11/05/2010 by lizit.

Silence doesn’t mean there is no thinking or doing - just that I haven’t got round to pulling my ideas together in any coherent way!

One of the ideas I have been playing with is the autistic spectrum domain as a community of practice. In some ways it fits the model, but in other ways it is more an amalgam of several communities of practice, not all of which share identical goals, values, etc. That has taken me into thinking about tribes and whether the autistic domain is made up of a number of tribal groupings rather than CoPs.  Either way, it makes mapping the domain tricky. I’ve got some diagrams, but somehow they don’t tell the whole story.

I’m increasingly aware that I am looking at, and talking about, a domain, a system (or interlocking of subsystems which may not form a system) and there is a very real danger of forgetting that there is a child at the centre.

What are the processes of the different subsystems and what are they acting on - the person or something/someone else?

A whole series of metaphors come to mind - battlefield, maze, jungle, snakes and ladders …

Also thinking about autistic domain in context - it doesn’t exist in isolation. Apart from current debates about diagnosis and inclusion, there is a whole back history of attitudes to learning disabilities and impairment and another history of attitudes to how children should behave and behaviour disturbances. Just what did we do with children who didn’t behave as it was thought they should in the past?

Against this reading again some of Griff Foley’s and Rachel Gouin’s ideas about learning in the context of social struggle and their emphasis on lived experience. Is there a link between social struggle in a socio-political context and struggle getting the needs met of a child on the autistic spectrum?

Posted in community of practice, ASD, learning | Print | No Comments »

23/03/2010 by lizit.

For a few weeks now I have been clear that my DPhil is about the learning journeys of those involved with supporting and caring for children and young people on the autistic spectrum.  Having read a lot of articles with varying degrees of relevance, it is becoming clear that this needs some refining. Most of the literature on parents with children on the spectrum seems to focus on parents of children with classic autism, rather than Aspergers or HFA, and much of it looks at support needs, especially around the time of diagnosis and several articles include parents of children with either autism or Downs syndrome. My focus is on the high functioning/Aspergers end of the spectrum and I need to reflect this in my title.

The other contentious area at the moment - no doubt there are others waiting to appear over the horizon - is the categorisation of participants. I have been dividing people into parents, professionals and non-professionals and recognising that some people may fall into more than one category. However, this may not be the most appropriate or helpful categorisation. The idea behind splitting off professionals was to identify those with a formally recognised qualification from those without. My reasoning lay in the privileging of  knowledge that is formally accredited over other knowledge, but it probably isn’t as straightforward as that.

For example, two teachers are both professionals with a formally accredited qualification in education. Both may be employed as SENCOs, but one may have additional specialist qualifications and several years experience of working with children with special needs and the other may have taken the role on because the school needed a SENCO and it was a way of getting a promotion, but have little experience or special knowledge of SENs or related administrative procedures.

This suggests that I may be looking at a generic/specialist split, but I am unsure that will meet my needs. I already know that social care staff, even senior, highly qualified care staff, are on lower pay scales than teaching staff. Am I therefore looking at two different things: professional as measured by possession of a formally recognised professional qualification and specialist as measured by knowledge and experience within the domain.

This also challenges my third category of parents. Some parents may also have professional qualifications and/or specialist knowledge in the domain.

This would suggest that the professional, non-professional and parent categorisation is only useful in terms of identifying the jobs people might be doing within the domain. As my focus is on learning journeys (how, what and why people know about the autistic spectrum), it may be that I need to slice across the roles and instead be looking at those with accredited qualifications, those with specialist knowledge but without accredited qualifications and those with neither accredited qualifications or specialist knowledge.

Probably need to think about this a bit more…

Posted in Aspergers/HFA, categories, specialist knowledge, qualifications, experience, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

25/01/2010 by lizit.

Thought it was about time I posted a catch up on what I am actually doing!

The focus of my DPhil is now the learning journeys of the various participants involved in the support and care of children and young people on the autistic spectrum. There are many different people involved from parents and carers to support staff in schools and residential establishments to education, health and social service professionals - and probably a few others as well. Although there is a notion of partnership in the provision of care and support, this partnership can be uneven because of the different levels and types of expertise different partners bring to the table, the way this expertise is or is not valued by other partners and the relative power of the different partners in providing access to resources.

I am planning to focus specifically on learning - which in practice means how people develop knowledge and expertise about autistic spectrum conditions/disorders (the terminology is currently in flux).

I have written an outline of what I hope to cover in my study and am in the process of re-drafting and getting this into a format appropriate for applying for the appropriate ethical clearances.

Another strand I am working on at the moment is trying to clarify what I understand by learning and which learning theories and ideas inform my understanding. This exploration has taken me through formal and informal learning, situated learning, communities of practice and currently metaphors of learning, as well as along a number of interesting side turnings.  I have read lots of interesting stuff and am slowly learning to sift out the things that have less relevance to my proposed study, however interesting they may be. Other posts in this blog summarise some of those explorations.

The other area I am beginning to explore is that of how disability is seen by society and the effect of disability on a family. This is not a major focus for me, but there is a fair bit of evidence showing that families with a disabled member are disadvantaged in lots of different ways and there is other evidence pointing to people with disabilities forming an underclass. If it can be shown that parents caring for children and young people on the spectrum have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in a number of different areas, this might challenge the power structure and also empower parents.

At the moment it feels as though there are a lot of different threads in something of a disarray and my task is to try to identify them and put them in some sort of order so that I can progress. A bit like sorting out lace bobbins and threads after the cat has knocked the lace pillow on the floor yet again. I’ll be more than happy if I can get these threads organised and begin to make something of them.

Posted in lace, ASD, empowerment, research ideas, concepts, learning, reflections, creativity, planning | Print | 1 Comment »

24/01/2010 by lizit.

I’ve been looking at an interesting article (Solomon, et al, 2006) on everyday learning taking place in the spaces between work activities in a workplace context. Following on from previous thoughts about the home as the workplace for some parents with a child with SEN, it made me start thinking about where the in-between spaces are there.

The idea of  in-between spaces relates to third places as described by Oldenburg and Brissett (1982), where they reflect on societal changes which have led to a tendency for modern lifestyles to polarise between home and work with very few areas of neutral territory for discourse. Some more recent articles (Steinkuhler, 2006, Peachey, 2008) have suggested that such third places may now be found in various virtual environments. The nature of third places is the provision of neutral territory where identity and status are irrelevant, but ideas can be shared and debated within a social context. It may well be that some online groups fit this description.

Solomon, et al, focus on workplace learning. The description of hybrid spaces stems from a larger organisational study where it was observed people frequently referred to non-work spaces where dialogue and discourse happened. These included spaces in the workplace which were not designated as working spaces such as a coffee room, and spaces outside the workplace where colleagues regularly conversed such as in a car share arrangement for commuting. No doubt the space around a water cooler also fits. They found that although people were resistant to labelling their experience in these spaces as learning, it was often clear from the content of the descriptions or observations that these spaces were learning spaces.

The initial thought was whether the hybrid spaces could be used to enhance the workplace learning of the organisation, but this was resisted and they conclude by examining some of the pros and cons of formalising the informal and unintended. Reference is made to Colley, et al, (2002) and the impossibility of separating formal and informal learning in any satisfactory way. In the same way, other binaries such as work/non-work, on-the-job/off-the-job, worker/social being, worker/learner, working/playing may not be as clear cut as first appears. It is suggested that “It is in the in-between space that interesting things happen.”

Although not discussed in detail, another thread running through the article is identity in hybrid spaces. In a work context, hierarchies remain but it becomes possible to speak about things which it is not possible to in the the work place itself. To what extent do online forums also facilitate an opportunity to clear the air or let off steam by different participants involved in SEN - or any other domain?

Oldenburg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The Third Place. [Article]. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 265-284.

Peachey, A. (2008). First reflections, Second Life, third place: community building in virtual worlds. Paper presented at the ReLIVE08, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

Solomon, N., Boud, D., & Rooney, D. (2006). The in-between: exposing everyday learning at work. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(1), 3 - 13.

Steinkuehler, C. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: online games as third places. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909.

Posted in space/place, social learning, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

22/01/2010 by lizit.

It never ceases to surprise me how easy it is to forget the things which are so obvious and so well known.

The presentation I did at the recent OpenCetl conference started by acknowledging the previous learning of OU students. My notes read:

Open University students, not surprisingly, are not blank canvases when they commence their OU studies. They bring with them a wide range of learning experiences from previous educational settings as well as a lifetime’s experience of informal learning in a wide variety of different contexts. The challenge confronting educators is how to enable students to maximise their use of existing learning skills while encouraging the development of new learning skills and strategies which are useful not only for study, but for life.

Further on in my notes, on the same theme, I wrote:

OU students are not a blank canvas. On their journey to becoming a student, they have engaged in formal education at school and possibly at college or university. From that experience they bring a range of expectations of what education offers and how learning is done. Alongside the positive experiences, they bring skeletons in the cupboard of poor teachers, badly prepared materials and negative feedback.

Many OU students bring with them experiences of workplace learning and training courses. Again, a mix of the good, the ugly and the indifferent, but again colouring expectations both of the learning experience and of contact with fellow students.

Almost all OU students will have engaged in a hobby or developed other specialised interests. Many will have learned the skills necessary to manage a home and care for a family. Some will have specialist knowledge of the care needs of people with disabilities or increasing frailty. Others have learned to cope with the challenge of a learning disability.

Increasingly, students will be familiar with the use of technology to obtain information or to manage aspects of daily living.

OU students like other adults are informal learners. They bring their informal learning skills with them into the formality of a structured academic course. How do we enable students to evaluate their informal learning toolkit, refine it and incorporate it into a new toolkit alongside the formal learning skills they will acquire during their OU study.

This morning, in the lab meeting, the focus was on learning and knowledge transfer and acquisition. I was reminded of Hager and Hodkinson’s (2009) comments about a person entering a new workplace - they bring with them knowledge, skills and experience, but the knowledge and skills will be changed and adapted and modified  and expanded through the experience of the new work place and belonging to a different community of practice.

Quinn makes a similar point in speaking about making connections with prior knowledge.

During the discussion this morning, the fairly obvious point was made that in any class of adult learners, or university students, everybody will be starting from a different point because of what they already know, their interests beyond study, etc.

Reflecting on this, I think of the number of times I have been involved in facilitating training of different sorts  or have been engaged with a member of staff in discussion about possible career progression. So often, my starting point has been talking about considering the ruc-sac of skills, abilities, experience, knowledge, ideas that we all carry with us and trying to move from the idea of compartmentalising what we know into discrete domains, into connecting the contents of the ruc-sac to whatever domain we happen to be occupying at the time. It strikes me that connectivity is an important part of any examination of adult learning - and connectivity is more than transfer.

Hager, P., & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning. British Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 619 - 638.

Quinn, C. N. (2009). Social Networking: Bridging formal and informal learning. Learning Solutions Magazine.

Posted in reflections, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

10/01/2010 by lizit.

Although I am aware that most of the parents I know in the various ASD networks I am part of are women, I haven’t really given any attention to the potential significance of this. Having read a report of a study of learning in social action organisations in Canada (English, 2005). English interviewed 16 women who were either directors or board members of women’s organisations and analysed their narratives using Focault’s analysis of power grid.

One of her observations was that the work of the organisations studied was often underfunded. Subjects reported that in general the funding deficit was made up for with voluntary work by members - people tended to be made to feel guilty if they didn’t participate, but at the same time were angry at having to pick up the tab. English suggests that there is an underlying assumption by government organisations that women will fill the gaps. One of the threads that runs through many ASD mail groups is the failure of the public services to respond to the needs of children and young people and their families in a timely manner. Although there are no doubt many different reasons for this, I do wonder of one of them is the assumption that women will somehow continue to provide whatever is needed however difficult it is to do so. Very often men appear to absent themselves from discussions about the care of their children with ASDs, yet it seems that when they are actively involved, sometimes things move more quickly.

I don’t think this is something I want to make a big thing of, but it may be that I need to keep in mind a possible feminist dimension when I come to look at data analysis.

English also makes the same observation that I have come across with many authors now of formal education being privileged over learning outside the institution, with an emphasis on accredited learning. She suggests that educators need to “attend to societal and cultural factors influencing learning” and points out that actual learning is “often non-formal and not infrequently spurred on by a disorienting dilemma or difficult situation.”  This supports my intention to use critical incident vignettes in my research.

English, L. (2005). Narrative Research and Feminist Knowing: A poststructural reading of women’s learning in community organizations. McGill Journal of Education, 40(1), 143-155.

Posted in feminism, empowerment, research ideas, learning | Print | No Comments »

06/01/2010 by lizit.

These notes are based on Jean Lave’s 1996 article “Teaching, as learning, in practice”.

It is an interesting article as it clearly identifies the focus of most learning research is not research on learning but “research on instruction, on depersonalised guidelines for the teaching of specific lesson-like things in school settings in order to improve learning.” Lave draws on her research of the apprenticeship practices of Liberian tailors and on Timothy Mitchell’s observations of the training of Egyptian lawyers, to come to the conclusion that learning rather than teaching is the core concept.

Starting with Scribner and Cole’s (1973) paper drawing a clear distinction between learning in formal settings and in informal settings, Lave shows that a polarity has developed which values formal schooling. This, combined with a psychological model of learning, has led to an increasing marginalisation of those who do not succeed in the school system. Putting this into the 21st century UK context it could be hypothesised that the emphasis on achieving government set targets in schools and the emphasis on increasing the number of young people entering higher education could have had the unintended consequence of reinforcing the development of an underclass amongst those young people who do not meet the targets, leading to the development of the gang culture and criminal behaviours which are increasingly in the public eye.

Lave is clear that learning is about far more than knowledge transfer. In both her examples, the apprentices, or learners, did not only learn a skill or set of concepts, but were enculterated in a multi-layered system of cultural values with their implications. Particularly in the case of the Liberian tailors, the apprenticeship and its completion was accompanied by a strong sense of worth and self-respect in stark contrast to the poverty of the society the tailors were part of.

Lave’s work led her to three changes in perspective from those espoused in traditional education models:

1. a reversal of the polarisation that school and institutional learning is positive and other forms of learning are negative
2. a focus on learners and learning rather than the transmitters of knowledge - teachers, care givers, etc
3. learning is not individual but is socially situated

In her work with Martin Packer, a tentative model to underpin learning theories was developed:

1. Telos or the idea that learning involves some kind of change or movement
2. Subject-world or the relationship between the individual or self and the social world
3. Learning mechanism which focuses on how learning happens

Lave concludes by saying: “The conditions for the transformation of persons are the same whether the telos of learning is movement towards growing up from babyhood, or adolescence, becoming a craftsperson or a philosopher, and/or becoming a marginal person in a world where participation in and thus learning divisions of race, ethnicity, social class, gender, and sexual preference, determine strongly who is consigned to the advantaged cores and disadvantaged margins of society.”

I found some the article resonated strongly with me. I have already given some thought to the marginalisation and dis-empowerment of parents of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders and it may be that part of this stems from the fact that their knowledge of their children’s condition is situated rather than as a result of teaching. Empowerment implies a polarity as for somebody to be empowered somebody else has to be dis-empowered. In the current model, professionals hold the power (and the budgets). Would a recognition of parental learning and knowledge lead to empowerment, partnership and possibly more shared decision making?

Posted in ASD, empowerment, social learning, informal learning, community, education, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

04/01/2010 by lizit.

Finding lots of interesting ideas in papers written some years back. Getting the background seems to involve a constant moving backwards. I can’t possibly read everything ever written, but I can read a lot of stuff and get a sense of big picture.

Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) present some useful contrasts between different types and contexts of learning in developing their ideas about situated cognition.I find their description of the learning of ‘just plain folk’ (JPF) relates to the questions I am asking about the learning of parents of children and young people with ASDs and how they learn to provide appropriate support and care for their children.

Brown, et al, start from the “distinction between mere acquisition of inert concepts and the development of useful, robust knowledge” citing Whitehead’s 1929 treatise on the aims of education. The implication is that it is possible to possess a tool, or knowledge, and not have a clue how to use it. Similarly it is possible to have good working knowledge of the use of a tool without knowing why it works as it does. In the real world, we learn how to use tools from others and through practice. The same tool may be used differently by different communities of users - example is given of chisel which is used differently by carpenters and cabinet makers, Just as we need to learn how to use physical tools, the same is necessary with conceptual tools. As with physical tools, the conceptual tools only really make sense in the context of practice. It is suggested that learners learn through enculturation or socialisation into a community of practice.

As tools are used in authentic context they gain meaning & relevance. Brown, et al, comment that “the process may appear informal, but it is nonetheless full-blooded, authentic activity that can be deeply informative - in a way that textbook examples and declarative examples are not.” This is illustrated using Lave’s example of the apprenticeship of tailors.

Brown, et al, then consider the learning of JPFs, students and practitioners. When a JPF wants to learn something they can become an apprentice or a student. As the former, they enculturate into the community of practice. As the latter they go to school where “the general strategies for intuitive reasoning, resolving issues, and negotiating meaning (…) are superseded by the precise, well-defined problems, formal definitions, and symbol manipulation of much school activity.” Brown, et al, suggest the JPF is closer to the practitioner in learning & practice than students whose learning & practice is abstracted from real life, implying that contextualisation is vital for learning to be meaningful.

The discussion can be related to the current educational policy debates where politicians are demanding more focus on vocational education in higher education. Brown, et al, suggest that it is only in post graduate study that students begin to become practitioners through an apprenticeship process embedded in the supervisory relationship with an experienced researcher. However, there is no discussion of the thinking and analytical skills developed through the education system.

They suggest more work is needed on understanding the “relationship between explicit knowledge and implicit understanding”.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Posted in Government policy, education, concepts, community, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

24/12/2009 by lizit.

I’ve been struck by the number of articles I seem to be encountering which are discussing workplace learning as informal learning. Very few writers apart from possibly Billett (2002) seem to suggest learning at work can be seen as formal learning. Given the range of learning and training that is undertaken within the workplace this seems odd, and again suggests that the formal and informal labels are less than helpful. Seeing learning in the workplace as a mixture of intentional, incidental and serendipitous seems to make more sense (to me at least).

As an aside, I have been struggling a bit with how to differentiate incidental and serendipitous as I sense they are different. It seems to me that incidental learning is where something is learned while engaged in an activity, so undertaking a word processing task may include discovering how to change default font styles for a particular document. This is not intentional in the sense of being engaged in a learning task and it is not serendipitous in the sense of being stumbled across by chance, but it is a by-product of engagement in a task.

In thinking about workplace learning, I have been thinking about what is meant by workplace. Virtually everything I have read appears to envisage the workplace as a place of paid employment. I have not encountered any articles which recognise the home as the workplace - though this is self-evidently the case for some many parents and for others who are not in paid employment for whatever reason. For some reason, the workplace is seen as somewhere separate from the other environments people engage with during their daily lives.

Some of the work concerned with biography of learners appears to acknowledge the importance of other environments. For example, Hodkinson, et al, (2004) engage in a somewhat complex philosophical discussion about the relationship between the person and their social world, before identifying 4 principles (the comments in italics are mine):

• Workers/learners bring prior knowledge, understanding and skills with them, which can contribute to their future work and learning; (this reminded me of the illustration I often use in training contexts of having a ruc-sac of knowledge, skills and experience garnered from the totality of our life experience which we take with us from place to place and add to and adapt as we go)
• The habitus of workers, including their dispositions towards work, career and learning, influence the ways in which they construct and take advantage of opportunities for learning at work; (why just at work - surely the same applies in other environments people engage in)
• The values and dispositions of individual workers contribute to the co-production and reproduction of the communities of practice and/or organisational cultures and/or activity systems where they work; (again this could apply in other communities and environments people are part of)
• Working and belonging to a workplace community contributes to the developing habitus and sense of identity of the workers themselves. (ditto)

Although workplaces are easily identifiable environments from the perspective of study of learning, the observations drawn from workplace learning appear to be transferable in many circumstances to other environments where people learn, communities of interest being a fairly obvious example. One of the areas I need to consider as I read these various articles on workplace learning is the extent to which the findings are only relevant within the workplace or are equally relevant in other contexts where people learn. Given that people spend much of their time learning in one way or another, this could mean virtually any context.

On the surface at least, it appears that by favouring some forms of learning and some contexts above others, there is a danger that we fail to notice what different forms of learning have in common.

Billett, S. (2002). Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(1), 56-67.
Hodkinson, P., Hodkinson, H., Evans, K., Kersh, N., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., et al. (2004). The significance of individual biography in workplacelearning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 36(1), 6-24.

Posted in informal learning, concepts, community, bibliography, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

21/11/2009 by lizit.

This will no doubt need more work, but is an attempt to capture something of the bigger picture and context against which thinking about adult learning is happening.

Posted in social learning, self-directed learning, informal learning, education, concepts, learning | Print | No Comments »