<br />
both adult educators working within a different<br />
paradigm, identified in the literature the five pedagogic<br />
roles of assurer of quality and efficiency, facilitator<br />
of <strong>learning</strong>, reflective practitioner, critical practitioner<br />
and situated learner within a community of practice.<br />
It is fascinating that, when both are discussing the main<br />
identities of the teacher, the two approaches have only<br />
one role in common, namely, the facilitation of <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
Rather surprisingly, Simon was content to use<br />
The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of pedagogy<br />
as ‘the science of teaching’ (1999, 39), which suggests<br />
a concern to establish the general principles of teaching<br />
and <strong>learning</strong>. But for adult educators such as Zukas<br />
and Malcolm (2002, 215), pedagogy is not primarily<br />
concerned with a well-developed repertoire of teaching<br />
skills, but with:<br />
a critical understanding of the social, policy and<br />
institutional context, as well as a critical approach<br />
to the content and process of the educational/training<br />
transaction … the most important elements of pedagogy<br />
are the relations between educator, student and<br />
institution, the social context, purpose and ethical<br />
implications of educational work, and the nature<br />
and social role of educational knowledge<br />
Leach and Moon (1999, 268), clearly influenced<br />
by Lave and Wenger (1991), go further in arguing that<br />
pedagogy should be concerned with the construction<br />
and practice of <strong>learning</strong> communities:<br />
Pedagogy is more than the accumulation of techniques<br />
and strategies: arranging a classroom, formulating<br />
questions, developing explanations, creating<br />
a curriculum. It is informed by a view of mind, of <strong>learning</strong><br />
and learners, of the kind of knowledge that is valued<br />
and above all by the educational outcomes that<br />
are desired.<br />
The literature is replete, however, not only with<br />
different definitions, but also with a variety of models<br />
of pedagogy and approaches to it. The range extends<br />
from those adopted by cognitive psychology (eg Eggen<br />
and Kauchak 2001), to sociology (Bernstein 1996),<br />
workplace <strong>learning</strong> (Fuller and Unwin 2002) and adult<br />
education (Boud 1989). Teachers, tutors and managers<br />
working in the post-16 sector are likely to have been<br />
influenced to varying degrees by these different<br />
traditions, research interests, theoretical frameworks<br />
and languages; and yet these are the groups which<br />
remain to be convinced that <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> have<br />
important implications for their pedagogy. In the<br />
absence of an explicit, coherent and agreed theory<br />
of pedagogy, any attempt to convince practitioners<br />
of the usefulness of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> will have to take<br />
account of these conflicting and implicit traditions<br />
in different sectors within post-16 <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
This report is not, however, the place to provide<br />
either an introduction to the vast literature on teaching<br />
and <strong>learning</strong> in the post-16 sector or a detailed<br />
explanation of all the various traditions within pedagogy<br />
in the UK which have relevance for post-16 <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
That would amount to another research project, which<br />
would examine the history, the theory, the practice<br />
and the current status of humanistic pedagogy, critical<br />
pedagogy and andragogy (the teaching of adults),<br />
to mention but three. Instead, we outline briefly two<br />
significant contributions: one from psychology (that<br />
of Jerome Bruner) and one from sociology (that of Basil<br />
Bernstein), which have yet to be integrated into one<br />
comprehensive socio-psychological theory of pedagogy.<br />
Bruner’s (1996) main argument is that educational<br />
reform necessarily involves changing the folk<br />
pedagogical theories of not just teachers, but also<br />
of students. The significance of Bruner’s contribution<br />
is that he shifts the focus from different types<br />
of <strong>learning</strong> style to four alternative models of the minds<br />
of learners. To Bruner, it matters profoundly whether<br />
teachers see students as either empty receptacles<br />
to be filled with propositional knowledge; or as<br />
apprentices in thinking who acquire ‘know-how’ through<br />
imitation; or as sophisticated knowers who grasp the<br />
distinction between personal and objective knowledge;<br />
or as collaborative thinkers who can learn through<br />
participation how their own and other people’s minds<br />
work. Bruner wants all ‘four perspectives to be fused<br />
into some congruent unity’ and wants all teachers<br />
and students to become more metacognitive,<br />
to be as aware of how they go about teaching and<br />
<strong>learning</strong> as they are about the subject matter. In his<br />
own words, improvements in pedagogy are predicated<br />
on teachers and students understanding the minds<br />
of learners and on ‘getting teachers (and students)<br />
to think explicitly about their folk psychological<br />
assumptions, in order to bring them out of the shadows<br />
of tacit knowledge’ (1996, 47; original emphasis).<br />
A pressing issue for this review is whether it would<br />
be more beneficial for the quality of <strong>learning</strong> in the<br />
post-compulsory sector to recommend that Bruner’s<br />
advice be followed rather than administering a <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong> instrument to a group of students and then<br />
discussing the outcomes with them.