By Andrew Cochrane (Cardiff University).
On Wednesday 17 October 2007, the auspicious Council Chamber of the Glamorgan Building at Cardiff University, played host for a workshop dedicated to the skill enhancement of graduate and part-time teachers and new lectures in archaeology and classics. Rather than rely on more traditional approaches to lecturing and presentation, this day-school sought to illuminate alternative modes of teaching and mediation.
The day commenced with refreshments, information packs and introductions by Karina Croucher (University of Liverpool, HEA).
The first lecture titled ‘Learning Styles’ was presented by Simon Davies (Hull University), a psychologist whose research interests include studies in human cognition, particularly problem solving and strategy development. Simon opened by mentioning that whilst preparing for the presentation, he was intrigued to find that some archaeologists draw heavily upon cognitive domain studies and evolutionary psychology – e.g. the influences of Daniel Dennett, Leda Cosmides and Jerry Fodor in the work of Steven Mithen. This position of cross-pollination and exchange of ideas and knowledge would form the foundations of Simon’s theoretical introduction into to how we think we learn.
Knowledge is experience. Everything else is just information
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions
in which they can learn.
Albert Einstein
By leading with these quotations, Simon demonstrated that although people are consistently learning everyday of their lives, the traditional approaches adopted and the language of academic learning is sometimes seen as cumbersome and alienating. Simon wished to by-pass these obstacles, by envisaging learning more as a process of doing rather than mere retention of information.
Simon introduced the audience to the two predominate schools of learning: the behaviourist and the cognitive approaches. In brief, the behaviourist school of thought advances that learning is an automatic conditioning process that operates via stimulus, response and reward. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov’s experiments with dogs serves as an apt analogy – learning is based on ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’. By presenting a class with the intended conclusions of a lecture, one is highlighting a behaviourist approach by illuminating the learning ‘output’. The second school that was discussed by Simon incorporated the cognitive fluidity of information across the brain, influenced by concept formation, perception and memory. Here, learning or understanding is demonstrated by the act of problem solving. To illustrate this approach, Simon introduced the class to the work of David Kolb. In the late twentieth century, Kolb devised a model to illustrate how differing aspects of experience in life influence each other in the process of learning – working in a learning cycle of four phases (concrete experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection, and testing the new concepts).
To illustrate how the cognitive approaches may work in the lecture environment, Simon handed out and explained the ‘Learning Styles Questionnaire’ (LSQ), a document that comprises 80 statements that attempt to capture the complexities of learning and the cycle of learning. It was devised by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford in the late twentieth century as a development on Kolb’s bipolar cycle of learning, and works by building a picture of your learning styles by the statements you agree or disagree with. In the LSQ, you can determine what sort of learner you are – for instance, you may be: an Activist, a Reflector, a Theorist or a Pragmatist. It is proposed that by appreciating that people have differing performance skills and approaches to learning, one can tailor lectures to target and develop individual learning styles.
As well as explaining the benefits of Honey and Mumford’s LSQ approach, Simon also presented a critique. It was noted that learning styles are generally not fixed and static, but rather are fluid and contextual, being prone to change depending on the particular circumstances and emotions present in a person’s day.
To demonstrate to the class how these varied approaches to behaviourist and cognitive teaching methods may be combined, Simon asked the class to write down responses to particular questions. For example: what are you good at? In doing so, it was explained that drawing out of people what they already know is key to developing teaching strategies. By creating ‘anchors’ from this information, and by framing it with lecture objectives, one can begin to pull on the strengths from both learning styles.
Simon concluded his presentation by illustrating the key factors that need to be present in a successful learning experience. These elements include: wanting/needing, doing, digesting and feedback. Positive and constructive feedback was deemed the most powerful and instructive element that a lecturer can introduce into the learning environment.
After an adjourn for lunch and refreshments, we returned to the Council Chamber for a paper by the session organiser Karina Croucher (University of Liverpool, HEA), entitled ‘Archaeology Image Bank’. Karina commenced her paper with the problems and pitfalls of utilising online Search Engines, such as Google Images, to obtain images for lecturing purposes. Karina’s main concern was that often there is generally little associated information available with an image (e.g. site location, provenance, date and so on), with the information that is connected, often being incorrect, decontextualised and not peer reviewed. To address these issues, the Higher Education Academy’s Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology, and Jen Mitcham of the Archaeology Data Service, created the Archaeological Image Bank. This internet e-resource is conceived as tool for locating and sharing archaeological images for use in lecturing and research. The immediate benefits of the Image Bank include that it is a free service, and one that is created by and for an academic environment – although it is also available to the wider general public. The image owners retain copyright over the images, and the images that are donated are watermarked with the photographer’s name and contact details. Each e-published image includes detailed information sections on the picture’s subject matter (e.g. the feature’s type/s, its period/s, building material), its location (e.g. continent, region), who took the photograph and a concise description of what is being viewed.
Karina proceeded to introduce the audience to the ease in which one can navigate the site and search images – although the image bank is still in its infancy, there is already a growing catalog of spectacular and stimulating photographs. See for instance this image taken in 2007 of dry spoil sieving at the site of Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi in Palmyra, Syria.
The paper was concluded with a request from Karina for us to spread the word about the image bank to the wider academic community, and to upload as many images as we can!
Next to deliver a paper, entitled ‘Podcasting’, was David Gill (Swansea University). For the uninitiated, a podcast is a digital multi-media file, which can be broadcasted on the internet and later transferred onto varied media, such as PCs and mobile devices – the term “podcast” is broadly an amalgamation of the terms ‘iPod’ and ‘broadcast’.
David began his paper with an example of the ways in which one can engage with a still image that is embedded into a PowerPoint presentation or Blackboard (an educational e-platform). It was illustrated that two dimensional modes of representation can often impede spectators fully appreciating the nuances of what they are looking at, such as a Roman building foundation layer.
Instead, David proposed that richer experiences of archaeological data and site locations can be generated via a combination of time sequential stitched imagery to create a basic QuickTime movie with audio recordings. By this layering of image with image and sound, David demonstrated how the visual ‘affect’ or illusion of moving within an environment and around a feature can easily be simulated. David discovered, through trial and error, that the freshness of his experience could be re-created via the inclusion of sound recordings that he made ‘in the field’ or museums on his Olympus digital sound recorder – which is basically a modern Dictaphone. David attempts to re-create senses of both scale and awe, via a degree of two-way interaction between the spectators and the images viewed.
David presented examples of his previous works, and these included journeys through Kerameikos, Athens, and Rhamnous, Attica, in Greece.
David explained that other means of delivering information can include usage of the Internet. For instance, if you were lecturing on the politics of spectatorship – how people view objects or how objects engage with the viewer – and you wanted to illustrate the visual impact of pattern on the primary visual cortex (often producing what is termed the contextual effect), it would be possible to include a live link in the lecture, or direct students to an example such as this.
By incorporating varied media into his presentations, David illustrated the benefits of combining traditional lecture techniques with more flexible learning strategies.
The final paper of the day, titled ‘Moving Images’, was given by James Clay (Gloucestershire College). James is a specialist working within and with the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), which is very broadly an environment of systems and processes by which learners and lectures participate in e-interactions supported by multimedia.
The thrust of James’ presentation was to inform how we can capture, create, borrow/find and utilise video, or moving images, in both traditional formal lectures and more open or resource-based learning formats. Rather than creating apathy in students, or a mind-set of not needing to attend lectures as the information can be obtained remotely, James’ detailed how VLEs actually enhance audience attendance. Importantly, diversity in presentation leads both to an increase in the sense of personalisation that a student may feel (the empowerment of the learner), with multimedia technology acting as an assistive tool, rather than a replacement of more traditional methods.
James’ style was energetic and exciting – he increasingly impressed the audience with the sheer volume of technology that he kept producing from his various and apparently bottomless cases! These included two laptops, an iMac, a 3G mobile phone, PSP and various mass-storage devices. James explained that one means of disseminating information or knowledge outside the lecture environment is via the usage and tactile engagement with portable digital devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras, iPods, PDAs, PSPs, and PVRs (for the meaning to any technological abbreviation, please visit webopedia). These pieces of equipment can be used to broadcast data – seminar or class tasks for students can include the production of a podcast for the class to discuss.
James demonstrated how easy it is to create a podcast with Windows Movie maker and iMovie. Videos were created before our eyes with audio sounds edited via WireTap Studio, and then embedded into a PowerPoint presentation. Other useful tools for video construction and conversion include: Media Convert and Zamzar.
The day school collectively considered the possibilities of utilising podcasts as Site Diaries for excavations. In theory it could also be possible to film or photograph an excavation as it happens – then send that information to a websites such as YouTube or flickr. These sites would allow people located elsewhere, maybe at University, to post comments or suggestions on what they are witnessing. These web comments could then immediately be read by the people on the excavation, who can act or react to the observations made. Such an endeavour has many advantages, creating more inclusive and accessible University excavations. For example, students who cannot attend a field excavation due to medical reasons can still interact with aspects of the excavation experience, and decision making processes. Release Forms from the students being recorded would of course have to be signed before filming took place.
The day school then paused for some well deserved coffees and cakes! We then set about digesting the information that was presented to us, and discussed the various ways in which we felt that these theoretical and technological approaches could assist our teaching and performance styles.
It was agreed by all, that the day was a success, and we all thanked the speakers and Karina, Eleanor and Lyn from the Subject Centre, for making it happen.