Review: iii Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

Also aimed at general as well as readers in education, this is an accessible read. The book's compact size, eight chapters across 134 pages invites completion even though I took quite a few weeks.

Book reviews here are a bit 'unconventional' with the two axes I have to grind [ ;-) ]. Returning to chapter 2 momentarily and map topography. Kinchin explains how concept maps of various types can be better understood and evaluated - a process of 'topological normalisation' (p.27). On W2tQ I may sound like 'I have it in' for process and processes. I do, in the importance they seem to assume within project management. I do 'get this'. A focus on processes is inevitable and readily appreciated in Hodges' model.

No process then ... no time, sequences, events, change, movement, spatial references and so on ... Kinchin's inclusion of  'topological normalisation' is very constructive (imho) as it indicates a method (as with measuring concept maps) and suggests something beyond an algorithmic approach.

The phrase (inevitably?) reminded me of database normalization:

".. the process of structuring a relational database."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization

So, topological normalisation and associated structures provides the icing.

Little wonder then that next up in chapter Kinchin's Table 1 lists the characteristics of

'Deep Learning' and 'Shallow Learning'

So cake and icing clearly.

On deep learning the first item is ''Linking new information with prior knowledge'. This is central in Hodges' model and the reflection (individual or group) and critical thinking that the model can help generate. With all the claims for VR AR, this (reflection / reflective practice facilitated by Hodges' model) is conceptually immersive (and a definition of learning?).

From this, another item is realised. As learners engage with content; find, 'own' and sustain their enthusiasm for their learning, understanding and the subjects and parts of the curriculum they find themselves learning within. The sum total is: structured networks of knowledge (p.36).

This gets even better with the subheading: 'Oppositional Binaries'.

Hodges' model provides two binaries - but (apologies - another time!) let's get back to the book.

While 'Deep learning' has its advocates, Kinchin quotes Tormey (2014:4) who warns:

'a framework that is simple enough to be a powerful metaphor may be too simple to adequately account for learning in different contexts' and that its blind acceptance by new entrants to the profession has 'imposed blinkers that make alternative conceptualisations invisible'.

Finding further evidence to support Hodges' model within this debate is invaluable.

to be continued...

Roland Tormey (2014) The centre cannot hold: untangling two different trajectories of the ‘approaches to learning’ framework, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:1, 1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827648

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

See also:

Intro post

Review One

... Two

... Four

... Five

... Six

Many thanks to Brill for my review copy.