Last changed
31 July 2012 ............... Length about 1,000 words (9,000 bytes).
(Document started on 6 May 2007.)
This is a WWW document maintained by
Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/rap/my3.html.
You may copy it.
How to refer to it.
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[rap]
[principles]
[this page]
By
Steve Draper,
Department of Psychology,
University of Glasgow.
The REAP project has made me aware of issues that seem important in
distinguishing the best from mediocre practice in this area, but which are not
described by the Nicol 7 and the Gibbs 4 principles. Here I sketch a few of
the most important.
(See also a longer treatment of this here.)
To make groups productive of learning, as opposed to workplace groups where
the goal is to get a joint task done, what matters is the balance of
individual (solo) work and work in the group. Groups are not a substitute for
working alone, nor is working alone an alternative to group work. What makes
the minority of successful study groups highly productive is establishing a
recipe that combines some of each mode. For example: revising alone for six
hours, then meeting for two hours to get help with problems, share insights,
and test each other. Another example: getting as far as possible alone with
the set maths problems, then meeting in a group to get "unstuck" on the ones
you couldn't do. Another: starting a new type of problem in a group (to gain
confidence and get over any initial problems), then doing some more problems
alone afterwards, to establish that each person can now do them alone (as they
will have to in the exam).
Being social or making friends do not in themselves make a contribution to
learning, any more than getting dressed, having a glass of water, or cleaning
your room. These are all important in a student's life, but do not advance
learning.
(See also a longer treatment of this here.)
HE students are in one respect like kindergarten children and indeed all
humans: when we first attempt a new activity we need a lot of support, as we
get a better and better grasp of it, we not only need less, we do better with
less. Providing a uniform course structure and provision of help makes a
course simpler for an administrator, but is significantly dysfunctional for
learning. Students need more structure and support at the beginning of a
module than at the end; more in first year, less in their final year.
One of the few things that computers are good at in education is keeping
records. It turns out that simply creating and keeping available a record of
all a learner's transactions, as is done as a side-effect of discussions on
VLEs, bulletin boards, wikis, can sometimes have major educational added value.
For individuals, it records their "workings" or steps, that can be later
reviewed by a teacher if that becomes useful. For groups, it allows a staff
member to police them if complaints arise (such as social loafing by some
members); yet without having to "be there" at the time. This makes behaviour
accountable, without having a possibly perturbing presence intervening and so
changing the encounters at the time.
(See also a longer treatment of this here.)
A striking variation between courses is the amount of contingency: how much
changes because of how the students respond as opposed to staying fixed
regardless. Standard practice is to have "course feedback" questionnaires
that might change things once a year; and the worst lecturers follow a fixed
script and do not respond in any way to the audience.
In contrast, good teachers stay in touch with their audience, take away
questions or incomprehension, and come back next time with a response specially
addressed to them.
The most innovative modern practice goes further. In Just In Time Teaching,
the content of each presentation (to a class of hundreds) is decided only on
the hour before, on the basis of the quiz results and/or questions from the
class on this week's assignment. A number of other current practices are
similarly responsive, and make large amounts of teacher input contingent on
the class' responses.
The degree of contingency has two dimensions: the time scale (are things
changed yearly, weekly, daily, on the spot?), and the content scale: how much
is changed (the answer to a single question, or the content of a whole
lecture). One can further divide contingent responses into those that adapt
academic content, and those that acknowledge and respond to the emotional
state of the class: whether they are tired, need a joke, generally feeling
anxious about exams, etc. Even though it is not obvious why the latter should
improve learning, the signs are that it does, perhaps by demonstrating
communicative coordination between teacher and learner, and it certainly
raises student ratings of lecturers.
(See also a longer treatment of this here.)
Ensure there is something that triggers the learner into processing any
feedback into actions.
(See also a longer treatment of this
here.)
Ensure students can translate their marks into usable information for their
self-regulatory decisions
"Over-dimensions" refers to principles that can be applied to every
other principle.
(See also a longer treatment of this here.)
For every learning activity there is a question, not just of whether the
learners can play their active part in it (e.g. know how to take notes in a
lecture, feel able to contribute to a seminar discussion), but whether they
are able and willing to organise the activity for themselves. Can they not
only contribute to peer discussion when it is called for by the teacher in
class, but organise their own study group? Of course there is no need for them
to do so while the staff are organising adequate amounts. But for lifelong
learning and autonomy, they need to be able to take the initiative as
necessary.
This can in fact be applied to all the other principles. Not just understand
the assessment criteria [Nicol no.1], but be capable of creating and refining
their own. Not just respond well to "clear and high expectations" [Gibbs no.4]
from staff, but when necessary set their own rather than waiting to be told.
Resources are finite. Saving effort and cost, means resources go further, and
so learning will benefit.
Whenever a new technique saves teacher time, more learners can be taught.
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[rap]
[principles]
[this page]
[Top of this page]