Based on Beetham and Sharpe (2007) ‘An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital
How do Beetham and Sharpe view the relationship between learning and teaching?
In this paper they claim that there has been a tension with the terms teaching and learning. They suggest that there has been a move towards focusing on learning and what is learnt rather than teaching and what is taught. They, however, acknowledge the importance of the social interaction of teaching and the effect it can have on the learning process.
Write down your own view of whether pedagogy is a useful term in the way suggested in the reading.
Beetham and Sharpe suggest that “despite its etymological connection with children (paidia), contemporary use of the term [Pedagogy] has lost its exclusive reference to childhood while retaining the original sense of leading or guiding to learn.”
Personally, I disagree with this and I primarily think of pedagogy as a term relating to the teaching and learning of children, while I prefer the term andragogy when discussing the teaching and learning of adults. This is not just a pedantic matter of semantics. I feel that despite the importance of lifelong learning, there are significant differences in the studies of teaching and learning for adults and children, and they therefore deserve distinct names.
Why do Beetham and Sharpe use the term ‘design for learning’ rather than learning design?
The see the term learning design as an existing term which focuses on the design of learning activities and contents. They argue that the responcibility to learning is in the hands of the learner, and no one else can design their learning, instead they can design an environment suitable for learning.