This section reviews potential generative mechanisms that may influence student learning and how these generative mechanisms can be applied and assessed in educational courses.
The pragmatist-critical realism approach follows a strong practice orientation to search for generative mechanisms that produce observable effects (Heeks et al., 2019). The link between practice and generative mechanisms is clear in Bhaskar’s statement of mechanisms as 'nothing other than ways of acting on things' (Bhaskar, 2008, p. 3). Generative mechanisms are explanatory and provide a “rich source of explanatory devices” (Easton, 2010, p. 122) of how and why observed events occur, but require an exploratory approach for identification (Blom & Morén, 2011).
2.5.1 Levels of Skill Development
Learning is closely related to skill development, especially concerning experience. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) approach skill development from the basis that problem-solving is an essential feature of intelligent behaviour. They see concrete experience as essential to building skills
62 from abstract formal rules. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) consider themselves contra-Piagetian and understand skill proficiency ranging from concrete experience to abstract concepts applied in multiple contexts. They consider behaviourism and cognitivism restrictive and take a Vygotskian constructivist stance to argue that scaffolded concrete experience builds higher- level skill proficiency (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980). They propose a five-stage model of directed skill development from novice through competence, proficiency, and expertise to mastery.
• Novice
Novices learn from a reductive approach that decomposes situations into non-context abstract principles and formulas. Students require scaffolding and formative assessments to apply learned knowledge in similar situations.
• Competence
Recurrent exposure to real situations allows students to become competent through taught content. Instructors must pay attention to patterns that allow the student to appreciate multiple contexts in the environment. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) call these 'aspects', which are relative to other situations and supported by guiding principles or guidelines.
• Proficiency
Practice provides proficiency through the application of the guidelines in multiple situations.
The experienced aspects provide lenses for viewing new situations. However, students may view a unique situation from multiple points of view and determine different situations.
• Expertise
Expertise occurs after the student has experienced many varied situations and begins to take appropriate action with little or no cognitive effort.
• Mastery
Mastery extends beyond cognition. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) consider a master to encounter “moments of intense absorption in his work” (p.15) with no awareness of guiding principles. However, these moments are fleeting.
At the levels of expertise and mastery, the person is regarded as an expert with embedded proficiency and competence. Consequently, in this study, the two skill levels are considered variations of the expert level.
63 2.5.2 Four Stages of Competence
The well-known conscious competence learning model, also known as the four stages of competence, provides insight into competency. While the provenance of the model is unclear, the earliest reference is by Broadwell (1969). The four-quadrant model describes the relationships between conscious action and competence. Superimposing consciousness as a continuum perpendicular to a competence continuum portrays the four dimensions depicted in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6. Four stages of competency.
Broadwell (1969) explains the four stages of competence in terms of levels with the unconscious incompetent at the bottom, the conscious incompetent at the next level, the conscious competent at the third level, and the unconscious competent at the final level. The unconscious incompetent acts consistently and can be likened to habit. This person focuses on the task, which Broadwell (1969) refers to as monotonous. At the second level, the conscious incompetent knows that something is missing, looks for help, and is willing to try new things to improve knowledge. This speaks to applying effort. The third level of conscious competent is confident in different settings, having experimented and adapted to multiple scenarios. The final level is the unconscious competent. This person has reached a level that is adaptable to different contexts. They are confident in knowing but do not always know why they know. They operate at an implicit level of knowledge and prefer to teach through experience as traditional masters who share their expertise through apprenticeships.
64 Broadwell (1969) considers masters as having inherent natural abilities in contrast to the espoused ability to progress through the levels.
2.5.3 Four Levels of Learning
From a Piagetian developmental perspective, Helsing et al. (2004) define four levels of development learning from the analysis of five adult learning models. In everyday life, learning is nuanced and has countless permutations determined by how people perceive the world around them (Helsing et al., 2004). Although learning levels may be identified, learning should be considered a “process of interaction between individuals and their environment that influences many dimensions of an individual’s life” (Helsing et al., 2004, p.159). Helsing et al.
(2004) support their espoused levels with learners’ perceptions of the educators. They suggest that the evaluation of the educator by learners provides a rubric that could indicate their level. Knowledge of the learner’s developmental level assists the educator in providing methods suitable to the individual. Although the levels appear distinct, they are interconnected by transitional steps that may be observeable as the learner moves between levels.
• Level 1 – Absolutist
Learners take an absolutist stance towards knowing based on a dualist philosophy. For level 1 learners, knowledge is certain and directly observable as either true or false and yes or no.
Educators are sources of clearly communicated and accurate knowledge that deliver clear instructions and rules on obtaining absolute answers.
• Level 2 – Transitionist
Transitionist knowing disrupts the dualist view where learners have an awareness that their knowledge is incomplete. Learners progress beyond pure knowledge acquisition towards understanding and seek opportunities to apply their new knowledge. Learners tend to interact emotionally with educators, seeking acknowledgement and encouragement for their learning and rapport.
• Level 3 – Relativist
Learners start to recognise that truth is relative to multiple nonfinite versions in contrast to a simple lack of knowledge. This level is characterised by openness to new ideas and provides the basis for critical thinking. However, learners need to develop reflective practices and methods for evaluating versions of the truth. Learners begin to develop their own
65 perspectives and seek opportunities to share these with peers. In turn, they identify peers as knowledge sources, but they do not trust their interpretations for acquired knowledge.
Relativist learners seek affirmation from educators who must support learners and encourage independent thinking.
• Level 4 – Contextist
The contextist stance expands the relativist view to take cognisance of the context of knowledge creation. Learners evaluate the background to information and the process by which it is acquired. They acknowledge authoritative sources but do not take them as determinants of absolute truth. The learners take responsibility for their learning and have developed methods for self-evaluation of their own complex ideas. Contextist learners require educators to facilitate learning by using multiple teaching strategies and encouraging corroborative argumentation.
2.5.4 Informative and Transformative Learning
Kitchenham (2008) reflects on personal experience when suggesting transformative learning as a theoretical framework for understanding learner experience with technology. Although transformative learning can bring about structural changes in knowledge, skills, attitude, and behaviour, it is “complex and multifaceted” (p.104). This resonates with the higher levels of learning - relativist and contextist - of Helsing et al. (2004). The lower levels, absolutist and transitionist, can be likened to informational learning, which, according to Kegan (2009), increases individuals' wealth of knowledge and skills and extends existing cognitive structures.
Kegan (2009) distinguishes between informative and transformative learning based on Piaget’s assimilative and accommodative processes. Assimilative processes integrate experiences into existing learning and knowledge structures (i.e. non-learning), while accommodative process experiences modify the underlying knowledge structure. Newman (2012) suggests that the two learning forms are manifestations of the same reality and suggests that the term “transformational” should be replaced with “good”. However, Taylor and Cranton (2013) question if transformation is good as there are negative implications of structural changes brought about by transformative learning. Frenk et al. (2015) observed a middle ground that provides an informative-formative-transformative approach. Informative
66 learning increases knowledge and skills to form expertise, and transformative learning adds leadership traits required for change agents. Formative learning is the transitional state between knowledge building and structural change where experts become professionals.
Taylor (2008) argues that transformative learning is more than behavioural changes, while Kegan (2009) contends that transformative learning requires epistemological changes from concrete to abstract. Similarly, Mezirow (2003) describes transformational learning as an epistemological form of metacognitive reasoning that transforms ‘frames of reference' (p. 58).
A frame of reference is “a set of assumptions that structure the way we interpret our experiences” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 1). Frames of reference comprise two dimensions, habits of mind and points of view. Both dimensions affect learning levels by evolving the understanding of activity, leading to changes in subsequent actions (Mezirow, 1990). Habits of mind may be addressed through reflection, reflective action and reflexivity required by transformative learning (Bass et al., 2017; Mezirow, 1990, 2003). Mezirow (1990) describes three forms of reflection: content (what), process (how), and premise (why). Processes (how) are both objective (how the experience occurred and when) and subjective (how the experience was experienced). Nevertheless, reflection must be learnt and scaffolded to be effective (Perusso et al., 2020). Kegan (2009) argues that educators must understand the current epistemologies of their students, ranging from concrete to abstract, for transformative learning to be effective. According to Cranton (in Newman, 2012), verification by the learner is subjective and the appropriate research method. Objective research into transformative learning may be inappropriate, and the generalisation of findings questionable. Newman's (2012) reasoning resonates with the lack of empirical findings of learning improvements through transformational learning programs (Bass et al., 2017). Nevertheless, without assessment mechanisms improvements in learning outcomes cannot be observed.
2.5.5 Depth of Knowledge Assessment Mechanism for Experiential Learning
Research into the depth and breadth of experiential learning has shown that depth of knowledge produces higher-order thinking skills (synthesis and application) and overall educational experience (Coker et al., 2017). On the other hand, breadth improves working relationships. Coker et al. (2017, p. 19) conclude that 'in experiential learning, depth should be taken more seriously”. Several assessment models exist of which Bloom’s taxonomy is most frequently used (Cannon et al., 2010; Cannon et al., 2009). Another assessment method
67 derives from the work of Webb (1997, 2002). Whereas Bloom’s taxonomy relies on a sequential progression from lower to higher levels (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), Webb's depth-of-knowledge model is not as restrictive. Like Bloom’s taxonomy, Webb’s depth of knowledge helps educators assess learning outcomes at multiple levels to comprehensively evaluate course assessments. The four levels of Webb's (1997, 2002) depth of knowledge model resemble the dimensions of knowledge of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), mainly at the lower levels. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) list four knowledge dimensions: factual knowledge, which are the essential elements required in a discipline; conceptual knowledge, which links factual knowledge into functioning units; procedural knowledge, which are the methods and techniques to put the conceptual knowledge in practice; and metacognitive knowledge which is the combination of cognition and the awareness of personal cognition.
Webb's four levels (2002) are geared to assessment and do not include Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) metacognitive level.
• Level 1 – Recall
Students can recall facts and definitions.
• Level 2 – Skills and concepts
Recalled concepts are combined to provide a solution to a problem. This level includes concepts as skills may be too narrowly defined in some cases.
• Level 3 – Strategic thinking
Higher thinking is used for reasoning and planning. This level frequently requires explaining and may be complex and abstract, with demands higher levels of reasoning.
• Level 4 – Extended thinking
Higher levels of thinking using complex reasoning and planning occur over time. Extended time is in respect of advanced activities and not repetiitve tasks which fall under level 2.
A comparison between Webb's (1997, 2002) depth of knowledge model and the dimensions of knowledge of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is presented in Table 2.5.
68 Table 2.4. Comparison of Webb's (1997, 2002) depth of knowledge model to the dimensions
of knowledge of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).
Level Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 1997, 2002) Dimensions of Knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
1 Recall - students can recall facts and definitions.
Factual knowledge - the essential elements required in a discipline
2 Skills and concepts - recalled concepts are combined to provide a solution to a problem
Conceptual knowledge - links factual knowledge into functioning units 3 Strategic thinking - higher thinking is used for
reasoning and planning
Procedural knowledge - the methods and techniques to put the conceptual knowledge into practice
4 Extended thinking - higher levels of thinking using complex reasoning and planning occur over time
Metacognitive knowledge - the combination of cognition and the awareness of personal cognition
2.5.6 Summary of Potential Generative Learning Mechanisms
Effective transformative learning requires reflection, reflective action, and reflexivity (Bass et al., 2017; Mezirow, 1990, 2003), which must be verified by the learner (Boud et al., 2005;
Newman, 2012). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) take a constructivist approach suggesting that students move from novice to master levels through scaffolded experiences. Helsing et al.
(2004) take a cognitive approach in proposing four levels that transcend an absolutist objective philosophy to a contextual subjective philosophy. This provides an integrative effect of informative – formative – transformative learning (Frenk et al., 2015; Kegan, 2009;
Newman, 2012). Helsing et al. (2004) confirm their levels on the basis of the educator.
Transformative learning requires reducing scaffolding and formative assessments as the levels move from absolutist novice to contextual master. Webb (1997, 2002) provides a four- level depth-of-knowledge assessment model that has a similar ontological basis to the levels of Helsing et al. (2004) and Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).
The next question concerns the relationship that may exist between reflection and the identified learning influence generative mechanisms.