My notes on reading Helen Beetham’s An approach to learning activity design
I found this activity for my study course useful for two reasons. First of all, it took me a step closer to understanding the difference between learning design (the process) and Learning Design (LD) (the paradigm). Secondly, it enabled me to reflect on why I have become a little ‘stuck’ recently. The course does encourage us to consider alternative ways that it could be presented so I hope that my comments here about how I have found certain aspects difficult are not seen as negative but simply as reflections of how my personal learning style has affected my access to the material.
Beetham refers to different approaches to how people learn: associative, constructive and situative. She points out that, whichever standpoint we choose, the learner is the central factor since it is the learner’s interaction with the concepts, activities, tasks, and other people involved (peers and ‘teachers’) which is most likely to determine the learning outcome.
As Beetham points out (page 26), “Design for learning should therefore focus primarily on the activities undertaken by learners, and only secondarily on (for example) the tools or materials that support them.” In my view, this is an important consideration. However, I do believe that some materials are more likely than others to engage a wide range of learners and those of us designing courses or even short series of lessons (in a formal or informal context) should take this into account. If we are working one to one with a learner, it can be fairly easy and quick to determine the appropriate materials and tools. As soon as we move to just one extra learner, the range becomes harder to determine and manage – a point about teaching/teacher resources to which Beetham returns more than once.
She goes on to point out (page 27) that learning depends on the “capability” and “current level of expertise” of the learner. If it is true that transference of skills (“integration across activities” as Beetham describes it, loc. cit.) is paramount for deep learning, then I suggest that it is vital to build into any learning activity design varied opportunities to assess that learning.
Beetham outlines some important factors (pp. 27, 28): authenticity, formality and structure, retention/reproduction versus reflection/internalization (sic), the role of other people, locus of control. I agree with her that the designers of learning activities are likely to have their own approaches within these areas. For example, as a learner I respond better to opportunities to sample from various materials, to develop my own structure based on what I see as the desired outcomes, to reflect and internalise ideas and then an opportunity to apply them. However, as Beetham also points out (pp. 27 and 32), our learning preferences change over time and according to the learning experiences we have had in that time.
I find it very difficult to relate to learning processes as part of a linear or Cartesian ordinal continuum. As Beetham writes (page 29), “...a learning activity – or interaction – emerges as the learner engages ...”. To me, this indicates much more of a spiral or looped process. This leads me on to a Beetham’s discussion of the use of digital technology in learning activity design. If it is true that “simulation and virtual environments are used to foster exploration rather than a linear progression through materials...” (pp 30, 31), then this, taken with my stated preferences above, explains why I have sometimes felt frustrated by the approach in my current study module which guides me through one task after another before allowing me to go back and forth sifting those that I will find appropriate to my learning. The resulting dialogue between peers becomes more a comparison of ‘answers’ than a discussion. Of course, as Beetham points out again, the fact that there is only one tutor to twenty or so students and that the course itself is designed for several tutor groups means that my personal preference would be difficult to plan for. However, I do feel that it might be possible to provide a ‘menu’ of activities at the side of the website so that, having gone through the guided process, I could go back and forth – the forums do provide this in part by reproducing the tasks. Addressing these issues might go some way to relieving “feelings of alienation and frustration – and issues around time management” (page 32) which I have certainly experienced whilst doing a course that it is designed primarily for practitioners with very busy work lives. Learners are “actors, not factors, in the learning situation” (loc.cit.).
