Category Archives: TPP

Finding my roots – the first instalment

On the PG Cert, one of my key aims is to learn about the underlying theory of the way I teach. I have learnt the theory before over the years, but I’m aware that there is a lot that I have forgotten and much more to know. I feel pretty comfortable with the practicalities of teaching (albeit with the knowledge that it’s an ongoing process and there is always a lot to learn), but I want to know the roots of those practical skills, why are they a good idea and who said so?

One of my mind maps about Piaget’s key ideas and application in schools

To this end, I’ve started reading some of the key works on teaching. I’m aware I’m looking at older, seminal work, and that inevitably provides a more limited perspective, predominantly euro-centric, white and male. I am also, in a different stream of research, going to develop my knowledge of critical pedagogy, and a much broader range of voices, starting with Bell Hooks and Paulo Freire, amongst others but I’m hoping I’ll be able to do more of this in Unit 2.

For now, I’m starting in this place, with Piaget and Vygotsky, and I’ve already found references to some of the common terms and approaches used in English language teaching which was strangely exciting…

Schema – This is something we talk about a lot in ELT, in the context of activating schema, or existing knowledge, usually at the start of a session or topic. In that context it is about accessing and activating passive knowledge, particularly vocabulary. Schemas or shemata are ways of organising knowledge, experience, memory, etc.. These are modified and developed through assimilation (incorporating new ideas), and accommodation, described by Beard (1969) as ‘The process of modifying schemas to solve problems arising from new experiences within the environment’. I was excited to discover this as the activation and probing of existing knowledge and understanding, and the gradual incorporation of new information over time, through exploration, is really critical to the way I see teaching and learning.

Scaffolding – Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) and its connection with scaffolding is another huge area for me which I was thrilled to discover! Shabhani (2010) states, ‘It is widely believed that socio-cultural theory of mind and the concept of ZPD form the basis of the notion of scaffolding (Berk, 2001; Daniels, 2001; Wells, 2001)’. Supporting leaners to develop their own understanding from their individual starting points is a key element I try to incorporate into my teaching and an important way to do this through scaffolding. ‘In general, scaffolding is construed as support given by a teacher to a student when performing a task that the student might otherwise not be able to accomplish.’ (van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen, 2010). This seems to me to be similar to Stephen Krashen’s work on ‘comprehensible input’ in second language acquisition. It’s not the same, but there are parallels in that Krashen aims slightly beyond the skills or level of the learner, but specifically not too far, mirroring Vygotsky’s ZPD. I see scaffolding as not a steadily increasing jumping off point for learners, pre-determined by the teacher, but as 1. providing the tools and knowledge to attempt a task e.g. information and vocabulary, 2. to structure an activity for learners to construct their own ‘knowledge’, including their motivation to do so. It might include a steadily evolving set of tasks or questions, but also, it structures the session in a way that creates or makes visible a ‘gap’ or a discrepancy in participants’ awareness or knowledge, thus creating the need for the content of the session.

(I’ve just discovered that these people first coined the term scaffolding – Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100 – very satisfying…)

Active learning – Again, I was excited to understand the role of Piaget in active learning. Indeed, Shabani cites (Verenikina, 2008), making reference ‘to a pre-Piagetian, traditional way of teaching through direct instruction’, thus highlighting his influence in this area. Piaget describes the creation of successful new schemas as an active process for all except young infants. New learning is done through exploration and experimentation, questioning and reflection. All my experience of teaching has been about what the students are doing, guided or facilitated by the teacher, rather than what the teacher is doing. Reading this about Piaget was a first step in understanding the roots of that approach.

Discussion, tasks and problem solving – These types of activity are another key facet of the way I approach teaching, although I do still see a vital place in teaching spaces for independent reflection, thought and processing (see Susan Cain’s ‘Quiet’!). Beard (1969) describes experiments done by Abercrombie (1960) with first year university students which show the benefit of free discussion. Although the students were knowledgeable, they were unable to use their information effectively. Through experimentation with free discussion, Abercrombie was able to show that the students who took this approach were better able to apply their knowledge and were more robust and flexible in evaluating arguments and considering more than one solution. In addition, Beard describes Piaget’s view, ‘that capacity for thinking in formal operations (the last of the key stages in development), is initiated by problems raised in attempting to reconcile different viewpoints in discussion and co-operative tasks’.

Mind map of notes about implications for teaching

Both these works seem to provide foundation for the task-based learning and discussion-based tasks that underlie the communicative approach used in English language teaching. Beard (1969) also quotes Vygotsky, ‘…memorising words and connecting them with objects does not in itself lead to concept formation; for the process to begin, a problem must arise that cannot be solved otherwise than through the formation of new concepts’. He sees the social interaction as fundamental to the construction of new knoweldge.

This also helps to back up my view of university teaching, that there is (I realise this is a huge generalisation) too much emphasis on lectures and a didactic approach, whereas a discursive and student-centred approach allows students to relate the principles and concepts to their own experience and observations.

What next?

I can see from my cursory reading that I also really need to understand more about John Dewey here, and that this discussion is just a tiny snapshot of thoughts linked to big thinkers. However, it’s been useful to me in developing my own understanding of theory and practice. and it’s something I will continue.

There is a strong basis here for a dialogic approach and the role of teachers as guides, posing problems, creating space for knowledge to be created. This has helped me to articulate what I wanted from my microteach session. I knew the approach felt ‘right’ but I couldn’t really explain it. I’m still not sure how to write the Learning Outcome. Next stop, John Biggs…

References:

Beard, R. (1969) An outline of Piaget’s developmental psychology. Gateshead: Northumberland Press Limited.

Pol, Janneke van de, Monique Volman, and Jos Beishuizen. ‘Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research’. Educational Psychology Review 22, no. 3 (1 September 2010): 271–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

Shabani, Karim, Mohamad Khatib, and Saman Ebadi. ‘Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers’ Professional Development’. English Language Teaching 3, no. 4 (16 November 2010): p237. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237.

To read further…

Boyles, D. ‘From Transmission to Transaction: John Dewey’s Imaginative Vision of Teaching’. Accessed 22 March 2023. https://www-tandfonline-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1080/03004279.2018.1445473?needAccess=true&role=button.

Glassman, Michael. ‘Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice’. Educational Researcher 30, no. 4 (2001): 3–14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594354.

Microteach: Object-based learning – Preparation and reflection

2 Replies

Preparing for the session:

My aim for the activity was: To notice our own approach to feedback and compare with peers. To discuss and evaluate different approaches.

‘Noticing’ is a commonly used technique in English language teaching, where students are guided, with more or less structure, to look at material and to observe, or ‘notice’ their own habits, the structure or meaning of a language point, or its register. I feel the cognitive process this involves is really critical to learning and requires very active engagement from students/participants. As quoted in France and Almerode (2022), Schoenfeld states,

Noticing is the active process of attending to what is happening during a learning experience (Schoenfeld, 2011).

I was hoping that by facilitating a structured discussion with space to raise questions, participants might notice their own habits or pre-conceptions about feedback and consider an alternative approach, even if this meant finally reverting to their original approach. It was the focus and interrogation I was interested in, and the noticing of the contextual information that was missing, as being crucial.

I wanted the 20 mins to be primarily used for ‘student’ activity and for peer-to-peer sharing. My main question mark was whether to and how much to offer input or whether I could guide the participants to a point that would be satisfying, and not simply a vague discussion of ideas. Give we had only 20mins, I felt the scope for input was limited. However, I was clear that there would be an output, even in a short time scale.

With regard to object-based learning, I felt that although this was technically using an object to teach, it wasn’t really about the object and therefore I wondered if it was really a true experiment with this technique. My understanding of OBL is that it is more about exploring the physicality of the object, or its context, either cultural or personal, real or imagined. In my micro-teach, I think the object was more of a jumping off point to discuss as aspect of teaching, which in this case was feedback. However, Chatterjee (2010) quoted in Hardie (2015) states,

Objects can be employed in a variety of ways to enhance and disseminate subject-specific knowledge, to facilitate the acquisition of communication, team working, practical, observational and drawing skills, and for inspiration” (p. 180)

I felt that this gave sufficient ‘go-ahead to pursue my idea!

In addition, when I was reading about OBL, there was quite a lot of focus on the student-centred nature of it and this is really my background, or ‘home’ in teaching and certainly the approach I wanted to adopt. Hardie (2015) quotes Biggs (2003), in talking about how students construct their knowledge through their actions. I especially feel affinity with the last line…

Knowledge then is constructed by the students’ learning activities, their approaches to learning. What people construct from a learning encounter depends on their motives and intentions, on what they know already and how they use prior knowledge. Meaning is therefore personal – what the learner has to do is the important thing.(Biggs 2003, p. 13).

Finally, I was taken with Barton and Willcock’s (2017) observation about the communal aspect of learning, when talking about OBL, which I felt reinforced the approach I was taking and in particular, the outcome, which could have taken many different forms. E.g. a series of questions to ask before giving feedback, a ranking of approaches or a single approach.

‘Watching students approach objects from different angles and pool their knowledge to co-produce a new understanding makes manifest Kolb’s assertion that the pursuit of knowledge is a communal activity (1984).

The tasks I chose are shown below. I was careful with the wording to try to ensure that everyone could participate, without any prior knowledge of sculpture. In feedback to each task I also tried not to steer the conversation in a particular way, but to focus on questions and drawing out discussion for the participants to construct their own learning.

Reflections:

In terms of my facilitation and delivery, I was happy with the scaffolding of the activities and the level of discussion. We just about reached the point of coming up with a plan to approach feedback which felt like a reasonable outcome. This is reflected in the picture one the participants took above. The approaches are listed top-bottom in relation to priority. The 90-100% feedback is on the side as one person felt there was a strong place for it and another strongly disagreed.

I think in terms of my aim, based on feedback from the discussions, the participants did consider their own approaches to feedback and how they differed from or were similar to others’. This was also reflected in the feedback I received, with one participant saying it has made her think carefully about how she approaches feedback and to try out something new. I felt we only partially achieved the second part of the aim as we didn’t really get to evaluate the different approaches sufficiently. There was some evaluation, particularly of whether 90-100% feedback was useful and if so, when? I think we could have usefully explored this further to really dig into our preconceptions about where the knowledge lies, and who is doing what in relation to teaching and learning.

I would have liked to have been able to challenge some assumptions more, and push a bit more e.g. re the ‘giving’ feedback – to consider how to do this as questions, or how it might feel to students if they are asked their thoughts and then get the tutor’s ideas anyway. I would have also liked to explore the positive feedback idea more fully as well. E.g. who needs to give the ‘feedback’? Who has the knowledge? How much positive do you actually hear if there is always an equal balance?

We touched on this after the session, about where a student is in the learning process, how much effort they’ve put in, and how this impacts feedback, but it would have been interesting to explore it further. For example, with young children, they are really the experts in how much they know and can do, and their confidence and enthusiasm is fragile and sometimes fleeting. Perhaps this applies to adults too?

These thoughts were really reflected in the feedback I received later, which essentially said that the session was engaging, but that it would have been helpful to draw out the contextual questions more and also to come out with a clearer outcome or alternative approaches to feedback. I agree, perhaps I needed a little more time, or a little more boldness.

References:

Barton, G and Willcocks, J. (2017) ‘Object-based self-enquiry: A multi- and trans- disciplinary pedagogy for transformational learning’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 2(3), pp.229-245

France, P. and Almarode, J (2022) ‘Learning to Notice’, ascd, 01/11. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/learning-to-notice (Accessed: 02/03/23)

Hardie, K. (2015) ‘Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching’, Higher Education Academy

Some new online study skills!

Leave a Reply

Trying out Padlet as tool for note-taking

As I’ve been trying to work on the PG Cert, I’ve become more and more in need of those organisational and referencing (who knew that would have become so different! – Everyone, I guess…) skills. So…

I talked to Bethany Moulange, from academic support about referencing material, especially from the internet, and she was great. She made me feel less scared by CiteThemRight, by just showing me how it works and what she uses it for. She did the same for Zotero, which I’d already installed, but felt intimidated by. I still do a bit as I can’t work out if it’s the right way for me, but I suspect it is.

One of the hardest things about this is that I suspect I might need different tools for different things and I can’t really cope with the disorganisation of that.

So… I’ve just tried OneNote, which I hoped might do a few different things. Here’s my first page:

I watched this video which was by Dr Paul Penn, recommended by Santanu and it confirmed what I thought really. I need something that allows me to take notes in the way that write, but online.

I’m really interested in how all this is for students and how using laptops might be removing some the benefit we could be getting from studying, by reducing the potential cognitive benefits of hand writing, whilst at the same time opening so many doors, particularly in terms of accessibility. There are so many skills you need to effectively study. I’m hoping that through two projects with our team we can look at them in more detail. One is supporting an academic colleague in a bid to do some research into effective online notation. The other is some work we’re doing on Digital Capabilities. In a recent focus group with students for this project, a student said she uses Padlet to collate her notes which made me think we should develop a bank of different methods from students themselves as part of our student-facing support.

I tried out mindmapping with Padlet for an online talk I attended last week and found it was great for incorporating all the links people sent in the Chat as well as organising my thoughts in the way I would usually on paper. I wonder if I can embed it into OneNote…?

Wow. Turns out I don’t have online study skills!

1 Reply

I am noticing more and more whilst doing the PG Cert that I am lacking some key study skills. I think this is because I did my degree BEFORE THE INTERNET and because since then I have continued to rely on hand-written notes and hard copies of reading material, for the most part. This suits my learning preferences in that I like the process of writing and of annotating, and I find this helps me to process and remember what I’m reading about.

However, I’m also aware that as we receive and find information more and more online and/or in PDF format, I’m using Adobe to highlight and annotate. I’ve yet to see if this actually works for me when I come to write something and actively use the research. I’m also naturally quite organised in my storing of materials and bookmarking things, but I feel I haven’t done this sufficiently with reading material, or I haven’t considered carefully enough what I might need, so the storage and impending disorganisation is starting to make me feel anxious.

What I realise is (embarrassingly), that despite working in digital learning, I am sadly lacking in independent online study skills. I need some apps for annotating documents, I need to apply my organisational skills to my reading and I also need to work out a way of taking notes, ideas, quotes from various sources without printing out lots of paper, or being tied to more real-life notebooks.

I think part of the problem is that my research skills are also pre-internet. I’m used to looking in the library for the key texts, or journal entries. I haven’t worked out a good way either to find and access the texts that I need or process them through reading and making notes, ‘annotating’, or store them. I have the double-whammy of being antiquated in my experience and yet very post-internet in my expectation that I’ll be able to find what I want, when I want it.

Whilst I’m a bit embarrassed to realise this is the case, I’m also interested that it may give me an insight into student experience at UAL who maybe face similar problems, either being in a similar position to me, or just being younger and having fewer educational experiences to draw on. In my experience supporting students, I find that although they are sometimes very savvy with certain things online, online study and organisational skills don’t tend to feature much.

It makes me see that there is an important world of online study that I haven’t really looked at before. I was aware of it, but I just didn’t really think about why it would be important. I wonder how relevant it is for students at UAL, particularly given the practical nature of a lot of courses. Maybe it contributes to some of the problems students have with more traditional, essay-based units. Certainly I think it’s something we should consider when we are looking at developing digital capability. Prior to this, I was imagining the study skills element in a more limited way, focussing on using Office to store documents, images, etc., rather than more active study. Time to think again.

What am I going to do?

Talk to my Academic Support colleagues and find out what I can do for myself and also hear if students experience similar issues.
Explore Zotero which I’ve just downloaded from self service.
Think about how to link quotes, ideas and excerpts from different sources in one online space. This could just be a Word document of course, but I feel it would be good, with only one screen, to find a smoother solution.
Research other online study solutions – look online and ask my DL colleagues!
Maybe OneNote would be good for this – I’ve only considered it before as a teaching aid, but perhaps that would work.

See this post for an update – Some new online study skills!

What do I need to do? And what am I going to learn?

Leave a Reply

Reflections on ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What is the recurring problem?’ Allan Davies, Independent consultant

I think this article raises really interesting questions about the use of learning outcomes and assessment criteria and the way that they can shape education, or the opposite, be ignored. From my own background in Further Education, it reminds me of the endless arguments about the use of SMART targets, in particular the ‘Measurable’ element which, in my view, rendered them completely meaningless in most cases. I was a language teacher so ‘Describe a place, using 3 adjectives correctly.’ was a common target. The only reason to do this is to meet the needs of a poorly designed exam paper.

I am torn because I have rarely, if ever, seen a matrix of assessment criteria which has sufficient nuance to make it meaningful on any course I have taught on or studied. On the other hand, as a student on this course, I want to know how we will be assessed and what we are aiming for in terms of criteria, and in more detail than is included in the learning outcomes.

‘Our obsession with establishing the accuracy/clarity of learning outcomes in the belief that this an essential prerequisite for quality learning to take place is undermined by those courses in which the written learning outcomes are largely unclear but the students are performing well.’

I am interested in this quote from the article because it immediately makes me feel that the institution has missed a key element of their responsibility, or at least there is a good chance that they have. Why are the learners ‘performing well’, are they sufficiently challenged? Are they all doing well, or just the learners who are comfortable and familiar in the particular art and design environment? What about everyone else? I feel there is a big possibility that this is working for everyone on the inside, not so much for anyone trying to get in.

However, Davies goes on to say:

‘Indeed, learning outcomes, ambiguous or otherwise, appear to be no substitute for established learner support systems and other frameworks that help students understand what they have to do in order to successfully complete a programme of work… It is during these supportive scenarios that art and design students formulate their intentions and actions and come to understand what ‘imagination’, ‘creativity’, ‘risk-taking’, etc, (the very terms regarded as potentially ambiguous) actually mean for them.’

I fully agree that there needs to be an ‘established learner support’ system and that learners really understand what is required of them through actual teaching, workshops, interactions and tutorials. I also agree that without this, the LOs and assessment criteria as completely useless. However, I still worry that this is too much left to chance in a large university with many HPLs who may or may not be fully briefed on the overall plan for the course and how everything fits together.

Davies also writes:

‘Only the course designers have a real understanding of how things fit together. New or part-time teachers, for instance, have to take the module outlines at face value and make sense of them in terms of their own professional experience.’

I think this leaves too much to chance. So I agree that LOs and assessment criteria are nowhere near enough, but I think in the writing and wrangling out of them, the real work is done in terms of demystifying what is required and desired and what everyone is talking about. It stops it from being magical and mystical and unattainable except for the few, and turns it into something students can really run with, a springboard for something new.

I couldn’t agree more with the comment, ‘Rather than measurability, the focus should be on meaningfulness.’ And I also like the example Davies uses of the Graphic Design course and the reference to the ‘spiral’ nature of learning.

‘The following scale is indicative and will vary depending on the nature and nuances of the discipline. Again, the categories are nested with each one incorporating the one below it. The hierarchy is based on students’ abilities to integrate their thinking and progressively apply their thinking and abilities to more elaborate contexts. The scale can be applied at all three stages as the context and level of challenge is determined by the stage descriptor.’

I really like the design of the scale so that it can be applied at all stages (operational simplicity), but that the contexts in which it’s applied add the additional rigour. The incorporation of lower categories within the higher levels is much more realistic and applicable to actual learning and teaching.

In short I think the creation or devising of outcomes, aims, assessment criteria and contexts (briefs) are all essential to the teaching team in understanding what they are trying to do. They add a layer of transparency between themselves and then for the students. It is a necessary rigour. On the other hand, the tools and constraints within which this is done often defeats the object and provides little help to the students or direction to the staff. If a course is well devised with an experienced and collaborative teaching team who welcome in the learners, this might work well in any case. If not, there is a lot of space for students to feel confused, uncertain and let down.

Reference:

Davies, A (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria. What’s the recurring issue? Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem (Accessed 19 Jan 2023)

Things that might help a student…

Leave a Reply

Just to help me with my day job, I’m going to try and keep a list of things that I think might help people on other courses. It’s just for me to keep in mind during this time as a student, which is so valuable. (I realise these things might be coming up on this particular course, just making a note in case I forget. No criticism intended, I’m obviously not aware of the full rationale 🙂 )

Participation tick boxes on Moodle to help me keep track of what I’ve done/need to do. Not for testing, just personal time management.
Inductions – Library, myblog, workflow, Moodle, who can help in the library and academic support?
Clickable reading lists? and ensuring material is in the library. This would be great, alongside a library induction. Even for people who know the library well, understanding how it is for students would be great.
Signposting on Moodle – the signposting that there is for each session is great, but a little more for the other sections would be good. The tone of voice on Moodle is also v useful, explaining what is/isn’t necessary and what should be prioritised
Lots of support and questions answered, very quickly via the forum. Good to set up email forwarding early on and to gradually bring this in so everyone had a chance to do it. Friendly, informal tone. Peer to peer support.
Assessment How are we being assessed? What is the criteria? Can we fail? If so, how? It would be good to have a more detailed overview of this in advance. Doing one of the case studies earlier on and linking it to one of the observations, would provide useful feedback and help us understand what is required. It would also get us more focussed on exactly what we want to read, earlier. I wish I’d started this earlier.
Unit brief, course handbook and maybe other key documents – there are loads of useful materials in here but it would be good to be part of a Moodle induction.
Be specific about what is required/advised/etc re reading – The unit brief gives some reading and says that we will be informed about any required reading in advance (which is great), but doesn’t help with whether we need to read these things or if they will all be used later. Just a detail, but it would help with time management.
Lots of reading recommendations personal to particular areas of study.
Myblog and Workflow inductions, plus ongoing support. Some short videos showing just how these platforms should be used on the PG Cert would help. Maybe less so for Workflow (just the getting set up?) but definitely for myblog
Everyone loves the face to face sessions – how to maintain this or maintain contact when we’re online.
Lots of interaction in the face to face sessions and also some social time in quite long breaks
Some people really like the dates on the collapsed topics on Moodle

It’s interesting to me that this felt much more pertinent at the start of the unit, I guess while you’re trying to process a lot of information and get to grips with a lot of different things. As things have settled down this feels less urgent – something else to keep in mind, about the timing of support/information.

13/1/23 Week 1: Introductory presentations

Leave a Reply

I wish I’d written this straight after the session on Friday as I had more momentum then, but I’m still keen. I really enjoyed the session on Friday. I found the introductions and the research people chose opened up lots of doors in my mind, and I also enjoyed the delivery of the session, with several different interaction patterns. Also, in the breakout rooms, people were willing to chat, even though it was a bit awkward and first time-ish.

One of the big things that came out of it for me, was the conversation about play in learning. I went into the room both feeling that I had a lot of experience of using play in learning through my ESOL background, and also that I had deliberately chosen a room that was a bit more challenging for me. I’m not sure why I had these conflicting thoughts, but maybe because I’m aware that in an art and design and HE context, play often means something quite different from what I imagine. Anyway, I started the conversation and mentioned that I feel I’ve possibly become a bit stale or a bit cautious in the way I approach teaching since I came into HE. This is because I’m almost entirely staff facing now and I’m afraid of people feeling they’ve wasted time, or even (more recently) in case they don’t talk. I used to very explicitly feel that this was something that you just had to risk, but I realise now I’ve become cautious. I also feel there are things which are just not acceptable in HE, certain apps, fun things, which feel out of place. I don’t know if they actually are or not.

I came out of the session feeling excited about a new idea for my action research project. I thought I could test out play as a means of learning about digital platforms. It seems to fit into my belief in student-centred and active learning, and at the same time push me out of my comfort zone. Kind of the same contradiction I had when I went into the room – both comfortable and uncomfortable.

The other people in the room were interesting in their approach to play; some talked about gaming, others about students bringing games themselves, others talked about things I’m very familiar with e.g. Find someone who…. I wish I had written more notes now but I was enjoying just listening. Some of the things I wrote down about the play format were: legitimises experimentation, fast-paced activities, helps with empathy, helps build trust, fostering a safer learning environment. We also talked about play without specific learning objectives – this is the key thing I think. It’s quite easy to set up a ‘play’ scenario which takes learners through play like activities (quizzes, matching activities, etc) which are designed to teach certain skills. However, keeping that really open, so participants really can play, but also feel purpose, is much more challenging. Generating a sense of purpose, without an underlying learning objective. Or perhaps without an obvious one? I’m not sure I’m immediately reverting to my safe space of having a clear objective, even if it’s not explicit. Hmm..