Tool 2: Ways of experiencing
What are we talking about here?
From this perspective learning involves a new ‘way of experiencing’, something which might sound quite similar to concepts and conceptual change.We are again interested in what learners know both before and after instruction – but there is one key difference that we need to note.With the term ‘ways of experiencing a phenomenon’18 we are not saying that students have concepts in their head, but rather that learning is a relationship between a person and a phenomenon19.
If you want to uncover the different ways students are experiencing a phenomenon (a topic) then you need to conduct open-ended interviews with them and get them to talk about the phenomenon.You can then analyse the interview data using standard qualitative techniques20 to sort it into different categories.These categories are then considered to represent the full set of possible different ‘ways of experiencing’. It has been found from many such studies that there are always a limited number of such categories. Strictly speaking, one can’t assign a ‘way of experiencing’ to a particular individual since the categories are arrived at often by using fragments of interview data from various individuals. It is better to think of the set of categories as representing the full range of ways of experiencing in a group of individuals.
What does this mean for engineering education?
Although the purists would perhaps not agree, it is possible at this stage to see many links between this tool (ways of experiencing) and tool 1 (concepts).The underlying theory is different, but in both cases one is able to investigate a range of different ‘prior ideas’ as well as unpack ‘wrong answers’. One practical point is that where concepts and conceptual change have been very prominent in school level science education research, phenomenographic research which focuses on ways of experiencing has been widely used in research in higher education,especially in the UK, Australia and Sweden.At the very least you will come across papers which use these latter terms and so it is useful to know at least something of what they are talking about.
In what ways might this be a useful thinking tool?
A focus on ‘ways of experiencing’ does open up new perspectives on teaching and learning. It is especially useful in the ways in which it links an understanding of student learning to acts of teaching. In recent work the awareness of a range of different ways of experiencing a phenomenon has led to a strong focus on variation. Here there is a claim that variation in experience is a necessary condition for all learning21.When designing teaching one aims then to include variation, especially in what have been termed ‘educationally critical aspects’ of the object of study22.
Show me an example
Marshall, D., Summers, M., and Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context. Higher Education, 38 (3), 291-309.
In this study Delia Marshall and colleagues focused on engineering students’ ways of experiencing learning itself, also termed ‘conceptions of learning’.The assumption is that the ways that students experience or conceptualise learning is an important determinant of their ‘approach to learning’ (see tool 3) in a given context. Most previous studies of conceptions of learning had focused on social science or humanities contexts and it was expected that things might be slightly different in engineering, as indeed they were.
The students that were interviewed were on an engineering foundation programme at a UK university. Five conceptions of learning were identified in this study. Compared to other studies of conceptions of learning they did not find a simplistic conception of ‘increasing one’s knowledge’.This could be taken to mean something positive about the engineering course context.The least sophisticated conception of learning which was identified focused on memorising definitions, equations and procedures, so at least the students directed their learning with some purpose.This was followed by a slightly more active conception which involved applying equations and procedures. A substantial shift was seen in the third conception of learning which focused on making sense of physical concepts and procedures. Here there is an introduction of a reflective dimension. Going further, a small group of students conceptualised learning as ‘seeing phenomena in the world in a new way’, and a final small group displayed the most sophisticated conception of learning which centred on ‘change as a person’.
In considering the implications of these findings, Marshall et al. suggest that educators need to explicitly design curricula which foster these higher conceptions of learning. This, they suggest, will require a stronger focus on reflection, on the broader context for application of learning and more peer-level discussion.
Where can I read further to learn more about this tool?
Booth, S. (2001). Learning Computer Science and Engineering in Context. Computer Science Education, 11 (3), 169-188.
Shirley Booth has played a key role in the area of phenomenographic research, starting with her PhD on students who were learning to program in a computer science and engineering course23. She then co-authored a key text, Learning and Awareness24, and has continued to be involved, especially in the application of this thinking in science and engineering education. In this paper she lays out a very practical argument for shiftingfrom a ‘transmissive’ to a broadly ‘constructivist’ pedagogy. She argues that rather than take a phenomenographic perspective.
The context for this paper is a Computer Science and Engineering programme which underwent reform, prompted particularly by the low participation rates by women.The reform approach argued that improving the programme for women would also improve it for all students.This paper focuses on the introductory course for this programme which aimed to provide students with a particular orientation, termed a ‘relevance structure’, for the forthcoming programme. Building on phenomenographic theory, group work was implemented throughout the course to ensure a variation of perspectives.
The evaluation of this course was also conducted using a phenomenographic approach. The aim was to identify the different ways in which students experienced the course. This was firstly with regard to the intended ‘relevance structure’ and here it was found that many students had ways of experiencing that were at odds with the planned course direction. Secondly, given the importance of group work in the course design, they sought to identify students’ ways of experiencing group work.This was also quite surprising. Only a small group of students adopted the collaborative perspective that was intended.These evaluation findings were then used to modify the way in which the course was delivered, and in subsequent years it was found that a greater proportion of students (and tutors) were experiencing the course in the manner in which it had been intended.
- This comes from a field termed ‘phenomenography’ (Marton and Booth, 1997). In the text here for readability I have chosen to use the term ‘ways of experiencing’ wherever possible.
- This is termed a ‘relational’ perspective. Compared to constructivist learning theory, which implies a dualism between mind and body, this is a non-dualist perspective; concepts do not reside in a separate mind.
- For example, see Strauss (1987).
- See, for example, Pang (2003).
- See, for example, Linder ,Fraser and Pang (2006).
- Booth, 1992).
- (Marton and Booth, 1997).
