Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | diana-lane |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 3 times |
‘Inhabiting’ and flexible learning: resolving a conundrum
Ronald Barnett, Institute of Education, LondonFlexible Learning conference, Higher education Academy, University of Westminster, 23 July 2013
Centre for Higher Education Studies
Sub-brand to go here
2
Themes, agenda
Inhabiting – (the HE landscape/ the student experience) Spaces/ learning spaces Flexiblity/ flexible learning Students Students’ being – and becoming Learning landscape Architecture
3
Exam question
• In the context of flexible learning, how might the idea of inhabiting help us? Just what is that students might come to inhabit?
(Both practical and policy dimensions)
4
Initial considerations – on inhabiting itself
• Being on the inside – Of what? Of external structures (credit accumulation)– Of internal(ised) structures (disciplines)– Of oneself – critical self-reflection; coming to an understanding of
oneself• These are different kinds of learning spaces – with quite different
pedagogical and educational principles • Does talk of flexible learning invite us to focus (over-focus) on external
structures?
5
A conundrum
In the context of flexible learning, how might we employ the idea of ‘inhabiting’?
Is it that the student inhabits and finds his/ her way through systems and structures that offer flexible pathways (place, pace, mode)
OR
Is it that the student inhabits (dwells in) her own internalised patterns of reasoning?
6
On dwelling in time and space
• B Russell – ‘citizen of the universe’• Hamlet: ‘I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space’• Bourdieu – ‘habitus’ – structured dispositions/ ‘generative capacities’/ ‘categories
of perception’• Polanyi – idea of ‘indwelling’: one comes to dwell in a framework of
understanding – both control over the world and over ourselves; permeated by phases of self-destruction.– ‘we are guided by experience and pass through experience without experiencing it in itself.- ‘we lose ourselves in contemplation.’- ‘Contemplation has no ulterior intention or ultimate meaning … we become
absorbe in he inherent quality of our experience, for its own sake.’
7
Inhabiting knowledge
• Disciplines• Interdisciplinarity• Ethno-epistemic assemblages (Irwin & Michael)• Mode 2 K• Epistemic spaces • ‘Thinking spaces’ (Thrift) – in ‘new time-space arrangements’ – ‘spaces
of inspiration incorporating many possible worlds’• Mode 3 K
8
Two concepts of learning
• We learn through various systems and structures – of time, place, mode– And these systems may permit greater or lesser choice
• And we learn in ourselves (we inhabit ourselves, dwell in ourselves)– ie, when I learn something, something changes in me. I come into a
new space, a new mode of being in the world
• (Heidegger – being as ‘being possible’: in this learning, new possibilities open for me.)
9
So two concepts of learning spaces
(cf Savin-Baden)
• Learning spaces as– External to myself
• And as– Internal to myself.
10
The student as architect
• Again, therefore, two ideas• The student as arranger, of exploiter, of external spaces
extended to her• She creates her own patterning of learning spaces –
technology, places, pace, modules, disciplines.• And• She creates her own patterning of ideas and experiences in
her own mind and being.
11
The idea of attachment
• In the idea of attachment, these two concepts of learning (and of flexibility) come together
• We can ask with what degree of attachment is a student located in her external learning spaces? (a) external attachment
And we can ask • With what degree of attachment is the same student located in her
internal learning spaces? (b) internal attachmentNB: high attrition rates in many distance-learning programmes across the
world: detachment in (a) leads to detachment in (b)?NB: greater likelihood of non-completion the longer part-time students
take to complete their programme.
12
Space and structure
• Are there general relationships between educational effectiveness and structure?
• Total structures, allowing of no choice or spaciousness, are educationally ineffective
• But so too are entirely open educational situations?• Ownership, attachment arise in presence of structures
tempered by elements of choice
13
Inhabiting takes place on levels and places • Unit• Course• Institution• National system• Cross-nation
And actually and virtually• In/off campus• In/outside course (LW lng)• In own country/ in another country
14
The idea of heutagogy
(Hase and Kenyon):• the study of self-determined learning• expansion and reinterpretation of andragogy• emphasis on learning how to learn, double loop learning, a non-linear
process, and learner self-direction.• requires that educational initiatives include learning how to learn as well as
just learning a given subject itself. • in heutagogy, all learning contexts, both formal and informal, are
considered.
15
Conclusions
Genuine learning calls for an internalised learning So flexible learning has, in part, to be a matter of opening spaces
to learners to promote this internalised learning In the end, we have to learn by and for ourselves We inhabit, we design, we modify our own learning spaces Much talk of flexible learning is concerned with external learning
systems Place, mode, pace Not a set of goods in themselves Answer to our conundrum: Flexible learning spaces are justified only to the degree that they
sponsor internal learning, internal inhabiting of and attachment to and development of the learner’s own spaces
Institute of EducationUniversity of London20 Bedford WayLondon WC1H 0AL
Tel +44 (0)20 7612 6000Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6126Email [email protected] www.ioe.ac.uk