The informants were asked what methods of teaching they found to facilitate deep learning processes or deep learning as an outcome of learning. In some instances, it can be hard to separate the process from the learning outcome, and it occurred to me that perhaps this is a source of confusion, that we find it hard to separate the concept from the methods we must undertake to get to deep learning. It raises the question whether it is possible to disconnect the content of the construct from the methods required?
Informant 6 mentions rich tasks and problem solving as key elements in deep learning processes (p. 89). She also mentions lesson study as a pedagogical practice to facilitate deep learning for teachers as she sees it as appropriate for teachers to practice what the students are going to do. She quotes American researchers who claim that a requirement for students to experience deep learning is that the teachers also have experienced deep learning (p. 90).
Lesson study helps the teachers see their practice in a new light, and school leaders should in turn model and facilitate these processes for teachers. She also mentions the Japanese lesson study method Hatsumon, where an important element is that the teacher plans some key questions for the lesson in order to stimulate independent thinking in the students.
Motivational factors help trigger curiosity, and elective elements in a learning session are also
important to encourage intrinsic motivation (p. 90). This requires that teachers have a close relationship to their students, she sees this as a precondition to facilitate deep learning (p. 91).
Fullan et al. (2018) regard pedagogical practices as one of the four elements of their approach. They give no set answer to what practices they recommend, but stress that
“teachers must develop deep expertise in instructional […] practices if they are to maximize impact […]” (p. 83). For this to happen a fusion of proven pedagogical practices and
emerging innovative practices is necessary, “in order to foster the creation and application of new ideas and knowledge in real life” (p. 84). In an illustration the fusion of different models, strategies and assessment types is illustrated like this:
Figure 2. Fusion of Effective Pedagogical and Emerging Innovative Practices
Source: Fullan et al. (2018) Deep Learning – Engage the World Change the World. Corwin. Thousand Oakes, p. 85.
Quinn, J. Copyright © 2014 by New Pedagogies for Deep Learning TM (NPDL)
Informant 1 mentions problem-, or task-based teaching, and the storyline-method as facilitators for deep learning (p. 51). These methods require an interdisciplinary approach in order to be meaningful and effective. According to the informant, this already happens to a large extent in primary school as a consequence of how the teaching is organized, with one teacher covering several subjects (p. 54). In contrast, the further up in the school system you get, the harder it is to implement methods like this due to academic traditions, the
compartmentalization of subjects, and worries (for teachers) about examination results (p. 56).
Teachers in higher levels of the education system are not practicing what they teach, like collaborative learning and adapted education (p. 57).
Informant 3 says the deep learning process requires the opportunity and ability to remain within a topic over some length of time, because there is no instant way of achieving deep learning. The methods we use must enable the students to grasp complex matters and work their way through them in independent and critical ways in new contexts, within their proximal zone of development. These are time consuming processes (p.68). The importance of enough time to cater for deep learning processes is recognized in the governing documents, in the interim reports and in White Paper 28. The renewal of the curriculum must aim for an adequate amount of time in order to facilitate learning (p. 33).
Informant 4 stresses the importance of giving the students tasks that are meaningful and complex, and that the teachers are involved in the processes as facilitators and
supervisors. The methods must encourage the students’ independence in the work process, such as choosing strategies, finding resources, analyzing data, handling unknown situations, and reflecting on their finds. Working interdisciplinarily is vital to this approach and central to facilitate deep learning (p.76). As we have seen, the Ludvigsen committee suggested development of interdisciplinary topics as a way of securing deep learning (NOU 2015: 8, p.
52), and in White Paper 28, the Ministry of Education and Research says that it will prioritize three interdisciplinary topics in the subject renewal: democracy and citizenship, sustainable development, and public health and well-being (p. 38).
Informant 5 is concerned with moving away from the traditional lectures and letting the students be active and creative in the learning process. There must be a balance of input and output in how we work. Repeating material, making mistakes and having the time to get feedback and correct mistakes is an important and time-consuming part of this process, but to be able to learn something well and true, these are necessary conditions that the teacher and the education system must facilitate. We must give the students the opportunity to go both wide and deep in the learning process. In a perfect world the informant would like to see students who are independent and have the opportunity to focus on the learning process and not on the demonstration of their achieved competence (p. 83). Creating this perfect world imagined by informant 5 would entail that teachers must become able to see a broader picture than just their own areas of interest. Teachers would have to work together across the
disciplines and these processes must be continuous.