• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks or on the Web, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, Slack, and browsed web pages. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.


Pedagogical Frameworks 2

Page history last edited by Richard Pountney 10 years, 10 months ago

back to Pedagogical Framework menu 


[note from Richard] The purpose of this page is to offer a consideration (from pedagogical and curriculum literature) on what constitutes a pedagogical framework. Its purpose is to help the project in its work to make our modules 'open' for use by others. It is not intended as a definitive or prescriptive statement on our frameworks - i.e. it is provisional and to be negotiated. Colleagues are invited to write on the page as well as add comments at the bottom (this is a Wiki :-). Can I suggest we use different colours - and add your initials if you want to add a thread to follow.


2. Pedagogical Frameworks


'What is a pedagogical framework? Figure 2.1 is an attempt to capture a version of what might be meant by this term. The point is not to construct one ideal pedagogical framework; but neither are all possible frameworks equally satisfactory' (p. 25)


Fig 2.1 Pedagogical framework, educational setting, organisational context


Environment as the physical setting for the learner's work - this requires a degree of openness to allow for variable learner needs and to initiate a creative response (what we might call a 'loose coupling')


Philosophy and High Level Pedagogy as declarative / conceptual aspects of the P. framework

Ped. Strategy and Ped. Tasks as procedural / operational aspects of P. framework


Philosophy as the beliefs held about the nature of knowledge and competence and how learning occurs (see theory of learning on this, but roughly mapping to instructivism / constructivism continuum for learning, and epistemology that connects relativist / phenomenolgy approaches to constructivism (note: Goodyear contests this suggesting that realism connects with constructivist approaches more effectively)


High Level Pedagogy as enacted Philosophy, the 'concrete instantiation of philosophical positions' (p. 31). Here we might examine the types (or flavours?) of pedagogy - and this needs greater examination for it to be useful and meaningful to designers - including

Problem based Learning

Guided Discovery Learning

Cognitive Apprenticeship

programmed Learning

Collaborative Learning

[needs further work]


see also Merrill's First Principles of Instruction (2002)


Pedagogical Strategy - a broad brush depiction of plans - a description of actions and intentions to enable shared understandings by teachers and learners


Pedagogical Tactics - strategy at a more granular level - the detailed moves by which strategy is effected - this is not necessarily top down (i.e. from strategy to tactics) as strategy can be emergent, and threads woven from intuitive tactical activity (the tacit, informal and intuitive): 'its articulation can serve the coordination and communication facility ... and help turm intuiive action into something more reflective, self-aware and discussable' [this is important] 


Tasks as prescribed work and Activity as what people actually do (see Brown and Duguid, 2000, on 'canonical' and 'non-canonical' work practices). Learning Task as a specification of learning activity - that is specified to make the chance of unproductive activity within tolerable limits.


Organisational Context as including the institutional context, in which the pedagogical framework and the educational settings can be developed. This brings constraints (e.g. logistical and financial) 


There follows a discussion of indirection in design and of the three connected sets of design considerations:

  • design of tasks,
  • design of supportive organisational forms / structures
  • design of supportive tools / physical (and virtual?) environments which each learner can customise to their own needs


And the latter of these is seen as having direct influence on the 'learnplace' (see discussion on the space place distinction p. 36) 


The pedagogical framework model is offered in the paper as a conceptual tool to structure discussions about teams are trying to achieve and how they are going to achieve it.


'Depicting the pedagogical framework and educational setting within their organizational context can also help us locate key interactions between the context and innovative activity. Features of the organizational context may have a particularly strong influence at certain key points - for example, where a new educational setting is being created according to the ideas sketched in a pedagogical framework (the top arrow in Figure 1). It is important for innovatory projects to be able to identify the nature of such influences as clearly as possible. They can be as crucial to the long term success or failure of an innovation as the pedagogical strategy or the learning environment.' (p. 34)


Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales



Comments (12)

Dave Harris said

at 1:56 am on Jan 29, 2010

Similar comments to the other page really. Lots of these models began life in distance teaching systems ( i don't know if these examples did) so there is no mention of students: it is all top down or what the OU used to call 'right first time' design. Ther is considerable idealism again -- I didnt see in the Merrill diagram any mention of competition for example, or micropolitical struggles to gain resources by producing good grades, or teaching to the test. If I do not assess students they are reluctant to to do any kind of formative assessment: if I do they are obsessed with grades. The most commonly asked question I get is not 'How will this develop me as an apprentice learner on the road to graduateness?' but 'How many words do you want?'

Richard Pountney said

at 2:55 pm on Feb 5, 2010

Similar to comment on the other page - these needs signposting and re-ordering to show relevance to what we are doing. I will reply to Dave's point when I have done this.

Dave Harris said

at 3:18 am on Feb 9, 2010

I think this page illustrates better what I worry about with the current pedagogical orthodoxy.There is the consensus that social constructivism is the only game in town, for example (with no recognition that social constructivism might itself be socailly constructed). The acceptable pedagogic approaches are all relentlessly 'interactive' and communitarian. Much of the definiitional labour is tautological (better illustrated on the other page -- 'learning is interactive'). There is a positively Blair-like elision of intentions, plans, strategies and outcomes as if nothing inervened between planning and achieving 'shared understandings'. 'Shared understandings' indeed! No sociologist worth their salt is going to let that one go unchallenged, surely?

Richard Pountney said

at 8:05 pm on Feb 9, 2010

Responding to Helen's points on the previous page. These ideas approach the problem of describing our practice. I understand this to be the point of the project - i.e. we are making available in the Jorum repository a number of modules as open educational resources - and I assume that others will download these and do something with them. Earlier in the project we discussed what we mean by open: open for use, open for interpretation, open to critique? The debate about re-usability is one that seeks to develop standards (SCORM etc), metadata and formats to enable the use and re-use of this material. The RLO route, in my view, resolves learning into chunks of content, that can be digested - the idea of 'learning all about' - ie it has a limited use often within a localised context. If I want to pick this material up and use it in my own context I have only limited understanding of its use. I therefore agree with your point about the need for a 'back story' as you call it. This is the point of the case studies, offering insights from the teacher and the learner for example. But is this sufficient for the materials to be useful to others in terms of using some of your module materials for example or re-using the whole module as it stands. The purpose of this page is to offer some considerations on what constitutes descriptions of learning, teaching and assessment practice. These views might represent the current pedagogical orthodoxy - they are incomplete and not fully fit for our purpose - which is why we will find ourselves unable to map it at all - but we might try. One of the problems is that the module as granular unit often has a number of activities and tasks that will match against a number of approaches to learning (lets say for argument sake that you might have for instance elements of didactic 'telling' in the same module where there is open-ended, loosely defined tasks that require learners to collaborate and cooperate.

Dave Harris said

at 12:34 am on Feb 10, 2010

I am finding this discussion very useful -- thanks. The other comments on the other page clearly overlap but I was interested in what you said about granularity and context. Stripping materials out of context is both useful and limiting, of course, but the problem of granularity is by no means confined to RLOs of course -- a lecture is a granule, at one end, modules are notoriously granular in the middle, and at the longest and broadest end, a whole degree course is stripped from the context of the discipline,adn that discipline in its turn is strip[ped from the context of European academic tradtiion, which is ...etc.

Let's try a non-marxist writer for a change. Gadamer's famed book <i> Truth and Method</i> concludes there is no truth and no method. The work of understanding granules and their context is never finished (no truth) , and we have no way to study their relation exept by endless circling between them, as in themes and horizons, guided only by our interests (no method).

Richard Pountney said

at 12:19 pm on Feb 11, 2010

Always happy to talk theory Dave - I see your Gadamer and I raise you Basil Bernstein and Bourdieu :-)

Dave Harris said

at 6:35 pm on Feb 11, 2010

Maybe we should get back on task. I would really welcome some feedback on my reflections on designing the two modules. Reflections on the Sociology of Leisure one can be found in the discussion with Angels. I have posted a discussion paper for the second one --on Research Methods.
I am also aware of this becoming a 2-person dialogue. Does anyone else have any views?

Richard Pountney said

at 4:16 pm on Feb 13, 2010

Yes agree - I will take a look and make some suggestions. However, taking my gambit seriously, I would value the conversation sometime around Basil Bernstein's notions of sociology as a discipline as a horizontal, segmented knowledge structure with weak grammar - this seems important to me in explaining the pedagogical perspectives that we are situated in, maybe. And also how a view of positional and relational autonomy can expose boundaries (a la Bourdieu) To be continued sometime.

Dave Harris said

at 10:28 pm on Feb 13, 2010

I would be pleased to discuss Bernstein and Bourdieu of course -- you doubtless noticed hints of the latter in what I've been saying. Wny not post the references and we can all join in?

Richard Pountney said

at 2:58 pm on Feb 17, 2010

OK - suggest I make a new page regarding Bernstein's pedagogic device and how it might inform our thinking about descriptions - will appear shortly linked from above

Helen Jones said

at 11:26 am on Feb 23, 2010

I'm interested in the lifecycle of our OER materials and I think David Wiley's OER development lifecycleis useful:

1. Get: Searching and finding OERs. Getting OERs may include using search engines, repositories and finding individual websites.
2. Create: Generate the OER, preferably using open source tools.
3. Localise: Essentially localising means making a resource more useful to a particular situation. For example, translating instruction from one language to another.
4. Remix: Remixing is the act of taking two OER materials and merging them to form a new OER. Remixing is probably one of the most enjoyable parts of OER production.
5. License: License the work using an open content licenses such as Creative Commons and GFDL (“GFDL” stands for GNU Free Documentation License).
6. Use: This covers the actual use of OER for your context.
7. Redistribute: Publishing an OER once it is finished and making it available for the open education community to begin the lifecycle again.

(Wiley, D., 2008)

Helen Jones said

at 2:43 pm on Feb 23, 2010

Had a good conversation with Richard this morning about my attempts to map my materials! also about the notion of an OER lifecycle (see above) - also see David Wiley's blog site which contains a lot of useful looking material - http://opencontent.org/blog/

One document linked to on his blog is 'The Four R’s of Openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources' and here he argues that "By ―open it is generally meant that the resource is available at no cost to others for adaptation and reuse in different contexts. However ―open is not a simple dichotomy; rather, there is a continuum of openness". The article then goes on to discuss four separate aspects of reuse and how these describe different levels of openness. I particularly like the concept that "openness is not like a light switch that is either ―on or ―off. Rather it is like a dimmer switch" - perhaps I'm just a sucker for a metaphor!

I think it is well worth a read if you have a spare 20 mins.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.