Dealing with Conceptualisations of Learning Dealing with Conceptualisations of Learning Learning between Means and Aims in Theory and Practice Edited by Ane Qvortrup University of Southern Denmark, Denmark and Merete Wiberg Aarhus University, Denmark A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: 978-94-6351-027-1 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6351-028-8 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6351-029-5 (e-book) Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com/ All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2017 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning between Means and Aims 1 Ane Qvortrup and Merete Wiberg 2. Prerequisites of Learning from Various Means and Aim Perspectives 13 Merete Wiberg and Ane Qvortrup 3. On Learning (How) to Learn 25 Oliver Kauffmann, Merete Wiberg and Christopher Winch 4. Practical Emotions in the Processes of Learning 37 Søren Engelsen 5. Motivation, Learning, and the Educational Dialogue 49 Klaus Nielsen 6. Learning Objectives as Frameworks and Resources in Upper Secondary Education: Between Means and Aims 61 Ane Qvortrup and Hanne Fie Rasmussen 7. The Didactics of Group Work: Between Means and Aims in Theory and Practice 81 Gerd Christensen 8. Formative Reformulations in Interventions on School Development: A Longitudinal Case Study of a Project on Student Note-Writing 91 Torben Spanget Christensen 9. A Luhmann-Inspired Approach to Include Neuroscientific Knowledge Concerning Adolescents’ Motivation for Learning in High School Instruction 107 Nadja Marie Mariager 10. Patterns of Participation: A Participatory Account of Learning to Teach 133 Jeppe Skott About the Authors 145 v ANE QVORTRUP AND MERETE WIBERG 1. LEARNING BETWEEN MEANS AND AIMS INTRODUCTION An increased political and professional interest in learning has manifested itself in a shift from content-based to outcome-based curricula and in an increased focus on evidence-informed teaching. Within schools, among teachers and in the overall field of education, the paradigmatic shift from content-based to outcome-based curricula has been followed by enhanced interest in, as well as debate about, how learning outcomes are operationalised into learning objectives or targets in study regulations and syllabus/lesson plans, and in formalised assessment of learning. The political focus on evidence-informed teaching and learning has manifested itself in an enhanced focus on the quality of teaching and teaching methods, including an interest in a summative assessment of learning. Educational research on evidence- informed teaching claims the relevance of an enhanced focus on transparency in expected learning targets and on an assessment of the effect of teaching and teaching methods on learning. However, research also clearly underlines that teachers’ and students’ interpretation and sense-making, as well as their process-related and formative assessment of learning, play a fundamental role in what students’ learn (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015; Rønsen, 2014). Furthermore, it is obvious that in practice, didactisation, i.e. reflection on teaching, and ongoing re- didactisation, where teachers change track in teaching due to unforeseen situations, opportunities or challenges, both take place (Hansen, 2006, 2010; Heyerdal-Larsen, 2000; Skjeldbred, Solstad, & Aatmosbakken, 2005). This book addresses the multiple aims/means structure in educational processes of learning. Learning happens everywhere. When dealing with learning in educational contexts, means and aims always have both a normative and an instrumental content. An aim might be that students are able to read and write. The explicit or implicit normative content of this could be to get a job, to prepare students for participating in a democratic society, or to become able to enjoy literature. The instrumental content might be to differentiate between nouns and verbs, or to use invented spelling. Furthermore, in educational contexts, learning always actualises itself in terms of methods and targets and must be viewed from a teacher’s as well as a student’s perspective. We understand learning as a phenomenon, which is only possible to derive from observation or people’s reports. It is impossible to ‘see’ the essence of learning in itself. In order to get a grip of learning, researchers and practitioners might use models or metaphors, as for example Anna Sfard does in her paper ‘Two A. Qvortrup & M. Wiberg (Eds.), Dealing with Conceptualisations of Learning, 1–12. © 2017 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved. A. QVORTRUP & M. WIBERG metaphors of learning’ (Sfard, 1998). In this book, we deal with learning by using ‘means’ and ‘aim’ as metaphors, which, if viewed as intertwined, show a multiple structure of the phenomenon of learning. In educational contexts, we have both long- term aims and means of an educational process and short-term aims and means of a lesson. These are pursued by facilitating learning by means of teaching. Here, on the one hand, learning might be the result of teaching activities. On the other hand, learning describes various means that might be activated either by the teacher or the student, in order to facilitate, understand or evaluate the student’s processes of learning. The teacher can use ‘aims’ and ‘means’ as a kind of tools to reflect and decide on different teaching strategies, while at the same time the teacher and perhaps also the student strive to bring about learning. As a means, learning is the description of something, which happens in a process, which aims at ‘something’. In order to make ‘something’ happen, means must be operationalised into actions, in terms of habits or methods. As an aim, learning is the description of ‘something’ that ‘somebody’ (the student or the teacher) intends to be the target of a learning process. We will discuss how we are to understand the relationship between means and aims in the process of learning. In order to get an analytical grip of learning as a phenomenon in teaching and within student/teacher interactions, this chapter conceptualises and discusses the multiple aims/means structure, which we assume characterise processes of learning that involve a teacher and a student. HOW IS EDUCATION POSSIBLE AND HOW TO UNDERSTAND EDUCATION? The purpose and core idea of teaching and didactics is the focus of renewed attention. The rise and development of didactics is closely related to a growing societal complexity and the consequent changes of – and uncertainty about – the purpose or aims of education (Qvortrup & Keiding, 2017). Furthermore, it is closely related to changes in – and increased uncertainty about – answers to the question, “how is it possible to educate”? This concerns the question of how means of education sometimes might eventually contrast with overall aims of education, such as freedom, democracy and autonomy (ibid.). This is related to the condition of teaching, or the so-called pedagogical paradox saying that teaching operates through outer influences, but is directed towards inner changes. The paradox is specified in relation to, on the one hand, the principle about the child’s sensitiveness to formation or plasticity (Bildsamkeit) and on the other hand, the principle about the request for self-action (von Oettingen, 2001). According to Herbart, ‘Bildsamkeit’ is the foundational concept of education (Herbart, 1965[1841]: 165; English, 2013: 11) and education would not be possible or understandable without Bildsamkeit, because education requires the capacity to form as well as the sensitivity to be formed. Andrea English expresses it as follows: “The concept [Bildsamkeit] captures the individual’s capacity to form and to be formed and thereby connects to the notion of Bildung” (2013: 12). The idea that the individual should have the capacities ‘to form 2 LEARNING BETWEEN MEANS AND AIMS and to be formed’ might be helpful for the teacher’s understanding of education, because it helps him to see that from the perspective of the student, teaching and learning involve active as well as passive dimensions. If we are to understand these passive and active dimensions, we need to dig deeper into teaching and learning as interactive processes between a teacher and the students. Furthermore, we need to conceptualise the content of these interactive processes. We will argue that the concepts of means and aims, in terms of a multiple aims/means structure, might be helpful in this endeavour. Therefore, we pose the following questions: How can we capture the meaning of means and aims in the institutionalised processes of learning, which involve interactions between individuals such as teachers and students? What do these concepts mean if we understand means and aims from the perspective of the students as well as the teachers? What are their most important elements? And what is the relationship between means and methods on the one hand, and aims, outcomes and targets on the other hand? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING AND LEARNING In order to discuss the relationship between means and aims, we must first understand the ongoing development of the understanding of the relationship between teaching and learning. Since the end of the last century, the phenomenon of learning has received increasingly more attention. According to A. Hargreaves (2003), this change is linked to globalisation, the emergence of ‘the knowledge society’ and an enhanced focus on innovation and creativity. Knowledge and learning are considered to be fundamental resources for future development. The focus on learning, however, must be understood in light of the developments in the Western world that already happened in the early part of the 20th Century. The so- called ‘second industrial revolution’ demanded an educated work force and this led to a view of workers as ‘human capital’ (Becker, 1964; Mincer, 1958). In relation to the increased interest in learning, a great variety of new concepts of learning appeared. One difficulty involves coming to terms with constantly changing definitions of learning (Qvortrup, Wiberg, Christensen, & Hansbøl, 2016). As argued by Qvortrup and Keiding (2016), the preoccupation with learning activities and concepts like “students as chief agents or constructors of their own learning” and “from teaching to learning” seems to have changed how we talk (and think?) about teaching. Some researchers consent that the new orientations have guided the attention away from teaching, and consequently from the discipline didactics and theories of instruction, towards the learner and learning strategies, and have placed activities referring to learning on the centre stage (Haugsbakk & Nordkvelle, 2007; Richardson, 2003; Terhart, 2003). According to Biesta (2012: 37), we have witnessed a new language of learning in the education system and a shift from teaching to “teachingandlearning”, which he deliberately writes as one word, as this is how many people seem to use it nowadays. The consequence is a “learnification” of the education system (Biesta, 2010). Another difficulty, therefore, relates to the 3