I would like to leave one key point at the end of this online discussion. I left it until the end to see if anything came out on it - the notion of diversity and learning.
The pie-charts (or other data-display formats of which there are quite a few) show the *diversity* of thinking in the room. This is a resource for learning rather than a starting point for correction.
The goal of Shared Thinking is not to seek consensus or any form of agreement. We are not trying to see how many got the right answer. In this new approach we are seeking to leverage and display the variety of perspectives in the room on a given topic.
I believe this is a big big difference - not least to the standard use of clickers- but also to the idea of teaching. In Shared Thinking the goal is to pool the diverse thinking in the group (and can be a group of 400 we've done it with). Then the goal is to make that visible or 'public.'
This has several effects including letting everyone know that here are the range of issues held by members of this group and that we therefore have something in common that defines as a group. It also puts the discussion into a communicable form for further thought and discussion. And it shapes and supports the response of others.
It is interesting to see how often clickers are held up as valuable and the goal is consensus around a correct answer. That allows the tutor to carry on their prepared story. More importantly we see the most popular learning designs for the use of clickers praising the value of discussion as a way of increasing the level of consensus. In other words the more you talk about it the more you'll fall in or agree or believe or understand the correct story.
It is a qualitatively different thing to seek to avoid consensus and instead to show multiple perspectives. Then to make the diversity the basis of the discussion. This student generated diversity is a rich resource that raises a sense of ownership and makes it feel more authentic as a conversation shaped by the students.
So my final point in closing is to invite you to think about the goal of generating and then displaying the diversity of thoughts in the whole-group as a different way of supporting a student-driven agenda and a rich approach to communal reflection and learning.
Many thanks for this opportunity. Thanks also for your contributions, time and encouragement.
Best wishes,
Nick
Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
Scotland
email: n.bowskill.1@research.gla.ac.uk
Nicholas Bowskill
Posts made by Nicholas Bowskill
Wow Sylvia, We are opening a whole set of different ideas and areas here so thanks for the encouragement. I'll try not to abuse that by taking up too much real estate on here and to allow others to come in and be heard as well.
The whole issue of reflective practice and reflection is interesting isn't it? Many people say reflection is just another word for thinking. So what do we think about even the word reflection?
Then we have the issues about reflection in and on action etc. allied to issues of reflection on demand as being sometimes less than ideal.
Then we come to the other issue of reflecting alone or with others. There is such a huge fuss at the moment with portfolios (e or otherwise) that we seem to overlook questions about reflection upon the social world and therefore involving others that have a stake. What does sharing reflection mean? What do we gain or lose if it is done with peers?
My final point is that I hear your mention of organisational learning. This dove-tails neatly into questions about social reflection doesn't it? Who really benefits in OL and are benefits equal? Are they also equal in group reflection? Is that an issue or just a fact of life? Could it be different
and how?
My personal question is whether or not we can create learning organisations, communities of practice or learning communities (different things I know) - so much discussed through online collaborative/cooperative activities - in face to face settings? Or as face to face reflective dialogue as the heart of all that follows?
I must stop myself there and it would be fascinating to hear what you Sylvia and others here think.
cheers,
Nick
The whole issue of reflective practice and reflection is interesting isn't it? Many people say reflection is just another word for thinking. So what do we think about even the word reflection?
Then we have the issues about reflection in and on action etc. allied to issues of reflection on demand as being sometimes less than ideal.
Then we come to the other issue of reflecting alone or with others. There is such a huge fuss at the moment with portfolios (e or otherwise) that we seem to overlook questions about reflection upon the social world and therefore involving others that have a stake. What does sharing reflection mean? What do we gain or lose if it is done with peers?
My final point is that I hear your mention of organisational learning. This dove-tails neatly into questions about social reflection doesn't it? Who really benefits in OL and are benefits equal? Are they also equal in group reflection? Is that an issue or just a fact of life? Could it be different
and how?
My personal question is whether or not we can create learning organisations, communities of practice or learning communities (different things I know) - so much discussed through online collaborative/cooperative activities - in face to face settings? Or as face to face reflective dialogue as the heart of all that follows?
I must stop myself there and it would be fascinating to hear what you Sylvia and others here think.
cheers,
Nick
Hi Sylvia,
This page has some of the main influences and key texts on it
http://www.sharedthinking.info/theory-related-to-this-study
There are a few influences on the design idea. The first is whether online learning communities can be created in face to face classrooms. So the usual suspects of Lave & Wenger etc came up there.
One of the more interesting projects that influenced me was one to do with schools based at Harvard called Making Learning Visible. They talked about the way that bringing learning products together facilitated the thinking of those involved and also shaped the involvement of others.
The other big work that caught my imagination was from Walter Stroup at University of Texas at Austin and a group of others all concerned with Mathematics. They used handheld devices to manipulate items in a shared simulation and their writing discusses working in a whole group via the display. I wanted to see if that thinking could be generalised beyond Maths.
Then the other projects that interested me were those of people like Boud in Australia who were interested in collaborative approaches to reflection. I hadn't really seen a concrete process for doing that so I was challenged to tackle that problem.
Finally the other area of interest was all the fuss being made about representations of course designs using tools such as LAMS etc. Plus other representations such as Social Network Analysis that displayed relationships between people but seemed to miss the content and context. I thought that both needed a representation of the student perspectives at the collective level to sit alongside those other representations and to help make sense of them.
The whole thing kicked off with the idea of student-generated questions and it mushroomed from there. I've become aware of how much work is opening up with this approach and the level of interest has been both encouraging and surprising.
I'd been involved in online collaborative work for some years so these new classroom technologies were something new and interesting to me. I realise looking back how I'd essentially translated the online ideas back to the classroom.
This page has some of the main influences and key texts on it
http://www.sharedthinking.info/theory-related-to-this-study
There are a few influences on the design idea. The first is whether online learning communities can be created in face to face classrooms. So the usual suspects of Lave & Wenger etc came up there.
One of the more interesting projects that influenced me was one to do with schools based at Harvard called Making Learning Visible. They talked about the way that bringing learning products together facilitated the thinking of those involved and also shaped the involvement of others.
The other big work that caught my imagination was from Walter Stroup at University of Texas at Austin and a group of others all concerned with Mathematics. They used handheld devices to manipulate items in a shared simulation and their writing discusses working in a whole group via the display. I wanted to see if that thinking could be generalised beyond Maths.
Then the other projects that interested me were those of people like Boud in Australia who were interested in collaborative approaches to reflection. I hadn't really seen a concrete process for doing that so I was challenged to tackle that problem.
Finally the other area of interest was all the fuss being made about representations of course designs using tools such as LAMS etc. Plus other representations such as Social Network Analysis that displayed relationships between people but seemed to miss the content and context. I thought that both needed a representation of the student perspectives at the collective level to sit alongside those other representations and to help make sense of them.
The whole thing kicked off with the idea of student-generated questions and it mushroomed from there. I've become aware of how much work is opening up with this approach and the level of interest has been both encouraging and surprising.
I'd been involved in online collaborative work for some years so these new classroom technologies were something new and interesting to me. I realise looking back how I'd essentially translated the online ideas back to the classroom.
Just one interesting point in passing there Deirdre about the immediacy of response by tutors or mentors. The research said that the construction and communication of the questions by students meant that they expected a prompt reply. The reason for this was because it was experienced as a form of whole-group communication/conversation. As such to delay the reply would break the model for some participants. That said we are becoming aware of different permutations and possibilities so there is no single answer.
Another thing we looked at briefly was to run through a cycle of Shared Thinking and generate the pie-charts. Then to introduce one from a different group or one the same group did ages ago. The activity then becomes one of explaining the differences which can lead to some interesting discussions.
In all cases, the tutor is a facilitator of a conversation owned and shaped by the participants which everyone saw as important.
Another thing we looked at briefly was to run through a cycle of Shared Thinking and generate the pie-charts. Then to introduce one from a different group or one the same group did ages ago. The activity then becomes one of explaining the differences which can lead to some interesting discussions.
In all cases, the tutor is a facilitator of a conversation owned and shaped by the participants which everyone saw as important.
Hi Peter,
The key part is the fact that the reflective discussion generates the options for the set issue. Individuals vote upon the issues the whole-group generates to transform the textual list into a pie-chart. It's in particular contrast to the tutor setting the question and the options and inviting participants to vote upon them.
Shared Thinking is about student-generated options that are then quantified and set in relation to each other through the voting. This creates multiple perspectives on a given issue. It's not seeking consensus. The goal of Shared Thinking is to leverage a view of the diversity of thought in the room. The diversity is the resource for cognitive and situative development.
It's a process of whole-group enquiry - by the group and about the group.
The key part is the fact that the reflective discussion generates the options for the set issue. Individuals vote upon the issues the whole-group generates to transform the textual list into a pie-chart. It's in particular contrast to the tutor setting the question and the options and inviting participants to vote upon them.
Shared Thinking is about student-generated options that are then quantified and set in relation to each other through the voting. This creates multiple perspectives on a given issue. It's not seeking consensus. The goal of Shared Thinking is to leverage a view of the diversity of thought in the room. The diversity is the resource for cognitive and situative development.
It's a process of whole-group enquiry - by the group and about the group.