Abstract:

Providing feedback on the gilding module revision papers to a group of Phase 6 apprentices brought concerns regarding the approaches to learning of this group of advanced apprentices. It appeared that the gilding module was not being understood at a conceptual level. Recitation of facts was not a problem but the linking together of different aspects of gilding was not occurring. The provision of revision papers, in an effort to assist learning and revision, may have contributed to the perceived tendency for surface learning by focusing on stand alone facts and being short answer questions. As a result the format of my lectures changed in an effort to foster a more conceptual or deep approach to learning.
It has been argued that being active is better than being inactive when learning is taking place. With that in mind the students were brought down to the workshop where the practical work is carried out. A display board was set out with all of the materials required to carry out a gilding job. On a flip chart was a list of all these materials. Two sheets of glass were on display; one had a completed gilding job and the other was at the beginning of the process. The students were told that all the materials required for gilding were there. The group stood and each item was explained in general detail. There were no seats in the room. This was done to avoid sustained and long periods of low level activity whereby the attention span may drop and learning suffer. Three questions were presented - 1.How is the surface prepared? 2.How is the gold applied? 3.How is the job finished?
The students were actively encouraged to write down any type of answers or ideas. The answers were not presented to them but rather a process of elimination was conducted by crossing out the used materials. Hints were dropped regarding some of the more useful purposes of some of the materials.
After a short fifteen minute break the students went back to the class room. The three headings of preparation, application and finishing were written on the board. The group were asked to write down the process involved under each heading. This process of reviewing the learning that has occurred could possibly help with consolidating that learning. Indeed, from the answers it was obvious that all of the class understood the process involved in glass gilding. The actual precise terms for the tools and materials used were not correct but the underlying process was correct. The class were then given handouts and a PowerPoint presentation was done. In the past this would have been the complete lecture. Previously it proved to be a difficult lecture as the students grappled with new concepts and materials. This was not the case this time and the theory element was covered smoothly.
The problem that was identified in this paper concerned the approaches to learning by the students as well as my own perceived contribution to a surface approach by mimicking the short answer style of the exam paper. The format of the lecture was changed to try encourage a more conceptual understanding of the material and encourage a deeper approach to learning. Further to this, the format of the revision paper provided top the students was changed. It went from a test of factual recall to a more sophisticated questioning process. The questions were presented in such a manner that an understanding of the concepts underlying gold leaf gilding was necessary.

Keywords:

Surface learning, deep learning.