Forum Higher Ed & Training Forum: RE: Interview with Associate Professor Dr Donna Gibbs

By: Donna Gibbs

[ Reply | Forward ]

Robyn. You ask why a sequence? There must be lots of reasons but here is one idea. It would be great if others could suggest further reasons.

Learning is a process. Let’s say you want your students to understand a new concept. They need, for example, to hear some opinions, think about these in relation to what they already know, discuss their views with their classmates, find out some more information from people with different perspectives, present individual work displaying their own individual views, test their developing understandings of the concept against new information, and so on.

At each stage of this process students are given opportunities to deepen what and how they know whatever it is they are learning. When teachers construct a sequence of learning activities they can take into account all the different factors that affect how students learn. A good learning design allows students to build on what they already know, to work collaboratively and individually, and to go through the various processes that ease them towards deeper levels of understanding.

It was possible, of course, before LAMS to have students carry out a sequence of individual learning activities online. But the students were not in the same space at the same time and the movement from one activity to the next was not seamless – and nor could you see in an instant what others thought about a particular point of view. Collaboration and interactivity occurred in a token way but with LAMS there can be real collaboration through sequential activities. I think this is beginning to sound like advertisement-speak so I’ll stop there.

Posted by Donna Gibbs

By: Robyn Philip

[ Reply | Forward ]

Donna,

Thinking about learning as a process, and the idea of ‘easing [students] towards deeper levels of understanding’ - couldn’t this be construed as spoonfeeding?

Isn’t it up to students to work out what the learning process is at university? Do we really need to guide their thinking processes?

One view of university teaching is that students learn when provided with good resources, and if they apply themselves to studying those resources they will do well. This has been a proven methodology for many generations.

So, isn’t the role of lecturers to give students good resources and let them go for it? Isn’t it up to them to make whatever they can of what is there? Isn’t this what you call independent learning?

Posted by Robyn Philip

By: Donna Gibbs

[ Reply | Forward ]

Robyn

Spoonfeeding? I don’t think so. I think of spoonfeeding as offering up the answers to students in easily digestible bites/bytes. A class of spoonfed students would all think the same way and offer the same answers. What I am describing is a learning process – the students build their own understandings through engaging in various activities with each other and with a range of resources and in a variety of ways. This is independent learning.

If all you do as a university lecturer is ensure students are in touch with suitable resources then there is every chance many students will miss out on the worthwhile learning experiences they need and deserve.

Educators recognise – and have done for decades – that students learn best by being actively involved in their learning. And yet our typical structure at University is for a one hour lecture where we talk ‘at’ students, followed by a one or two hour seminar -of up to 30 students these days - where only some voices are ever heard. (You’ll see I am not a scientist – they presumably include practical sessions. I would be interested to hear if these are found to be pedagogically effective. Any comments?)

University lecturers are researchers but they are also teachers. And yes – I think our role is to guide students towards experimenting with different ways of thinking by guiding their learning experiences. And when technologies emerge that can be used to tap into ‘resources’ in new ways then I think it is our duty to explore how they can improve student learning. The result won’t be a bunch of spoonfed clones, I promise.

Posted by Donna Gibbs

By: Robyn Philip

[ Reply | Forward ]

So glad to hear you say that Donna!

I agree with what you say, and think that active involvement – making decisions, applying information, analysing the responses of others, being challenged by the comments and reactions of others – is likely to bring about much stronger and more rigorous debate and critical reflection than a more passive approach to learning.

I like it that when we do things in LAMS the technology seems to fade into the background – even though there might be technical problems! But students still seem to focus on the task. Of course this has to do with underlying good educational design – but I think that the LAMS interface – as *plain label* as it is – along with the LAMS tools, helps to provide an immediacy and a dynamic that facilitates group and individual work. Or is this just novelty effect?

Would you have comment to make on this? (Or anyone else out there in the LAMS Community…..??)

Posted by Robyn Philip

By: Donna Gibbs

[ Reply | Forward ]

An interesting question, Robyn. There is a novelty effect, of course. If students were asked to do the same kind of sequence too often that would certainly have a negative effect. But good educators know that it is important to make choices - whether or not to use a particular technology or software, or when and how often to use it, for example. There needs to be a variety of approaches.

I think the point about novelty can be applied to using any technology. There is always a novelty effect but if it works well and does things in better ways than previously then we tend to keep using it! Who would be without communication by email or mobile phone now? In my view once you have used technology effectively in a classroom there is no going back. And I don’t think the students would let you do so if they had the choice. The students I have talked to who are using LAMS certainly want to keep using it.

Posted by Donna Gibbs

By: Robyn Philip

[ Reply | Forward ]

Donna,

One last question then - because I know this is your last day at the university.

Where do you see LAMS going in the future? Or where would you like to see it going?

Posted by Robyn Philip

By: Donna Gibbs

[ Reply | Forward ]

Well, I hope in a way that I have no idea where it is going. I think this is likely because what I have found when talking to people is that each new user has a different slant on its potential. It is a system that lends itself to any manner of ways of doing things and as it expands – different languages, new tools, things we haven’t conceived of yet – it will have even more to offer.

I suppose what I really hope is that LAMS has started a revolution – a real transformation of the way technology can be used to improve teaching. I think that revolution has begun (full credit to James whose educational vision, leadership and tenacity have created that possibility) and I hope it leads the way for a new and better future for education. The world of publishing – transformation of the text book - could well be its next target. Who knows?

Today is my last day as you say, Robyn, but I can assure you I’ll stay connected! Thank you for so kindly giving me a voice in this space and every best wish to the remarkable LAMS team.

Posted by Donna Gibbs

By: Robyn Philip

[ Reply | Forward ]

Many thanks Donna.

As always it has been a pleasure talking with you.

And all the best for your new creative adventures! For those who don't know, Donna is going to be doing lots of writing of a different kind in the future - children's books.

So we wish you well and all the best, Donna and thank you for your input into the development of LAMS!

Posted by Robyn Philip