Dilemmas In Self-Directed Learning Spaces – Didactical Challenges Of Implementing The ’Study Activity Model’ In Danish Higher Education
Author(s):
Verner Larsen (presenting / submitting) Annette Rasmussen (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
22. Research in Higher Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 07 E,

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-23
17:15-18:45
Room:
K5.14
Chair:
Colin McCaig

Contribution

As a result of new governance and management policies in the 80th some decisions about curriculum planning were centralized, while others decentralized. Previously, regarding the lecturing time offered in the actual subjects, exact time allocation was made at the ministry level, but since the 90th it has been up to each institution to decide the amount of such time resources.  However, a few years ago a debate arose in Denmark about the relationship between the extent of face-to-face interaction with tutors and the amount of time that student spent on their study activities beyond the actual time of face-to-face. Rather quickly the debate reached the national political level and politicians expressed their concern about lecturing time and whether the total study time, that students spent, was enough.

The Association of Danish University Colleges decided to deal actively with the skepticism and criticism, so it initiated a process by which the educational institutions should improve their communication with students about the expectations to students concerning time consumption and effort in studying.  The so called Study Activity Model (SAM) was initially developed as a basis for such communication. The association phrased the aim of this model as a tool….:

“….. which can shape the study expectations of the students in relation to study intensity. The model clearly demonstrates which study activities, academic activities and learning types that are employed in professional higher education at a university of applied sciences, and also the student workload expected by the institution for each single study activity…..”

The SAM-model divides up four categories which is based on whether the study activity is initiated by the student or by the lecturer, or whether a lecturer or only students participate in the activity. Crossing the two axes of participation and initiation, all possible sorts of activities could be mapped within one of the four categories. 

By means of the model the University colleges also wanted to emphasize the importance of more self-directed learning which appeared in some of the four categories. Especially the ones where students both initiate activities and work a lot of the time without the presence of a lecturer/tutor should be more prevalent throughout an educational programme.

In the wake of the SAM-model some research project were initiated, among others the project, on whichthis paper refers to: “Didactical challenges in self-directed learning spaces”.

What makes such learning spaces interesting for research is, that the power exercised by the educational system cannot be significantly reduced. Basically, it means that self-directed learning space are built on a paradox, which in brief terms may be phrased: How can educators (representing the system) design, manage and control self-directed learning spaces when such spaces are supposed to be self-directed from students perspective?[1]?

Subsequently this will make some dilemmas to occur in pedagogical practice. Thus the aim of this paper is to discuss the question:

What kinds of dilemmas occur for tutors and for students in self-directing learning spaces?

The theoretical framework is mainly inspired by works of both Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu. For the investigation of structuring principles, we draw on Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing and his key term invisible pedagogies. Also Bourdieu’s conceptualization of relation between agent and structure offers a powerful perspective to this issue, including how different students are positioned in self-directed learning spaces and how they – by virtue of different capital forms – respond to the ‘invisibility’ in such spaces.  

Method

The project is carried out as a qualitative case study comprising two different institutional cases within Professional Higher education in Denmark. One is the Constructing Architect programme and the other is a Design, Technology & Business programme. A common criterion for case-selection has been the employment of Problem Based Learning (PBL) as a pedagogical framework. This criterion is based on the assumption, that self-directed learning spaces will be prevalent in such settings. Another criterion for case selection has been heteronomy in respect of educational culture, student profile in terms of educational background age, and gender. In each of the two cases the empirical focus is on a student class including the pedagogical staff allocated to it, and – as an even more specific context - a student team with its own dynamic and characteristics. . Again, the student team is selected as most representative according to student capital. Eventually research findings will be qualified by contrasting and comparison of the two cases. In this paper, we mainly present results from the Constructing Architect case as this is most advanced. As an analytical framework for interpreting empirical data about self-directed learning spaces, we combine Bernstein’s theories of classification and framing with some of Matons Code theories from the Legitimation Code theory (LCT). Thus we distinguish between classification and framing of the following dimensions: Time: Sequencing division and structuring Space: Physical places, rooms, artifacts Epistemic relations: sequencing, pacing and progression of knowledge Social relations: Background, experience, gender, nationality and race Exploring the relative strength and weakness of classification and framing of these dimension we gain understanding of what structuring dimensions enhance or limits self-direction and self –management. Data is generated from the empirical filed by employing various qualitative methods and techniques: Curriculum analysis: Analysis of formal curriculum documents is carried out for the purpose of exploring classification and framing of the above dimensions Field studies: Observations of class-room interactions and student-team interaction are carried out to see how curriculum is enacted in pedagogical practice in order to the real autonomous and heteronomous elements in the learning spaces Interviews: Students and tutors are interviewed in group and individually in order to gain accounts of how actors interpret and experience possibilities and constraints concerning self-direction and management. The variety of empirical sources enables us to trace dilemmas, identify their characteristics and how to deal with them.

Expected Outcomes

Findings at this stage are: A code change from a knowledge code towards a knower code has taken place, which have opened up for ‘invisible pedagogies’ such as Problem Based Learning. Exploring the four above mentioned structuring dimensions provide multifaceted insight to self-direction: We show how the four dimensions change from curriculum to pedagogical practice, some becoming stronger, others weaker. Overall, the emphasis on individual attributes of the students diminishes (social relations) Instead emphasis on knowledge (epistemic relations) has increased. The students should learn certain theories, methods, techniques etc. locked in a relatively strong time framing. However, it is very much up to the students how to acquire the detailed knowledge and apply it in their project work by tutors’ guidance. Regardless of how the structuring of pedagogical practice is in terms of room for self-direction, the students are not that concerned with self-direction as a principle, but more concerned whether the study offers great and relevant challenges. They find such challenges in the group- and project work. From a student perspective ‘invisibility’ is both an opening and a restriction. It increases motivation as an important learning resource, but it is also an uncertainty for the students whether to perform adequately, which on the other hand is frustrating. A major challenge for both tutors and students is therefore to reach and maintain a ‘balance’ between motivational effects and energy lost in frustration and erroneous work. This process of balancing is played out in the interaction between tutors and students as a “game” in which students try to reduce uncertainties by coding possible implicit expectations and demands from tutors, but at the same time retain some autonomy in the study work. From the tutors point of view the balance is about offering the right kind of guidance to the students’ learning.

References

Barrows, H.S. & Tamblyn, R.M. 1980. “Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education”, Springer, New York. Bernstein, B. 2000, “Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique”, Rev. ed. edn, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. Bernstein, B. 1974. “Class, codes and control”, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Bourdieu, P. 2001. ”Af praktiske grunde”. Kbh.: Hans Reitzel. Bourdieu, P. 1997. “The Forms of Capital” [reprint from 1986]. I A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown og A.S. Wells (red.), Education. Culture, Economy, and Society. Oxford University Press: 46-58 Bourdieu, P. et al. 1999. “The Weight of the World. Social Suffering in Contemporary Society”. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.J.D. 1996. ”Refleksiv sociologi: mål og midler”, 1. udg. Kbh.: Hans Reitzel. Christensen, G. 2010. ”Pædagogikken mellem individualisering og strukturering” Nordic Studies in Education02 / 2010 Dahl, P. N 2008. ”Studenter-afstemt vejledning og kommunikation” i Krogh, L. m.fl.(red.) projektpædagogik – Perspektiver fra Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg Universitetsforlag Dolmer, G. 2015. ”Studieaktivitetsmodellen: erfaringer og refleksioner”, Systime profession, Aarhus. Dysthe, O. 2003. ”Dialog, samspil & læring”, 1. udg. Aarhus: Forlaget Klim. DPU 2008.”En didaktisk analyse af uddannelserne ved Københavns Erhvervsakademi Prinsesse Charlottes Gade”, Aarhus Universitet (ikke udgivet) Krejsler, J. & Halkier, L. 2004. ”Pædagogikken og kampen om individet: kritisk pædagogik, ny inderlighed og selvets teknikker”, Hans Reitzel, Kbh. Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge & knowers : “Towards a realist sociology of education”, Routledge, London. Maton, K., Carvalho, L. & Dong, A. 2016. “LCT in praxis – Creating an e-learning environment for informal learning of principled knowledge” in Maton etc. (red.): “Knowledge building – Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory, Routledge. Wendy Kicken, Saskia Brand‐Gruwel & Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer (2008): “Scaffolding advice on task selection: a safe path toward self-directed learning in on-demand education”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 60, No. 3,

Author Information

Verner Larsen (presenting / submitting)
VIA Unoversity College, Denmark
Annette Rasmussen (presenting)
Aalborg University
Learning and Philosophy
Aalborg Ø

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.