What is action learning?

Action learning builds on the relationship between reflection and action. Learning by experience involves reflection, ie reconsidering past events, making sense of our actions, and possibly finding new ways of behaving at future events. We believe that reflection is a necessary precursor to effective action and that learning from experience can be enhanced by deliberate attention to this relationship. The theoretical basis for reflection is discussed at length in Chapter 6. Taking part in an action learning set provides the time and space to attend to the relationship, ie the link between reflection and learning. Set members enable their colleagues to understand, explore and judge their situation as well as helping them to realize underlying feelings which influ-ence behaviour. The action learning process is supportive and challenging, while recognizing the subjective world of set members and the social context of their work and lives.

Action learning is often assumed to be an everyday activity – ‘Oh yes, that’s learning by doing’ or ‘I use action learning all the time but I’ve never been in a set’ (Pedler, 1997: 263).

Why is a set necessary for action learning?
Casual conversations in groups or one-to-one or even just talking through  ideas with colleagues may be seen as reflective – why use a special name for it? The answer lies in the deliberate and intentional provision of time and space for set members to engage in reflective learning. Action learning multiplies the kind of support which a trusted friend or colleague would offer, listening without judgement and, without giving advice, helping the individual concerned to discover his or her own solution.

Not one but several people focus on supporting one person, with the knowledge that this will be reciprocated later in the session or at a later session. Action learning sets formalize reflective learning and legitimize the allocation of time and space to it, with consistent voluntary group membership over an extended period of time.
How is action learning different from ordinary groups?
Action learning is unlike other kinds of group such as:
• formal meetings;
• seminars;
• teams;
• support or self-development groups;
• counselling or therapy groups.

Formal meetings have a chairperson, an agenda, open discussion, minutes and sometimes a vote. An action learning set focuses on the presenter’s issue and set minutes are simply action points, not a record of the meeting. A seminar is a presentation of prepared material for discussion by the group. The material is based on factual knowledge in the public domain.

The rules are rarely helpful to the presenter, being adversarial in style, and no consequent action is expected. Action learning sets are wholly focused on assisting the presenter to reflect on action and move towards action. A team is a group with a well-defined group task. Members may support each other but the objective is primarily completion of the task. Action learning sets work for the benefit of individual set members, not an externally imposed task. If set members share a task or project, they become a team, and the action learning process would have to be created in addition to team/task-focused meetings.

Support or self-development groups are often focused more on support than challenge. See Chapter 11 for challenge vs. support in action learning sets. The aim in action learning is to enable the individual to take responsibility, decide on action, and move on.

Action learning is not a counselling or therapy group. The presenter will be listened to and will be offered empathic support – aimed at helping. Counselling will not be offered in an action learning set. When personal
problems arise, set members should seek counselling or therapy elsewhere. So if it’s not a team, support group or seminar, what issues can set members bring to a set? For action learning to be effective, the presenter’s issue should be:
• important to her;
• something where she has authority to act (or is concerned about her lack of it);
• not trivial;
• owned – not about someone else.

The ‘authority to act’ issue may well look different after the set discussion and the presenter may use the set to work with feelings related to her perceived lack of power. We look now at what the provision of time and
space means in action learning.

Time and space
How long should the action learning set meet for? How often should the set meet? How much time should the set and each person have?

How long?
A typical set cycle is likely to be over one calendar year, but set cycles vary from six months to two years depending on the nature of the set. Sets may re-contract at the end of cycle review stage and start a second or even third cycle. What is important is the need for a clear commitment to an agreed number of meetings, which include a review, an ending and an evaluation.

How often?
The frequency of set meetings is negotiated and agreed at the start of the cycle, and set meeting dates are decided and diaried in advance. This is particularly important with independent sets where set members are coming from different organizations and different geographical locations. An interval of one month or six weeks between set meetings is usual; any longer affects the momentum and work of the set.

How much time?
The total time for each set meeting will also be agreed at the start. The set members may not be totally free to determine how much time they can commit to each meeting. There may be personal and organizational constraints or, for independent sets, logistical limits to their commitment.
Two models are currently in use:

• Half-day: This is rather short for a set of five or six members but a typical choice for many. We recommend an absolute minimum of 30 minutes per member, plus 30 minutes each for opening and closing the set meeting, as the minimum below which the action learning work of the set would be compromised. One approach is to accept that only two set members can present at each set meeting, ensuring that every set member has the opportunity to present over the whole set cycle.
• Full day: Here it is possible for five or six members to take their time at every set meeting, as well as providing time for a process review. When set members become familiar with the action learning format, they can confidently adapt the process to suit their own situation. A set may choose to have fewer presentations to enable greater depth and consideration.

How much time each?
Time within the set meeting can be allocated evenly to each set member. If the set chooses to alter this arrangement by consensus, timing can be flexible. This may occur when a presenter’s issue has stimulated deep issues or strong emotion.

When not presenting, set members are actively working to support the presenter – there is no let-up in activity! Set meetings can be exhausting; they are not cosy chats, so the environment, the setting and venue are important.

Space
We recommend that set meetings take place in a comfortable and quiet environment. The set needs privacy as sensitive issues may be discussed and strong emotions may be expressed. The meeting room must be appropriate for the session, without interruptions. Fixed phones should be disabled, while mobile phones or pagers should be switched off as part of the ground rules. When it is necessary for people to be available for urgent calls, these can be taken at the breaks. Refreshments are an important ingredient for keeping the set’s energy levels up and a sandwich or buffet lunch, well presented, ensures that the set keeps active in the afternoon.
Read More : What is action learning?

What is philosophy?

Philosophy is an activity which is distinguished by its concern with certain types of second-order questions, with questions of a reflective sort which arise when activities like science, painting pictures, worshipping, and making moral judgments are going concerns. Not all reflective, second-order questions, of course, are philosophical. A teacher, for instance, can reflect about what prompts people to paint pictures or about the connection, if any, between painting pictures and social class.

These are reflective questions in that they presuppose that the activity of painting pictures is a going concern. But they are not philosophical questions. Indeed they are part of the domain of two other types of enquiry which are also important contributors to educational theory, namely the sciences of psychology and sociology. What, then, distinguishes philosophy from other forms of reflective enquiry?

Let us take an example; for one of the cardinal points in philosophical method is to show points by means of examples. Supposing one teacher says to another: ‘You should not punish children by keeping the whole class in’ and another says ‘That’s not really punishing them; and how do you know you shouldn’t do this anyway?’ The second teacher is dealing philosophically with the moral judgment made by the first teacher.

What makes his reply philosophical? What sort of reflection does it exemplify? It involves reflection about the concept of ‘punishment’ and about the sort of grounds which are good grounds for making a judgment of this sort. Philosophy, in brief, is concerned with questions about the analysis of concepts and with questions about the grounds of knowledge, belief, actions and activities.

This rather bald assertion should give rise to a host of questions. But two connected questions would obviously present themselves to the practically minded. The first question concerns the nature of conceptual analysis itself. Is it, for instance, a matter of defining terms carefully? The second question is how going into the meaning of terms, or probing into the grounds of knowledge, helps anyone to tackle the type of question which sets the enquiry off.

Maybe at the finish one’s head is a bit clearer than at the start. But whether or not keeping the whole class in is to be called punishing the children, the question still has to be faced of whether they ought to be kept in or not. Can philosophizing about the situation shed any light on this very practical problem?
Read More : What is philosophy?

What is The Roles of Research In Educational Psychology

Teachers who are intentional, critical thinkers are likely to enter their classrooms equipped with knowledge about research in educational psychology. Every year, educational psychologists discover or refine principles of teaching and learning that are useful for practicing teachers. Some of these principles are just common sense backed up with evidence, but others are more surprising. One problem educational psychologists face is that almost everyone thinks he or she is an expert on the subject of educational psychology. Most adults have spent many years in schools watching what teachers do. Add to that a certain amount of knowledge of human nature, and voila! Everyone is an amateur educational psychologist. For this reason, professional educational psychologists are often accused of studying the obvious (Gage, 1991).

However, as we have painfully learned, the obvious is not always true. For example, most people assume that if students are assigned to classes according to their ability, the resulting narrower range of abilities in a class will let the teacher adapt the instruction to the specific needs of the students and thereby increase student achievement. This assumption turns out to be false. Many teachers believe that scolding students for misbehavior will improve student behavior. Many students will indeed respond to a scolding by behaving better, but for others, scolding may be a reward for misbehavior and will actually increase it. Some "obvious" truths even conflict with one another.

For example, most people would agree that students learn better from a teacher's instruction than by working alone. This belief supports teacher-centered direct instructional strategies, in which a teacher actively works with the class as a whole. On the other hand, most people would also agree that students often need instruction tailored to their individual needs. This belief, also correct, would demand that teachers divide their time among individuals, or at least among groups of students with differing needs, which would result in some students working independently while others received the teacher's attention.

If schools could provide tutors for every student, there would be no conflict; direct instruction and individualization could coexist. In practice, however, classrooms typically have 20 or more students; as a result, more direct instruction (the first goal) almost always means less indvidualization (the second goal). The intentional teacher's task is to balance these competing goals according to the needs of particular students and situations.

The Goal of Research in Educational Psychology
The goal of research in educational psychology is to carefully examine obvious as well as less than obvious questions, using objective methods to test ideas about the factors that contribute to learning (Levin, O'Donnell, & ICratochwill, 2003; McCombs, 2003). The products of this research are principles, laws, and theories. A principle explains the relationship between factors, such as the effects of alternative grading systems on student motivation. Laws are simply principles that have been thoroughly tested and found to apply in a wide variety of situations.

A theory is a set of related principles and laws that explains a broad aspect of learning, behavior, or another area of interest. Without theories the facts and principles that are dscovered would be like disorganized specks on a canvas. Theories tie together these facts and principles to give us the big picture. However, the same facts and principles may be interpreted in dfferent ways by dfferent theorists. As in any science, progress in educational psychology is slow and uneven. A single study is rarely a breakthrough, but over time evidence accumulates on a subject and allows theorists to refine and extend their theories.


The Value of Research in Educational Psychology to the Teacher
It is probably true that the most important things teachers learn, they learn on the job-in internships, while student teaching, or during their first years in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, Gendler, & Wise, 1990). However, teachers make hundreds of decisions every day, and each decision has a theory behind it, whether or not the teacher is aware of it. The quality, accuracy, and useless of those theories are what ultimately determine the teacher's success. For example, one teacher may offer a prize to the student with the best attendance, on the theory that rewarding attendance will increase it. Another may reward the student whose attendance is most improved, on the theory that it is poor attenders who most need incentives to come to class. A third may not reward anyone for attendance but may try to increase attendance by teaching
more interesting lessons. Which teacher's plan is most likely to succeed? This depends in large part on the ability of each teacher to understand the unique combination of factors that shape the character of her or his classroom and therefore to apply the most appropriate theory.
Read More : What is The Roles of Research In Educational Psychology

What is Motivation?

Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity,  persistence, and quality of behavior, especially goal-directed behavior (Maehr & Meyer, 1997). Motives are hypothetical constructs used to explain why people do what they do. Motives are distinguished from related goals (the immediate objectives of action sequences) and strategies (the methods used to achieve goals and thus to satisfy motives).

For example, a person responds to hunger (motive) by going to a restaurant (strategy) to get food (goal).
Motives are relatively general needs or desires that energize people to initiate purposeful action sequences. In contrast, goals (and related strategies) are more specific and used to explain the direction and quality of action sequences in particular situations (Thrash & Elliot, 2001).

In the classroom context, the concept of student motivation is used to explain the degree to which students invest attention and eff ort in various pursuits, which may or may not be the ones desired by their teachers. Student motivation is rooted in students’ subjective experiences, especially those connected to their willingness to engage in learning activities and their reasons for doing so. Th is book develops the argument that teachers should focus on encouraging students to engage in activities with motivation to learn: the intention of acquiring the knowledge or skills that learning activities are designed to develop.

EVOLVING VIEWS OF MOTIVATION


Behavior Reinforcement Theories
Most contemporary views on motivation emphasize its cognitive and goal-oriented features. Earlier views were infl uenced heavily by behavioral theory and research (much of it done on animals rather than humans). Early behavioral views depicted humans as responsive to basic drives or needs, but otherwise relatively passive: “… a creature quietly metabolizing in the shade, occasionally goaded into action by the hot sun or the lure of a cold glass of beer” (Murray, 1964, p. 119).

Behaviorists later shift ed from drives or needs to focus on reinforcement as the primary mechanism for establishing and maintaining behavior patterns. A reinforcer is anything that increases or maintains the frequency of a behavior when access to it is made contingent on performance of that behavior. For example, careful work on assignments might be reinforced by giving verbal or written praise, awarding high grades,
affi xing stars, allowing access to some privilege, awarding points that can be exchanged for prizes, or in some other way compensating students for their eff orts or recognizing their accomplishments by providing rewards that they value.

In explaining how to establish and maintain desired behavior patterns, behaviorists usually talk about control rather than motivation. Th ey speak of using reinforcement to bring behavior under stimulus control. Th e stimulus is a situational cue that reminds learners that performing a certain behavior pattern in this situation will gain them access to reinforcement. If the learners are not able to perform this pattern immediately, gradual improvement toward the target level is shaped through successive approximations. Once the desired pattern is established, it is maintained by reinforcing it oft en enough to ensure its continuation. Any behaviors that are incompatible with the desired pattern are extinguished through nonreinforcement or (if necessary) suppressed through punishment.


Much of the culture of schooling reflects the behavioral view, especially report card systems, conduct codes, and honor rolls and awards ceremonies. In the classroom, behavioral views lead to carrot-and-stick approaches: teachers are advised to reinforce students when they display desired learning eff orts and withhold reinforcement when they do not (Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Schloss & Smith, 1994).

Behavioral reinforcement models are still emphasized in applied behavior analysis treatments, especially in school psychology and special education (Landrum & Kauff - man, 2006). However, most behavioral models have evolved into more complicated forms that consider learners’ thoughts and intentions. Meanwhile, cognitive models of motivation have developed that emphasize learners’ subjective experiences such as their
needs, goals, or motivation-related thinking. Th ese cognitive models include the concept of reinforcement but portray its eff ects as mediated through learners’ cognitions.

That is, the degree to which task engagement can be motivated by reinforcer availability depends on the degree to which learners value the reinforcer, expect its delivery upon completion of the task, believe that they can complete the task successfully, and believe that doing so will be worth the costs in time, eff ort, and foregone opportunities to pursue alternative agendas.
Read More : What is Motivation?