{"id":39,"date":"2020-06-24T08:37:12","date_gmt":"2020-06-24T08:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/?p=39"},"modified":"2020-07-23T08:09:55","modified_gmt":"2020-07-23T08:09:55","slug":"waving-not-drowning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/2020\/06\/24\/waving-not-drowning\/","title":{"rendered":"Waving not drowning: helping learners to apply theory to practice."},"content":{"rendered":"

Author:<\/strong> Richard Pountney, SIG Lead<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a strange kind of question, \u2018does my teaching ever flatline?\u2019 I was reminded of it recently when introducing my students to curriculum theory, in a masters module I lead, Curriculum Design and Innovation<\/em>. Their reactions to the theory ranged from \u2018it makes my brain hurt\u2019 to \u2018this has unlocked my thinking\u2019 [<\/a>1]<\/a>. Mostly, they say, \u2018we have never been asked to think about our practice in this way before\u2019. It left me wondering what can explain this variation, and how can I help students with theory.<\/p>\n

But first a story [<\/a>2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An academic walks past a homeless man every day on the way to work. One day the homeless man shouts out, \u2018I had a dream about you last night and you gave me a hundred pounds! What do you think it means?<\/em>\u2019 The academic hesitates, thinks for a moment, and then says: \u2018Tomorrow, you will find out\u2019<\/em>. The next day the academic stops at the beggar and gives him a package. The man excitedly opens it. Inside he finds Freud\u2019s The<\/em> Interpretation of Dreams<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Social Realism: a coalition of minds<\/p><\/div>\n

The basis of this joke is in the mismatch of<\/em> expectations<\/em>, as Freud himself might have analysed. In response to a request for material contribution, the means of understanding those needs was offered. The story raises the question of whether the \u2018gift\u2019 of knowledge, in this context, was practically useless<\/em>. But, as Kurt Lewin [<\/a>3]<\/a> famously surmised \u2018There\u2019s nothing so practical as good theory\u2019 \u2013 because good theory guides effective action by turning knowledge into wisdom. We can agree that theories are good to inform, explain and predict practice \u2013 but mostly they are good to think with. However, what we mean by theory and its relationship with knowledge needs to be unpicked.<\/p>\n

I should start by professing my theory. I am an educational sociologist and my sociology is a realist one. Social realists, like me, conjecture that knowledge is socially constructed and<\/u> has real properties. It is a kind of coalition<\/em> of theories including Field Theory (Pierre Bourdieu), Knowledge Code Theory (Basil Bernstein), and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT, Karl Maton). As a theory of knowledge, it can be used to examine innovation in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment [<\/a>4]<\/a>. I talk about knowledge practices and the need to get \u2018under the bonnet\u2019 of social activities such as teaching and learning, to examine the underlying basis of practice. I argue for epistemic justice<\/a> as the purpose of higher education, despite claims that my discipline, Education, does not have an episteme [<\/a>5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Legitimation Code Theory Semantic Plane<\/p><\/div>\n

But what kind of social theorist would I be if I didn\u2019t use my theory to examine the problem of the place of theory in learning? \u00a0One dimension of Legitimation Code Theory [6<\/a>] is semantics and the two symbolic codes: density and gravity. Semantic Density (SD) is the degree of complexity of a thing, knowledge or practice. Semantic Gravity (SG) is the degree of abstraction, or distance from context. So strong gravity (written as SG+), and weak density (shown as SG-) is close to context and simple \u2013 this is practical knowledge and a good example would be playing conkers. On the other hand, weak SG and strong SD (SG-,SD+) is abstract and dense \u2013 this is theoretical knowledge and Quantum Physics is a good example. You can plot this as types of knowledge on the continuous plane below [7<\/a>]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

A Semantic Profile of a practice<\/p><\/div>\n

Returning to my flatline question, variations in semantic gravity and density can be plotted in a timeline, as a kind of semantic profile<\/em> of any activity such as the teaching of a whole course or an individual lesson [8].\u00a0 I have used it elsewhere [9]<\/a> to show how it can differentiate between novice and expert knowledge. In the example of a profile\u00a0 I can map my lessons on theory. The dotted line C is my preference: I invite students to talk about their practice (context) and to simply state their problems (strong semantic gravity and weak density). When I introduce theory, the gravity decreases and density increases. By giving real-life examples of how the theory can be applied the curve drops down again (it waves) [10]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Giving practical examples and waving semantically between the actual and the abstract may seem like common sense but people say being mindful of this when you teach is really helpful. It avoids being too theoretical all of the time (flatline A on the profile) or overly simple (flatline B). It is the connection, and waving, between theory and empirical examples of the application of the theory that is helpful for students, so that they can plot their own waves.<\/p>\n

Thinking about it now, I was probably driving my students to abstraction. <\/strong>What is your semantic range and have you ever flatlined? I know I have! \u00a0<\/strong>You could probably plot a semantic profile of this blogpost. . But maybe I am getting too theoretical \u2026<\/p>\n

Notes:<\/p>\n

[1] I should add that students did very well on the module and there were several distinctions<\/p>\n

[2] My version of a joke told by Wayne Hugo in Hugo, W. (2014) Editorial: Semantic density and semantic gravity, Journal of Education<\/em>, 59<\/p>\n

[3] Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers<\/em> (pp. 155-169). New York: Harper & Row. (p169)<\/p>\n

[4] Pountney, R. and McPhail G. (2019) Crossing boundaries: exploring the theory, practice and possibility of a \u2018Future 3\u2019 curriculum, British Educational Research Journal,<\/em> 45: 483-501 DOI 10.1002\/berj.3508<\/u><\/p>\n

[5] Furlong, J. (2013).\u00a0Education\u2013An Anatomy of the Discipline: Rescuing the university project?<\/em> London: Routledge.<\/p>\n

[6] See http:\/\/legitimationcodetheory.com\/<\/a> for papers and explanations<\/p>\n

[7] Shay, S. (2013) Conceptualizing curriculum differentiation in higher education: a sociology of knowledge point of view, British Journal of Sociology of Education<\/em>, 34(4): 563\u2013582<\/p>\n

[8] For a great overview of Making Semantic Waves in the Classroom see https:\/\/www.slideshare.net\/dorianadenlove\/making-semantic-waves-in-the-classroom<\/p>\n

[9] Pountney, R. (2019) Seeing and framing mentoring through the lens of knowledge practices CollectivEd<\/em> 7,\u00a0 Carnegie School of Education, Leeds Beckett University [online: https:\/\/bit.ly\/2W1PABo<\/a> ]<\/p>\n

[10] See Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education<\/em>,\u00a024<\/em>(1), 8-22.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Author: Richard Pountney, SIG Lead It\u2019s a strange kind of question, \u2018does my teaching ever flatline?\u2019 I was reminded of it recently when introducing my students to curriculum theory, in a masters module I lead, Curriculum Design and Innovation. Their … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions\/92"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.ac.uk\/kierg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}