Discovery, gamification and loosely structured #activelearning

raul-petri-wfVC_75JB9I-unsplash

Photo by Raul Petri on Unsplash

Following my previous post on gamification and active learning, it is worth giving thought to the extent that effective learning is guided or scaffolded especially around ideas like discovery learning. While it is hard to define, and the level of support can be wide-ranging, the literature agrees that in discovery learning the learner’s role is to discover the target information within the confines of the task and its material (Alfieri et al., 2011). Pertinent to this definition, therefore, are exploratory games and enquiry-based learning; in fact, it would seem to apply to most pedagogies associated with active learning.

I want to think about the viability of active learning and the different demands it puts on the teacher. For example, is throwing the learner in at the deep end with little structure and little support viable? If not, what does an effective support strategy look like in a facilitated paradigm? What is the teacher’s role in supporting discovery learning and other active learning strategies? What are the implications for the teacher’s workload when moving from the guided or directed paradigm to the active paradigm?

Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) are fairly scathing about constructivism and its inadequacy in addressing the adverse impact of cognitive load on learning. They say, “The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning.” (p. 76) They admit that students with considerable prior knowledge (as found in higher education?) fair better in unguided situations, but there is a danger that even these students will “acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganised knowledge”. Unguided experiential learning based on practical or project work is presented as a binary rejection of “instruction based on the facts, laws, principles, and theories that make up a discipline’s content.” (p. 84)

Alfieri et al. (2011) respond with reference to Bok’s research (2006) which finds that most students are unable to recall the factual content of a lecture 15 minutes after it has finished. Recall, on the other hand, they say is extended when the students have been actively engaged and challenged through their own mental efforts. At the same time, the memorisation of information, or ‘factual knowledge’, especially in higher education, is over-rated when it can be checked instantly and when it is being updated continuously (Gonzalez, 2004).

Briefly, active learning in its many forms is concerned with developing the whole student – not only their knowledge, but also their attitudes, their self-awareness and self-belief. In all cases, the social constructivist position is not to throw the student in at the deep end. This is a misreprentation of active learning. Instead, it is to create an appropriately supportive learning environment. Discovery, exploration, experiential, problem-based, and other forms of student-centred active learning depend upon a carefully scaffolded learning environment in which structure and support are ever-present or within reach:

  • the tutor
  • peers
  • More Knowleadgeable Others (e.g. support staff, mentors, alumni, employers, friends, etc)
  • spatial parameters
  • material or digital guidance (including manuals, game rules)
  • feedback, clues and nudges, example problems
  • the student’s own prior experience and resourcefulness

Drawing upon these dimensions, then, the teacher’s role is to design the active learning situation by ensuring that the learning challenge and its support are clear, proportionate and accessible.

The implication for the teacher and their workload is that the time they dedicate to facilitating and supporting individuals, as well as the group as a whole, should not be underestimated. Indeed, this idea of facilitated and supported challenge defines the teacher in the active space. Alfieri et al. (2011) in their review of discovery-based learning, concluded that “Unassisted discovery does not benefit learners, whereas feedback, worked examples, scaffolding, and elicited explanations do.” In many ways, the attempt to paint the situation as being dichotomous is where the problem lies. As Nathan (2012, p. 125) highlight, by creating formalisms, education is prone to over-simplifying that which is essentially complex. There is a tendency in education to reify simplistic ideas of formality – a ‘formal first’ view. This is what our quality processes demand of us it seems, after all, how do you represent the nuances that make up the active learning experience for each and every student? The formal first articulation presents a “flawed view of learning and development for many students and in many content areas, its influence on instruction, curriculum design, and educational policy is far-reaching. The societal roots of FF are deeply ingrained and operate with little scrutiny… The FF view exerts significant influence on formal education but the view is misguided” (Nathan, 2012). This flaw is particularly evident in active and applied learning designs in which the value of experience-led learning is seldom given equal billing with codified scientific formalisms: the quantifiable or measured outcomes of learning.

The key message here is that clarity about, and support for, learning is critical in the design of discovery and active learning. We can think of this as looking after the signposts. The implication for the teacher’s workload when moving to the active paradigm is that the teacher needs to be ready to intervene and accessible, and this can be demanding especially in a self-paced and self-directed learning context. The implication of that is that the teacher provides a scaffold, not a crutch – their role is to nudge the learner in the right direction, pick them up if they fall, spot and correct misdirection, and importantly, foster a sense of communal support while recognising and celebrating personal and collective achievements.

References

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J. & Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology., 103(1), 1-18.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gonzalez, C., (2004). The role of blended learning in the world of technology. Online: http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Nathan, M. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125-148.

Advertisements
Posted in learner engagement, learning space | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gamification – a way to understand #activeleaning

gamification logoI have been interested in games-based learning and playful learning since the early 2000s when I came across J. P. Gee’s work and since leading work on creative development in academic practice. The Creative Development Team I was responsible for was formed in 2004 just at Web 2.0 and social media began to surface and ideas about gamification emerged through discussion of the creative curriculum. Techniques like simulation and problem-based learning were an obvious fit, and remain so. As Landers (2014) says, game design and learning theories derive from the same psychological theories.

But I had never used video games. I am of an age and situation where that wasn’t on my radar. At the time, this felt like a disadvantage. The distinction between games and game-like behaviour wasn’t clear to me, but I knew enough to see that games of any sort could teach us a thing or two about student-centred design and motivation resonating with my apparent aim in life: to understand design for intrinsic motivation and learner engagement. Or, not falling back on the crutch of credit for summative assessment. Shouldn’t an education be challenging and fun? Everyday? Essentially motivating?

The idea of ‘game’ belies the different motivations, applications and genres for their use in education (Majuri et al. 2018). Designs tend to fall into the four categories of achievement/progression, social, immersion, and non-digital, though there are other miscellaneous applications. Within these high-level conceptions there are many other sub-genres of educational games as noted in Majuri et al.’s 2018 literature review. From these genres the idea of gamification emerges, what Deterding et al. (2011) call “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts,” the rationale being that “game design is a valuable approach for making non-game products, services, or applications, more enjoyable, motivating, and/or engaging to use.” Koivisto and Hamari (2019) summarise the literature saying people commonly experience feelings such as mastery, competence, enjoyment, immersion, or flow, when playing games; all of which are characteristic of intrinsically motivated human behaviour.

There have been several sessions addressing gamification at InstructureCon 2019 (there is some irony here – I always had a problem with the US use of the term ‘instruction’ – it is soo teacher-centred! I am glad to say Instructure, who produce the Canvas LMS, are very student-centred in their philosophy). The conference theme of ‘Learning Safari’ was itself very gameful, with references to surfing and fun, fun, fun almost obscuring the serious stuff!

The session led by Ryan Booth and Alex Koning on Using Canvas to Facilitate a Game-Based Learning Classroom suggested I could learn something about Canvas, but the main outcome for me was the time we spent looking at the Institute of Play’s game-like learning principles (https://www.instituteofplay.org/gll-principles)

  • Everyone is a participant
  • Learning feels like play
  • Everything is interconnected
  • Learning happens by doing
  • Failure is reframed as iteration
  • Feedback is immediate and ongoing
  • Challenge is constant

This set of principles could be used to describe a success active learning paradigm. While everyone is a participant, Booth and Koning pointed out that the teacher needs to make this work. As with any group work there is a danger of free riding. You can use the idea of Captain, Crew and Cargo to talk to students about team dynamics. Captains are those students who will lead and take responsibility. They are needed but they can dominate. Crew are the decks hands, and they should think about taking the Captain’s role every now and then. The Cargo gets there but they didn’t participate, so they don’t learn anything and the teacher needs to challenge such students before running any game.

I went to a session led by Jared Chapman (So, What’s My Motivation? Students Barrel Towards Success!) who highlighted that the term ‘gamification’ is outmoded and is now maturing. He said game-like design or gamification is better understood as a ‘motivational information system’. He argues that students fail, not because what we teach is hard, but because we fail to motivate them. Chapman offers a gamification design framework for the motivational information system: Skill, Will, and Thrill (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016). If we look after those dimensions we should find ourselves devising fun and engaging students in their learning.

Skill – Learning, he says, is a skill (I would say it demands a skill set or literacies). He proposes that in learning the student assesses (perceives and evaluates) the task in hand, performs by executing a plan towards achieving goals, and evaluates their performance and achievement by monitoring and adapting to the situation. This cycle is in effect an experiential learning cycle, one that is familiar to gamers. Learning is caught up with identity – self-efficacy is important. Like gaming, learning also requires good behaviour (hygiene) – time on task, etc. Chapman describes the importance of effective ‘dashboard’ design too – ensuring the learner/gamer is clear about what to do and able to monitor how well they are doing. A good dashboard makes the complex clear while allowing the gamer/learner to drill down to the detail (and at InstructorCon I have been to several sessions on learning analytics and how it is catered for in Canvas).

Will – Will or motivation is the next dimension of a motivational information system. This brings us onto self-determination theory which I have discussed here and elsewhere on many occasions. I tend to focus on the ideal end of the motivation continuum (intrinsic motivation), but Chapman spoke a lot about internalisation, and rightly so. This is where the teacher and game designer should focus. Internalisation asks, how do we appeal to the learner to gain their interest and commitment? He says you need to design an environment that allows for success and achievement, a space where you can discover what you are good at. I emphasise: self-discovery. The environment allows for autonomy, echoing my favourite way of describing active learning as being agentic. The environment should be meaningful – hence authentic learning strategies and contexts in a social setting are key to good design. Finally under Will, Chapman identifies urgency – a reason to act now even if it means failing safely.

Thrill – the third dimension in the gamified system of learning, can be understood as requiring design that generates creative flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). If the game is too easy the player gets bored. Too hard, the player gets anxious. Given that a gamified classroom is made up of diverse students who may each be ‘on a different page and at a different stage’, this can be tricky, however, the next gamification session I went to talked about self-paced design as an important strategy for addressing this.

Derek Rinks gave a paper called Authentic project-based learning through gamification – a title containing many of my favourite words, so I was keen to hesr what he had to say. He asked a very knowledgeable audience, “What makes a great game?” Here are some of the responses:

  • Fun
  • Goals
  • Chance
  • Multiple play
  • Levelling up – progression
  • Safe to fail
  • Challenge
  • Interesting
  • Decision making
  • Immediate feedback
  • Rules
  • Personalised experience
  • Collaboration, either co-operation or competition
  • Winners and losers.

He said teaching often shared those essential ingredients found in:

  • Syllabus
  • Grades
  • Strategy (pedagogy)
  • Teams or individual players
  • Fun
  • Goal/Reward

Every student journey is unique (a point made in many of the gamification sessions). Exploration or adventure-based design focuses on the self-paced learner who navigates their learning autonomously. Referring to his own adventure-based approach, he discussed how he created a rich backstory – you could call it a scenario or a conceit. His students undertook a daily writing assignment to capture their personal narrative. Along the way, as his students undertook their own exploration, they created artefacts the purpose of which may become clear later, i.e. the things they find or piece together could have a purpose later in the game.

Rinks said adventure-based designs are complex, rich, and interconnected – a world or ecology of ideas. This means having to create 50% more content than would normally be required – some knowledge/tokens/artefacts/ideas might remain undiscovered, but added to a sense of discovery, potentially offering ‘bonus’ or kudos value. Self-paced environment means providing real choices within the framework of the project. This abundance of content allows “…the students to believe they are pioneers able to discover something that nobody else will.” He advised using pictures to create mystery and intrigue, and he found that students are motivated by wanting to know what comes next. He said, “You need to be as excited as you want them to be, enthusiasm and intrigue are contagious.”

Skill development is necessary to take part and complete. Students are less anxious when they have time and choice and have more fun. There is space and time to build relationships and they can learn life-work balance. While students are required and free to navigate the content, they don’t choose the content, so the academic’s role is scoping and providing access to content remains from more traditional approaches, the shift is about developing student motivation and behaviour.

In a gamified approach, all students are on task but on different tasks!

References

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.

Coreaxis (2017). Gamification: When too much of a good thing is a waste of time and budget. [Blog post: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, online at: https://coreaxis.com/when-to-use-gamification

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & Knacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. In the proceedings of CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05.

Hattie, J. & Donoghue, G. (2016). Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. NPJ Science of Learning, 1, Article number: 16013

Koivisto, J. & Hamari, J. (2019) The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, April 2019, pp. 191-210

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.

Majuri, J. Koivisto, J.  & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN conference, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018, pp. 11-19.

Ryan, R.M., Rigby, C.S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30 (4), pp. 344-360.

Posted in active learning, Applied Learning, employability, gamification, learner engagement | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Academic Peak Moments #activelearning


Dan Heath, one of the keynotes at InstructorCon, did a great job of introducing the idea of peak moments as being a useful device for designing and evaluating a student’s academic experience.
Experience can be quite a vague or abstract term. I usually have experience at the centre of my thinking, whether I’m talking about learning space, feedback, rich media,or anything else to do with education. Experience and active learning go hand-in-hand.
It has great value if we are thinking about the pedagogic philosophy we hold dear. However, experience per se is not what we remember as students. It’s too general. Instead, Dan Heath suggests we think of the highlights or peak momentsI that actually make up our experience. And he argues this is where we can make a real difference to our students’ lives. That’s what lasts.
Peak moments can be thought of in four ways (with my notes):

  • Elevation – positive moments that bring joy and that lift us up. This feels like that sense of flow when you know an activity is doing what you hoped it would, and your students are buzzing.
  • Insight – those breakthrough moments when knowledge clicks into place and the student sees them self differently.
  • Pride – think about those challenging moments when a student knows they have achieved on their own terms – perhaps not come top but broken through what had felt like a personal barrier. They want to tell the world.
  • Connection – moments that deepen our ties with other people, where learning is intensely communal, where collective and co-operative effort has amounted to something significant.

Dan’s point was that many academics design their courses from a content-centred perspective because their immediate challenge is to cover the content. This approach may tick the syllabus boxes but has little lasting impact in terms of memorable experience and self-knowledge.
How do you design (academic) peak moments? Moments, just like the school prom, that a student will cherish for life. Thats the benchmark he set us. In response, he showed us three mini-case studies. They were quite exceptional – the sort of things that not everyone could achieve. My own thought was simpler:

What strategies can we use every day to create challenges that could lead to elevation, insight, pride, and connection?

Or, how can I make my teaching more student-centred?

These questions, as well as the intention to establish the potential for individual peak moments, should be front of mind as we design active learning episodes. The idea of challenge is a particularly useful focus. If we can, as pedagogic designers, imagine elevation, insight, pride, and connection as potential outcomes of our activities, then it may help us to get beyond creating learning that is simply ‘active’. Activity, in and of itself, is not enough – it is the experiential outcome that we need to think about.

Posted in active learning, belonging, learner engagement | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Table gallery for Media-Enhanced Teaching & Learning #activelearning #ARUengage

I led three workshops at yesterday’s Engage Learning & Teaching conference at Anglia Ruskin University.. In one of them, I used the table gallery technique that I turn to frequently as a way to engage participants in topics where there are many ideas or many questions.

The workshop introduced Media-Enhanced Teaching & Learning. I introduced this using my media interventions framework in which practices and possibilities can be organised under one or more of the following ideas: challenge, inform, feedback, orientate, and motivate.

Drawing upon what is now many years of research and experimentation, I presented participants with 50 ideas (title and short description and rationale) on A5 printouts. I asked each person to take three or four and sort them into the right category through discussion with partners and then place them in the right part of the table.

This meant that participants saw the versatility of using digital media for teaching and learning and the different kind of user-producer interventions that can be made. They had the opportunity to look in detail at those ideas they and their partners were responsible for while seeing the versatility of audio and video as an extension to the learning environment.

Part two of the activity was to generate further ideas representing their own practice or ideas from their imagination. The one hour workshop concluded with a discussion about their ideas and the ideas they liked best.

My intention is to establish a Pedagogic Innovation Group for Media-Enhanced Teaching & Learning at ARU. It’s acronym inevitably and unfortunately (?) is PIG METaL!

Posted in Academic innovation, active learning, Assessment & Feedback, BYOD4L, creativity, learner engagement, learning space, Media-enhanced feedback, Media-enhanced learning, Possibilities, research, Smart Learning book | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lights! Camera! Action! – an #activelearning design model

sebastian-kanczok-lights camera action-unsplash

Photo by Sebastian Kanczok on Unsplash

It’s a bit early to share this but I’d be interested in hearing if you think it has any value as a framework for designing active learning. Please comment or tweet @andrewmid.

I think one of the key challenges to the adoption of an active learning philosophy for academic staff is the perception that reworking their materials will present an insurmountable task – “I’ve already got enough to do, besides it’s taken me my whole career to get my lecture materials into good shape.”

Well, I’d quite like to talk about that, but not now. However, I am interested in anything that makes designing active learning easier. The following is really simple and risks being too formulaic, but it was useful to me last week as I thought about the way I was structuring my active learning session and, it occurred to me, it does map onto other sessions I have designed.

Lights!

Begin your session design with some illumination. Make sure everything is well lit, everything is clear and in focus for your students from the start of the session. Participants can see their fellow ‘actors’ and everyone knows their role and all are ready and happy to execute the plot or the next scene!

Camera!

You need to establish the conceit by viewing the scene through a lens. Frame it nicely (conceptually) through a nice establishing shot to first situate the action with a strong background and structure. Make it real for them and make sure its relevance to the overall outcomes of the production is clear. Consider the role of off-stage voices or ‘extras’ to help you establish the scene. Who else will bring credibility or alternative character plots and perspectives to support your direction?!

Action!

Everything’s ready. People feel confident. They know their role, they’re in character and they get the full picture. The conversation, collaboration, authenticity and tone seem to flow well.

You should be able to observe how the timing of interactions is better and the dialogue is more convincing with every take.

Cut!

It’s time to reflect on the performance, check the rushes and listen to each other. “What worked well? How did we perform? Can we improve? How?”

In summary

The four stages outlined above may provide a useful framework to check that everything is in place for an Oscar-winning performance: recognition of your teaching and the success of your cast of students is inevitable!

Posted in active learning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Standing, walking and crawling in action #activelearningNTW

Some of the walking as pedagogy group negotiate options

The Standing, Walking, Crawling workshop I ran at yesterday’s Active Learning Conference worked remarkably well! Here’s the proof. This is what we made when responding to the challenge to design a novel active learning pedagogy unconstrained by furniture. Three groups, three foci… some ideas more developed than others but all inspiring. Thank you to all who participated in the ideation challenge.

Floor-based Learning

First thoughts:
  • Sit in a circle and roll a ball for the next participant to respond
  • Blindfold games
  • Twister
  • Escape room (floor edition)
  • Large scale mind mapping or diagramming
  • Obstacle course or problem-solving
  • Floor as scattergraph – stand where you are on the graph to capture opinions, answers, and personality, for example
  • Mind mapping – everyone creates an item related to the subject matter. Each person becomes their theme. Work as teams to build additional elements based on each theme.
  • Moving objects or pictures around.
  • Linking ideas on post-it notes on the floor (mind maps)
  • Different ideas in different areas – moving to sit with/in a position you want to support.
  • Sorting activity – ideas on floor, cruel to sort into a meeting. Chair and watch the structure take shape.
  • Moving and sorting items into different spaces.
  • Train layout
  • Cartography (maps)
  • Create a module map/assessment plan across the floor together. Where are the pinch points?
  • Sensory, feeling, touching smelling tasting (think of using with social care/nurses/working with individuals with disabilities.
Second thoughts:

Snakes and ladders concept mapping

Pedagogic rationale: memorable, building community, peer-assisted and collaborative, multidisciplinary.

How does the activity work: Two dice, snakes and ladders board mapped out on the floor. One dice has numbers and the second has concepts/thoughts/ideologies. Students work in teams to agree on answers in response to challenges on the board.

Challenges: space, preparation, accessibility, money, maintaining engagement.

Stand-Up Pedagogy

First thoughts:
  • Short team discussion studying distance guesses (theoretical).
  • Icebreaker activity – throw a ball to another and ask how much do you agree with the statement a place yourself physically
  • Gallery walk – small groups looking at and discussing different objects/posters/pictures.
  • Questions about specific topics – observations on a paper or graph under discussion
  • Whiteboard peer group – whiteboarding writing/drawing/working out problems together
  • Collaborative writing on a whiteboard
  • Using stations around the room for multiple choice questions
  • Dramatisation of an idea
  • Roleplay
  • Debating groups
  • Order yourselves e.g. according to the motion you are given. For example, put yourself in order according to birth dates is a good induction activity. Or, people can be labeled to represent parts of a process or critical path and they have to negotiate their positions and dependencies.
  • Students stand back to back and ask each other questions about what they want to know about a topic
  • Take students on a bus ride, standing, talking and reflecting. Get off and on again.
Second thoughts:

Physical ranking, ordering or positioning

Can be used in various contexts – as an icebreaker or to explore conceptual debates.

Outcome statement: By taking part in this activity you will have developed your understanding of theoretical positions and how to communicate conceptual thinking in small and large groups.

Pedagogic rationale: visual and kinetic movement and ownership of learning, or conceptual positioning, through comparison of preferences. Quick assessment of learning (or not).

How does the activity work: To track, review and summarise key concepts students physically position themselves along an axis

Negotiate positioning through a series of back-to-back debates or go back to ranking again.

Follow up in a later session by reversing positions.

Challenges: space, reluctance to debate, size of group, disability.

Walking pedagogies

First thoughts:

  • Learning walks – to find authentic examples of a concept
  • Maths – symmetry in nature for PGCE students
  • Our learning questions – real learning, right or wrong or method of interest
  • Learners make own walking groups and then report back
  • Identify objects/buildings/people/other from a walk that relate to study theme or topic
  • Pedagogy for walking – portrait of business for society: impact pictures students will show the applications of moral theories based on pictures
  • Given artefacts is not equal to ideas of a norm– the student will build a story
  • Walking to the botanic garden – listing different types of flowers, different types of plants, sharing ideas, explaining something
  • Groups start at different places en route with different questions to discuss
  • Treasure hunt using QR codes (e.g. Plickers) to collect ideas/concepts/facts
  • Active reading – QR codes with a part of the text on the wall (gallery). Students have to summarise, put in order, answer questions.
  • Flow schemes – show how different concepts link (whiteboard)
  • Poster creation – create a poster that explains a concept (e.g. a film poster representing the film of your idea!)
  • Journal – students identify examples that demonstrate theory
  • Walking scrabble – have large letters to play scrabble or crosswords recycling key vocabulary. Can be played by individuals or in pairs.

Second thoughts:

Discovering learning

Outcomes: To link theory to practice

Pedagogic rationale: Interpersonal active learning – connecting the world to the curriculum.

Description: Walk around collecting ‘evidence’ of a theme or idea relating practice/examples to concepts.

Challenges: risk assessment, clear briefing.

Other notes: Capture ‘items’ in photos, cost, access – a ‘virtual’ walk.

Who needs furniture? Discarded chairs during ideation activity

Posted in active learning, Co-operative pedagogy, creativity, learner engagement, learning space, Possibilities, studio-based learning, walking | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Standing, Walking, Crawling and the art of conversational learning #activelearning

gabriele-diwald-1160491-unsplash.jpg

Photo by Gabriele Diwald on Unsplash

On Tuesday I will be running a workshop at the Active Learning Conference at the University of Sussex. Titled ‘Standing, Walking, Crawling and the art of conversational learning’, it reflects on some of the active learning techniques I have developed in relation to learning spaces – thinking that literally attempts to ‘think outside of the box’. Three ideas will be explored in this creative workshop: Stand-Up Pedagogy, Learning Walks, and Floor-based Pedagogy. The workshop provides an opportunity for participants to ideate by interpreting and building upon these essential ideas.

It was only this week that I realised that the common factor in these ways of thinking about space and learning is that they all represent furniture-free learning! I’m excited to find out what ideas and examples people come up with and I’ll be sure to report back here.

 

Here’s the handout I’ll be using.

Standing Walking Crawling handout

Posted in Academic innovation, active learning, Digital Placemaking, learning space, Possibilities, social media for learning, studio-based learning, walking | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment