King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching KILT

1. the alignment of learning and teaching using educational technology David B Hay King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching KILT

2. that explains the development of alternative to introduce 1. Learning Theory 2. Methods of Graphic Organisation 3. Cognitive Structures that can reveal which we use to explain illustrated by 4. A Model of Teaching 5. with considerable implications for Technology use In HE New Learning Frameworks and the design of Constructive Alignment to achieve to achieve

3. Learning Theory

4. Learning Processand Learning Quality

5. The Learning Process Jarvis 1987, 1985

6. the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person situation experience memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection

7. the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person situation there are 9 routes through the model three lead to ‘the person reinforced but relatively unchanged’ and are classed as NON LEARNING three lead through memorisation to either ‘reinforcement without change’ or to ‘the person changed’: these constitute NON REFLECTIVE LEARNING three lead to ‘the person changed and more experienced’ and are examples of REFLECTIVE LEARNING experience memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection

8. the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person non-learningpresumption, non-consideration and rejection

9. the person situation the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person reinforced but relatively unchanged experience experience reasoning and reflection the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person situation experience memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection

10. the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person memorisation the person changed and more experienced practice evaluation reflection non-reflective learningpreconscious, practice and memorisation

11. the person situation the person reinforced but relatively unchanged the person reinforced but relatively unchanged experience memorisation memorisation memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection

12. the person changed and more experienced the person practice evaluation reflection reflective learningcontemplation, practice and experience

13. the person situation memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection the person reinforced but relatively unchanged experience memorisation practice experimentation evaluation the person changed and more experienced reasoning and reflection

14. Learning QualityMarton and otherse.g.. F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.) 1984 The experience of learning (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press) Entwistle, 1990; Entwistle, McCune, & Walker, 2001; Entwistle & Tait, 1994; Entwistle, Meyer & Tait, 1991: Marton & Säljö,1976: Marton, 1986; Säljö, 1975.

15. Surface Learning an increase in knowledge or information about a subject acquired by gathering unrelated facts and without integration with what is already known KNOWLEDGE an ability to apply new knowledge to particular tasks and problems but without transferability APPLICATION an ability to recall new information but usually only short-term ENDURANCE

16. Deep Learning an increase in UNDERSTANDING of a subject involving grasp of underlying principles KNOWLEDGE an ability to apply newly understood principles in a variety of different contexts and situations APPLICATION long-lasting personal change ENDURANCE

17. and the design of 1. Learning Theory that explains the development of alternative to introduce 2. Methods of Graphic Organisation 3. Cognitive Structures that can reveal which we use to explain illustrated by 4. A Model of Teaching 5. with considerable implications for Technology use In HE New Learning Frameworks Constructive Alignment to achieve to achieve

18. Concept Mapping Novak and Colleagues e.g. Novak & Gowan, 1986; Novak, 1998

19. Meaningful versus Rote Leaning Learners relevant prior knowledge learner chooses meaningful material not to use to use assessed by selected by stored in meaningful learning rote learning meaningful learning produces constructive changes in network of neurones encourages teacher discourages

20. the concept mapping method Concepts are arranged hierarchically on a page Concepts are written in boxes and linked with directional linking statements to form propositions Each concept can be used only once Each concept can be linked to as many as is desirable

21. ANIMALS can be INVERTEBRATE VERTEBRATE M O R E S P E C I F I C mostly can be are COLDBLOODED WARMBLOODED ARTHROPODS can be insulated with TERRESTRIAL MARINE FUR FEATHERS e.g. crabs, lobsters e.g. sheep,cats e.g. robins, penguins e.g. beetles,flies

22. key concept link general concept general concept general concept link link concept concept link link link example event link example event link link less general concept less general concept concept concept cross link link link link example example specific concept specific concept specific concept object object cross link Novak’s scoring system

23. 9 8 14 18

24. = 4/10 = 5/10 = 8/10 = 7/10 = 6/10 = 9/10 Reducing rich data to a number = 6.5/10

25. Constructive Alignment to achieve to achieve 1. Learning Theory that explains the development of alternative to introduce 2. Methods of Graphic Organisation 3. Cognitive Structures that can reveal which we use to explain illustrated by 4. A Model of Teaching 5. with considerable implications for New Learning Frameworks Technology use In HE and the design of

26. a qualitative approach toconcept map analysisKinchin, Hay and colleagues Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000

27. invade CELLS causing DISEASES such as MEASLES ANTIBIOTICS only kill BACTERIA A smaller than VIRUSES B VIRUSES invade BACTERIA CELLS unaffected by cause ANTIBIOTICS cause DISEASES MEASLES C DISEASES caused by caused by smaller than not treatable with VIRUSES BACTERIA invade not killed by killed by cause MEASLES CELLS ANTIBIOTICS work outside

28. student maps comprise three basic structures

29. expert (teacher maps) are network structures lesson plans however, tend to be chains

30. A B SPOKES CHAINS are are CHANGIBLE are NON-LINEAR have no indicate are LINEAR CROSS-LINKS LEARNING READINESS so SIMPLE CHANGE C is NETWORKS comprise DIFFICULT indicate EXPERTIESE COMPLEXITY is indicative of because justified by sub-subsumes RESTRUCTURE which is requires ARGUMENT CONTRADICTION STABLE ameliorated through COLLAPSE

31. A E E C C B C A A D E B B D D E C A B D CONVENTIONAL TEACHING SEQUENCE EXPERT STRUCTURE PR STUDENT NON-ENGAGEMENT (memorization) STUDENT RECONSTRUCTION

32. ROTE LEARNING EXPERT LECTURE VIRUSES VIRUSES invade invade CELLS CELLS causing causing DISEASES DISEASES such as such as MEANING MAKER MEASLES MEASLES not treatable with not treatable with LEARNING READY ANTIBIOTICS ANTIBIOTICS VIRUSES smaller than invade only kill only kill CELLS BACTERIA cause unaffected by BACTERIA BACTERIA cause DISEASES ANTIBIOTICS MEASLES DISEASES DISEASES DISEASES caused by caused by VIRUSES BACTERIA caused by caused by caused by caused by MEASLES CELLS ANTIBIOTICS VIRUSES VIRUSES smaller than smaller than BACTERIA BACTERIA cause cause invade invade not killed by not killed by killed by killed by MEASLES MEASLES CELLS CELLS ANTIBIOTICS ANTIBIOTICS work outside work outside

33. using concept mapping • knowledge and understanding become graphic representations • change (that is indicative of learning) becomes measurable in quality terms • and the consequences of different teaching strategies are observable

34. Constructive Alignment to achieve to achieve 1. Learning Theory that explains the development of alternative to introduce 2. Methods of Graphic Organisation 3. Cognitive Structures that can reveal which we use to explain illustrated by 4. A Model of Teaching 5. with considerable implications for New Learning Frameworks Technology use In HE and the design of

35. if the approach is valid • then some of the predicted outcomes of learning should be measurable • deep versus surface learning (Marton) • learning versus non learning (Jarvis) • meaningful versus rote learning (Novak)

36. deep, surface and non-learningare observable phenomena Studies in Higher Education David B Hay (2007) Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non- learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1) due for publication Feb 2007 S R H E

37. retained concepts newly added concepts

38. newly added concept never incorporated basic knowledge structure remains unchanged = non learning new knowledge added superficially = surface learning old concepts now rejected

39. non – learning and surface learning are observable phenomena – but so to is deep (or meaningful) learning

41. meaningful learning old links broken old concepts rejected new concepts added new links forged between old and new

42. x EXPERT NON-LEARNER NO INTERACTION non learning SURFACE LEARNER EXPERT TRIVIAL INTERACTION based on undue repetition of transmission signal surface learning MEANINGFUL LEARNER EXPERT MEANINGFUL INTERACTION meaningful learning based on meaningful sharing of cognitive structures

43. concept mapping can be used to measure learning quality but it also provides a framework for the constructive alignment of teaching and learning

44. this is because concept mapping can also: facilitate sharing of understanding of the rich and complex knowledge structures that belie prescriptive lesson plans

45. Constructive Alignment to achieve to achieve 1. Learning Theory that explains the development of alternative to introduce 2. Methods of Graphic Organisation 3. Cognitive Structures that can reveal which we use to explain illustrated by 4. A Model of Teaching 5. with considerable implications for New Learning Frameworks Technology use In HE and the design of

46. conventional lesson plans, lectures, practicals and other formal or organised learning activities tend towards linearity this promotes a surface approach to learning that is commonly unwarranted

48. often the student who follows the lecture route is ignorant of any other route through the over-arching knowledge structure

50. in fact many different routes exist and the knowledge and understanding developed by an awareness of these routes is not to be foregone if the novice is to become and expert