‘I have five lessons to teach, what lessons they learn is entirely up to them.’
Nanny McPhee, 2005
The quote mentioned above was used by the character ‘Nanny McPhee’ to imply that some lessons are learned without there being a conscious awareness of the requirement to learn. The context of the quote (and the short conversation before) further implied that there may not be any knowledge of how lessons are being learned and without there being any knowledge that a lesson has been learned (until after the fact). This approach to learning falls into the field of Behaviourism and generally describes the way I learned the attitudes and mental awareness required of a soldier.
Whilst the basic training was structured I believe that there was a change in the teaching methods used on future military courses. My basic training was organised along the lines of the product/objectives model developed by Ralph Tyler (1971) with its ‘behavioral targets’ (Armitage et al, 2003, p201) but for me the future military skills courses more closely followed the process model developed by Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) (Armitage et al, 2003, p202). The Stenhouse model changes the emphasis of the learning experience from a ‘listen I will tell you how to do it’ to a two-way interaction where the learners own experiences can be used to understand the new material. The common area however, is that the instructor remains the subject matter expert (SME) but Stenhouse saw the benefits of using their experiences and judgement as a means of increasing the learners understanding. My Senior Military Certificate (SMC) course gave me a good insight to this type of learning experience. The course is delivered by ex-Infantrymen from various Battalions who bring a wide range of experience and are able to give the new and unfamiliar subject matter an edge of reality. The ‘how’ part of the process (Stenhouse) model allowed room for the instructors to develop the delivery to meet the learner’s requirements which sometimes meant that other learners voiced personal experiences. These changes in styles (instructors versus other learner) meant that my learning style was usually catered for. As an after thought, I can see how one of the more experienced learners would say this course was nearer to a mix of the process model and the content model (Armitage et al, 2003, p202) because this model discusses the development of knowledge not necessarily an objective. Their existing knowledge was no doubt expanded and developed, at times beyond the course requirements.
Becoming an electronics engineer was the main reason I joined the Army and I approached my Basic Engineering course full of anticipation and high levels of personal motivation. As with my military training, my engineering training was a mix of formal courses and field experience which culminated with my Artificer course that put me at top of the trade tree. It was after completing this course that I took the next 6 years out of education vowing, for one, never to complete a degree. On reflection I think there were two areas of the course that made me feel this way and put some major barriers to learning up in my mind. Firstly the lecturers failed to enthuse me with any interest in the subjects and secondly the teaching methods left me unfulfilled with regard to understanding the material. This course has discussed professionalism and introduced me to a number of teaching models that has allowed me to recognise the areas where the Artificer course did not make learning an enjoyable experience for me.
Hoyle (1974) (PGCE Course Notes) talks about professionalism in terms of ‘strategies and rhetorics’ and goes on to discuss professionality in terms of ‘knowledge, skills and procedures’. As they stand I disagree with Hoyles’ definitions because he only talks in terms of external attributes and not in terms of human attributes and I don’t like the way Hoyle has grouped different attributes under two terms. I think professionalism is a combination of all these external, learnable attributes plus those that make up a teacher as an individual. My idea of professionalism agrees with that Peter G. Clamp (1990 pp 53-56) who views professionalism as a state of mind. Among other things he talks about professionalism as ‘… stand[ing] on a firm foundation of attitude and behaviour’. I had a few lecturers on my Artificer Course that had either ‘bad attitude’, ‘poor behaviour’ or both. Analogue Measurements was notorious for being a dull, mind-numbing subject but after a couple of lessons it was clear that the subject was okay, it was the lecturer’s bad attitude that was the problem. Learning is easier and more exciting when the lecturer involves the learners in the process. Two way communications via questions or open discussions are great ways to involve learners. My Analogue Measurements lecturer viewed questions as a sign of poor intelligence or the result of day dreaming and open discussion as a time wasting exercise. The lessons soon took on a monotonous routine with some of the learners (including me) not grasping the idea of the subject and, sadly not having a method of exploring our lack of knowledge. This lecturer would often turn up late and on more than one occasion a bit tipsy following a pub lunch. This poor behaviour further reduced our respect for this individual but also reflected badly on the school as it appeared to be overlooked or worse accepted. Another particular lecturer appeared nervous and uncomfortable in front of the class. He would talk to the floor instead of addressing the class, fidget when asked questions and he could not confront a learner who disagreed with his theories. His apparent lack of self confidence or disinterest in his own lesson meant we as learners quickly lost interest and motivation to learn this module. The lack of motivation spread to all areas of the subject and affected presentation and homework deadlines which were often missed without concern of any repercussions. However, my Artificer course lecturers did not all fall into these categories and many demonstrated high levels of professionalism in many different ways. Clamp talks of a ‘Professional’ as someone who demonstrates professionalism in terms of competency, integrity and reliability. However, lecturers who turned up on time, demonstrated enthusiasm about their subject and was approachable made some of the lessons a pleasure to take.
The other thing about my Artificer course I did not enjoy was the amount of time given to some of the subject and generally the whole course. It was said, and I have no evidence to prove it, that it would have taken 3 years to qualify as an Artificer Electronics if it were taught in a civilian college instead of the 14 months we were given. The Advanced Electronics (AE) phase of the course was made up of nine modules (such as Analogue Measurements mentioned above) and lasted about seven months. Our timetable was a never ending jumble of these subjects and each lesson continuously blurred into the next.
During this module of the PGCE course I have had the chance to read about many different learning theories but the one which caught my attention most was Klas Mellandors’ (1993) Learning Spiral. I read some articles about the five-stage learning spiral and found it related to some of the more enjoyable subjects I have learned and generally the style used on my Artificer course. So why did I not enjoy some of the learning? Why did some subjects appear herder than others? The answer lies in the application of Mellandors’ spiral. On a modular course, such as my AE phase, it is important that the spiral is used to lead the learner from one subject to the next. If the application stage is used properly it can be used to lead the learner smoothly and logically into the next subject. This was not the case on my Artificer course where the modules were delivered haphazardly and no motivation toward an end state was obvious. The other glaring non-compliance with learning spiral was the time given to the Conclusion phase. This phase should be used to allow the learner to fit the newly gained information into the existing knowledge and only then, Mellandor believes, does the new information become learned. I was never given any time to allow the information to sink in however I did get lots of examples to do. This makes me think that my tutors were using the old adage ‘practice makes perfect’ but whilst I was good at doing examples the information never sunk in for me to apply the knowledge reliably in other situations.
Throughout my Post-16 learning experiences I have experienced many types of formative and summative assessment. I have had oral assessments, practical assessments, multiple-choice, long answer, short answer and a combination of all these and other types. Brown et al (1996) discussed assessment as ‘a multi-faceted process that has several aims’ but my experiences have led to see assessment more as ‘a doubled edged sword’. One side of my sword is my ‘learning perspective’ of assessment and the other side my ‘teaching perspective’ of assessment. As a learner I have determined the requirement for assessment on the majority of courses I have taken falls in three main areas. The formative assessment I have taken has provided me with a pass/fail result with an associated graded mark and the summative assessment as a means to gain an academic award or certification of competence. As a teacher I continue to see the validity of the academic and competence requirements but in addition I recognise that assessment can be used for feedback and evaluation purposes. By giving a learner useful and informative feedback on an assessment the teacher is providing them a formal acknowledgement of the standard of their learning and understanding. I have used assessment and in particular the learner pass/fail ratio as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of my lessons. On a course I recently taught the pass/fail ratio was very poor and this led to me taking a long hard look at how I was performing. This situation fits nicely into the critical incident model described below.
A personal (micro) event or experience that is surprising or extraordinary that brings about a shift in the way you think about and/or changes your practice.
Peter Woods (1993)
This incident stood out because it was the first time I had taught a particular module and the first time I had taught within the department. I was asked to teach Mathematics to a course of Marine Engineers over a four day period before they went on to their engineering course. The course had gone really well and I was upbeat about all but one of the learners passing the assessment. However when the results arrived 6 of 8 had failed, I was totally devastated and immediately blamed myself for the outcome. I had let down 6 soldiers at the first hurdle of a 10 month course and I was determined to discover exactly where I had gone wrong. I decided to start at the final assessment and work back through each lesson until something appeared wrong. Did I cover all aspects of each question in the exam during the course? Yes. Did the learners have an opportunity to see past papers and address areas of concern? Yes. I worked through many more questions all of which did not lead to an answer why so many failed. I finally got around to looking at the pre-course assessment criteria and discovered that only one learner had met the required standard. With this in mind I used this as a starting point and worked back through each lesson and arrived at very different answers. When and how did I confirm the learners had understood a particular area of the course? I certainly asked questions, both written and oral but did I ask the right questions, at the right time? Was I distracted by a particular learner who was clearly struggling and needed more attention than the others? When I looked at the completed assessment papers again I found another startling trend, most of the learners had not answered the high value questions i.e. they had no exam technique and ran out of time. I lacked one other important piece of information and that was the learner evaluation of the course. What was their opinion of it, why do they think they failed? I not yet had a chance to deliver the maths module again or to speak to the learners who did not meet the assessment requirements. When I do get the chance (if ever!!) to teach the module again I think I will be using assessment and evaluation throughout the course by introducing daily formative assessments and an extended end of day wash-up. I will be looking at the assessment paper and deciding if having 4 of 20 questions worth 52% of the marks contributed to the course outcome (yes in my opinion). I have had a close look at the FENTO standards and in particular key area f1 which discusses the appropriate use of assessment methods to measure learning and achievement. If I can improve my knowledge of some of the areas discussed I believe the outcome of the next Maths module will be greatly improved.
One aspect of the Maths course I found intriguing was the diversity of the student backgrounds. Of the eight learners on the course, two were attempting to change Corps or Arm and two were of non-British origin (Canadian and Trinidadian). A few years ago this may have made the headlines but over the last few years the Armed forces have been addressing the areas of inclusion and diversity ‘full on’. All MoD personnel are mandated to attend annual awareness courses on Equality and Diversity, formally known as Equal Opportunities but changed to reflect the changes in its recruiting target population. This has resulted in the Armed Forces becoming an organisation that can now attract and retain high quality individuals regardless of their ethnic origin, gender or disability. However the true measure of the success of this policy will probably never be known because it is easy for the media to highlight the small number of failing rather than concentrate on the good. As a teacher, in any community, I think inclusion has become and will continue to be one of the most scrutinised areas of my work. One inappropriate word on a course application form or advertisement could inadvertently exclude a great many people from applying for and attending the course. Teaching methods must also be carefully selected so as not to excluded a learner because of disability or learning difficulties.
Overall I have enjoyed my post-16 learning experiences and I am entering the teacher profession in an attempt to encourage others and help them enjoy learning. Looking back I think I have learned more about how to approach a group of learners more from my bad teachers and experiences than from my good. In my own limited teaching experience I had the shock of seeing so many learners fail an assessment. I found this particularly hard to handle but I will hopefully have the chance to see the results of my critical analysis of the situation next time I teach the module. Word Count – 3264
References:
Reece, I and Walker, S. (2003). Teaching, Training and Learning: a practical guide. (5th ed.), Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.
Nanny McPhee (2005), Universal Pictures
Armitage, A. et al. Teaching and Training in Post Compulsory Education (2nd ed.), Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hoyle (1974) (PGCE Course Notes)
accessed 14 Dec 05.
Clamp, PG (1990). Professionalism in Education: A State of Mind. Education Digest, October 1990, Vol 56, Issue 2.
Klas Mellandor (1993), source unknown.
Brown, S., Race, P and Smith, B. (1996) 500 Tips on Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Peter Woods (1993) (PGCE Course Notes)
FENTO Standards for teaching and supporting learning in further education in England and Wales, accessed 12 Dec 05.