Rachel
Burnham writes: I am currently participating in the MOOC on
Exploring Social Learning, which is turning out to be a fascinating learning
experience . I am writing this blog at
the end of Week 2 (of 4), in which we have been exploring social learning
theories. This blog is a Working Out
Loud post, which is just another way of me explaining that I am using it to
make sense of some of my learning from the programme this week and I haven’t
yet sorted through all my ideas & learning from this week and they may yet
change & develop.
On Wednesday 11 February I participated in the weekly
Twitter chat which forms part of the MOOC, which was based around the question
‘To what extent does social learning theory inform your practice?’ This brought out very different responses,
with some people explaining that it was very much an important part of their
practice, but with others expressing very strong views to the contrary. Some people explained that the theory seemed
to over complicate matters and others that social learning happens all the time,
perhaps with the implication that therefore theory wasn’t really needed. There were lots of challenges to this questioning
of the value of theory and those not keen on theory were reminded of the risks
of not working from an evidence base – the dreaded spectre of learning styles
was mentioned more than once! It seemed
to me that there were some very strong views expressed.
And it felt to me like there were differences between
people from the different backgrounds participating – did our differing
educational & professional backgrounds (country of study, field of study,
professional focus (eg HR including L&D or instructional design) make a
difference to our approach?
I fell somewhere in the middle. I had started by saying
that ‘most of the time I am not conscious of following social learning
theories.’ which is rather different from rejecting this theory. As the discussion went on, I explained ‘Something I have noticed
from the materials for this week, is how 'distanced' I find the academic
language from my experience’. We moved
into discussing how challenging academic language can be for those who are not
academics and why this language is used.
In this post, I want to explore a little more around
these ideas.
I think we were using the term ‘theory’ to talk about
three related but different concepts – evidence based approaches eg spaced
learning; theory – generalised or abstract broader thinking; and models eg
Honey & Mumford’s learning styles.
Evidence-based
research
Research that produces evidence of what works or doesn’t
work or works in particular circumstances seems to be relatively
straightforward. If the research appears
sound then we can accept it and if it doesn’t than we don’t. If it is sound we need to get on and use
it. Of course, it isn’t really that
simple – I’ve not touched on context, which is a huge issue, both of where the
research was done and where it is to be applied.
Theory
Theory is often based on this kind of research. Some of the theories which have been around
a long time and are often taken for granted eg Piaget’s theories of child
development are based on research which we now question. Theory may also come out of debate,
discussion and disagreement with or refinement of other theories. So, some theory may be useful and some may
not. And which is which may also be a
matter of opinion.
It was most interesting to read through the series of
blog posts shared in week 2 of the programme which examined the key ideas of a
number of leading social learning theorists.
Much of the language used by these social learning theorists (and other
academics) is hard to understand.
Although this academic language aims for precision, at times it seems
wilfully foggy! It was so interesting to read of many terms from the literature
which seem vague and fuzzy even to other academics in this field eg DonaldClark identifies that what Bruner means by structure, sequencing or scaffolding
is still rather unclear.
It is no wonder that many practitioners get a bit fed up
by it and end up rejecting theory for making things too complicated. I find I can struggle through it and often make
some kind of sense, but I do wonder why I should have to. Shouldn’t academics be aiming for clear,
simple language that can make their ideas open to a wider audience and be
useful to practitioners?
With this backdrop, it is no wonder that sometimes
theories are misused, over-simplified or used out of context in a way that
makes them untrue. If the original
material is so hard to make sense of (and also sometimes is hard to get hold
of) it is no wonder that practitioners sometimes misuse otherwise ‘good’
theory.
Another issue with theory, is that for it to be well
thought through and so ‘good’, takes time and painstaking effort and this means
that theory often can lag behind practice.
In our VUCA world, many of the situations in which practitioners may be
working may not explored by relevant theory or evidence based research.
Models
A model presents a simplified picture of reality. They often focus on a particular aspect or
aspects of reality in order to understand and make sense of it. Models may come from evidence based research
or be part of the theory discussed above.
Or they may come from a less reliable source and be more of a ‘back of
an envelope’ creation. So where they
come from is important.
Julie Drybrough @fuchsiablue recently discussed the value and
limitation of models in a recent post and this inspired me to also write ashort post on the subjecthttp://rachelburnham.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-way-of-seeing-is-also-way-of-not.html, so I don’t wish to cover this in detail again.
The value of a model is that is simplifies reality and
even if it is based on sound research and/or theory that is also its
limitation.
So
what?
This week’s discussions have brought home to me how
important it is for academics and practitioners in L&D to be working
together more closely. I think there are
lessons for each of us.
For
Academics
- The language papers are written in could be much simpler and more accessible.
- It would be helpful if academics could be more practice orientated and focus on questions and issues that are current with practitioners in a timely fashion. Learning in organisations is different to learning in the formal education world and so often we are trying to apply learning from the formal education world to the workplace.
- There is a value in encouraging ‘translation’ of material into clear language and practical advice for practitioners.
For
Practitioners
- We need to be much less quick to write off all theory and more willing to engage with relevant theory.
- We need to be more questioning about where evidence, theory or models come from and what the basis is for the ideas that underpin our practice. Failure to do so will only lead to more ‘learning style’ messes.
- We need to be much more rigorous in understanding the background to the evidence, the theory and the models we chose to use and not apply them willy-nilly to situations that they were never intended for use in – unless we are consciously & openly experimenting & broadening their use.
I have some other thoughts more specifically around
social learning theories, but I think I will save those for another post, as
this has gone on quite long enough. As
always I look forward to hearing your comments and responses.
Rachel
Burnham
15/2/15
Burnham L & D Consultancy helps L&D
professionals become even more effective.
I am particularly interested in blended learning, the uses of social
media for learning, evaluation and anything that improves the impact of
learning on performance.
Follow me on Twitter @BurnhamLandD
No comments:
Post a Comment