The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 9780367200527, 9780429259371

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The movement away from teacher-centered toward student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) in higher education has intensified in recent decades. Yet in spite of its widespread use in literature and policy documents, SCLT remains somewhat poorly defined, under-researched and often misinterpreted. Against this backdrop, The Routledge International Handbook of StudentCentered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education offers an original, comprehensive and up-todate overview of the fundamentals of SCLT and its discussion and applications in policy and practice. Bringing together 71 scholars from around the world, the volume offers a most comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the fundamentals of SCLT and its applications in policy and practice; provides beacons of good practice that display how instructional expertise manifests itself in the quality of classroom learning and teaching and in the institutional environment; and critically discusses challenges, new directions and developments in pedagogy, course and study program design, classroom practice, assessment and institutional policy. An essential resource, this book uniquely offers researchers, educators and students in higher education new insights into the roots, latest thinking, practices and evidence surrounding SCLT in higher education. Sabine Hoidn is a lecturer in management and higher education and Head of the StudentCentered Learning Lab, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Manja Klemenčič is a lecturer in sociology and general education, Harvard University, USA.

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Edited by Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-20052-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-25937-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS

x xxiii

List of contributors Foreword John Tagg List of abbreviations

xxviii

Introduction and overview Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

1

PART I

Student-centered learning and teaching theory 1 Foundations of student-centered learning and teaching Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

15 17

2 Philosophical problems with constructivism: some considerations for student-centered learning and teaching Michael R. Matthews

47

3 How student-centered learning and teaching can obscure the importance of knowledge in educational processes and why it matters Paul Ashwin

65

4 Learning and teaching in harmony with the brain: insights from neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

75

5 Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education Manja Klemenčič v

92

Contents

6 Misconceptions and misapplications of student-centered approaches Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

109

PART II

Student-centered learning processes and outcomes 7 Promoting engagement, understanding and critical awareness: tapping the potential of peer-to-peer student-centered learning experiences in the humanities and beyond Liz Dawes Duraisingh

121

123

8 Cautiously independent: how student-centered learning encourages emerging adults to take risks Tisha Admire Duncan and Allison A. Buskirk-Cohen

139

9 Student-centered approaches to fostering media literacy in college students Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

153

10 Enhancing Asian students’ engagement by incorporating Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources in teaching and learning Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

171

11 Transforming a large university physics course to student-centered learning, without sacrificing content: a case study Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

186

12 The powerful role of testing in student-centered learning and teaching in higher education Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

201

PART III

Student-centered classroom practices

219

13 Emerging trends to foster student-centered learning in the disciplines: science, engineering, computing and medicine Yunjeong Chang, Janette R. Hill and Michael Hannafin

221

14 Student-centered learning through the lens of universal design for learning: lessons from university and K-12 classrooms Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

235

vi

Contents

15 Differentiated instruction as a student-centered teaching approach in teacher education Esther Gheyssens, Júlia Griful-Freixenet and Katrien Struyven

254

16 Person-centered theory and practice: small versus large student-centered courses Renate Motschnig and Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White

269

17 Student-centered learning: investigating the impact of community-based transformational learning experiences on university students Christian Winterbottom, Dan F. Richard and Jody Nicholson 18 Using role-play in political science courses at a Japanese women’s university Chie Sugino

290

307

PART IV

Student-centered spaces and educational technologies

325

19 Active learning anywhere: a principled-based approach to designing learning spaces Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

327

20 Student-centered virtual design studio environments Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land 21 The virtuous circle of learning design and learning analytics to develop student-centered online education Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties 22 Promoting learning goals in an advanced physics laboratory via student-centered learning: a case study using the MITx residential platform Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson 23 Effectiveness of a flipped classroom approach when teaching lab-based techniques Melinda Maris

vii

345

361

376

390

Contents PART V

Instructor and student support services

399

24 Partners in creating student-centered learning: case study of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University Tamara J. Brenner, Adam G. Beaver, Marlon Kuzmick, Pamela Pollock and Robert A. Lue

401

25 Student-centered learning and teaching – lessons from academic support Sindhumathi Revuluri

414

26 Transitioning from instructor-centered to student-centered learning: case study of the US Air Force technical training organizations Stephen B. Ellis, Caryn H. Warden and H. Quincy Brown

424

27 Finding our way to more student-centered teaching in Namibia: the case of the postgraduate certificate in higher education Katherine Carter and Judy Aulette

445

28 Student-centered libraries: changing both expectations and results Anu Vedantham

456

PART VI

Student-centered institutional strategies

473

29 A workshop as a lever for pedagogical change? The case of Active Learning: from Practice to Theory, and Back Roberto Di Napoli and Johan Geertsema

475

30 Building a student-centered organizational culture: case study of the Ateneo de Manila University Catherine Vistro-Yu, Maria Celeste T. Gonzalez and Maria Assunta C. Cuyegkeng

491

31 The connected curriculum framework: case study of University College London d’Reen Struthers and Randy VanArsdale

510

32 Implementing a university-wide evaluation system to promote student-centered learning David Kember

528

viii

Contents PART VII

Student-centered policies and advocacy

541

33 Bridging the policy-practice gap: student-centered learning from the students’ perspective Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

543

34 Student-centered learning from a European policy and practice perspective Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

562

35 Student-centered philosophies and policy developments in Asian higher education Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

581

36 What PISA tells us about student-centered teaching and student outcomes Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

597

Conclusion: beyond student-centered classrooms – a comprehensive approach to student-centered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Epilogue: usable knowledge – policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education Sabine Hoidn Index

626

645

650

ix

CONTRIBUTORS

Paul Ashwin is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University, UK. His research focuses on higher education teaching, learning and curriculum, and higher education policies. He is a researcher in the Centre for Global Higher Education, a coordinating editor for the international journal Higher Education and co-editor of the Bloomsbury book series Understanding Student Experiences of Higher Education. His recent books include Reflective Teaching in Higher Education (2015, Bloomsbury), Higher Education Pathways: South African Undergraduate Education and the Public Good (2018, African Minds) and How Powerful Knowledge Disrupts Inequality: Reconceptualising Quality in Undergraduate Education (2018, Bloomsbury). Judy Aulette is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of North Carolina Charlotte, where she taught for more than 30 years. She has also served on the faculties of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland, Kingston University in London, University of Aberdeen in Scotland, and University of the Western Cape in South Africa. She has written ten books and several articles on issues related to gender, families, race/ethnicity, teaching and writing. Adam G. Beaver is Director of Pedagogy at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University. In this capacity he provides leadership and strategic direction for the center’s faculty programming while working closely with faculty and graduate students in the humanities, social sciences and general education. Trained as a Renaissance historian, he is especially attuned to what we can learn from the deep history of universities, including the different kinds of intellectual practices and communities which have inhabited them. Before coming to the Bok Center, he was an assistant professor of history at Princeton University. Tamara J. Brenner is Executive Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University, where she provides leadership for the center’s work in enhancing teaching and learning. Prior to joining the Bok Center, she served as associate director of life sciences education and taught a large introductory life sciences course for Harvard undergraduates. She received a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of California, San Francisco, and a BA in biochemistry from Swarthmore College. x

Contributors

Jessica Briskin is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Technology at Bloomsburg University. Her research primarily focuses on design frameworks, online collaboration methods, and mobile and multimedia development regarding translating learning spaces into online spaces. She has experience in corporate and educational industries, designing and developing eLearning and mLearning courses, instructor-led training, videos, infographics, and performance support tools. She earned a doctorate in Learning, Design and Technology from the Pennsylvania State University. Jessica E. Brodsky is a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology Program at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Her current research focuses on two areas. She is interested in assessing and fostering media literacy knowledge and skills in adolescents and college students. She is also interested in the development of executive function skills in adolescents, including game-based training of these skills and how these skills relate to socio-emotional functioning. Prior to her doctoral studies, she worked at several universities as an instructional designer collaborating with instructors to develop hybrid and online courses. Patricia J. Brooks is Professor of Psychology at the College of Staten Island and the Graduate Center, CUNY. Her research interests are in three broad areas: (1) individual differences in language learning over the lifespan, (2) the impact of technology on cognition and learning, and (3) the development of effective pedagogy to support diverse learners. She is the co-author of Language Development (with Vera Kempe) and Teaching Psychology: An Evidence-Based Approach (with Jill Grose-Fifer and Maureen O’Connor). She co-edited the Encyclopedia of Language Development (with Vera Kempe), Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts (with Fran Blumberg) and How We Teach Now: The GSTA Guide to Student-Centered Teaching. H. Quincy Brown is an assistant professor of human capital development in the School of Interdisciplinary Studies and Professional Development at the University of Southern Mississippi. He holds a doctor of education from the University of West Florida. He previously served as an instructor and program manager at the University of West Florida and held instructor positions at Southern Illinois University. Prior to joining the Department of Human Capital Development, he served as the director of integrated technology at a pre-K through grade 8 schools. His research agenda is focused on research integrity, specifically in the social sciences. Allison A. Buskirk-Cohen is a professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Delaware Valley University in Pennsylvania, where she primarily teaches courses on lifespan development and research methods. Her research focuses on how interpersonal relationships influence wellbeing. Her work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and advanced textbooks, and presented at academic conferences around the world. She also has served as editor of the textbook, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Life-Span Development, several times. She looks forward to co-editing an upcoming book on emerging adulthood with her colleague Dr. Tisha Admire Duncan. Katherine Carter is Coordinator of the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education program in the Teaching and Learning Unit at the Namibia University of Science and Technology. She has been teaching in higher education for the last 20 years in Hungary, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Namibia. She has published her research in various journals, anthologies, and popular magazines. Yunjeong Chang is an assistant professor in the Department of Learning and Instruction at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. She earned her PhD in Learning, Design, and Technology from xi

Contributors

the University of Georgia before joining the University of Virginia Engineering School as a postdoctoral researcher and a research scientist. Her research centers on designing equitable studentcentered learning environments for learners of varied abilities in higher education settings. Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White is a professor of counseling at Missouri State University and doctoral faculty in educational leadership at the University of Missouri–Columbia. He has a research agenda in person-centered counseling, learner-centered instruction, and a broad array of multicultural and interdisciplinary issues in psychology, education, and related fields. He is co-editor of Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies and has reviewed or held editorial roles for about 50 other journals or publishers. He has published over 100 journal articles, books, or book chapters, including Learner-Centered Instruction (Sage 2010) and the Interdisciplinary Handbook of the Person-Centered Approach (Springer 2013). Maria Assunta C. Cuyegkeng is Director of the Ateneo Institute of Sustainability and a professor in the Department of Leadership and Strategy in the John Gokongwei School of Management of the Ateneo de Manila University. She was vice president of this university from 2006 to 2010. She obtained her doctoral degree in chemistry from the University of Regensburg in Germany, and her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in chemistry from Ateneo de Manila University. She has written on polymers, science education, quality assurance and leadership. Her current research interests are in the fields of leadership and sustainability management. Goran Dakovic is a reviews manager at the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), where he manages the external reviews of quality assurance agencies against the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Prior to this position, he worked as a policy and project officer for the Institutional Development Unit at the European University Association (EUA), where he focused on areas such as quality assurance, learning and teaching, and recognition of qualifications and of prior learning. He holds a master’s degree in Public Policies from the University of Twente, the Netherlands. Louis Deslauriers is Director of Science Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Senior Preceptor on Physics at Harvard University. After completing his doctoral and postdoctoral research in atomic physics, he joined the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia to conduct research in science education. At Harvard, he currently leads efforts to incorporate research-based teaching and learning techniques in science courses. His research has recently focused on longitudinal assessments and the use of deliberate practice as a tool to enhance effectiveness of active learning. Roberto Di Napoli is Professor of Higher Education Scholarship and Practice at St George’s, University of London, UK. He has held academic positions in the UK and has worked internationally in countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Vietnam. In 2016, he was fifth educator in residence at the National University of Singapore where he later returned as visiting fellow of the College of Alice and Peter Tan. His scholarship focuses on themes such as academic identities and time, and the role of professional values in higher education contexts. Brendan M. Doyle completed his PhD in rehabilitation science from the University of Florida in 2019. He has accepted a assistant professor position at Quincy University in Quincy Illinois xii

Contributors

where he will be teaching anatomy and physiology to nursing students. His publications include the article A New Paradigm for Student Learners published in Advanced Ed Source. Terrence J. Doyle is an author, nationally recognized educational consultant and Professor Emeritus of Ferris State University where he taught for 38 years. He has spoken at more than 300 campuses worldwide on ways to use neuroscience, biology and cognitive science research to develop a learner-centered approach to teaching, and has given keynote addresses at hundreds of regional, national and international conferences across the US. His newest book published in 2019 and co-authored with Todd Zakrajsek, is the second edition of The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain. Tisha Admire Duncan is a professor of education at Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina. Her areas of specialty at both the undergraduate and graduate levels are pre-service teacher education, curriculum and instruction, and differentiation. She also serves as coordinator for the M.Ed. Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Program, as well as Faculty Liaison to Academic Advising for the campus. Recent research interests include learner-centered instruction, collaboration, and technology in the classroom. Her current projects include co-editing an upcoming book on emerging adulthood with her colleague Dr. Allison A. Buskirk-Cohen. Liz Dawes Duraisingh is a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a research associate at Project Zero, a research center at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. There she co-directs several projects including Out of Eden Learn, an online learning community and design-based research project that promotes thoughtful intercultural inquiry and exchange among school-age youth. She also co-directs international projects aimed at promoting inquiry- and innovation-driven professional development for teachers and school leaders. She was formerly a high school history teacher working in England and Australia. Alfonso Echazarra is an analyst in the OECD Directorate of Education and Skills, where he currently works in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As an OECD policy analyst, he has led or contributed to the following publications: How Teachers Teach and Students Learn, Ten Questions for Mathematics Teachers, The Science of Science Teaching, PISA 2015 Results: Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How to Help Them Succeed, Learning in Rural Schools, and several PISA in Focus. Stephen B. Ellis is a scholar-practitioner serving as a training policy administrator for the US Air Force. He has over 30 years of experience as a technical training instructor, curriculum developer, training program evaluator and training systems innovator. He researches how to improve efficiency and effectiveness in occupational skills training. He collaborated with colleagues to create and field instructor development workshops explaining student-centered instruction. He has a Ph.D. in human capital development from the University of Southern Mississippi and has published articles in performance improvement journals. Adam Finkelstein is the Associate Director, Learning Environments (Physical and Digital) at Teaching and Learning Services at McGill University, where he develops educational universitywide initiatives to improve teaching and learning. His teams develop different types of awardwinning technology-enhanced teaching and learning projects, from developing McGill’s MOOCs to pedagogical support of the learning management system (LMS). He also chairs the groups responsible for the selection, design and renovation of all classrooms and teaching xiii

Contributors

labs at McGill and is a co-author of the Learning Space Rating System. He has given numerous international keynotes, presentations and workshops on topics from learning design and learning technologies to learning spaces. Johan Geertsema is Director of the Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, National University of Singapore, and Associate Professor in the University Scholars Programme. His PhD thesis was on late apartheid writing and the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. His current research has focused on questions of values in higher education with specific reference to the professional learning of academics, academic identities, teaching expertise, and the relationship between educational research and the scholarship of teaching and learning. He is co-editor of the International Journal for Academic Development. Esther Gheyssens has a master’s in educational sciences. After graduation, she worked for two years as coordinator of the Brussels Expertise Network of Education, which focuses on teacher education programs in Brussels. Currently she is working as a PhD researcher at the Department of Educational Sciences (EDWE) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Within her PhD, she focuses on perceptions, approaches and professional vision of teachers to adopt differentiated instruction to create inclusive classrooms. Using mixed-method research methods, her research tries to pinpoint the success factors of differentiated instruction. Maria Celeste T. Gonzalez is an associate professor at the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU). She completed her doctoral degree in education at the University of San Francisco. She was chair of the Education Department and director of the Ateneo Teacher Center from 1997 to 2011. She was associate dean for graduate programs from 2011 to 2017. She currently serves as an accreditor of the Philippine Accrediting Association for Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) for higher education programs. She is also an assessor for the ASEAN University Network and has participated in EU-SHARE/Quality Assurance projects. Júlia Griful-Freixenet graduated as a psychologist from the University of Barcelona (Spain). She continued her studies with a master’s in educational sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). Currently, Júlia is working as a PhD researcher at the Department of Educational Sciences of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her research focuses on how pre-service teachers develop beliefs on inclusive education within two pedagogical frameworks: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI). Her PhD is a mixed-method investigation that combines a large-scale longitudinal survey and video-based data with small-scale qualitative data. Michael Hannafin earned his PhD in educational technology from Arizona State University. He has since held academic positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University, Florida State University, and the University of Georgia, where he recently retired as Professor Emeritus from the Department of Educational Psychology. His research has focused on psychological and pedagogical design of student-centered learning in technology-enhanced learning environments. Janette R. Hill is a professor in learning, design, and technology at the University of Georgia. Her research and teaching centers on the creation of generative and inclusive learning environments. She has a particular focus on medical professions in her scholarship, seeking to reveal a deeper understanding by sharing stories of health professionals and students. She is also a yoga instructor and musician, enabling diverse approaches and perspectives in her interactions in the classroom and in her research. xiv

Contributors

Sabine Hoidn is a lecturer and Head of the Student-Centered Learning Lab at the University of St. Gallen. Her research focuses on higher education teaching, learning and curriculum as well as management education. In particular, she consults and conducts research in the field of student-centered learning and teaching in higher and management education with her latest monograph titled Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms (Palgrave, 2017). She teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in management and education and conducts professional development lectures and workshops for faculty worldwide. She received a PhD in business education from the University of St. Gallen, and the venia legendi in educational science, especially higher education (PD) from the University of Zurich. Gohar Hovhannisyan is Vice President of the European Students’ Union (ESU). Her main focus of work is in the area of quality of higher education (HE) with an emphasis given to quality assurance, learning and teaching and meaningful students’ participation in HE governance. She has extensive experience of student representation on the local, national and European levels. On the national level, she was leading the establishment of the national pool of studentexperts in quality assurance and currently is developing the one existing at ESU. Currently, she serves as an Executive Board member of EQAR, and she represents ESU in the Advisory Group on Learning and Teaching of the Bologna Follow-Up Group. David Kember is Professor in Curriculum Methods and Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania. Prior to that, he worked in universities in Hong Kong for 25 years. He spent six years running an inter-institutional initiative, known as the Action Learning Project, which supported 90 action research projects to improve the quality of student learning. His research in the following areas has been particularly highly cited: student approaches to learning and the influence of teaching and assessment on them; the Chinese and Asian learner; motivation; reflective thinking; teachers’ beliefs about and approaches to teaching; action learning and research for teaching quality improvement; and distance and online learning. Aaron Kessler (PhD) is a senior learning scientist in the Office of Digital Learning at MIT. In his role within the residential education group, he is responsible for working with faculty and course teams in the development and research of online and residential courses that use educational technologies. As part of that process, he utilizes research from the learning sciences, educational psychology, and discipline-based educational research to help inform design decisions that are situated within complex learning environments. Manja Klemenčič researches, teaches, advises and consults in the area of sociology and politics of higher education, and international and comparative higher education. She is a lecturer on sociology at the Department of Sociology and in general education at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University. Manja serves as editor of the European Journal of Higher Education, co-editor of the Bloomsbury book series Understanding Student Experiences of Higher Education, and thematic co-editor of the Springer Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. She has published on a broad range of topics related to higher education, and especially on policies and politics toward SCLT in higher education, student agency in higher education and student impact on colleges and universities. Marlon Kuzmick is Director of the Learning Lab at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, where he leads a team of scholars, students, designers and technologists that creates and supports new activities and experiences for the Harvard classroom. With a background in xv

Contributors

media production, technology, composition and rhetoric, he works to support assignments that involve “multimodal” communication in media ranging from voice and speech to photography and design to code and 3D modeling. Susan M. Land is an associate professor in the Learning, Design, and Technology Program at Penn State University. Her research emphasizes frameworks for the design of open-ended, technology-enhanced learning environments. She has studied learning with technology in classroom contexts using methods such as project-based learning, computer game design, illstructured problem-solving, and mobile learning. Her current research investigates the design of learning environments afforded by new media in everyday, informal, or classroom contexts and often utilizes technologies such as social media or mobile devices. Her research with the Augmented and Mobile Learning Research Group focuses on context-sensitive, place-based learning in outdoor informal environments using mobile technologies and augmented reality. She earned a doctorate in Instructional Systems from Florida State University. Robert A. Lue is a professor of molecular and cellular biology and the UNESCO Chair on Life Sciences and Social Innovation at Harvard University. As the Richard L. Menschel Faculty Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, he is responsible for fostering innovative teaching in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He was also the founding faculty director of HarvardX, Harvard’s university-wide online education initiative that includes the edX partnership with MIT. He now leads the new LabXchange initiative, which continues his exploration of innovative online education and new ways to expand its reach and impact globally. Melinda Maris (PhD) is an award-winning educator and scientist whose work is transforming teaching and learning. Described as “a brilliant new contributor to the international dialogue on teaching and learning,” she is a pioneer in teaching and learning using evidence-based methods and one of the rising stars using research to improve student learning. She is currently Assistant Dean for Academic Programs at the Foundation for Advanced Education in the Sciences at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. She is passionate about creating student-centered learning environments grounded in research on how people learn. She has a proven record of successfully launching new academic initiatives, having established eight teaching and learning support centers at different institutions over the course of her career thus far. Rachel Martin is a graduate of the master of arts program in human development, culture and learning sciences in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. She has served as an admission counselor and career coach for undergraduates and worked as the strategic initiatives coordinator for Texas OnRamps and graduate research assistant for student success initiatives at UT Austin. She also holds a bachelor of arts degree in communication and media studies from Goucher College and began her doctoral work in educational psychology at Washington University in St. Louis in the fall of 2019. Michael R. Matthews is an honorary associate professor in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. He completed first degrees in geology, psychology, philosophy and education; he has higher degrees in history and philosophy of science, and a doctorate in philosophy of education. He is the author of six monographs and the editor of

xvi

Contributors

seven anthologies in the field of history, philosophy and science teaching. He was the foundation editor of the journal Science & Education. In 2010 he received the US History of Science Society Joseph H. Hazen Education Prize for “outstanding contributions to education in the History of Science.” Logan S. McCarty is Director of Science Education, Lecturer on Physics, and Lecturer on Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University. He oversees undergraduate academic advising and curricula for the Division of Science in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and teaches in chemistry, physics, and general education. After completing his doctoral research in physical chemistry, he moved into academic administration and teaching, and taught for many years primarily with a lecture style of instruction. He has recently become interested in researchbased teaching techniques such as active learning, and now conducts research related to teaching and learning in undergraduate science courses. Sioux McKenna is the Director of the Centre for Postgraduate Studies at Rhodes University. Her research has focused largely on how students come to acquire the literacy practices of various disciplines, but she is increasingly linking this to issues of social justice, asking how it is that university access, graduation and post-graduation employment so closely correlates with socioeconomic status in every country in the world. As a National Research Foundation rated researcher, she has contributed to a number of publications, including her recent co-authorship of Going to University: The Influence of Higher Education on the Lives of Young South Africans. Tarek Mostafa is a policy analyst in the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills–PISA team. Before joining the OECD, he was a senior research associate at University College London–Institute of Education. His research spanned several areas: the analyses of educational inequalities, the assessment of educational performances and policy, and quantitative and survey methods. He worked extensively on PISA and similar large-scale surveys, and on longitudinal surveys during his PhD and the following years. Renate Motschnig holds a double assignment as a professor at the Faculty of Computer Science and the Centre for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna, Austria. Renate is author/co-author of more than 100 articles and three books on the Person-Centered Approach, the most recent being Transforming Communication in Leadership and Teamwork, co-authored by David Ryback. Renate has a deep interest in the multiple ways in which thorough understanding and whole-person learning happen. She is determined to foster a style in higher education and management that is grounded in person-centered attitudes, our co-actualizing potential, and thoughtful support by web-based technology. Bill Nave began his 25-year career in teaching with science in grades 6–9 before focusing on creating programs for at-risk students and high school dropouts. These programs worked well because they were radically student centered. For example, students co-designed the River Valley School for dropouts in Turner, Maine. He was recognized for this work as 1990 Maine Teacher of the Year and as a 1990 national finalist. His publications include Student-Centered Learning: Nine Classrooms in Action. His current work as a program evaluator focuses on helping education programs become more student centered, and therefore more supportive of the students they serve.

xvii

Contributors

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah is an associate professor in educational psychology at the School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). She is the Head of Psychology and Psychometric Cluster at the School of Educational Studies and an associate research fellow at the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN). She is keen on researching learners’ attributes related to student-centered learning, particularly self-regulated learning skills. She has conducted research on student-centered learning and self-regulated learning among diverse groups of students. She has published numerous journal articles and academic books in the area of educational psychology and higher education. Jody Nicholson is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Florida. Her community-based research examines health behavior change that parents engage in for their children, with an emphasis on nutrition and physical activity for low-income families. Her scholarship of teaching and learning investigates the effectiveness of community-based engagement on student outcomes, and inter-individual differences that enhance the transformative nature of community work. She co-developed a brief version of the Community-Service Attitude Scale (Nicholson, Barton, Truelove, 2016) to facilitate instructors’ abilities to investigate how community-engagement might influence their students’ attitudes and beliefs around civic engagement. Lam Hoang Pham is a former pharmacist and pharmaceutical scientist/ lecturer who currently works in the field of science education research. He has two PhD degrees in pharmacy and science education. He has conducted intensive research on developing curricula and pedagogy in science education at the secondary schooling level in Australia. His research aims to enhance students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in chemistry through representation construction in the combination with different pedagogical frameworks. He has wide research and collaboration networks with school teachers and university researchers both in Australia and overseas. He has been applying his research to various disciplines including science, health, pharmacy and medical education. Lam has rich research experiences because he has joined a number of national research projects like Australian Research Council (ARC) grants. Thanh Pham is currently a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. She has worked in higher education for more than ten years. She has produced over 50 publications including books, book chapters, textbooks, journal articles, and magazine articles. She is currently researching graduate employability in different countries including Australia, UK, Vietnam and Japan. Her research particularly focuses on examining how students use their resources to thrive in learning and then working. She has received numerous local and international awards for research in internationalization of education and graduate employability. Pamela Pollock is Director of Professional Development at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University, where she leads programs that support graduate students and scholars from diverse backgrounds at every stage, from new teachers to more experienced teachers embarking on the job market. She has over 15 years of experience at teaching and learning centers. She holds a PhD in learning, teaching and social policy from Cornell University, a MA in applied linguistics and foreign language education from the University of Texas at Austin, and a BA in Spanish from Bryn Mawr College. Lynn Quinn is a professor in the Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning at Rhodes University in South Africa. Her work and research are focused largely on the xviii

Contributors

development of academics as teachers in higher education. Her interests thus include the nature of disciplinary knowledge, curriculum processes, pedagogy, assessment of and for student learning, and quality of teaching and learning. She works in collaboration with colleagues to design and teach on a postgraduate diploma for academics as well as for educational developers. She also supervises higher education studies doctoral students. Kurt Reusser is Professor Emeritus of Education and Educational Psychology at the University of Zürich. After an early career as school teacher and teacher educator, he was trained as an Educational Psychologist and Cognitive Scientist in Berne, Switzerland, and Boulder, Colorado. His research agenda and his list of publications encompass the broad field of learning and instruction including general didactics, large scale (inter)national video studies on classroom teaching in mathematics (TIMSS) and history, learner-centered instruction, and teacher education. After 35 years of teaching, research and (inter)national counseling, he serves as guest professor at University of Lüneburg, Germany, and as a member of the jury of the German School Prize. Sindhumathi Revuluri is Associate Dean of Academic Engagement in the Office of Undergraduate Education at Harvard University. She oversees academic opportunities and resources that support student learning in and out of the classroom. Formerly assistant and associate professor in the Department of Music at Harvard, her scholarship and teaching focuses on music and empire from the 19th century to the present. Her primary areas are fin-de-siècle France and global popular music. Her written work has appeared in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, the Journal of the Royal Music Association, 19th-Century Music, Opera Quarterly and Current Musicology. Dan F. Richard is an associate professor of psychology and Director of the Center for Community-Based Learning at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. He has served as co-editor of the International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement and is Co-founding Director of the Florida Data Science for Social Good, an internship program for data scientists with a social conscience. He received his PhD in experimental social psychology from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. He has maintained several multi-institutional collaborative research projects focusing on the long-term impacts of service learning and civic engagement. Bart Rienties (PhD) is Professor of Learning Analytics at the Institute of Educational Technology (IET) at the Open University UK (OU). He is also Program Director of Learning Analytics within IET and head of Data Wranglers, in which he leads a group of learning analytics academics who conduct evidence-based research and sense-making of big data at the OU. He conducts multidisciplinary research on work-based and collaborative learning environments and focuses on the role of social interaction in learning, which is published in leading academic journals and books. His primary research interests focus on learning analytics and the role of motivation in learning. Sean P. Robinson (PhD) is a lecturer in the Department of Physics and Associate Director of the Helena Foundation Junior Lab at MIT. He performs research across several fields, including theoretical particle physics, computational biology, and physics education research in advanced laboratories. He serves as an officer of the Advanced Laboratories Physics Association and as a member of the American Association of Physics Teachers’ Area Committee on Laboratories. Julie Schell is a practitioner-scholar with 25 years of experience working in higher education. She has held positions at the nation’s top research universities including Yale, Stanford, xix

Contributors

Columbia, Harvard, and currently the University of Texas (UT) at Austin. She serves as the executive director of extended education at the School of Design and Creative Technologies (SDCT) and an assistant professor of practice in the College of Education at the SDCT. Before joining UT, Julie received her doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in the Mazur Group at Harvard. She speaks, writes and publishes regularly on the science of learning and retrieval practice. d’Reen Struthers is a lecturer in the Department of Learning and Leadership at the Institute of Education (IoE), University College London, as well as a seconded senior teaching fellow within the ARENA Centre for Research-based Education at UCL. Her interests extend across both teacher and lecturer education, with a focus on approaches to pedagogy and andragogy. With a focus on ways to disturb the theory-practice binary, she has worked extensively supporting teacher inquiry in schools, self-study practitioner research and contributes to the professional doctorate at the IoE, and also facilitates programs for mentoring, resilience and innovative pedagogies. Katrien Struyven has a PhD in educational sciences. She works as an Associate Professor at Hasselt University (UHasselt), School of Educational Studies and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Educational Sciences Department. Diversity as a theme has gained importance in her work on student-centered and cooperative teaching methods and new modes of assessment in education. Katrien teaches introductory and advanced courses on teaching and assessment within the bachelor-master program of (adult) educational sciences in Brussels and in teacher education in Hasselt. Chie Sugino is Associate Professor in the Department of Culture and Tourism at Komazawa Women’s University in Japan. She worked in the Japanese Foreign Service from 1997 to 2015 and served in Bangladesh, Jordan, Sudan, and Chicago, specializing in international development and cultural affairs. Currently she teaches international cooperation and multicultural understanding based on her experiences abroad. Her research interests include using role-playing simulations and games in global education and examining its impact on students’ attitudes in classrooms and motivation for learning. She received her MA in American Studies from Brown University. Aleksandar Šušnjar was an elected representative in the European Students’ Union after being a student representative at different levels in Croatia. He received his master’s degree in philosophy and English language at the University of Rijeka, where he is currently studying for a PhD in philosophy. As a student representative, in addition to advocating for students’ interests in various European level bodies, he mainly worked on issues of quality of higher education with a special focus on learning and teaching, such as student-centered learning, recognition and quality assurance. He is an expert associate for quality assurance at the University of Rijeka. John Tagg is Professor Emeritus of English at Palomar College in San Marcos, California. He wrote, along with Robert Barr, the influential 1995 article From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. He has advanced ideas for the reform of higher education in many articles in both higher education periodicals and books, including The Learning Paradigm College and The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education Is Hard to Change and How to Change It. xx

Contributors

Lisette Toetenel is responsible for e-learning globally at a private bank in Zurich. Prior to this role, she led the learning design team within the Institute of Educational Technology, at the Open University. Her published work focuses on learning design and learning analytics along with social networking and interaction. She also delivered presentations, keynotes and master classes in commercial and academic settings globally. Randy VanArsdale has worked as an academic English instructor at universities in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, where he is recognized for pioneering innovative application of digital technologies and teaching strategies that foster engagement, sustained motivation and holistic development. He holds a Doctor of Education-Higher Education from the University of Liverpool, a Master of Applied Linguistics from the University of Southern Queensland, a Master of Educational Technology from Boise State University, and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from the University of Delaware. His research interests include student-centered learning, educational leadership, educational reform and educational technology. Anu Vedantham is Assistant University Librarian for Research Services at Princeton University. She works to reduce barriers to entry for effective use of academic libraries. Her portfolio includes managing research services for social science and science departments. Her prior work has explored gender differences in educational technology integration, simulations to explore climate change prediction and academic library participation in multimedia design and digital humanities. Her current research explores user experience changes in academic libraries in light of new methodologies in science and social science research, as well as changes in how today’s students use mobile technologies. Catherine Vistro-Yu is a professor at the Mathematics Department in the School of Science and Engineering of the Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She obtained her doctoral degree in Mathematics Education at the University of Georgia (USA). She is Program Coordinator of the Ateneo’s master’s and doctoral programs in mathematics education. She was the Philippine representative to the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI) from 2008 to 2016 and was a member of the ICMI Executive Committee from 2013 to 2016. Her research interests include school mathematics curricula, students’ understanding of mathematics, ethnomathematics, language and culture in mathematics education. Caryn H. Warden is a training pipeline manager for the US Air Force. She has a bachelor of arts degree in communication from the University of South Alabama and a master’s degree in technical and occupational education from the University of Southern Mississippi. She has over 25 years’ experience in technical education, holding various instructor positions as well as developing and managing technical training courses. She collaborated with a colleague to design, develop and field an educational workshop designed to assist in the employment of studentcentered instruction as an instructional strategy. Jean Whitney is a professor of teacher education at the University of Southern Maine. Her work is in K-12 planning and assessment and educational support for students with disabilities through universal design. Her work also focuses on enhancing self-determination in schools and adult life. She has ongoing collaborations with teachers in STEM fields. Her research has been funded by the US National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Office of Special Education Programs, and the National Science Foundation. She has published in special, general and higher education journals. xxi

Contributors

Laura Winer is the Director of Teaching and Learning Services (TLS) and Associate Professor (Professional) in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University. TLS oversees many university-wide initiatives, including the design and redesign of classrooms and teaching labs, faculty development programs, student professional skills development, the use of technology in teaching and learning, and policy development. She has published and presented nationally and internationally on educational development areas including the use of information technologies, teaching and learning spaces, evaluation of teaching, and medical education. Christian Winterbottom is an associate professor at the University of North Florida. He earned his BA degree in English at the University of Bedfordshire in England and his master’s degree and PhD in early childhood education at Florida State University. For four years, he taught preschool and elementary students in Japan, and when he moved to Florida he worked extensively with preschools and Head Start programs. He currently teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in early childhood education and in community-based learning. His research is primarily focused on working with marginalized populations and on reconceptualizing early childhood pedagogy through praxeological learning methodologies. Thérèse Zhang is the Deputy Director for Higher Education Policy at the European University Association (EUA), working in European policy developments in higher education, learning and teaching, and global relations with other regions of the world. She has been active in higher education policy and management for over 15 years, with earlier experiences in quality management and quality assurance, institutional development, and as a teacher. She holds a PhD in Romance Philology and a Master’s degree in European Studies from the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. She was trained in Belgium, Italy, and the US.

xxii

FOREWORD John Tagg

What are universities for? Or, we might ask, what do they hope to achieve? What is their purpose or goal? A great deal of ink is spilled on a regular basis in pursuit of a plausible answer to this question; I’ve explored it at some length myself (Tagg 2003). But many of the answers are, shall we say, problematic. Most of us, we Homo sapiens, are creatures of habit; we do what we know how to do because we have done it often before. Of course, we like a little variety, but when it comes to our preferences for action, we tend to fall back on the familiar as the foundation for our thinking and choices. But in tension with the tendency to go with the known is the fact that most of our activities are purposeful: they have goals. And a goal, by definition, is something that you haven’t yet achieved. So we are pulled in two (or more) directions. We want to blaze new trails, to explore the undiscovered, but our default method is to take the trodden path, to repeat what we already know we can do. A habitual action can easily become a paradigm. This term has gotten quite a bit, perhaps too much, exposure, and these days it often brings to mind Thomas Kuhn’s theories of the history of science as expressed in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). But Kuhn didn’t invent the term, and its salience does not depend on his somewhat controversial theories of scientific progress. Students of inflected languages have studied paradigms for centuries, examples of one verb, say, that show the declension of many – amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant. And by analogy, any example used as a model can become a paradigm. Theophilus Gale in his 1669 work The Court of the Gentiles sought to find the origins of intellectual history in the Hebrew scriptures, asserting that “the Universe . . . was made exactly conformable to its Paradigme, or universal Exemplar” (OED). If you take an example and raise it to the level of general practice or make it a general principle of action or interpretation, you have made it a paradigm. So what, we can fairly ask, is the paradigm of the university? That question would have been easier to answer a couple of centuries ago, when the main focus of university education was classical literature, in the original languages, and the student’s work was to learn to read, recite and dispute about the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans, and sometimes the Hebrews. This began to change in the 18th century when the discoveries of the empirical sciences offered the promise of knowledge unknown to the ancients. The teacher in the classical model was concerned with transmitting established knowledge to students and confirming their grasp of it through lecture, recital and disputation. Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the University of Berlin and xxiii

Foreword

the spearhead of the new vision of the university, contrasted secondary schools with universities in terms of the relationship of teachers and students. In the university, he wrote, “The relation between teacher and pupil thus becomes a thoroughly different one than it has previously been. The former is not there for the latter, rather both are there for the sake of knowledge” (qtd. in Fallon 1980, p.  17). The example that would become the new paradigm was the independent researcher, seeking truth: “Everything depends upon holding to the principle of considering knowledge as something not yet found, never completely to be discovered, and searching relentlessly for it as such” (qtd. in Fallon 1980, p. 25). It is perhaps worth noting that even Humboldt did not escape the law of unintended consequences in this regard. Creating a design for the university that exalted the status of independent scholars and researchers, he then had to deal with them. Writing to his wife, he complained that “To direct a group of scholars is not much better than to have a troop of comedians under you”: “They besiege me with their eternally self-thwarting interests, their jealousy, their envy, their passion to govern, their one-sided opinions, in which each believes that his discipline alone has earned support and encouragement” (qtd. in Fallon 1980, pp. 25–26). In spite of these difficulties, the German model of the university professor as researcher took hold through most of the Western world. By the end of the 19th century, the paradigm of faculty member as researcher was well established. As William Rainey Harper, founding president of the University of Chicago, put it in 1892, “It is proposed in this institution to make the work of investigation primary, the work of giving instructions secondary” (qtd. in Lucas 1994, p.  173). The work of investigation fell to faculty and graduate students, and graduate schools became the framework on which the curriculum was built. Many of the academic disciplines we find at today’s universities, of course, have ancient roots. But their configuration and division into departmental enclaves is derived directly from the needs of faculty research, as embodied in graduate departments and divisions. Humboldt’s vision of teacher and student joining in the quest for new knowledge came partly true in graduate programs. If research is the paradigmatic work of the professor, those graduate students who are learning to be researchers themselves become the paradigmatic students. And what of the undergraduates? Increasingly, the central role of the teacher as researcher tended to leave less room for the teacher as, well, teacher. The active role of the faculty member as discoverer tended to impose on undergraduates a passive role, even more passive than in the classical curriculum where students were at least busy translating and interpreting old texts. An 1895 editorial in Stanford University’s student newspaper, the Daily Palo Alto, described the situation in large lecture courses: In some of the larger classes where the students are not called upon daily to recite, there springs up a strange hesitancy to speak when a class question does arise. The professor, although he prefers to spend most of his time in lecturing, finds it discouraging, when he does ask something to be met with an appalling silence savoring of stupidity. . . . The students . . . often know perfectly the answer, but are not used to speaking in a lecture class, [and] hesitate about breaking the silence and drawing all the attention to themselves. (qtd. in Cuban 1999, p. 18) The new paradigm for undergraduate education, in many places, became direct instruction: telling the students what you want them to know and then testing them to see if they know it. People knew this, even at the time. In the early 1920s, Alfred North Whitehead, in The Aims of Education, condemned what he called inert ideas: “that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations” (1967, p. 1). xxiv

Foreword

He bemoaned the fact that “in my own work at universities I have been much struck by the paralysis of thought induced in pupils by the aimless accumulation of precise knowledge, inert and unutilised” (p. 37). The act of teaching inert knowledge, Whitehead saw, was pure waste: “So far as the mere imparting of information is concerned, no university has had any justification for existence since the popularisation of printing in the fifteenth century” (pp. 92–93). Instruction as an end in itself was pointless: “Your learning is useless to you till you have lost your text-books, burnt your lecture notes, and forgotten the minutiae which you learnt by heart for the examination” (p. 26) If we cannot judge students by tests, neither can we judge teachers by their publications: “Thus it would be the greatest mistake to estimate the value of each member of a faculty by the printed work signed with his name. There is at the present day some tendency to fall into this error” (p. 99). He wrote that slightly over 100 years ago. The paradigm of the undergraduate university has been, in most times and places for a century now, the teacher lecturing. The habit of most teachers has been to lecture, and the habit of most students has been to take notes and take tests. Not all, by any means, but most. Thus the paradigmatic act, the controlling habit, is the teacher talking. And as Whitehead and many others saw, and as we have seen ever more clearly for the last half century or so, the habit is inconsistent with the goal we are trying to achieve. For the goal of a university education, for undergraduates, is learning – not the teacher’s learning, but the student’s. And if the paradigm, the general pattern of habits and practices, is drawn just from what teachers do, teachers will keep doing things that don’t achieve their goals. Why not change the paradigm? Why not let the goal shape the habits rather than the habits shape the goal? Why not, as my colleague Robert Barr and I put it some 25 years ago, change from the Instruction Paradigm to the Learning Paradigm? (Barr 1995; Barr & Tagg 1995). There is something a bit redundant about the language we use to describe the emphasis on learning. Whether we call it a Learning Paradigm, student centered, learning centered, or learner centered, we merely note the obvious: the learners do the learning. If they don’t do it, it doesn’t get done. In a sense, to speak of “student-centered learning” is a bit like referring to “food-centered eating” or “lung-centered breathing.” To say that learners are at the center of the goals we want to achieve shows no disrespect for teachers or teaching; it simply shows some respect for the logic of cause and effect. The proximate cause of learning is what the learner does. How you get the learner to do that, to make the choices that lead to learning and do the work that learning entails? That is the teaching question. This handbook presents a broad range of research about how to get learners to learn. The term “student centered” takes the liberty of redundancy, acknowledging the root reality that the learner does the learning, to shake our thinking loose from the habits of many generations of teachers and students. It acknowledges thereby that we are creatures of habit, that even scholars tend to default to the familiar. But it recognizes that the default habits of the university have not grown out of the goals of the university, that teaching has been for a long time and in many cases a set of habits unmoored from their purported purpose. The habits are tried, but not true. Student-centered learning is just what happens when students learn. It encapsulates the goal of education. But it does not describe, at least not yet, the habit of most institutions. Yet this volume, in its variety and its depth, is testimony to the fact that many wise and dedicated educators are taking the goal seriously and seeking to shape new habits. No, this is not a new idea. It goes back, at least, to Plato and has certainly been practiced continuously since. In 1836, Mark Hopkins became president of Williams College in Massachusetts. Hopkins’ name remains memorable for many Americans because one of his students, James A. Garfield, who later became president of the US, famously said in an address to Williams alumni, xxv

Foreword

“Give me a log cabin in the center of the state of Ohio, with one room in it and a bench with Mark Hopkins on one end of it and me on the other, and that would be a college good enough for me” (Shapiro 2006). Less known is that Garfield’s admiration of Hopkins derived mainly from his experience in the senior course in moral philosophy, a course in those days often taught by the president of a small college. In his inaugural address at Williams, Hopkins declared, It is easy to see what it is that constitutes the first excellence of an instructor. It is not his amount of knowledge, nor yet his facility of communication, important as these may be; but it is his power to give an impulse to the minds of his pupils, and to induce them to labor. (qtd. in Rudolph 1977, p. 93) In accordance with this principle, the central and persistent question that Hopkins posed to his students was “What do you think?” The student Garfield wrote in his journal: “Today and yesterday I have done what I ought to do in four days. . . . But this mighty Dr. Hopkins is so infinitely suggestive” (qtd. in Rudolph 1977, pp. 93–94). So student-centered learning is not a new invention. Like me, you were probably privileged to sample it in your own education – at least I hope so. Because to find oneself, as a student, the self-conscious master of one’s own learning is, indeed, infinitely suggestive. Habits do not always defeat goals. For those who come to understand how these things work, discovery can become a habit. Alexander Meiklejohn, founder and chief teacher in the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin, one of the great enterprises of student-centered learning in educational history, wrote in 1932, The chief task of the teacher as he deals with . . . college students is to get their minds active, to give them a sense of the urgency of human need, to establish in them the activity of seeing and solving problems. It is true that they are sadly in need of information, but it is far more true that they need the desire for information. (1981, p. 25) Meiklejohn understood what the university was for. It was for the nurturing of free men and women, of people who were capable and competent to make their own choices: “We wish our students to reach a certain level of intelligent self-direction” (p. 50). To do so is to adopt the habit not of imitation but of autonomy, to struggle with the burden of responsibility and the dilemmas of choice so as to choose responsibly, to become self-directed learners in order to find the courage and build the confidence to become self-directed people. If we want students to become the agents of their own lives, we must let them be the agents of their own learning. This is a long book. That is because it is a long task.

References Barr R.B. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new reality for community colleges. Leadership Abstracts 8(3). Barr R.B. & Tagg J. (1995, November/December) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27, 12–25. Cuban L. (1999) How Scholars Trumped Teachers: Change Without Reform in University Curriculum, Teaching, and Research, 1890–1990. Teachers College Press, New York.

xxvi

Foreword Fallon D. (1980) The German University: A Heroic Ideal in Conflict with the Modern World. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, CO. Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lucas C.J. (1994) American Higher Education: A History. St. Martin’s Griffin, New York. Meiklejohn A. (1981) The Experimental College. (J.W. Powell, ed.), Seven Locks Press, Washington, DC. (Original work published in 1932). Rudolph F. (1977) Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636. JosseyBass, San Francisco. Shapiro F.R. (2006) The Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press, New Haven. Tagg J. (2003) The Learning-Paradigm College. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Whitehead A.N. (1967) The Aims of Education and Other Essays. The Free Press, New York.

xxvii

ABBREVIATIONS

AACU ADMU AHELO ALC(s) APA ASEAN ATI AUSSE BP CBL CBTL CC CLASS CTLs CUHK DI EBST EC ECTS EHEA EI ELL ELOs ENQA ESG ESU ETUCE EUA EURASHE fMRI

American Association of Colleges and Universities Ateneo de Manila University Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Active learning classroom(s) American Psychological Association Association of Southeast Asian Nations Approaches to Teaching Inventory Australian University Survey of Student Engagement Bologna Process Community-based learning Community-Based Transformational Learning Connected Curriculum Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey Centers for teaching and learning Chinese University of Hong Kong Differentiated Instruction Enquiry-based science teaching European Commission European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System European Higher Education Area Education International English Language Learners Expected learning outcomes European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA European Students’ Union European Trade Union Committee for Education European University Association European Association of Institutions in Higher Education Functional magnetic resonance imagining

xxviii

Abbreviations

GPA HCI HE HEI(s) HES(s) HKU ICT IPP IRT LLL LMS LS MCQs MIT MOOCs NSSE NSSE-C NUS OBE OECD OER OU PASCL PBL PCeL PCT PGCHE PISA QA SAL SASSE SBL SCEs SCI SCL SCLE(s) SCLT SRL STEM TA(s) TALIS TEAL TEL TFs TIMSS UCL UCLA

Grade point average Human-computer interaction Higher education Higher education institution(s) Higher education system(s) The University of Hong Kong Information and communication technology Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm Item response theory Lifelong learning Learning management system Loyola Schools Multiple-choice questions Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massive open online courses National Survey of Student Engagement National Survey on Student Engagement China National University of Singapore Outcomes-Based Education Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Open educational resources Open University Peer Assessment of Student-Centred Learning Problem-based learning Person-Centered technology-enhanced Learning Person-Centered Theory Postgraduate Certificates in Higher Education Programme for International Student Assessment Quality assurance Students’ approaches to learning South African Survey of Student Engagement Studio-based learning Student-centered ecosystems Student-centered instruction Student-centered learning Student-centered learning environment(s) Student-centered learning and teaching Self-regulated learning Science, technology, engineering and mathematics Teaching assistant(s) Teaching and Learning International Survey Technology Enabled Active Learning Spaces Technology Enhanced Learning Teaching fellow(s) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study University College London University of California, Los Angeles

xxix

Abbreviations

UD UDL UNICA USM UTAs VDS(s) ZPD

Universal Design Universal Design for Learning Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe University of Southern Maine Undergraduate teaching assistants Virtual design studio(s) Zone of proximal development

xxx

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

The movement away from teacher-centered toward student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) has intensified in recent decades. The term “student centered” (or “learner centered” or “learning centered” or “person centered” or “child centered”) is widely used in the education literature around the world – often as part of different phrases such as student-centered learning, student-centered instruction and student-centered learning environments. Thereby, “student centeredness” is attributed to a variety of instructional methods and academic programs and even universities referring to pedagogical concepts wherein students and their learning are placed at the heart of the educational process, with the aim to foster deeper learning processes and outcomes (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019a). In order to place learning and the learner(s) at the center of the educational process and bridge the gulf between rhetoric and reality, instruction needs to change in key areas such as balance of power, function of content, role of the teacher, responsibility for learning and purpose and processes of evaluation (Weimer 2002/2013; Blumberg 2019). Hence, the challenge remains for university leaders, administrators, instructors, students and other stakeholders of learning and teaching in higher education to be open to change and further develop their concepts and practices to create an academic environment conducive to student-centered forms of learning and teaching. Despite a strong tradition of teaching as telling in higher education, teacher-centered approaches have increasingly been subject to criticism (e.g., Bligh 2000; Doyle & Zakrajsek 2019; Duckworth 1987/2006; Tagg 2019; Twigg 2000; Weaver & Qi 2005; Weimer 2002/2013). SCLT, however, in spite of its widespread use in the literature and in policy documents, remains rather poorly defined, under-researched and often misunderstood and misinterpreted, resulting in superficial conceptualizations, misconceptions and half-hearted applications in education policy and practice (see also Klemenčič 2017, 2019). One of the misconceptions about SCLT is that it dismisses guided instruction, particularly the traditional lecture, and promotes conducting all instruction using active hands-on learning approaches. Some criticize that SCLT focuses on the how (process) at the expense of the what (content) of the learning. Yet others point to a lack of a clear definition of the role of the teacher and how much and what kind of guidance students need. Against this backdrop, the Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education makes a much-needed contribution to the field of higher education learning and teaching. The Handbook brings together 71 scholars from around the 1

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

world to enhance our understanding of the concept of SCLT, presenting major analytical lenses and innovative practices to explore student-centered learning and teaching processes, institutional support to SCLT and policies and institutional reform processes to make a shift from teacher- and teaching-centered to learning- and student-centered practices. More specifically, the Handbook offers a most comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the fundamentals of SCLT and its applications in policy and practice; provides beacons of good practice that display how instructional expertise manifests itself in the quality of classroom learning and teaching and in the institutional environment; and critically discusses challenges, new directions and developments in pedagogy, course and study program design, classroom practice, assessment and institutional policy.

SCLT – relevance and impact As the oldest and most widespread teaching format in higher education, lectures continue to play an important role in teaching and learning processes. Through lectures, foundational concepts are imparted and students are offered an overview of a discipline, for example. However, evidence suggests that combining lectures with more active learning practices such as lecture intermissions with Socratic questions, think-pair-share insertions, small group peer-learning exercises, pooling or short quizzes on material discussed provides for higher levels of cognitive student activity and thus facilitates more meaningful or deeper learning. Furthermore, active learning increments in traditional lectures foster student engagement which in turn can yield additional motivational and affective benefits to students. Handelsman and colleagues (2004, p. 521) conclude after an extensive literature review: “There is mounting evidence that supplementing or replacing lectures with active learning strategies and engaging students in discovery and scientific process improves learning and knowledge retention” (see also Biggs & Tang 2011; Doyle 2011; Doyle & Zakrajsek 2019). Student-centered instructional practices, such as problem-based, project-based or research-based learning, are more suited for students who have already acquired foundational concepts and are able to handle and thus benefit from greater autonomy in learning activities. In SCLT environments, learning tasks and class activities tend to be geared toward the upper level of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives (i.e., apply, analyze, evaluate, create; Bloom 1956; Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). Here too, it is not the amount of “doing” or discussing or group work in the classroom that is vital but rather the quality of the knowledge construction processes the different instructional methods promote in learners (e.g., Mayer 2004, 2009). The influence of constructivist theories in education and continuing reform pressures for higher education institutions (HEIs) have increased the interest in the concept of SCLT, also often labeled as “constructivist” learning and teaching. Empirical research indicates that SCLT have the potential to establish deeper or more meaningful learning (e.g., Akcay & Yager 2010; Baeten et al. 2010; Baeten et al. 2016; Lea et al. 2003). For example, Alfieri et al. (2011) conducted two meta-analyses using a sample of 164 studies, comparing direct instruction, unguided discovery and guided discovery with regard to student learning. They found that direct instruction let to greater learning than unguided discovery, while guided discovery (e.g., feedback, prompts) was superior to direct instruction and unassisted discovery in the domains of math, computer skills, science, physical/motor and verbal and social skills – especially for adolescent and adult learners. The authors conclude that feedback, worked examples, scaffolding and elicited explanations benefit learners. Along the same lines, De Corte (2012, p. 36) points out that a powerful innovative learning environment “is characterized by an effective balance between discovery and personal exploration, and systematic instruction and guidance, while being sensitive 2

Introduction and overview

to learners’ individual differences in abilities, needs, and motivation.” Thus, the key challenge for instructors remains choosing the best possible combination of instructional methods and class activities in a given course or study program to motivate and enable deeper learning processes for students to acquire the expected learning outcomes. In this Handbook, we concur with the scholarship that argues that deeper-level instructional quality is more likely attainable with SCLT. We define SCLT as an umbrella term of a variety of pedagogical concepts, approaches and techniques wherein students and their learning are placed at the heart of the educational process with the aim to foster deeper learning processes and outcomes for students to become self-directed, lifelong learners (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b). Deeper learning occurs when the learner strives to make sense of the “to-be-learned material” by selecting relevant information, organizing it into a coherent structure and integrating it with prior knowledge (Mayer 2010; Marton & Säljö 1976). SCLT does not offer one generic formula of impactful teaching that works in any and every teaching situation, however. The instructor has to design the learning environment looking for the combination that works best given the expected learning outcomes and subject or disciplinary area, and the characteristics of the students and the institutional context in which learning and teaching processes are embedded. The notion that there is no one “best” teaching method has been substantiated by research conducted in schools and in higher education. Effective instructor behaviors and instructional quality features can be found when applying various instructional methods, including teacher-guided instruction (e.g., McCray et al. 2003; Reusser 2006; Tobias & Duffy 2009). The instructors’ role thus remains crucial in designing and enacting student-centered learning environments. Instructors provide adaptive instructional support with regard to both (1) scaffolding participatory processes of knowledge (co-)construction and (2) cultivating a safe and supportive climate of thinking, dialogue and cooperation (Hoidn 2017b). Meta-analytic research in higher education, however, submits that there are a number of most effective instructor behaviors with regard to students’ academic achievement – independent of a specific teaching approach, method or technique (Schneider & Preckel 2017): • • • •

Social interaction (e.g., encourage students to ask questions, facilitate content-rich discussions, availability and helpfulness); Stimulating meaningful learning (e.g., preparation/organization of the course, clear course objectives and requirements, intellectual challenge); Presentation (e.g., clarity and understandability, stimulation of interest in course and content, elocutionary skills); Assessment (e.g., quality of feedback, student peer- and self-assessment, quality and fairness of examinations).

Moreover, meta-analytical research mainly conducted in school settings also found the following deeper-level instructional quality features of classroom instruction to be effective when it comes to student achievement (Hattie 2009, 2012; Seidel & Shavelson 2007; Wang et al. 1993), since they support students’ purposeful engagement with content-related activities: • • • • •

Challenging goals and tasks; Activation of prior knowledge; Quality teaching strategies (e.g., teacher clarity, reciprocal teaching, metacognitive strategies); Content-related discourse; Individual learner support; 3

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

• • • •

Positive and constructive teacher and peer feedback and formative evaluations; Constructive approach to student errors and misconceptions; Supportive and positive classroom climate (e.g., supportive teacher-student relationships, rules and principles, high cooperation, acceptance and respect) and class discussions; Peer tutoring.

Overall, empirical research indicates that the quality of teaching and learning processes and the quality of teacher-student interactions in the classroom are major aspects of instructional quality.

Student-centered classrooms Scholarship on teaching and learning in higher education has moved beyond focusing on specific teaching and learning practices to also consider the design of the entire classroom environment. The concept of student-centered learning environments offers a broader lens and goes beyond instructional practices as self-contained, with content isolated from real world issues and a narrow focus on individual thinking and learning (Sawyer 2006, 2014; Jonassen & Land 2012). SCLT classroom environments not only provide “interactive, complimentary activities that enable individuals to address unique learning interests and needs, study multiple levels of complexity, and deepen understanding” (Hannafin & Land 1997, p. 168), but they also constitute a sociocultural classroom setting containing learners, instructors, curriculum materials, technology, the physical environment, practices and norms, and other human and material elements that may influence student learning (Gresalfi et al. 2009). Especially the use of technology in facilitating teaching and learning has been much discussed in learning environment design (e.g., Goodyear & Dimitriadis 2013; Goodyear & Retalis 2010; Jones & Dirckinck-Holmfield 2009; Sawyer 2014). From a situative constructivist perspective, opportunities for SCLT are provided when both curriculum (content) and pedagogy (learning and teaching process) are designed and enacted in ways that build on what students bring to the table and focus on active student sense-making and knowledge construction. Placing the learner(s) at the center of the educational process requires to rethink the content (what?), the student(s) (who?) and the instructor (with whom?; e.g., Hoidn 2017a, 2017b; Reusser 2008). In student-centered classrooms, less time is devoted to plain lecturing (“telling”) and more time to meaningful and challenging tasks and activities that increase the level of cognitive engagement with disciplinary content and active participation with the aim to facilitate deeper learning processes and outcomes. Students are positioned as accountable authors in knowledge construction processes, as active and vocal participants in social interactions, and as responsible co-designers of the educational agenda (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019a). Against this background, student-centered classrooms are designed by instructors who hold student-centered (i.e., learning-oriented) conceptions of teaching, that is, who are concerned with what the student does and whether student activities lead to appropriate learning (Biggs 2012; Kember 1997; Prosser & Trigwell 1998). Student-centered classrooms are further characterized by constructively aligning curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: •

Learning outcomes express the level of competence attained by the student and may involve cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, social and behavioral learning outcomes. (Meta-) cognitive outcomes involve “knowing” (understanding of concepts, procedures), “doing” (performances of conceptual understandings, i.e., practices) and “reflecting” about content and/or process. High-level learning outcomes refer to high cognitive levels of complexity such as applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001) and 4

Introduction and overview

•

•

•

focus on what students will be able to do with what they know, not merely on what they know and understand (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b). Learning tasks structure both the kinds of knowledge that students have opportunities to build and use (learning content and outcome) and the ways that knowledge gets constructed (learning process; e.g., Greeno 2009). Designing tasks for deeper learning involves developing authentic and intellectually challenging tasks that afford students with opportunities for conceptual agency and productive talk and thus have the potential to motivate and cognitively activate them. They offer opportunities for individual, self-regulated and collaborative learning and allow for individual and peer-assessment (Hoidn 2019a). Instructional practices involve applying effective teaching and learning approaches (e.g., problem-based learning, guided inquiry) and learning-focused activities (e.g., group work, buzz groups, think-pair-share, minute papers), using new information technologies (e.g., massive open online courses (MOOCs), clickers) thoughtfully and offering tailored support and guidance structures (e.g., teacher clarity, feedback, modeling, revoicing techniques, metacognitive strategies) to foster students’ learning processes and outcomes. Taking the disciplinary content, the intended outcomes and students’ prior knowledge and interests into account, instructional practices have to be carefully selected depending on whether new knowledge is to be transmitted to the students (e.g., lecture, presentation), developed in dialogue with the students (direct instruction) or co-constructed independently by the students (e.g., in groups; Hoidn 2019a). Assessment practices emphasize sense-making and allow students to demonstrate their different understandings (flexible performance capacity). Ongoing (formative) assessment can tap understanding by helping to make students’ thinking visible and by providing tailored feedback (instructor, peers, self) that can assist students to take their existing understandings further. Clear assessment criteria indicate to students when they have reached the goals of the course and allow them to experience ownership and a greater sense of control over their learning processes (e.g., Hattie 2009, 2012).

Beyond student-centered classrooms: student-centered ecosystems In this Handbook, we go beyond the student-centered classroom, acknowledging the embeddedness of student-centered teaching and learning processes in broader institutional ecosystems – so-called student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) – which, in turn, are also connected to and influenced by the wider political, economic, social and cultural contexts in which HEIs around the globe operate. We emphasize the variety of elements, both material and human, that compose these ecosystems and collectively (in an aligned and mutually reinforcing way) support SCLT within courses, study programs and higher education institutions. We caution against the myopic perspectives of SCLT when instructional approaches are designed or analyzed without the consideration of the contents of knowledge acquired or cognitive learning processes facilitated, or disregarding that classroom teaching and learning cannot be fully removed from the broader institutional, political, economic, social and cultural contexts in which learning and teaching processes are embedded. We introduce student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) as culturally sensitive, flexible and interactive systems of SCLT in higher education. These student-centered ecosystems are guided by (inter)national and institutional policies and strategies. They are materialized and evolve through higher education processes, structures and cultures at institutional and system levels (Klemenčič 2019). As such, these ecosystems reflect the institutional values and norms on SCLT while also 5

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

taking wider political, economic, social and cultural developments into account. We submit that SCEs consist of five main components: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment; (2) teaching and learning support; (3) quality of learning and teaching; (4) governance and administration; and (5) policies and finance. Each of these components comprises several elements which serve as indicators of presence of SCLT in a given institution or study program. There is a presumed constructive alignment between the intended learning outcomes of study programs or individual courses and these elements of the SCEs. Namely, these elements together – in a synergic and reinforcing manner – enable learning, teaching and assessment practices which lead to deeper learning processes and outcomes. The notion of SCEs in which teaching and learning processes are embedded grew out of the contributions of this Handbook and was further developed by the editors of this Handbook (see also Klemenčič 2019; Hoidn 2019b; Klemenčič & Hoidn 2020, Conclusion). Student-centered ecosystems in HEIs develop as a result of purposeful policies developed and implemented in collaboration between administrators, instructors and students and with input of education researchers, employers and other stakeholders of learning and teaching. No stakeholder alone can transform HEIs from “Instruction Paradigm” to “Learning Paradigm” (Barr & Tagg 1995; Tagg 2019). Organizational change toward SCLT can also be driven or at least supported by (inter)governmental policies and instruments. Stakeholder associations, such as those representing universities or university leaders, students or teachers, can play important advocacy and policy entrepreneurship roles in such efforts.

The structure of the SCLT handbook This Handbook provides readers with 36 chapters written by 71 scholars from around the globe. Three structural types of chapters can be distinguished: (1) reviews of theoretical, conceptual, methodological issues; (2) empirical (design) studies applying quantitative, mixed or qualitative research methods; and (3) case studies. Each chapter aims to also draw implications for implementing SCL across various contexts in higher education and/or share main conclusions, lessons learned, remaining controversial issues, alternative solutions, next steps or ideas for future research. After the Introduction and Overview, the chapters are organized into seven thematic parts followed by a Conclusion: beyond student-centered classrooms – a comprehensive approach to studentcentered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework and an Epilogue: usable knowledge – policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education. Part I of the Handbook contains comprehensive reviews on what we know about SCLT theory – its roots, meanings, philosophical problems, leading theoretical perspectives, the role of knowledge in the educational process, what research tells us about how students learn, the concept of student agency, and misconceptions and misapplications. The subsequent six thematic parts refer to SCLT implementation on different levels: classroom level, program level, institutional level and policy level. Part II focuses on promoting student-centered learning processes and outcomes such as student engagement, understanding, critical awareness, risk-taking or media literacy as well as on the powerful roles of “deliberate practice” and testing in SCLT. Part III provides an overview of how SCL frameworks have been applied in science, engineering, computing and medicine. Moreover, concrete examples from higher education classrooms are presented using student-centered approaches such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Differentiated Instruction (DI), Person-Centered Theory (PCT), Community-Based Transformational Learning (CBTL) and role-play in the classroom. Part IV is concerned with student-centered spaces and educational technologies looking more closely at learning space design, virtual design 6

Introduction and overview

studios, online courses, learning platforms and flipped classrooms. Part V takes a deeper look at lessons learned from academic support and professional development at Harvard University, the US Air Force training centers, the Namibia University of Science and Technology, Princeton University and other HEIs. Part VI shines light on institutional strategies promoting a shift toward SCLT with case studies from St. George’s University London, Ateneo de Manila University, University College London and two universities in Hong Kong. Part VII tackles student-centered policy developments and advocacy in the European Higher Education Area and in Asian higher education as well as large-scale OECD comparative education research on student-centered instruction and student outcomes.

Chapters, content and authors of the SCLT handbook In the following section we will briefly outline the content of each chapter of the seven thematic parts of this Handbook introducing the chapter authors and their guiding questions and ideas. Part I – Student-centered learning and teaching theory: What are the foundations of SCLT? Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser take a deeper look into what student-centeredness entails and what SCLT mean, sketching its philosophical and educational roots as well as empirical research strands which have been highly influential in higher education (Chapter 1). What are philosophical problems with constructivism of relevance to SCLT? Michael R. Matthews documents the immense impact that constructivist theory has had on the theory and practice of studentcentered education and highlights fundamental philosophical problems regarding its epistemology and ontology (Chapter 2). How can SCLT obscure the importance of knowledge in educational processes and why does it matter? Paul Ashwin examines how SCLT characterizes teaching-learning processes in higher education and argues that, while SCLT is an important corrective to traditional teacher-centered approaches, by centering on students’ learning processes it can obscure the educational character of higher education (Chapter 3). What do we know about learning and teaching in harmony with the brain? Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle provide insights into how the human brain takes in, processes and retrieves new information as well as the various factors that affect those processes, and they look at specific ways teachers can implement a student-centered approach based on research findings from neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology (Chapter 4). What do student actorhood and agency entail with regard to both students’ responsibilities in the co-construction of knowledge and students’ participation in institutional governance of teaching and learning? Manja Klemenčič theoretically advances the concept of student actorhood and agency in SCLT and discusses the role of students as agents of organizational change toward SCLT (Chapter 5). What are major misconceptions and misapplications of student-centered approaches? Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn caution about potential misconceptions in student-centered approaches that occur because pedagogical approaches are introduced into pre-existing cultural contexts, narrowing the usefulness of these approaches and contributing to pedagogical injustices (Chapter 6). Part II – Student-centered learning processes and outcomes: How to promote engagement, understanding, and critical awareness in a student-centered online learning community? Liz Dawes Duraisingh presents an innovative curriculum and online learning community that leverages a social media-type format to foster thoughtful intercultural inquiry and exchange around the topic of human migration (Chapter 7). How far does SCL encourage emerging adults to take risks in the educational environment? Tisha Admire Duncan and Allison A. Buskirk-Cohen explore how faculty can foster supportive relationships, presenting a case study in teacher education that demonstrates how concepts such as emerging adulthood, constructivism and studentcentered instruction, secure attachment and learning, and broader emotional support and sense 7

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

of belonging work together to foster students’ social and emotional understanding, growth and development (Chapter 8). How can student-centered approaches foster media literacy in college students? Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks draw on cognitive and social psychology research to understand students’ experiences with media, introducing student-centered strategies for fostering college students’ critical thinking about ways that digital information is produced, distributed and interpreted in academic and non-academic contexts (Chapter 9). How to enhance Asian students’ engagement by incorporating Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources in teaching and learning? Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham explore how Asian students increase their academic performance, their interactions in class discussions, and their positive attitudes toward student-centered teaching and learning practices when these practices embed Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources (Chapter 10). How to transform a large university physics course to SCL without sacrificing content? Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers describe the transformation of a large, traditionally taught physics lecture course using the principles of “deliberate practice,” with students actively practicing physics tasks and with the instructor providing frequent feedback (Chapter 11). To what extent does testing play a powerful role in SCLT in higher education? Julie Schell and Rachel Martin offer a novel, empirically supported approach to course design discussing the what, why, and how of retrieval practice for higher education instructors and leaders with the aim to enhance student learning (Chapter 12). Part III – Student-centered classroom practices: What are emerging trends in fostering SCL in science, engineering, computing and medicine? Yunjeong Chang, Janette R. Hill and Michael Hannafin introduce how SCL frameworks have been applied in different disciplines and identify challenges that remain from theoretical, research and practice perspectives (Chapter 13). How does SCL work through the lens of Universal Design for Learning in university and K-12 classrooms? Jean Whitney and Bill Nave outline how three pre-service teachers’ learning in university classrooms guided their applied practice in their internship placements in high school classrooms, giving these developing teachers opportunities to learn, practice and implement student-centered pedagogy (Chapter 14). How can Differentiated Instruction (DI) as a student-centered teaching practice be effectively implemented in teacher education programs? Esther Gheyssens, Júlia Griful-Freixenet and Katrien Struyven present two in-depth empirical studies on how (pre-service) teachers adopt DI examining their philosophy and practices regarding students, learning and teaching (Chapter 15). How do person-centered theory and practice work in small versus large student-centered courses? Renate Motschnig and Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White articulate central premises as well as examples of student-centered education, and they submit two cases grounded in relational, person-centered theory illustrating two complementary application spheres, both integrating web technology in a way to strengthen contact and students’ engagement (Chapter 16). What impact do community-based transformational learning experiences have on university students? Christian Winterbottom, Dan F. Richard and Jody Nicholson examine three different community-based student learning experiences to investigate the transformational components of these community-based activities and their impact on university students (Chapter 17). How to use role-play in a political science course in order to promote active learning at a Japanese Women’s University? Chie Sugino introduces classroom role-play as a student-centered approach and explores students’ accounts of their roleplaying experiences to gain insights about their classroom engagement and learning, thereby addressing the challenges of students remaining passive and sleeping in class, which is predominant in Japanese classrooms (Chapter 18). Part IV – Student-centered spaces and educational technologies: How to allow for active learning anywhere using a principled-based approach to learning space design? Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer focus on McGill University’s experience of renovating traditional teaching spaces to integrate key affordances that support active learning (Chapter 19). How to design 8

Introduction and overview

student-centered virtual design studio environments? Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land look at virtual studio-based instruction and the technology that can be leveraged to support the student-centered pedagogical practices that guide students through the creative learning process in a higher education online class (Chapter 20). What does the virtuous circle of learning design and learning analytics to develop student-centered online education look like? Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties explore how teachers have successfully introduced student-centered approaches in online course environments and propose a set of success criteria for effective student-centered approaches that work online (Chapter 21). How to promote learning goals in an advanced physics laboratory via studentcentered learning? Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson present a case study on a multiyear, iterative curriculum reform intervention which enabled a set of student-centered learning features in an advanced experimental laboratory physics course at Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as measures of its effectiveness (Chapter 22). How far is a flipped classroom approach effective when teaching lab-based techniques? Melinda Maris investigates whether SCL leads to greater learning gains than lecture, implementing a flipped classroom approach in a master’s level biochemistry course as well as a first-year medical school course at a medical school for a unit on laboratory techniques (Chapter 23). Part V – Instructor and student support services: How to make instructors, graduate students and the Center for Teaching and Learning partners in creating SCL? Tamara J. Brenner, Adam G. Beaver, Marlon Kuzmick, Pamela Pollock and Robert A. Lue describe the impediments they have identified to instructors using or rather not using SCL, and how Harvard’s Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning supports faculty, student teaching fellows and teaching assistants to infuse SCL into the curriculum while at the same time deepening their knowledge of teaching (Chapter 24). What are the lessons learned from academic support when it comes to SCLT? Sindhumathi Revuluri offers an overview of student academic support approaches that guide both academic staff and administrators interested in centering student learning both in and out of the classroom (Chapter 25). How to successfully transition from instructor-centered to student-centered learning in US Air Force technical training organizations? Stephen B. Ellis, Caryn H. Warden and H. Quincy Brown describe and reflect on how the US Air Force technical training headquarters developed and conducted a teacher education workshop, demonstrating and practicing studentcentered instructional approaches (Chapter 26). How to move toward more student-centered teaching in a postgraduate course in Namibia? Katherine Carter and Judy Aulette focus on professional development in higher education teaching and, in the case of a postgraduate certificate in higher education course in Namibia, exploring the successes and failures lecturers describe in their attempts to implement student-centered instruction (Chapter 27). How to change both expectations and results in order to create student-centered libraries? Anu Vedantham explores how four theoretical frameworks – self-efficacy, stereotype threat, growth mindset and “the third place” – can guide library decision-making in order to foster students’ effective use of information for scholarship (Chapter 28). Part VI – Student-centered institutional strategies: Can a single workshop at St. George’s, University of London act as a strategic lever for pedagogical change toward student-centeredness? Roberto Di Napoli and Johan Geertsema ask whether a single professional development workshop on active learning, however well thought out and delivered, is sufficient to shift the pedagogical culture of a higher education institution significantly or whether a principled all-institution approach to change is necessary (Chapter 29). How did the Ateneo de Manila University build a student-centered organizational culture? Catherine Vistro-Yu, Maria Celeste T. Gonzalez and Maria Assunta C. Cuyegkeng show how the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines has been working to build an organizational culture in order to strengthen and institutionalize SCL (Chapter 30). How far does the Connected Curriculum, a research-based education approach developed at 9

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič

the University College London, place students at the center of learning? d’Reen Struthers and Randy VanArsdale demonstrate how University College London has successfully implemented the Connected Curriculum Framework as a research-based education approach that incorporates student-centered learning concepts (Chapter 31). How to implement a university-wide evaluation system to promote SCL in two universities in Hong Kong? David Kember introduces evaluation systems that were successfully implemented as mechanisms for quality enhancement and organizational change toward SCLT at the institutional level (Chapter 32). Part VII – Student-centered policies and advocacy: How can we bridge the policy-practice gap regarding SCL from the students’ perspective? Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan discuss how the European Students’ Union (ESU) has been at the forefront of advocating for SCL in European higher education policy making and why – despite efforts from ESU and other stakeholder organizations – a paradigm shift toward SCL has not yet taken place (Chapter 33). What do we know about SCL from a European policy and practice perspective? Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang provide an overview of how the concept of SCL has evolved in European higher education policy documents since its introduction in 2007 and show how and to what extent current developments in learning and teaching at European higher education institutions create conditions to foster a student-centered approach in learning (Chapter 34). What are the main student-centered philosophies, principles and policy developments in Asian higher education? Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah provides an overview of the philosophies of SCL in Asian higher education and unveils the challenges, policy developments, and common misconceptions of student-centered practices in selected Asian countries (Chapter 35). What does PISA tell us about student-centered instruction and student outcomes? Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa compare the effectiveness of teacher-directed, student-oriented instruction and inquiry-based instruction using PISA and TALIS data and draw implications relevant also for SCLT in higher education (Chapter 36). The seven parts of the Handbook are followed by a Conclusion which brings together and further develops the ideas presented in this Handbook. Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn introduce the concept of student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) as culturally sensitive, flexible and interactive systems of SCLT in higher education. This chapter submits the constructive alignment between the intended learning outcomes of study programs or individual courses and five components of SCEs: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, (2) teaching and learning support, (3) quality of learning and teaching, (4) governance and administration, and (5) policies and finance. In other words, SCLT cannot and must not be reduced to merely learning and instructional approaches in classrooms but needs to be purposefully embedded in studentcentered ecosystems. These ecosystems are both designed and implemented as a collaborative effort within communities of practice on teaching and learning within an institution, department, school or national or international higher education system involving students, instructors, institutional leaders, policy makers, employers’ representatives, educational researchers and other higher education practitioners. Finally, in the Epilogue Sabine Hoidn draws usable knowledge – policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education based on the findings in this Handbook to assist higher education stakeholders in transforming their courses, programs, HEIs and higher education systems (HESs) to become more student-centered.

Intended audiences of the SCLT Handbook All Handbook chapters consider relevant scholarship within the topics covered and advance new insights and ideas with regard to SCLT theory, policy, research and/or practice. Hence, the SCLT Handbook is of interest to: 10

Introduction and overview

•

• •

•

•

•

Education researchers, as it provides them with a cutting-edge overview of classic and latest research on SCLT, controversies and debates, as well as future trends based on contributions from an international team of scholars. Instructors, curriculum developers, and administrators in higher education institutions, as it supports them in making informed managerial, curricular and instructional decisions. Policy makers and institutional leaders, as it can help them to better understand the pedagogical concept of SCLT and its theoretical and practical implications for developing policies to strengthen quality of teaching and learning, as well as the obstacles that actors in educational institutions face when implementing student-centered learning environments. Higher education stakeholder organizations, such as European University Association (EUA), American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) and European Students’ Union (ESU), as well as international and intergovernmental organizations active in the field of higher education, such as UNESCO, European Union, OECD, Council of Europe and the World Bank, offering them the latest foundational knowledge about SCLT and its implications for policy and practice, thus helping them to further policies and regulatory instruments and develop quality indicators in this important area of higher education. Advanced undergraduate students and graduate students in the field of (teacher) education and higher education studies, providing scholarship and examples on learning and teaching within different cultural contexts covering various perspectives that invite critical discourse, which can be used for independent research into learning and teaching as well as course material for classroom discussions. Academic associations active in the field of (higher) education, such as European Educational Research Association (EERA), European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Academy of Management (AOM), International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS), Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), the European Higher Education Society (EAIR), and Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), all of which share interest in and advance research into teaching and learning in higher education.

Overall, this Handbook constitutes an essential resource with international appeal, offering researchers, educators, students and administrators in higher education as well as institutional leaders, policy makers and academic associations new insights into the roots of and the latest thinking, practices and evidence surrounding SCLT in higher education. Thus, this timely and unique volume provides different stakeholders not only with a comprehensive coverage of concepts and international perspectives, but also with systematic access to state-of-the-art scholarship and effective and innovative education practice embedded in the wider political, economic, social and cultural contexts in which higher education institutions around the globe operate.

References Akcay H. & Yager R.E. (2010) The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology 19, 602–611. Alfieri L., Brooks P.J., Aldrich N.J. & Tenenbaum H.R. (2011) Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103(1), 1–18. Anderson L.W. & Krathwohl D.R. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New York. Baeten M., Dochy F., Struyven K., Parmentier E. & Vanderbruggen A. (2016) Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research 19(1), 43–62.

11

Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič Baeten M., Kyndt E., Struyven K. & Dochy F. (2010) Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review 5(3), 243–260. Barr R.B. & Tagg J. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 13–23. Retrieved from www.esf.edu/openacademy/tlc/documents/FromTeachingToL earningANewParadigmforUndergraduateEducation.pdf on 20 October 2019. Biggs J.B. (2012) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development 31(1), 39–55. Biggs J.B. & Tang C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). Open University Press, Berkshire. Bligh D.A. (2000) What’s the Use of Lectures? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Bloom B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay Co Inc., New York. Blumberg P. (2019) Making Learning-Centered Teaching Work: Practical Strategies for Implementation. Stylus Publishing, LLC., Sterling, VA. De Corte E. (2012) Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and collaborative learning: An approach for the acquisition of adaptive competence. Journal of Education 192(2/3), 33–47. Doyle T. (2011) Learner-Centered Teaching: Putting the Research on Learning into Practice. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Doyle T. & Zakrajsek T. (2019) The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain (2nd ed.). Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Duckworth E.R. (1987/2006) “The Having of Wonderful Ideas” and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press, New York. Goodyear P. & Dimitriadis Y. (2013) In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology Supplement 21, 19909. Goodyear P. & Retalis S. (eds.) (2010) Technology-Enhanced Learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Greeno J.G. (2009) A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction 27(3), 269–275. Gresalfi M., Martin T., Hand V. & Greeno J. (2009) Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics 70(1), 49–70. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang E., DeHaan R., Gentile J., Lauffer S., Stewart J., Tilghman S.M. & Wood W.B. (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670), 521–522. Hannafin M.J. & Land S.M. (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced studentcentered learning environments. Instructional Science 25(3), 167–202. Hattie J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London, UK. Hattie J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Routledge, New York. Hoidn S. (2017a) Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Hoidn S. (2017b) Student-Centred Learning Environments for Deeper Learning in Higher Education Classrooms. Habilitation Thesis. University of Zurich, Zurich. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/profile/ Sabine_Hoidn3/publication/335947185_Student-Centred_Learning_Environments_for_Deeper_ Learning_in_Higher_Education_Classrooms/links/5d84f0b7299bf1996f82ab4c/Student-CentredLearning-Environments-for-Deeper-Learning-in-Higher-Education-Classrooms.pdf. Hoidn S. (2019a, November 11) Effektive studierendenzentrierte Hochschullehre: Vision oder Illusion? [Effective Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Vision or Illusion?]. Inaugural lecture at the University of Zurich. University of Zurich, Zurich. Hoidn S. (2019b, November 7) Student-Centered Learning and Teaching. Invited presentation at the VIII International Bologna Conference “European Integration of Ukraine’ Higher Education in the Context of the Bologna Process: Student-Centered Learning and Teaching, Evaluation as Part of QA in HE.” Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. Jonassen L. & Land M.S. (eds.) (2012) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York. Jones C. & Dirckinck-Holmfield L. (2009) Analysing networked learning practices: An introduction. In Analysing Networked Learning Practices in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development. (Dirckinck-Holmfield L., Jones C. & Lindström B., eds.), Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 1–28.

12

Introduction and overview Kember D. (1997) A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275. Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 30(1), 69–85. Klemenčič M. (2019, June 25) Successful Design of Student-Centered Learning and Instruction (SCLI) Ecosystems in the European Higher Education Area. Keynote Delivered in June 2019 at the 20th Anniversary of the Bologna Process. Retrieved from http://bolognaprocess2019.it/speaker-presentations/manjaklemencic/ on 25 November 2019. Klemenčič M. & Hoidn S. (2020) Conclusion: Beyond student-centered classrooms: A comprehensive approach to student-centered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework. In The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, London, Abingdon, Oxon. Lea S.J., Stephenson D. & Troy J. (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to student centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia.” Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334. Marton F. & Säljö R. (1976) On qualitative differences in leaning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Education Psychology 46(1), 4–11. Mayer R.E. (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59(1), 14–19. Mayer R.E. (2009) Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (Tobias S. & Duffy T.M., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 184–200. Mayer R.E. (2010) Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McCray R., DeHaan R.L. & Schuck J.A. (eds.) (2003) Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (1998) Teaching for Learning in Higher Education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. Reusser K. (2006) Konstruktivismus – vom epistemologischen Leitbegriff zur Erneuerung der didaktischen Kultur. In Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung. (Baer M., Fuchs M., Füglister P., Reusser K. & Wyss H., eds.), h.e.p, Bern, pp. 151–168. Reusser K. (2008) Empirisch fundierte Didaktik – didaktisch fundierte Unterrichtsforschung: Eine Perspektive zur Neuorientierung der Allgemeinen Didaktik. In Perspektiven der Didaktik (Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 9/2008). (Meyer M.A., Prenzel M. & Hellekamps S., eds.), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 219–237. Sawyer R.K. (2006) Introduction: The new science of learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–18. Sawyer R.K. (ed.) (2014) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York. Schneider M. & Preckel F. (2017) Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 143(6), 565–600. Seidel T. & Shavelson R. (2007) Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research 77(4), 454–499. Tagg J. (2019) The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education is Hard to Change, and How to Change It. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Tobias S. & Duffy T.M. (eds.) (2009) Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Routledge, New York. Twigg C.A. (2000) Course readiness criteria: Identifying targets of opportunity for large-scale redesign. Educause Review 35(3), 40–44. Wang M.C., Haertel G.D. & Walberg H.J. (1993) Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research 6(3), 249–294. Weaver R.R. & Qi J. (2005) Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education 76(5), 570–601. Weimer M. (2002/2013) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

13

PART I

Student-centered learning and teaching theory

1 FOUNDATIONS OF STUDENTCENTERED LEARNING AND TEACHING Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

Introduction and overview Consider the anonymous large-sized lecture halls that so many courses in higher education are held in. In these halls, lecturing continues to be the default mode of instruction in many disciplines. Rows of fixed seats are arranged in arcs, all facing the podium like in a movie theatre. The size and architecture of the room is perfect for a one-way transmission of information, focusing the attention of many on one professor – the “sage on the stage.” Often, these rooms are equipped with multiple large screens, a computer and projector, no windows but artificial light. Slides containing the courses’ informational content are projected on the large screen including perfect textbook figures and tables that students already downloaded from the course learning system in order for them to receive information exactly as transmitted ( for later exam preparation). In this setting, the instructor as the authority asserts control and tends to be the most active person in the room, doing nearly all of the talking. Students sit in rows, listen, take notes and give rather short answers to questions that the instructor asks, if at all. More often than not, these auditorium-style rooms accommodate not only silent but also disengaged and bored students whose attention spans are too short to concentrate through two-hour lectures.

The lecture is the oldest and continues to be the most widespread teaching format in higher education (Apel 1999).1 Although lectures often have a poor reputation, they continue to play an important role in stimulating students’ interest in a field, gauging their level of knowledge and providing them with an overview of a discipline. Strictly teacher-focused or transmissionoriented formats of higher instruction as described above, however, have begun to be increasingly criticized in recent decades.2 The lack of interaction is considered one of the major limitations of the traditional lecture, and many students would rather prefer to read lecture notes at home than actually attending lectures (Dubs 2019). Thamraksa (2003, pp. 62–63) points out some of the pitfalls of teacher-centered practices in higher education (HE) such as lectures: Students are not trained to exercise their analytical, critical, and reflective thinking. Much worse, this education system does not prompt students to become independent learners who recognize that knowledge is constructed in many ways, see the value of 17

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

learning, realize that learning is a life-long process, and understand that there’s no one else but themselves be responsible for their own learning. Research has consistently shown that lecturing in the entire class period, for example, is a rather ineffective way of teaching because our working memory and concentration span are limited; usually after listening for 10 to 15 minutes to a lecture, students’ minds start to drift away (e.g., Bligh 2000; Middendorf & Kalish 1996). Hence, scholars point to the potential for pedagogical improvement and innovation that can result in radical changes in the structure of the traditional teaching methods with the aim to provide opportunities for deeper learning. Some even ponder: “The trend toward ‘active learning’ may overthrow the style of teaching that has ruled universities for 600 years” (Mazur, cited in Lambert 2012). Neurologists and cognitive scientists posit that in order for students to use their brains effectively, they have to be engaged in cognitively active forms of learning, because people literally build their own minds throughout life by actively using their brain to organize and connect bits of isolated information (Hinton et al. 2012). Twenty years of neuroscience and evolutionary biology findings about how the brain learns have taught us that “the one who does the work does the learning” (Doyle 2008, p. 63). Student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) thus means teaching in harmony with how the brain learns – students only construct new neural networks when their brain is actively attending to the new information practicing, reading, writing, thinking, talking, collaborating or reflecting and so forth (Doyle 2011; Doyle  & Zakrajsek 2019). Empirical research submits that “students’ academic achievement increases when their learning is customized, interactive, and student-centered rather than standardized, passive, and faculty-centered” (Schell 2012, p.  21). Properly structured and implemented SCLT can hence lead to increased motivation to learn, greater retention of knowledge and academic performance, deeper understanding, more positive attitudes toward both the subject being taught and learning in general, improved student learning experience and persistence in programs (Alfieri et al. 2011; Baeten et al. 2016; Collins & O’Brien 2011; Handelsman et al. 2004). In their definition, McCombs and Whisler (1997, p.  9) capture the dual focus of learner- or student-centeredness informing and driving educational decision making as follows: The perspective that couples a focus on individual learners (their heredity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities, and needs) with a focus on learning (the best available knowledge about learning and how it occurs and about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners). Student-centeredness focuses not only on individual learners and their learning processes but on the whole learning context and issues of content, culture, community and instructional practice (e.g., activities, assignments) informed by educational constructivism, a theory of knowledge and learning. Thereby a variety of instructional methods can lead to Student-centered learning (SCL) because it is not the amount of “doing” (e.g., discussions, group work) but rather the quality of the knowledge construction processes these methods promote in students that is essential (Mayer 2004, 2009). Meaningful, deeper learning occurs when the student strives to make sense of the curricular “to-be-learned material” by selecting relevant information, organizing it into a coherent structure and integrating it with prior knowledge (De Corte 2012; Mayer 2010). Ideas surrounding SCL are not revolutionary or even new, however. In education, the call for SCL has been built over the past century and is largely associated with the work of prominent 20th-century educators. Frank Hayward, John Dewey, Carl Rogers, Lev Vygotsky, Jean 18

Foundations of SCLT

Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Paulo Freire, Malcolm Knowles, Maria Montessori and Friedrich Froebel, among many others, have made substantial contributions to the conversation furthering our understanding of learning and how best to maximize human potential through education (O’Neill & McMahon 2005). Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, progressive, humanist, critical and constructivist learning theories challenged the transmission or behaviorist paradigm, arguing that meaningful learning requires learners to actively (co-)construct rather than receive knowledge (cognitive revolution). The “expert teacher” approach rooted in the psychology of behaviorism and characterized by the predominant use of traditional methods of teaching (e.g., formal lectures, seminars and examinations) was found to promote “surface” rather than “deep” levels of understanding, with the students often performing at the minimal level required to obtain a good grade in the course (Reusser & Pauli 2015). The call for SCL was also inspired by political movements: the massive student protests that broke out worldwide in 1968 with the aim to transform universities to reflect student agency and social diversity; and the rise of critical pedagogy that aimed to empower disadvantaged students with knowledge by understanding students’ social contexts and assisting them in learning (European Students’ Union [ESU] and Education International [EI] 2010). During the 1970s and 1980s, interest in SCL gained particular momentum due to significant changes in society and on the labor market globally: the massification of HE as a rising and increasingly diverse student body entered universities; an increasing number of university courses with a larger class size and a vocational focus; an increasing number of students who were not prepared to benefit fully from their studies and/or dropped out due to a lack in self-regulatory skills; digitalization and the need for more flexible learning environments (e.g., lifelong learning, digital literacy); and growing expectations of students paying more for their university education and with student evaluations getting firmly established as tools to measure student satisfaction with their courses and instructors (e.g., Biggs 2003; Bembenutty 2011; Pintrich & Zusho 2007). Moreover, starting with the turn of the last century, SCL and the teaching mission of higher education institutions (HEIs) together with calls for widening participation in HE had been identified as policy priority areas in the context of the European Bologna Process (Hoidn 2016; Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué 2009). Meanwhile SCLT continues to gain attention globally, aiming at rethinking curriculum design, assessment practices and enduring traditional transmission modes of teaching in HE. Apart from these developments, over 20 years ago, Barr and Tagg’s (1995) landmark article From Teaching to Learning – A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education proposed a paradigm shift from an “instruction paradigm” toward a “learning paradigm” in HE, underlining that the university’s purpose is to produce learning instead of merely providing instruction: To say that the purpose of colleges [universities] is to provide instruction is like saying that . . . the purpose of medical care is to fill hospital beds. We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best. (ibid., p. 13) As a result of the developments outlined here, there has been a significant shift in interest (not necessarily practice) away from what instructors do to what students are thinking and learning. The learning focus shifted from receiving knowledge or memorizing content to higher-order thinking and demonstrating deep understanding and transferable skills (or cross-curricular competencies) such as focused analysis, critical reflection, knowledge application and knowledge creation in complex authentic contexts (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). In his newest book, The 19

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

Instruction Myth (2019), Tagg makes another case that “instruction alone is worthless” and that “universities should instead be centered upon student learning.” He points out that, although we have moved toward SCLT in many places, HEIs have not yet abandoned their central operating principle, that is the belief that education revolves around instruction. In contrast, Biesta in his book The Rediscovery of Teaching (2017) argues against the “marginalisation of teaching and the teacher” and for teaching to be re(dis)covered in response to the ongoing “learnification” of education, that is the redefinition of all things educational in terms of learning (Biesta 2010). Learning takes time, practice and skill, and there is no substitute, no magic pill for the hard work of learning which has to be done by the individual in order to establish long-term memories that can be retrieved and acted upon. In SCLT it is the students who do the work, and thus the learning as compared to lectures with the instructor as the “sage on the stage” working the hardest as Weimer (2002/2013, p. 60) points out: What happens in the typical college classrooms? Who’s delivering the content? Who’s leading the discussions? Who’s previewing and reviewing the material? Who offers the examples? Who asks and answers most of the questions? Who calls on the students? Who solves the problems, provides the graphs, and constructs the matrices? In most classrooms, it’s the teacher. When it comes to who’s working the hardest most days, teachers win hands down. Students are there, but too often education is being done unto them. Along these lines Biggs submits that “many institutions or educators claim to be putting student-centred learning into practice, but in reality they are not” (1999, cited in Lea, Stephenson & Troy (2003, p. 322). A SCL approach requires both a change in mindset and behavior on the part of the instructors and students who are the ones who have to enact SCLT in their respective classrooms. Compared to a teacher-centered approach focusing on the instructor as the only authority and expert, or to a content-centered approach focusing on the disciplinary knowledge being taught, its structure and methods of knowledge generation, a student-centered approach much more focuses on students’ learning needs, abilities, interests, aspirations, and cultural backgrounds – it is “personalized.” In other words, SCLT “refers to pedagogies focused on the learner and what is learned, rather than on the teacher and what is taught” (Sursock et al. 2011, p. 24).3 Yet, faculty members are often reluctant to embrace calls for educational reforms due to extrinsic barriers to incremental adjustments of their current practice, such as insufficient time to plan instruction, rigid career structures or inadequate support, and intrinsic factors that include entrenched values and beliefs about learning and teaching, established classroom practices and unwillingness to change (e.g., Hoidn 2016). Moreover, many assumptions of “student-centeredness” continue to be under scrutiny and attack – especially in HE, which consists in the preservation, growth and transmission of disciplines (i.e., content; e.g., Hodge 2010). Student-centered perspectives and studies on SCLT are criticized for their “lack of discipline, learner-centeredness, focus on trivial problems, little attention to subject matter, anti-intellectualism, and a lack of a clear definition of the teacher’s role” (Elias & Merriam 2005, p.  56). Other criticisms concern the lack of empirical research and scholarly theorization, adverse research findings, over-simplification, a focus on process over content, and a missing critical debate into what exactly constitutes SCLT and how the concept can be effectively implemented in HE practice (e.g., Tobias & Duffy 2009). In addition, worldwide trends in curriculum development (e.g., the European Bologna Process) have prompted a move toward a more generic, skills-based approach to HE tending to emphasize the centrality of the learner at the cost of “downgrading” disciplinary knowledge. Such a “curricular turn” or “obsession with pedagogy at the expense of understanding 20

Foundations of SCLT

the significance of knowledge itself ” (McPhail 2018, p.  28) is further criticized due to its rather instrumental focus on citizenship and/or the labor market and an increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches – thus, weakening traditional subject boundaries (e.g., Young & Muller 2010). According to Young (2007, p. 81) “the acquisition of knowledge is the key purpose that distinguishes education, whether general, further, vocational or higher, from all other activities.” In a similar vein, Biesta (2010, 2012) criticizes the “learnification” of education and emphasizes that the point of education is not that students learn but that they learn something for a reason from someone (i.e., content, purpose, relationships). Overall, scholars note that, when it comes to learning, the literature on SCLT tends to focus on the how at the expense of the what of the learning.

Student-centered learning and teaching: definitions and features The term “student-centered” (or “learner-centered” or “learning-centered”) is widely used in the education literature around the world. Thereby, “student-centeredness” is attributed to a variety of instructional methods and academic programs and even universities aiming to foster deeper learning. Furthermore, the term “student-centered” is commonly used as part of different phrases: student-centered learning – student-centered instruction – student-centered learning environments. This section outlines what the term is referring to in each case.

Student-centered learning Simply put, the term SCL and related concepts such as “learner-centered,” “learning-centered,” “person-centered” and “child-centered,” which are often used interchangeably, refer to pedagogical concepts wherein students and their learning are placed at the heart of the educational process, with the aim to foster deeper learning processes and outcomes for students to become self-directed, lifelong learners (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019).4 According to Cannon and Newble (2000, pp.  16–17), SCL has student responsibility and activity at its heart, in contrast to a strong emphasis on teacher control and coverage of academic content found in much conventional, didactic teaching. Gibbs (1992, p. 23) submits that SCL “gives students greater autonomy and control over choice of subject matter, learning methods and pace of study” – students are not only involved in decisions regarding what to study but also how and why. According to McCombs and Miller (2007, p. 25) learning is further enhanced in contexts in which learners have supportive relationships, have a sense of ownership and control over the learning process, and can learn with and from each other in safe and trusting learning environments. SCL is often criticized as a fuzzy concept that refers to a vague assortment of concepts and ideas. While the definition of the term is still evolving, researchers posit that SCL contains certain core tenets – regardless of discipline or content. Lea et al. (2003, p. 322) summarize the literature on SCL to include the following tenets: reliance upon active rather than passive learning, an emphasis on deep learning and understanding, increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student, an increased sense of autonomy in the learner, an interdependence between teacher and learner . . ., mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship, and a reflexive approach to the learning and teaching process on the part of both teacher and learner. 21

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

In essence, SCL is reflected in the 14 Learner-Centered Psychological Principles about learners and learning processes resulting from an American Psychological Association (APA) Special Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education (McCombs & Whisler 1997). The psychological principles emphasize the active and reflective nature of learning and learners and characterize learning as a whole-person phenomenon (McCombs 2012). Categorized into the following four researchvalidated domains, the principles constitute a framework for designing learner-centered practices at all levels of schooling, developed to contribute to educational reform and school redesign efforts: (1) cognitive and metacognitive factors, (2) motivational and affective factors, (3) developmental and social factors, and (4) individual difference factors. Students are not simply regarded as empty or passive vessels or blank slates, rather they come to the classroom with an accumulated experience – cultural practices, interests, prior knowledge, skills, misconceptions, expectations, interests and attitudes that have to be taken into account. Research has repeatedly shown that intelligence and prior knowledge (and thus prior achievement) are the primary predictors of current learning and academic achievement (e.g., Hattie 2009, 2012; Schneider & Preckel 2017). Overall, SCL is about getting students thinking, talking and doing in that they are positioned as cognitively active participants who are entitled to disciplinary knowledge. Thereby the curriculum provides access to a historically evolved academic knowledge base and its inherent epistemic structure (as compared to everyday sociocultural knowledge). Students coming to know and understand this academic knowledge develop the intellectual means for them to build on and modify that knowledge, and to create new knowledge (McPhail 2018).

Student-centered instruction Placing learning and the learner at the center of the educational process, Maryellen Weimer (2002/2013; see also Blumberg 2019) proposed to start thinking differently about the role of the teacher, suggesting that – in order to become more student- or learning-centered – instruction needs to change in five key areas: • • • • •

Balance of power: shifting classroom power from teacher to student (shared decisions); Function of content: a means to building knowledge, learning skills and learner self-awareness; Role of the teacher: teacher as facilitator and contributor focusing on student learning; Responsibility for learning: shifting responsibility for learning from teacher to student; Purpose and processes of evaluation: promoting learning through effective assessment and constructive feedback.

To allow for this kind of student-centered instructional practice, classrooms often feature desks arranged in circles or small groups with “self-guided” learning instead of rows of desks facing the instructor. According to Collins and O’Brien (2011, p.  446) student-centered instruction (SCI) marks an instructional approach employing creative methodologies in which students become the center of the learning process by influencing the content, activities, materials, and pace of learning. If properly implemented, the SCI approach strengthens retention of knowledge and increases motivation to learn. Eleanor Duckworth (2009, p.  187) suggests that students focus more deeply and perform better academically when teachers allow them to think instead of doing the thinking for them. As teachers in classrooms, 22

Foundations of SCLT

we find that we focus on the learners’ thoughts rather than on our own, as the engine for what generates the intellectual life of the classroom. In part this is because the learners think better that way; and in part because it is by paying attention to what they are thinking and doing that we as teachers can see how next to call on our knowledge of the subject matter – what resources to provide, what next questions to ask. Instructors are not only sensitive to what students know and understand but also to how students are able to participate in inquiry, discourse, and reasoning, and how they can facilitate a more effective participation in these practices (Cornelius-White 2007; Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019; Mascolo 2009; Wright 2011). They consider the relevance and the structure of the disciplinary knowledge base in both the selection of learning content and the design of challenging learning tasks. Observational studies also found that effective teaching strategies focus not only on the students’ cognitive progress, but also on their motivational and affective states. Lepper and Woolverton (2002) propose teaching strategies that can be used in oneto-one situations but can also potentially be applied in larger classes to present information to students and encourage their involvement with subject matter and task persistence (e.g., Wood & Tanner 2012). Overall, SCI refers to forms of instruction that provide students with opportunities to coconstruct knowledge and make choices (regarding what, when, where, how and with whom to study), participate more actively and mindfully in class activities and contribute to the educational design of their course.

Student-centered learning environments During the past two decades, new frameworks for designing learning environments have emerged in response to constructivist-inspired views of learning, but few guidelines are available for designers to create student-centered environments (SCLEs), according to Land et al. (2012). SCLEs put students’ experience at the center and aim to provide them “with opportunities to develop deep understandings of the material, internalize it, understand the nature of knowledge development, and develop complex cognitive maps that connect together bodies of knowledge and understandings” (Richardson 2003, pp. 1627–1628). SCLEs can take different shapes and forms, including computer-supported collaborative learning, collaborative learning, problembased learning, active learning or cooperative learning. Baeten et al. (2016) proposed the following core principles of SCLEs that they grouped into five categories: (1) stimulating knowledge construction; (2) considering the teacher as a facilitator and coach of the learning process; (3) implementing cooperative work; (4) using authentic assignments; and (5) embedding opportunities for self-regulated learning (SRL). The latter refers to the active participation of individuals in domain-specific processes of knowledge construction, with the students autonomously planning, executing, monitoring and evaluating their learning processes (metacognition) and assuming more and more control and agency (Mandl & Friedrich 2006; Pintrich & Zusho 2002; Zimmerman 2002, 2013). In synthesizing research on learning, the National Research Council (NRC) of the US (2000) suggests that effective learning environments depend on the degree to which they are learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered. These four perspectives form a system of interrelated attributes that allow students to develop wellorganized knowledge and transfer it to different contexts. Thereby a learner-centered environment provides situations and assignments in which students can apply their preconceptions and current knowledge and build on them to construct deep understandings. Overall, the culture 23

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

in SCLEs differs from traditional instruction in that it is not only different with regard to the instructor’s behavior and the organization of the lesson, but even more so with regard to the elicited learning activities, the quality of the learning tasks, the participation structures, the scaffolding and discourse practices, and the social norms regulating behavior in the classroom and constituting the relationships between students and instructor. For example, constructivist orientations of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, opportunities for independent problem-solving and self-regulated learning, and adaptive support are quality features that can be found in SCLEs (Pauli et al. 2007). Moreover, HE teaching and learning occur more and more in technology-enhanced learning environments, including flexible active learning spaces with modular furniture, movable writing surfaces and so forth. Online courses (e.g., MOOCs), blended learning formats, ubiquitous mobile devices, videoconferencing, classroom response systems, learning platforms, social media (e.g., blogs, GoogleDocs), gaming and AI tutors shift the focus toward active learning pedagogies (e.g., Stahl et al. 2014). Online and tech-enhanced teaching allows HEIs to more effectively teach students with diverse backgrounds and open their campuses to a more global community of both faculty and students (Penprase 2018). Against this background, the following section shines light on the historical roots and theoretical perspectives of SCLT, outlining six perspectives which posit more or less different versions of student-centeredness. These different perspectives led to theories and practices highlighting the central role of students in learning and continue to challenge our thinking about how learning occurs in students of all ages.

Historical roots and theoretical perspectives of student-centered learning and teaching Teaching-learning relationships that center in students have a long history, dating back at least to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) who positioned his theoretical student Emile’s intrinsic interests at the center of his education. The teacher’s task was to facilitate Emile’s inquiries and to provide for his interests, taking into account what he is capable of and what he is interested in to learn. Apart from early childhood education, a number of influential educational philosophers and thinkers and their ideas paved the way for new understandings on how students learn: progressive education perspectives which ground education in “real experience” (Dewey 1938), humanist thought (Rogers 1951), critical perspectives (Freire 1974/2005, 1998; Giroux 1997), constructivist theories (Piaget 1972; Vygotsky 1978), open forms of education (Fink 2003) and andragogy, the art and science of teaching adults (Lindeman 1926; Knowles 1970).

Progressive education and experiential learning Especially in the US, SCL is often affiliated with the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1859–1952), who promoted progressive education perspectives that educate the “whole child,” ground education in the “continuing reconstruction of experience” (1897, p.  91) and let students progress at their own pace of thinking and problem-solving through inquiry and exploration. Dewey argued that in the solving of concrete, real-world problems students have to go through the whole “act of thinking,” from formulating the question to projecting and testing a plan until finally solving the problem (Dewey 1910). His pragmatist philosophy stresses the centrality of (high-quality) experience over the transmission/transfer of theory and became a major influence on educational practice during the first half of the 20th century. He contrasts traditional and progressive education as follows: 24

Foundations of SCLT

To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world. (Dewey 1938, pp. 18–19) Dewey called for the needs and interests of the student to be taken as a starting point for education and for schools to be organized around significant real-world problems and experiences of students to develop their potential (Hodge 2010). Students play an active role in critically reflecting on and learning from experience – they therefore need to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to examine their experiences. According to Dewey (1916, p.  160) teachers should take “a sympathetic attitude toward the experience of the learner by entering into common or conjoint experience,” with the teacher acting as facilitator. While John Dewey laid the groundwork for the theory on learning from experience in his book, Experience and Education (1938), together with other notable theorists such as Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget, David Kolb’s (1984) work is often cited as being foundational to ideas of experiential pedagogies with his experiential learning theory providing the theoretical framework. Kolb (1984, p.  41) defines experiential learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience.” Instructors “purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people’s capacity to contribute to their communities” (Association for Experiential Education [AEE] 2019). Experiential learning theory presents a holistic theory of the process of learning from experience based on a learning cycle and driven by the resolution of the dual dialectics of action/ reflection and experience/abstraction (Passarelli  & Kolb 2012). Experiential learning is often incorrectly equated with only hands-on or the “do it” part (first cycle) of the process (the concrete experience), ignoring the other equally important components of the learning cycle: What happened, what were the results (reflective observation)? So what do these results imply with regard to the outcome (abstract conceptualization)? Now what to do to solve the problem and what are the lessons learned (active experimentation)? Hence, Kolb’s learning cycle can encourage student autonomy, critical thinking and self-reliance throughout the action and reflection cycle, with students being actively engaged in posing questions, discussing, experimenting, solving problems, reflecting and assuming responsibility for their learning. Student-centered practices of experiential learning are most effective when they take the following four propositions, conveyed by the foundational scholars of experiential learning and compiled by Passarelli and Kolb (2012), into account. Educating is • •

•

A relationship: teaching is above all a profound human relationship with students feeling recognized, valued and empowered by the teacher; Holistic: educating involves the whole person: students’ feelings, thinking, goals, social skills and intuition. This includes cognitive knowledge but also the development of social and emotional maturity to empower students to be lifelong learners; Learning-oriented: an excessive emphasis on performance and learning outcomes often results in rote memorization and “teaching to the test.” However, it is the process of learning that should be the primary focus; 25

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

•

Learner-centered: the educational process is organized around the experience of the learners. This entails meeting them “where they are” in their understanding and building their confidence and competence in order for them to become independent, self-directed learners.

Overall, progressive education perspectives see learning as a holistic process of knowledge construction through the transformation of experience, grounded in human relationships. Students’ real-world experiences and their critical reflection on and learning from experience play a central role in these experiential theories of human learning and development.

Humanist education and whole person learning In general, humanists are concerned with the “freedom, dignity and potential of humans” (Brockett 1997, p. 2). They criticize the expert-driven, lecture-based instruction which understands education as essentially the transmission of established disciplines. In humanist theories learning is akin to personal growth. The instructor builds a rapport with students and encourages them to utilize self-regulation practices for them to become independent lifelong learners. Particularly the humanist psychologist Carl Rogers’ (1902–1987) humanist psychological theory, known as client-centered therapy, revived interest in SCL. Brandes and Ginnis (1986) note that the term was indeed invented by Carl Rogers and his ideas about the formation of the individual. In their book Freedom to Learn, Rogers and Freiberg (1994) suggest applying their client-centered approach to counseling to areas outside therapy, including education. They talk about “whole person learning,” which serves the cultivation of human potential and emphasizes the process rather than the product. Thereby active engagement of students in their own learning is crucial in order for meaningful learning to take place. According to Graham Rogers (2002, p. 1), SCL puts more responsibility on the learners for their own learning. It involves students in more decision-making processes, and they learn by doing, rather than just by listening and performing meaningless tasks which are often not in context and therefore “unreal” to them. Because learning becomes more active (rather than passively listening to the teacher), it becomes more memorable: because it is personalised, and relevant to the students’ own lives and experiences, it brings language “alive,” and makes it relevant to the real world. In keeping with Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs, Rogers and Freiberg (1994) further suggest that people tend toward self-actualization when exposed to relationships that are genuine, empathic and unconditionally accepting and trusting, as they describe the ideal counseling relationship to be (see also Brockett 1997). Educators should therefore make the classroom a place that provides for students’ needs for emotional security and self-esteem, and facilitative relationships and opportunities to develop students’ potential.5 They advocate learning environments that are “person-centered” in that teachers and students are co-learners in the educational journey. The following pedagogical ideas emerged from the humanist literature (Rogers & Freiberg 1994; Tangney 2014, pp. 268–269): • •

Teachers and students as co-learners with students being involved in shared decision-making to maximize their potential, accompanied by responsibilities; Provision of unconditional positive regard and attendance to students’ feelings; 26

Foundations of SCLT

• • •

Emphasis is on the process of learning and developing dialogue and metacognition rather than on the product; Learning is part of a lifelong process and individual to the learner; Students’ judgment of their own progress is more important than teacher assessment.

Overall, the humanist perspective emphasizes SCL as an individualized process of meaningful learning and personal growth which concerns the whole person. Instructors aim to foster human potential by creating a positive trusting relationship which facilitates self-belief and active engagement.

Critical education and transformational learning Critical education has its origin in the tradition of critical theory of the Frankfurt School. Herbert Marcuse along with other major Frankfurt School theorists engaging in dialectical social criticism posited: “no radical social change without a radical change of the individual agents of change” (Marcuse 1972, cited in McKernan 2013, p.  425). Grounded in Marxist-Leninist thinking, the school offered a “critical theory” (as compared to “traditional theory”) which had a practical or utilitarian purpose and aimed not only to explain, understand and interpret society but also to change and liberate human beings (Horkheimer 1937). Aligned with some of the ideas of the Frankfurt School, the Brazilian educator and activist Paulo Freire and scholars like Joe Kincheloe, Peter McLaren and Henry Giroux have been major advocates of critical education. They submitted that pedagogy should go beyond transfer of knowledge and training the future labor force in that it adopts an emancipatory approach to community engagement and develops students’ critical consciousness with the latter having the potential to lead to the transformation of the individual and society at large. Freires’ (1974/2005, 1998) notions of raising critical self-consciousness, social awareness and teaching for emancipation – now often called critical pedagogy (e.g., Mezirow 2009) – stemmed from both his concern about the oppression of a significant proportion of the Brazilian population because of illiteracy and his interest in social transformation. According to Freire, illiteracy led to people’s “adaptive” response to societal pressures rather than a sense of empowerment and a capacity to make conscious choices and influence change. He submits that the main vehicle for learning is the building of self-belief and self-confidence leading to subsequent feelings of personal empowerment, with the “oppressed” starting to see themselves as active participants in social change. Freire criticized “banking education” (as opposed to problem posing education), where students appear as objects of the teacher’s actions (i.e., the teacher as authority knows, thinks and decides) and not as subjects in their own right. Critical pedagogy is hence closely linked to concepts such as civic responsibility, democracy and social justice, with education empowering those who are oppressed to start to challenge oppression in their lives (e.g., Freire 1974/2005; Rogers & Freiberg 1994). For both critical theorists and critical educators, the development of a critical lens (i.e., critical thinking) is a major goal of education (McKernan 2013). In the process of transformational (or transformative) learning which can take place inside and outside of the classroom, individuals acquire the capability to think autonomously and critically about self and others’ assumptions, beliefs, values and perspectives in order to become self-directed learners, transform their life and work (Mezirow 2009) and come to see some aspects of the world in a new way (Dewey 1938). Students are considered as “producers of knowledge” who both critically engage with diverse ideas and also transform and act on them. Apart from questions about content, questions of autonomy, freedom and power in the classroom are of equal importance. 27

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

The critical teacher supports students in gaining knowledge in order for them to intervene in the world they inhabit and take responsibility for the direction of society (agency). Hence, a transformation-based approach to education manifests itself in the following central tenets: •

• • • •

Students do not only learn about content or subject matter but also about social and economic issues in order to encourage them to critically review these mechanisms (critical consciousness and critical thinking); The goal is to prepare students not only for the labor market but also as agents of change that will transform society (e.g., critical understanding which leads to critical action); The focus is on the learning process and on learning from each other with students being involved in decision-making (e.g., selecting educational content); Teachers engage in critical and problem-based dialogue and in the co-production of critical knowledge with their students; Teacher-student relationships are just, serious, humble and generous (Freire 1998) and based on respect, mutual understanding and common goals.

Overall, the tenets of personal growth, autonomy, self-belief and empowerment are central to critical pedagogies so that students are not only equipped for the labor market but also for transforming themselves and their society.

Constructivist education and deeper learning Constructivist education assumes that knowledge or meaning is constructed, not discovered, by the human mind (Richardson 2003). Students conceived as active learners construct meaning by interacting with objects, talking, listening, writing, reading and reflecting on content, processes, ideas, issues and so forth. They are “makers” rather than “spectators,” with knowledge coming to serve the individual’s organization of the experiential world (Von Glaserfeld 1995). Constructivists suggest that learning not only depends on individual cognitive processes but also on social interactions, discourse and participation in a community, leading to a contemporary understanding of cognition as distributed and learning as essentially “social” and “contextualized.” In current discussions, three different perspectives on cognition and learning can be distinguished within educational constructivism: cognitive (or individual), social (or cultural) and situative (or contextual). SCLT is rooted in all of them.

Cognitive constructivist perspective Swiss philosopher and developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980) is regarded as the modern founder of cognitive constructivism, an epistemological theory that assumes that people – every individual child from very early on – learn and develop their intelligence through exploring the world around them and trying to make sense of objects and phenomena by constructing progressively powerful cognitive structures in cycles of “assimilation” and “accommodation” (Piaget 1972, 1985). This means that individuals, driven by a genuine effort to make meaning, (re)organize new experiences based on existing knowledge structures in the form of schemes (i.e., mental models of situations and objects that are progressively arranged to ever-larger systems of knowledge). Intellectual development, thus, is considered as an intrinsic process of equilibration – the motive for cognitive growth (Duckworth 1964). According to Piaget (1973, 1977/1995), the confrontation of the learner with their natural and social environment is the very essence of the building of cognitive structures (i.e., acting on material things and doing 28

Foundations of SCLT

things in social collaboration). Social interactions with peers are considered a trigger for an individual’s cognitive change processes, with the learning environment being regarded as a reason and not as a cause for cognitive development (Duckworth 1987/2006; Piaget 1973). Discovery methods, for example, with the learner creating meaning and the instructor designing rich learning environments and interactively supporting students, are aligned with this perspective rooted in cognitive psychology (e.g., Bruner 1961).

Social constructivist perspective The sociocultural perspective6 is closely linked to the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), who stressed the influence of the physical, social and cultural context on cognitive development. Thereby, language as a cognitive tool plays a crucial role in mediating the development of higher mental functions taking place in two stages: through socially shared activities and interactions with other people and tools, and through its transformation into internalized processes (i.e., the mental structure of the learner). It is through interacting with more experienced others on an array of meaningful tasks that learners acquire socially shared knowledge, culturally valuable skills and strategies. While knowledge is seen as fundamentally coconstructed (Reusser & Pauli 2015), and embedded in sociocultural activities rather than being self-contained, the potential for cognitive development lies in the zone of proximal development (ZPD).7 The latter means that there are tasks that an individual cannot successfully do alone but through guided participation (i.e., with the social and material support of the learning context). This means that individuals extend their cognitive knowledge and amplify their cognitive power through ongoing participation in meaningful activities of cooperative and collective knowledge construction, including the use of external knowledge bases (Vygotsky 1978). The sociocultural environment and the social processes of interaction and participation, respectively, are considered as sources of development which provide learners with the necessary psychological and physical tools or artifacts (such as language) to support their cognitive development. Classroom activities and tasks that allow for student participation and discourse utilizing the resources of the environments, including new technologies, and facilitating communities of learners are aligned with this perspective. Students are engaged in co-constructive learning through projects, field trips, collaborative problem-solving, discussions, conversation circles, plenary and parallel sessions, Internet searches, poster preparations, portfolios and journaling, for example.

Situative constructivist perspective Mainly derived from anthropological and sociocultural traditions, the concept of situated learning aims to integrate the cognitive and the social constructivist view on learning. Over two decades ago, the situative perspective was developed in response to both (1) the separation between knowing (what is learned) and doing (how it is learned and used) in conventional schooling and (2) the narrow focus on individual thinking and learning in conventional learning theory. By shifting the focus from “the individual as learner to learning as participation in the social world” (Lave & Wenger 1991, p. 43), the situative perspective underlines the importance of social, physical (kinesthetic) and real-world aspects of learning activities (e.g., Brown et al. 1989; Greeno et al. 1996; Resnick 1987), with the goal to enable learners to develop from beginners to experts in a field as they become gradually immersed in a social community so that they can flexibly apply their knowledge and skills in real-life situations. Brown et al. (1989, p. 32) laid the foundation for the Situated Cognition Movement, positing that “knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which 29

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

it is developed and used.” They suggest that the “enculturation” of the learner is in essence a “cognitive apprenticeship,” that is, the socialization of students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction. Situative approaches assume that knowledge does not solely exist as an entity in the head, but is also located in the relationship between the individual and sociocultural environment. Knowing is then understood as “successful situated participation . . . a capability of the person to interact in the world” (Collins & Greeno 2011, p.  64). Instead of learning being thought of as an individual activity taking place out of context experiences (e.g., lectures, book reading), situated learning suggests to frame the acquisition of knowledge and skills as an activity which is inherently tied to the learning situation (i.e., to material, social (relationships) and cultural resources, tools and contexts). With regard to the design of classroom activities, situated learning involves students in more authentic types of complex, problemcentered activities grounded in everyday professional or daily life situations supporting – if adaptive forms of scaffolding are provided for to new learners – the acquisition of desired and applicable knowledge and skills. Hoidn (2017b) discerned the following features of deeper learning, anchored in a situative constructivist view of knowing and learning that can inform instruction: • • • • • • • •

Knowledge is constructed in an active process of mindful thinking; Knowledge construction uses cognitive tools, external resources and artifacts; Knowledge is context-dependent; Knowledge construction happens in social interaction; Individuals bring their prior knowledge and skills to the learning situation; Self-regulation involves the skillful active participation of individuals in domain-specific processes of knowledge construction; Knowledge construction involves problem-solving – thinking, doing and reflecting; Knowledge is widely distributed across the social and physical environment.

Overall, there is general agreement that – depending on the ability of learners – some guidance is required for deeper learning to occur, though there remains debate about the amount and the kind of guidance (i.e., what forms/types of instructional support) that should be provided to help students learn (e.g., Tobias & Duffy 2009). Thereby, the quality of the knowledge construction processes, that is whether students are engaged in appropriate cognitive processing during learning (cognitive activity, “mindful thinking”), not the percentage of hands-on activities (behavioral activity), is essential for deeper learning (e.g., Alfieri et al. 2011; Mayer 2004, 2009; Reusser 2016).

Open education and active learning Open education in the German tradition (“reform pedagogy”) also brought about fresh pedagogical ideas to aid learners on their way to becoming autonomous human beings. Student-oriented models of learning and teaching emphasize individualized learning, student orientation, and learner autonomy and use more open forms of education such as active learning, cooperative learning, and student-centered classrooms (Pauli & Reusser 2011; Pauli et al. 2007). The instructional importance of active learning was especially highlighted by the Arbeitsschulbewegung (activity pedagogy) jolted, among others, by Georg Kerschensteiner (1854–1932). Kerschensteiner distinguished between manual and mental activity, both initiated by the active mind of human beings. In this view, learning originates from students’ construction of physical and mental objects – through play or collaborative learning, for example (Stebler & Reusser 2000). Ginsburg (2009, p. 7) differentiates between the behavioral and cognitive dimension as follows: 30

Foundations of SCLT

The behavioral dimension of active-learning pedagogies focuses on the degree to which instructional practices enable students to engage in verbal or physical behavior, while the cognitive dimension highlights the degree to which teaching strategies enable students to engage in various forms/levels of thinking. Mayer (2004, 2009) also distinguishes between cognitive activity during learning and behavioral activity during learning and points to the “constructivist teaching fallacy,” assuming that active learning is caused by active instructional methods and passive learning is caused by passive methods of instruction. He emphasizes that behavioral activity, that is, active instructional methods such as discovery learning or so-called hands-on activities, do not “guarantee” that the learner will engage in appropriate cognitive processing during learning (active learning). Active learning challenges the idea that students are passive, simply absorbing knowledge transmitted by their instructor. The core elements of active learning are student activity and engagement in the learning process requiring students to solve problems, answer questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during class (Bonwell & Eison 1991). The authors of Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom submit that for active learning to occur students must do more than just listen: They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. Most important, to be actively involved, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. (Bonwell & Eison 1991, p. 2) The process of active learning is thus marked by a high degree of cognitive involvement and mindfulness on the part of the learners. Active learners are characterized as proactive, selfmotivated, self-regulated, independent, responsible and reflective (Drew & Mackie 2011). Fink’s (2003) holistic active learning model suggests that learning activities involve both rich learning experiences, namely observing and doing, and in-depth reflective dialogue with self and others. Students engage in activities to construct knowledge and understanding that involve higher-order thinking with metacognition providing the link between activity and learning. Instructional strategies that aim to promote active learning should therefore involve students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison 1991). Stebler and Reusser (2000, p. 2) note that instructional approaches aiming to promote active learning should “start from students’ spontaneous activities and interests, foster cognitive, volitional and emotional growth, allow for self-regulated learning, as well as provide facilities for students to experience self-efficacy and to practice self-evaluation.” For instructors to shift some of the intellectual work to students during lectures, for example, they can adopt active learning methods such as minute papers, think-pair-share, peer instruction, debate, demonstrations, polling the class, or structured question-and-response periods. Implications of active learning involve a visible shift in mindset and practice that can be summarized as follows (Drew & Mackie 2011): • • •

Responsibility for learning shifts from teacher to students; since students play a key role, they are in the driver’s seat of the learning process; Teachers’ roles shift from lecturer to facilitator, supporter or guide, positioning them in a more peripheral role while students hold center stage; Change in the beliefs, habits, roles and power structures of teachers (mindset) as well as in their teaching methods and strategies (practice); 31

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

•

Shift in relationship where teachers and students are partners and co-learners who communicate, cooperate and collaborate.

Overall, student activity, student reflection, and student choice and voice are seen as the cornerstones of an open education. Student-oriented instructors seek to grant students greater autonomy in learning and provide opportunities for cooperation and SRL to facilitate higherorder thinking and meaningful learning outcomes.

Adult education and lifelong learning The term andragogy was introduced by Malcolm Knowles (1970, p. 38), who defined it as “the art and science of helping adults learn” and thus, referring to any form of adult learning. Adult learners (or mature students or non-traditional students) are distinct from adolescent and child learners, not only in terms of age (they are typically 25 years of age or older) but also in terms of self-concept, learning experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation to learning (Knowles 1984). Through Knowles’ work, SCL has been firmly established in the adult education enterprise serving the cultivation of human potential. Yet, adult learners can be even more entrenched in their belief systems, hold a “fixed mindset” or cling to their cognitive structures and routines, making it harder to get them engaged in reflection and be open to new ways of seeing and thinking. There is also no guarantee that adults have spent their years learning and developing greater self-regulation and a wealth of prior knowledge that teachers can tap into. Sometimes their experiences are “a mile long but an inch deep.”8 Knowles’ ideas are aligned with Eduard Lindeman’s (1926, p. 5) claim that “education is life – not a mere preparation for an unknown kind of future living. . . . The whole of life is learning, therefore education can have no endings.” A disciple of Dewey, Lindeman set out a humanist philosophy of education, placing the student at the center of the education process (how the adult learns in a pedagogical sense) and basing the content of learning on “situations” rather than “traditional disciplines” or “subjects” (what the adult learns in a curriculum sense). Lindeman’s critique of discipline-based learning implies that the curriculum has to be built around the adult student’s needs and interests, with the subject matter being brought into the situation when needed. Education is seen as a lifelong process of discovering what is not known, with students acquiring the skills of self-directed learning. Consequently, a curriculum mainly based on existing knowledge would soon be outdated, and education as a process of transmitting what is known is no longer sufficient (e.g., Hodge 2010). Student-centered classrooms, programs and institutions provide adult learners with a high level of personal responsibility for their learning process and thus, foster lifelong learning (LLL). SCL is “an essential precondition for a successful LLL strategy,” according to Smidt and Sursock (2011, p. 16). LLL refers to all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective. (European Commission 2001, p. 9) Starting with the European Year of LLL in 1996, the importance of LLL has been highlighted in the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Strategy and EU 2020 (Smidt & Sursock 2011). Together with the European Universities’ Charter of LLL,9 developed by the European University Association, these initiatives aim to assist HEIs in developing their specific role as lifelong learning 32

Foundations of SCLT

institutions. The following student-centered principles can provide guidance in facilitating the LLL of adult learners in (higher) education (ESU & EI 2010; Knowles 1984): • • • •

Learning activities are based on experience and relevant, authentic tasks; they are probleminstead of content-centered, allow for discovery and require an ongoing reflexive process; Learning requires cooperation between students and instructors; Students have different needs and interests, different experiences and background knowledge that need to be taken into account; Students should have choice and control over their learning in that they are involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction.

Overall, LLL from “cradle to grave” has become a new reality, with education institutions having to cater to an increasingly diverse student population ranging from children to seniors – education has no ending. Andragogy is concerned with how adults learn and tailors the curriculum toward the students’ needs and interests anchored in situations that are authentic and relevant. Lifelong SCL does not have a “one-size-fits-all” solution but instead aims to provide students with choices and opportunities for deep learning. This section on the historical roots and theoretical perspectives of SCLT sketched some of its historical background which is grounded in progressive, humanist, critical, constructivist, open and adult education. These perspectives have a common vantage point in that they share the notion that SCLT should be guided by our understanding of how students learn and by the extended (multifaceted) role of teachers as content experts, adaptive scaffolds, coaches, mentors, facilitators and personal resources being supportive of mindful and responsible students. Thereby, the needs, interests and individual differences of students as well as what students will know and be able to do as a result of their learning are of particular importance. The following section will discuss advances in empirical education research with regard to the quality and effectiveness of SCLT which have been highly influential in the context of higher education learning and teaching.

Quality and effectiveness of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education In recent decades, researchers and theorists concerned with HE learning and teaching have become increasingly critical of the dominant traditional approaches to teaching. They have sought to create a new paradigm of university learning and teaching that overcomes the limitations of the traditional practice, thus opening the way for the emergence of student-centered models of HE which feature the student as a central and active participant interacting with subject matter and instructors. More complex models of the provision and uptake of learning opportunities submit that instructional quality is influenced by multiple factors at different levels of the education system. Consequently, students’ actual learning outcomes do not only depend on the quality of the education offered but also on the extent to which students leverage the learning opportunities provided by the instructor. This means that effective teaching also depends on various learner prerequisites such as approaches to learning, values, expectations, motivation and prior knowledge. Empirical research shows that students’ estimates of their own performance (expectations), self-concept, motivation and prior achievement are student attributes that have a major influence on the outcomes of schooling. Consequently, the learning processes and outcomes are influenced by what instructors and students bring to the table. Learning is the result of constructive interactions between teachers and students and influenced by the teachers’ and students’ cognitive, motivational and social characteristics. Classroom instruction provides 33

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

learning opportunities that teachers put in place for learners. Thereby a teacher’s professional competence (knowledge, skills, beliefs, motivation) is crucial as it manifests itself in the quality of deeper-level classroom teaching practice (Fend 1998; Braun et al. 2014; Hattie 2009; Helmke 2009; Kunter & Voss 2013; Oelkers & Reusser 2008; Pauli & Reusser 2011). Against this background and in addition to contextual changes in the HE landscape and ideas rooted in progressivism, humanism, critical perspectives, constructivism, open education and andragogy, the student-centered paradigm and its influence on teaching and learning practice in (higher) education owes much to advances in empirical education research when it comes to impact factors related to student achievement (cf. also the previous sections in this chapter). 1

2

3

4

Research on conceptions of teaching which in turn influence students’ intellectual engagement: teacher-centered (and narrowly content-oriented) conceptions and student-centered (learning-oriented) conceptions (Kember 1997; Prosser & Trigwell 1998; Prosser et al. 1994). Research on classroom teaching – mainly conducted in school environments – has repeatedly shown that there is no one “best” (surface-level) teaching method since it is the deeperlevel features of instructional quality that show the largest effects on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes (e.g., Aebli 1983; Hattie 2009, 2012; Helmke 2009; Klieme et al. 2009; Schneider & Preckel 2017; Seidel & Shavelson 2007). Phenomenographic research into the nature of student learning conducted by Swedish researchers Marton and Säljö (1976a, 1976b) found that differences in learning outcomes are likely due to different kinds of learning processes, namely surface and deep approaches to learning. Research on self-regulated and self-motivated learning, indicating that individual differences in learning can be attributed to students’ lack of self-regulation, with the latter requiring the active participation of individuals in their own learning (Zimmerman 2002).

Teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching In the course of their professional development, instructors generate specific beliefs (or conceptions, orientations, approaches, intentions) on the subject matter they teach and on the nature of student learning. According to Pratt (1992, cited in Devlin 2006, p.  112), instructors view the teaching and learning through the lenses of their conceptions and interpret and act in accordance with their understanding of the world. Conceptions of teaching are thereby defined as specific meanings attached to university teaching and learning phenomena, which then mediate an instructor’s response to situations involving those phenomena. In HE, there has been considerable interest in conceptions of teaching because they influence instructors’ decisions and behaviors in their classrooms and have thus implications for student learning. Consequently, conceptions of teaching that instructors hold have to be taken into account in determining what good teaching is and how to teach and learn effectively. Research on conceptions of learning and teaching suggests two basic strategies (Kember 1997; Prosser & Trigwell 1998): • •

Teacher-focused (content-oriented) strategies refer to the transmission of knowledge from expert teacher to novice learner, as is the case in traditional lectures; Student-focused (learning-oriented) strategies refer to conceptual changes in students’ understanding of the world, focusing on what students do in order to understand and what the instructor does to facilitate student learning.

Prosser and Trigwell (1998, 2017) showed how belief systems held by instructors and students could influence outcomes in SCL. Instructors with a more teacher-centered focus to teaching 34

Foundations of SCLT

tend to have greater expectations for students to accommodate information rather than develop and change their conceptions and understandings and vice versa for instructors with a more student-centered focus to teaching. Prosser and Trigwell (1998) and Ramsden (2003) argue that becoming an effective instructor and moving along the continuum from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered instruction involves developmental stages. These stages generally are characterized by approaches that move from viewing teaching as information transmission (content focus) to a focus on instructional strategies (teacher focus) to, finally, a focus on students’ intellectual development (learner focus). Biggs (2003, 2012) differentiates three common developmental theories of teaching following the growth of teacher competence. •

•

•

What the students are: learning is primarily a result of individual differences between students regarding ability, attitude, motivation and study skills (teacher-focused conception; Prosser & Trigwell 1998); What teachers do: learning is primarily the result of appropriate teaching meaning the effective transmission of information and understanding of important concepts of a certain discipline to students (e.g., process-outcome research); What students do: learning is primarily the result of students’ learning-focused activities with a focus on what the student does and on whether student activities that lead to appropriate learning are supported by the teacher.

The first two understandings rely on a “deficit model,” blaming either the student or the teacher for the outcome, and many academics seem to follow traditional transmission theories of teaching similar to the first two understandings. The third conception provides a systemic view that takes into account what it means to understand something at the desired levels, and what kinds of teaching and learning activities are required to reach certain understandings (Biggs 2012; see also Biggs & Tang 2011).

Deeper-level features of instructional quality and effectiveness Meta-analytic research shows that there is no one “best” (surface-level) teaching method to foster effective learning insofar as both teacher-guided (e.g., direct instruction) and studentcentered instructional methods and strategies (e.g., problem-based learning) – if properly implemented – have similarly high effects on student achievement (see Hattie 2009, 2012, pp. 251–252; Seidel & Shavelson 2007). Surface-level features of instruction such as class size, ability grouping, social forms and methods of teaching, individualized instruction, discovery learning, or team teaching are considerably less effective with regard to both the quality of students’ learning processes and student achievement than deeper-level features of instruction. The latter allude to challenging tasks, instructional clarity, cognitive activation, depth of processing, quality of teacher-student-relationship, quality of discourse or quality of feedback and assessment (cf. Hattie 2009; for a synthesis see Reusser 2016). In essence, deeper-level quality features refer to the extent to which learners are involved in higher-order thinking (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, creating) and demanding problem-solving processes (e.g., Aebli 1983; Brophy 2006; Helmke 2009; Klieme & Rakoczy 2008). The effectiveness of deeper-level features of instruction was confirmed by Hattie’s large-scale synthesis about influences on learning, spanning all education levels. Hattie’s study shows that teachers are among the most powerful influencers of learning and identified high and low impact factors related to student achievement (Hattie 2009, 2012). When it comes to effective deeper-level features of instructional quality, empirical research has repeatedly demonstrated the predictive validity of three basic dimensions of instructional quality 35

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

on students’ learning outcomes at the classroom level: cognitive activation, supportive climate and learning support, and classroom management. Each dimension consists of deeper-level features of instructional quality that were found to be effective with regard to student achievement (Klieme et al. 2009; Praetorius et al. 2018; Reyes et al. 2012). •

•

•

Cognitive activation: clear, challenging and motivating tasks and questions at a high cognitive level, activation of prior knowledge and existing concepts, teachers explore and elicit students’ ways of thinking, dialogic discourse practices, metacognitive strategies; Supportive climate and learning support: teachers’ support of students’ basic psychological needs for autonomy (e.g., choice), competence (e.g., constructive feedback, approach to errors), and social relatedness (e.g., acceptance and respect, students listen to one another, cooperation); Classroom management: content-related activities and high time on task, instructional clarity, rules and principles (e.g., class norms), lack of disruptions (e.g., discipline problems).

More recently, in their systematic literature review of meta-analyses, Schneider and Preckel (2017) contributed to our knowledge about effective teaching in that they identified central instruction variables associated with achievement in HE.10 In sum, the research findings indicate that effective instruction mainly depends on the microstructure of the learning environment, that is, on what instructors as subject matter experts and cognitive scaffolds as well as activators of interaction and discourse do in their courses. The most effective instructional behaviors among the four categories of social interaction, stimulating meaningful learning, assessment and presentation with large effects on student achievement are the following. Effective (or “good”) instructors •

•

• • •

• • • •

Invest time and effort in the preparation and organization of their courses, in that they plan in advance learning outcomes of the course, cognitively activating learning tasks and attractive discussions. Present content such as abstract ideas and theories clearly and use examples to get across difficult points; this includes clearly structured content, usage of key terms on presentation slides, and graphs. Stimulate interest in the course and its subject matter, in that they make connections to students’ interests, pre-existing knowledge and experiences. Encourage students to ask questions, initiate meaningful discussions and are available and helpful. Think of themselves as evaluators with regard to both students’ learning processes (e.g., quality and frequency of feedback) and outcomes (i.e., quality and fairness of examinations) and their own teaching (e.g., student evaluations). Possess verbal skills, that is, they speak clearly, at appropriate volume and pace and use proper modulation, for example. Show enthusiasm for their subject and/or for teaching in that they motivate students to grapple with subject matter and share their own experiences as well as anecdotes, for example. Clearly define course objectives, requirements and student responsibilities in the course. Pose open-ended instead of closed questions, for example, why-questions that aim at student experiences, reasoning or students’ own ideas and wonderings.

Overall, empirical research in HE has shown repeatedly: not primarily the teaching method or social form or media used in the classroom but how selected methods or media are implemented in the classroom and whether effective teacher behaviors are enacted is crucial for student learning. 36

Foundations of SCLT

A focus on the underlying deep structure of students’ learning processes allows for a variety of teaching methods and learner support because it is the quality of the knowledge construction process these scaffolds promote in learners that is essential for student learning (e.g., Mayer 2010). Effective instructors devote less time to lecturing and more time to activities that increase the level of students’ cognitive engagement and active participation. Thereby the main task of the teacher is to support students in building cognitive structures for a well-connected, flexible and usable knowledge base in the subject matter (e.g., Pauli & Reusser 2015).

Surface and deep approaches to learning Approaches to learning describe the level of students’ cognitive engagement through which meaning is created by the students’ learning activities. A review of research on students’ approaches to learning suggests that it is one’s approach to learning that affects how well one learns (Biggs 2003; Ramsden 2003). Two widely cited approaches referring to a particular combination of learning motives and strategies – deep learning and surface learning – grew out of the research done by Marton and Säljö (1976a, 1976b). Deep learning is often used to denote good learning and exclude it from other forms of learning that are labeled “shallow,” “superficial” or “surface learning” and seen as inferior. Marton and Säljö distinguish “deep-level processing” and “surface-level processing” as follows: In the case of surface-level processing the student directs his attention towards learning the text itself (the sign), i.e., he has a ‘reproductive’ conception of learning which means that he is more or less forced to keep to a rote-learning strategy. In the case of deep-level processing, on the other hand, the student is directed towards the intentional content of the learning material (what is signified), i.e., he is directed towards comprehending what the author wants to say about, for instance, a certain scientific problem or principle. (1976a, pp. 7–8) Marton and Säljö’s (1976a, 1976b) original series of student learning research struck a chord with work done by Laurillard (1979), Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), Gibbs (1992), Prosser and Trigwell (1998), Cannon and Newble (2000) and Ramsden (2003), among others. All of these researchers have helped to establish a new paradigm of HE teaching practice that embraces SCL. Such a student-centered theory of teaching is characterized by a focus on “what the student does” and whether the student is engaged in “appropriate” learning activities which maximize the chances that students will use a deep approach, given the content of the curriculum (Biggs 2003). When it comes to the teacher, Cannon and Newble (2000, p. 17) state that: there are teachers who consider that what students do and the quality of learning outcomes that result from student activity is more important than subject coverage. Such teachers, who describe their teaching as student-focused, are less likely to encourage surface learning approaches among their students. Empirical research indicates that students who use deep approaches to learning tend to earn higher grades and retain, integrate and transfer information at higher rates. Students enjoy learning more, read widely, draw on a variety of resources, discuss ideas, reflect on how individual pieces of information relate to larger patterns, and apply knowledge in real-world situations as compared to students who use surface approaches to learning (e.g., Biggs 2003; Nelson Laird 37

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

et al. 2011; Ramsden 2003). Research studies on approaches to learning also suggest that student engagement plays a crucial role in terms of college impact and persistence, for example (see also Nelson Laird, Chen & Kuh 2008). Instructors can promote deep approaches to learning by constructively aligning their teaching, curriculum design and the assessment (e.g., students’ prior knowledge and interests, learning objectives, activities, assessment). Learning and teaching methods that require students to use higher-order cognitive activities such as questioning, applying and generating solutions facilitate the adoption of deep approaches to learning (Biggs 2012; Fry et al. 2009). Biggs (2003) submits that student-centered teaching practice needs to focus on the level of processing taking place in the student, and teaching must strive to encourage the student to adopt a deep approach rather than a surface approach to learning.

Self-regulated and self-motivated learning SRL manifests itself in students’ active monitoring and regulation of learning processes (Pintrich  & Zusho 2002). Empirical research shows that self-regulated learners are more effective learners in terms of their persistence, resourcefulness, confidence and level of academic achievement (e.g., Bembenutty, Cleary & Kitsantas 2013; Zimmerman 2013; Zimmerman & Schunk 2011). According to Zimmerman (1989, p.  329), students learn self-regulated “to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process.” Thus, self-regulation is not only concerned with thinking skills but also with the role of emotion, motivation, self-concept and self-efficacy, as well as with related behavioral processes in learning. Self-regulated learners have not only knowledge of a skill but also “the self-awareness, self-motivation, and behavioural skill to implement that knowledge appropriately,” together with the ability to selectively use and adapt specific processes to the learning task to achieve desired academic outcomes (Zimmerman 2002, p. 66). Self-regulation of learning is a dynamic process where both the student and the learning context play reciprocal roles in cognition and academic motivation (Bembenutty 2011). Research shows that self-regulatory processes or beliefs such as sustaining motivation, setting goals, using strategies, engaging in self-evaluation and self-reflection can be learned from instruction and from modeling by instructors or peers (e.g., Boekaerts et al. 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman 2007; Zimmerman 2013; Zimmerman & Schunk 2011). Hence, the goal of instruction is to not only foster “thoroughly understood and flexible knowledge” but also “the enhancing of cognitive, metacognitive, communicative and volitional abilities and of interests and beliefs that are important for self-regulated learning and problem-solving” (Pauli et al. 2007, p. 296). Instructors can implicitly foster students’ SRL skills by asking questions to facilitate the learning process and by modeling self-regulating behaviors, or they can explicitly explain the use of certain SRL strategies and provide students with opportunities to practice those skills within a subject they are learning about. Instructors can further design a supportive learning environment that provides students with increasing opportunities to practice self-regulation and receive quality feedback on their performance as well as adaptive learning support to help students to assume more control over their learning. Such SCLEs foster the adoption of understanding-oriented goals to promote higher levels of understanding (mastery goals), high self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., how confident students are about performing specific tasks) and students’ perceptions of their learning environment regarding competency support, autonomy support and social relatedness to promote students’ selfregulation of learning and motivation (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019). 38

Foundations of SCLT

Empirical research further shows that the use of self-regulation processes is fundamentally domain-specific. In order to be most effective such self-regulation strategies need to be integrated within the different subjects of the curriculum so that students can apply these strategies in different learning situations and transfer them to other contexts later on (e.g., Mandl & Friedrich 2006). Overall, SRL is both a desired product of classroom instruction and, to a substantial degree, the precondition for successful and productive classroom learning.

Conclusions and implications HEIs have to continue to engage in curricular and pedagogical renewal aiming to improve their level of “student-centeredness” due to societal and economic developments such as globalization, demographic changes, digitalization, changing skill demands and an increasingly diverse student body entering tertiary education. In student-centered classrooms, less time is devoted to plain lecturing and more time to meaningful tasks and activities that increase the level of cognitive engagement and active participation with the aim to facilitate deeper learning processes and outcomes (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019). What implications can we draw from the multifaceted historical roots and theoretical perspectives of SCLT and from empirical research on SCLT in HE classrooms? Placing learning and learner(s) at the center of the educational process requires to rethink the content (what?), the roles of the students (who?) and of the instructors (with whom?; e.g., Cohn 1975/2009; Greeno & Engeström 2014; Hoidn 2017a, 2017b; Reusser 2008). HE teaching and learning need to move toward a broader spectrum of teaching methods and course activities beyond lecturing that allow for more student voice and choice in the classroom and foster both, performances of understanding (students acquiring concepts and practices in a discipline) and self-regulated lifelong learning. In order for students to learn and understand deeply they have to be cognitively engaged in higher-order thinking (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, creating) and demanding problem-solving processes with students’ thoughts, ideas and questions driving the (joint) knowledge construction process in the classroom (e.g., Chi & Wylie 2014). Innovative teaching methods and course activities beyond mere lectures may include interactive lectures, open-ended problems, problems requiring critical and/or creative thinking and evaluation, flipped classrooms, or cooperative (team-based) learning (e.g., peer instruction), and involve students in simulations, role-plays, poster presentations, think-pair-share activities and minute papers, for example (e.g., Collins & O’Brien 2011). Thus, to bridge the gulf between rhetoric and reality, the challenge remains for instructors to be open to change, re-examine their teaching philosophy and modify their teaching practices. The role of the instructor is expanded in that they are not only content experts (lectures, direct instruction) but also designers of learning environments (e.g., curriculum developers, facilitators, moderators, contributors, indirect instruction), scaffolding students’ individual and cooperative learning toward the intended learning goals (i.e., adaptive instructional support) and fostering a productive social learning environment. As Derek Bok (2006, cited in Doyle n.d., p. 2) pointed out with regard to faculty’s reluctance to change in the classroom adopting research on effective teaching: In fact, it is somewhat perplexing that we as scientists are resistant to such change. We are well trained in how to approach problems analytically, collect data, make interpretations, form conclusions and then revise experimental hypotheses and protocols accordingly. If we are experts at making evidence-based decisions in our experimental laboratories, then what forces are at play that impede us from adopting equally iterative and evidence-based approaches to teaching in our classrooms? 39

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser

Moving out from behind the relative safety of the lecture podium and going beyond the status quo can be unsettling for instructors since it is no longer enough for them to be content experts – they are also required to become experts in pedagogy in their respective disciplines. Therefore, it can be helpful for instructors to take small steps and practice new approaches incrementally.

Notes 1 The terms higher education institutions (HEIs) or universities, as used in this book, refer to institutions that grant academic degrees in various subjects in general higher education and typically provide undergraduate education and postgraduate education. Higher education includes “all types of studies, training or training for research at the post-secondary level, provided by universities or other educational establishments that are approved as institutions of higher education by the competent State authorities” (UNESCO 1998, p. 19). 2 The terms instructor and teacher are used synonymously in this chapter. 3 Both terms – student-centered and learner-centered – have been used during the 1990s, although there seems to be a shift to “learner” from “student,” with some scholars preferring the former (e.g. Harris & Cullen 2010; McCombs 2012; National Research Council of the USA [NRC] 2000; Weimer 2002/2013). The term learner seems to be more inclusive since we are all learners (student, faculty, citizen); however, because this handbook focuses on higher education learning and teaching, we prefer the term “student.” Student-centered thereby not only focuses on the person or student but also on their learning process with the goal to help students learn better (e.g. Blumberg 2019). 4 Other terms often used synonymously or linked with SCL in the literature are active learning, flexible learning, experiential learning, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, service learning, personalized learning, inquiry-based learning, discovery learning, self-directed learning and participatory learning. 5 In his seminal work, Maslow (1968) devised an ascending hierarchy of needs ranging from physiological needs, safety, love and belonging to esteem, and finally self-actualization, with needs at the lower levels having to be met before one can tackle the higher-level needs. 6 Other names used for this perspective are social constructivism, socioconstructivism, socioculturallism, sociocultural constructivism or sociohistoricism. 7 The ZPD is defined by Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” 8 We thank Terry Doyle for noting these points. 9 In addition, the ALLUME (A Lifelong Learning University Model for Europe) project was launched in 2009 to develop flexible pathways for “Lifelong Learning Universities” that bring the EUA LLL-Charter to life and contribute to the implementation process. 10 In their research synthesis, Schneider and Preckel (2017) included 38 meta-analyses investigating over 3,000 research studies (1980–2014) with almost 2 million students. The authors investigated 105 correlates of achievement, i.e., variables that influence learning, and heuristically assigned them to 11 categories (six instruction related and five learner related) that corresponded to central areas of educational and psychological research. Criteria for academic achievement were standardized achievement tests, ad hoc constructed tests, teacher-given grades, and other indicators such as degrees received. Effect sizes were measured using Cohens d and the authors differentiated between no effect, small effect, medium effect (Cohens d between .35 and .65) and large effect (Cohens d over .65).

References Aebli H. (1983) Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens [Twelve Basic Forms of Teaching]. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart. Alfieri L., Brooks P.J., Aldrich N.J. & Tenenbaum H.R. (2011) Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103(1), 1–18. Anderson L.W. & Krathwohl D.R. (eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, San Francisco, CA. Apel J.J. (1999) Die Vorlesung: Einführung in eine akademische Lehrform. Böhlau, Köln.

40

Foundations of SCLT Association for Experiential Education [AEE] (2019) What Is Experiential Education? Retrieved from www. aee.org/what-is-ee on 16 June 2019. Baeten M., Dochy F., Struyven K., Parmentier E. & Vanderbruggen A. (2016) Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research 19(1), 43–62. Barr R.B.  & Tagg J. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 13–23. Bembenutty H. (ed.) (2011) Self-regulated learning. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Volume 126. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Bembenutty H., Cleary T.J. & Kitsantas A. (eds.) (2013) Applications of Self-Regulated Learning Across Diverse Disciplines: A Tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC. Biesta G.J.J. (2010) Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Routledge, New York. Biesta G.J.J. (2012) Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice 6(2), 35–49. Biesta G.J.J. (2017) The Rediscovery of Teaching. Routledge, New York. Biggs J.B. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham. Biggs J.B. (2012) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development 31(1), 39–55. Biggs J.B.  & Tang C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). Open University Press, Berkshire. Bligh D.A. (2000) What’s the Use of Lectures? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Blumberg P. (2019) Making Learning-Centered Teaching Work: Practical Strategies for Implementation. Stylus Publishing, LLC., Sterling, VA. Boekaerts M., Pintrich P.R. & Zeidner M. (eds.) (2000) Handbook of Self-Regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Bok D. (2006) Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Bonwell C.C.  & Eison J.A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340272.pdf on 16 June 2019. Brandes D. & Ginnis P. (1986) A Guide to Student-Centred Learning. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Braun E., Weiß T. & Seidel T. (2014) Lernumwelten in der Hochschule. In Pädagogische Psychologie. (Seidel T. & Krapp A., Hrsg.), Beltz, Weinheim, pp. 433–453. Brockett R. (1997) Humanism as an instructional paradigm. In Instructional Development Paradigms. (Dills C.R. & Romiszowski A.J., eds.), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 245–256. Brophy J. (2006) Observational research on generic aspects of classroom teaching. In Handbook of educational psychology. (Alexander P.A. & Winne P., eds.), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, (pp. 755–780). Brown J.S., Collins A.  & Duguid P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42. Bruner J.S. (1961) The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31(1), 21–32. Cannon R. & Newble D. (2000) A Handbook for Teachers in University and Colleges (4th ed.). Kogan Page, London. Chi M.T.H. & Wylie R. (2014) The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist 49(4), 219–243. Cohn R. (1975/2009) Von der Psychoanalyse zur Themenzentrierten Interaktion. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart. Collins A. & Greeno J.G. (2011) Situative view of learning. In Learning and Cognition in Education. (Grøver Aukrust V., ed.), Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 64–68. Collins J.W.  & O’Brien N.P. (eds.) (2011) The Greenwood Dictionary of Education (2nd ed.). Greenwood, Westport, CT. Cornelius-White J. (2007) Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 77(1), 113–143. De Corte E. (2012) Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and collaborative learning: An approach for the acquisition of adaptive competence. Journal of Education 192(2/3), 33–47. Devlin M. (2006) Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university teaching improvement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 18(2), 112–119.

41

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser Dewey J. (1897) My pedagogic creed. In The Early Works. Volume 5. (Boydston J.A., ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, 1972, pp. 84-95. Dewey J. (1910) How we think. In The Middle Works. Volume 6. (Boydston J.A., ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, 1978, pp. 177–356. Dewey J. (1916) Democracy and Education. The Free Press, New York. Dewey J. (1938) Experience and Education. Simon & Schuster, New York. Retrieved from https://archive. org/details/ExperienceAndEducation/page/n7 on 16 June 2019. Doyle T. (2008) Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment: A Guide to Facilitating Learning in Higher Education. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Doyle T. (2011) Learner-Centered Teaching: Putting the Research on Learning into Practice. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Doyle T. (n.d.) The New Science of Learning: Designing Learning Activities in Harmony with How the Brain Learns. Retrieved from www.airuniversity.af.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cePafZ2AVCQ%3D&po rtalid=10 on 01 December 2019. Doyle T. & Zakrajsek T. (2019) The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain (2nd ed.). Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Drew V. & Mackie L. (2011) Extending the constructs of active learning: Implications for teachers’ pedagogy and practice. Curriculum Journal 22(4), 451–467. Dubs R. (2019) Die Vorlesung der Zukunft: Theorie und Praxis der interaktiven Vorlesung. UTB, Regensburg. Duckworth E.R. (1964) Piaget rediscovered. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2, 172–175. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660020305/pdf on 16 June 2019. Duckworth E.R. (1987/2006) “The Having of Wonderful Ideas” and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press, New York. Duckworth E.R. (2009) Helping students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator 5, 185–188. Elias J.L. & Merriam S.B. (2005) Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education (3rd ed.). Kreiger Publishing Company, Malibar, FL. Entwistle N.J. & Ramsden P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London, UK. European Commission (2001) Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. COM(2001) 678 final. Brussels. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/committees/cult/20020122/ com(2001)678_en.pdf on 16 June 2019. European Students’ Union [ESU] & Education International [EI] (2010) Student-Centred Learning: Toolkit for Students, Staff and Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/SCL_toolkit_ESU_EI.compressed.pdf on 16 June 2019. Fend H. (1998) Qualität im Bildungswesen: Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistung [Quality of Education. Educational Research on Systems of Education, School Profiles and Teacher Effectiveness]. Juventa, Weinheim. Fink L.D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Freire P. (1974/2005) Education for Critical Consciousness. Continuum, New York. Freire P. (1998) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Continuum, New York. Fry H., Ketteridge S. & Marshall S. (2009) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice (3rd ed.). Routledge, New York. Gibbs G. (1992) Assessing More Students. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Ginsburg M. (2009) Active-Learning Pedagogies as a Reform Initiative: Synthesis of Case Studies. American Institutes for Research (AIR), Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.608.2996&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Giroux H.A. (1997) Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture and Schooling. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Greeno J.G., Collins A.M.  & Resnick L.B. (1996) Cognition and learning. In Handbook of Educational Psychology. (Berliner D.C. & Calfee R., eds.), Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, pp. 15–46. Greeno J.G. & Engeström Y. (2014) Learning in activity. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 128–148. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang E., DeHaan R., Gentile J., Lauffer S., Stewart J., Tilghman S.M. & Wood W.B. (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670), 521–522. Harris M.  & Cullen R.M. (2010) Leading the Learner-Centered Campus: An Administrator’s Framework for Improving Student Learning Outcomes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Hattie J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London, UK.

42

Foundations of SCLT Hattie J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Routledge, New York. Helmke A. (2009) Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Kallmeyer & Klett, Seelze-Velber. Hinton C., Fischer K.W. & Glennon C. (2012) Mind, Brain, and Education. The Students at the Center Series. Jobs for the Future, Boston, MA. Hodge S. (2010) Student-centred learning in higher education and adult education. 2010 Occasional Papers on Learning and Teaching at UniSA – Paper 3. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b12a/22 e383f26d690b209e002778082f58cc1b24.pdf. Hoidn S. (2016) The pedagogical concept of student-centred learning in the context of European higher education reforms. European Scientific Journal (ESJ) 12(28), 439–458. Hoidn S. (2017a) Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Hoidn S. (2017b) Student-Centred Learning Environments for Deeper Learning in Higher Education Classrooms. Habilitation Thesis. University of Zurich, Zurich. Hoidn S. (2019, November 11) Effektive studierendenzentrierte Hochschullehre: Vision oder Illusion? [Effective Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Vision or Illusion?]. Inaugural lecture at the University of Zurich. University of Zurich, Zurich. Horkheimer M. (1937) Traditional and critical theory. In Critical Theory: Selected Essays. (O’Connell M., ed.), Continuum Press, New York, 1999, pp. 188–243. Kember D. (1997) A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275. Klieme E. & Rakoczy K. (2008) Empirische Unterrichtsforschung und Fachdidaktik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 54(2), 222–237. Klieme E., Pauli C. & Reusser K. (2009) The pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. (Janik T. & Seidel T., eds.), Waxmann, Münster, pp. 137–160. Knowles M.S. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. Association Press, Chicago. Knowles M.S. (1984) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd ed.). Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. Kolb D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kunter M. & Voss T. (2013) The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multicriteria analysis. In Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers: Results from the COACTIV Project. (Kunter M., Baumert J., Blum W., Klusmann U., Krauss S. & Neubrand M., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 97–124. Lambert C. (2012, March–April) Twilight of the lecture. Harvard Magazine, 23–27. Retrieved from http:// harvardmag.com/pdf/2012/03-pdfs/0312-23.pdf on 29 July 2019. Land S.M., Hannafin M.J.  & Oliver K. (2012) Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and design. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. (Jonassen D.H.  & Land S.M., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 3–25. Laurillard D. (1979) The process of student learning. Higher Education 8, 95–409. Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York. Lea S.J., Stephenson D. & Troy J. (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to student centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia.” Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334. Lepper M.R. & Woolverton M. (2002) The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education. (Aronson J., ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 135–158. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (2009) The Bologna Process 2020: The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, 28–29 April 2009. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ IP_09_675 on 15 August 2019. Lindeman E.C. (1926) The Meaning of Adult Education. Harvest House, Montreal. Mandl H. & Friedrich H.F. (eds.) (2006) Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook on Learning Strategies]. Hogrefe, Göttingen. Marton F. & Säljö R. (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46(1), 4–11.

43

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser Marton F.  & Säljö R. (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning: II – Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46(2), 115–127. Mascolo M.F. (2009) Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: Teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences 1(1), 3–27. Maslow A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand, New York. Mayer R.E. (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59(1), 14–19. Mayer R.E. (2009) Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (Tobias S.  & Duffy T.M., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 184–200. Mayer R.E. (2010) Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McCombs B.L. (2012) Educational psychology and educational transformation. In Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 7. Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). (Reynolds W.M. & Miller G.E., eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 493–533. McCombs B.L. & Miller L. (2007) Learner-Centered Classroom Practices and Assessments: Maxmizing Student Motivation, Learning, and Achievement. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. McCombs B.L. & Whisler J.S. (1997) The Learner-Centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. McKernan J.A. (2013) The origins of critical theory in education: Fabian socialism as social reconstructionism in nineteenth-century Britain. British Journal of Educational Studies 61(4), 417–433. McPhail G. (2018) On knowledge and curriculum. In On Knowledge: Towards Understandings of the Place(s), Space(s) and Role(s) of Knowledge in and for Education. (The Education Hub, ed.), New Zealand, pp. 27–32. Retrieved from https://theeducationhub.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/On-Knowledge_ website.pdf on 1 October 2019. Mezirow J. (2009) An overview on transformative learning. In Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists . . . in Their Own Words. (Illeris K., ed.), Routledge, London, pp. 90–105. Middendorf J.  & Kalish A. (1996) The “change-up” in lectures. The National Teaching & Learning Forum 5(2), 1–5. National Research Council of the USA (NRC) (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (expanded ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nelson Laird T.F., Chen D.  & Kuh G.D. (2008) Classroom practices at institutions with higher-thanexpected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 115. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 85–99. Nelson Laird T.F., Seifert T.A., Pascarella E.T., Mayhew M.J.  & Blaich C.F. (2011, November) Deeply effecting first-year students’ thinking: The effects of deep approaches to learning on three outcomes. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Charlotte, NC. Oelkers J.  & Reusser K. (2008) Developing Quality, Safeguarding Standards, Handling Differentiation. Educational Research Volume 27 (with the assistance of Esther Berner, Ueli Halbheer, Stefanie Stolz). Federal Ministery of Education and Research, Berlin. O’Neill G. & McMahon T. (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. (O’Neill G., Moore S. & McMullin B., eds.), AISHE, Dublin, pp. 30–39. Passarelli A.M. & Kolb D.A. (2012) Using experiential learning theory to promote student learning and development in programs of education abroad. In Student Learning Abroad. (Vande Berg M., Page M. & Lou K., eds.), Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA, pp. 137–161. Pauli C. & Reusser K. (2011) Expertise in Swiss mathematics instruction. In Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: An International Perspective. (Li Y & Kaiser G., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 85–107. Pauli C. & Reusser K. (2015) Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: A videobased study on mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms. In Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue. (Resnick L.B., Asterhahn C. & Clarke S., eds.), AERA, Washington, DC, pp. 181–193. Pauli C., Reusser K.  & Grob U. (2007) Teaching for understanding and/or self-regulated learning? A video-based analysis of reform-oriented mathematics instruction in Switzerland. International Journal of Educational Research 46, 294–305. Penprase B.E. (2018) The fourth industrial revolution and higher education. In Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. (Gleason N.W., ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp. 216–228. Piaget J. (1972) To Understand Is to Invent. The Viking Press, New York.

44

Foundations of SCLT Piaget J. (1973) Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Piaget J. (1977/1995) Sociological Studies (2nd ed, L. Smith et al., Trans.). Routledge, London, UK. Piaget J. (1985) The Equilibrium of Cognitive Structures. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Pintrich P.R. & Zusho A. (2002) The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In Development of Achievement Motivation. (Wigfield A. & Eccles J.S., eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 249–284. Pintrich P.R. & Zusho A. (2007) Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective. (Perry R.P. & Smart J.C., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 731–810. Praetorius A.-K., Klieme E., Herbert B. & Pinger P. (2018) Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM Mathematics Education 50(3), 407–426. Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (1998) Teaching for Learning in Higher Education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (2017) Student learning and the experience of teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 4, 5–27. Prosser M., Trigwell K. & Taylor P. (1994) A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 4, 217–231. Ramsden P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). Routledge, London, UK. Resnick L.B. (1987) The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher 16(9), 13–20. Reusser K. (2008) Empirisch fundierte Didaktik – didaktisch fundierte Unterrichtsforschung. Eine Perspektive zur Neuorientierung der Allgemeinen Didaktik. In Perspektiven der Didaktik (Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 9/2008). (Meyer M.A., Prenzel M. & Hellekamps S., eds.), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 219–237. Reusser K. (2016) Jenseits der Beliebigkeit “Konstruktivistische Didaktik” auf dem Prüfstand der empirischen Unterrichtsforschung. Journal für LehrerInnenbildung 2, 40–48. Reusser K. & Pauli C. (2015) Co-constructivism in educational theory and practice. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Volume 3. (Wright J.D., ed.), Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 913–917. Reyes M.R., Brackett M.A., Rivers S.E., White M. & Salovey P. (2012) Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 104, 700–712. Richardson V. (2003) Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105(9), 1623–1640. Rogers C.R. (1951) Client-Centered Therapy. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Rogers C.R. & Freiberg J. (1994) Freedom to Learn (3rd ed.). Macmillan College, New York. Rogers G. (2002) Student Centred Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Retrieved from https://webcache. googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wgdwjsvh0fAJ; https://insidan.imt.liu.se/en/edu/Bologna/SCL/ download-SCL%2520for%2520Thai%2520TESOL%2520paper.doc+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ch on 16 June 2019. Schell J. (2012, Fall) Student-centered university learning: Turning traditional education models upside down. ReVista, 20–23. Schneider M. & Preckel F. (2017) Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 143(6), 565–600. Schunk D.H. & Zimmerman B.J. (eds.) (2007) Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Seidel T.  & Shavelson R. (2007) Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling metaanalysis results. Review of Educational Research 77(4), 454–499. Smidt H.  & Sursock A. (2011) Engaging in Lifelong Learning: Shaping Inclusive and Responsive University Strategies. EUA. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/engaging in lifelong learning shaping inclusive and responsive university strategies.pdf. Stahl G., Koschmann T.  & Suthers D. (2014) Computer-supported collaborative learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 479–500. Stebler R. & Reusser K. (2000) Progressive, classical, or balanced? A look at mathematical learning environments in Swiss-German lower-secondary schools. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM) 32(1), 1–10. Sursock A., Smidt H. & Korhonen J. (2011) The implementation of the Bologna bachelor: A comparative national analysis. Journal of the European Higher Education Area 1, Raabe Academic Publishers, Berlin. Tagg J. (2019) The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education Is Hard to Change, and How to Change It. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

45

Sabine Hoidn and Kurt Reusser Tangney S. (2014) Student-centred learning: A humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher Education 19(3), 266–275. Thamraksa C. (2003) Student-centered learning: Demystifying the myth. SLLT 12. Retrieved from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.499.66&rep=rep1&type=pdf on 16 June 2019. Tobias S. & Duffy T.M. (eds.) (2009) Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Routledge, New York. UNESCO (1998) Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action: World Conference on Higher Education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001163/116345e.pdf on 16 June 2019. Von Glaserfeld E. (1995) A constructivist approach to teaching. In Constructivism in Education. (Steffe L.P. & Gale J., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–15. Vygotsky L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. (Cole M., JohnSteiner V., Scribner S. & Souberman E., eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Weimer M. (2002/2013) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Wood W.B. & Tanner K.D. (2012) The role of the lecturer as tutor: Doing what effective tutors do in a large lecture class. CBE-Life Sciences Education 11, 3–9. Wright G.B. (2011) Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(3), 92–97. Young M. (2007) Bringing Knowledge Back in: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Routledge, London. Young M. & Muller J. (2010) Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education 45(1), 11–27. Zimmerman B.J. (1989) A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3), 329–339. Zimmerman B.J. (2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(2), 64–70. Zimmerman B.J. (2013) From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist 48(3), 135–147. Zimmerman B.J.  & Schunk D.H. (eds.) (2011) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. Routledge, New York.

46

2 PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CONSTRUCTIVISM Some considerations for student-centered learning and teaching Michael R. Matthews

Introduction Constructivism as a theory of knowledge and learning has been the major influence in contemporary science and mathematics education; and in its post-modernist and deconstructionist form, it is a significant influence in literary, artistic, social studies, and religious education. Its impact is evident in theoretical debates, curriculum writing, and pedagogical practice in all of these subjects. Constructivism as a psychological, educational and philosophical orientation fuels the student-centered, teacher-as-facilitator, localist, “progressive” side of the educational math wars, phonics debates, and discovery learning disputes. It is the default theory in “student-centered” education programs and courses. As stated by one group of researchers: From a constructivist perspective, the individual learner has a primary role in determining what will be learned. Emphasis is placed on providing students with opportunities to develop skills and knowledge which they can connect with prior knowledge and future utility. . . . The learner decides with others what learning is important to him or her and means of learning are explored. While working with others, the student solves problems and examines solutions. This view of curriculum is closer to the actual work of scientists. (Davis et al. 1993, p. 629) An editorial in the Journal of Teacher Education declared: Constructivism is the new rallying theme in education. Its popularity derives from its origins in a variety of disciplines, notably philosophy of science, psychology, and sociology. The implications of a constructivist perspective for education differ depending on its disciplinary foundation, but professional education groups as diverse as the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have based revisions of their standards for practice on the 47

Michael R. Matthews

constructivist assumption that learners do not passively absorb knowledge but rather construct it from their experiences. (Ashton 1992, p. 322) Fifteen years later: Hence, the current teaching standards in the USA call for teachers to embrace a social constructivist view of learning and teaching in which science is described as a way of knowing about natural phenomena and science teaching as facilitation of student learning through science inquiry. . . . In particular, the reform emphasizes teacher education by promoting social constructivist teaching approaches. . . . These sophisticated epistemological perspectives are promoted in the US science education reform documents as both learning goals and teaching approaches. (Kang 2008, pp. 478, 480) Constructivism received administrative-industrial endorsement when in 2015 the state of Missouri introduced a teacher pay-scale where pay increases are tied to teachers adopting constructivist classroom methods, independently of student learning outcomes (Krahenbuhl 2016). No matter how little students learn, or how many fail, teachers are financially rewarded provided they toe the agreed line. This is another of the many triumphs of ideology over good sense in education. The remainder of this chapter will indicate the twofold intellectual origins of constructivism within the Kuhnian revolution in philosophy of science and within Piagetian learning theory; it will spell out faulty epistemological and ontological commitments flowing from those sources; it will lay out some unfortunate and unforeseen cultural consequences of constructivism and finally suggest some lessons that this whole historical process has for proponents of studentcentered pedagogy.

Origins of educational constructivism Educational constructivism, more specifically as it took form in science education, grew out of the mushrooming studies of children’s thinking about nature – their “proto-scientific” concepts – that began in the 1970s and 1980s (Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien 1985). This “children’s science” research focused on acquisition of concepts and conceptual change; it rejected behaviorist-sanctioned classroom rote learning as not worth learning by students nor worth researching by academics. The conviction was that learning was not just a matter of presenting new information or concepts to a student, but the new material had to be meaningful, and consequently it had to cohere with or be interpreted by extant concepts and ideas. Yes, students do learn from experience, but experience is not just the result of sensation (visual or auditory); experience comes from a combination of sensation plus extant “knowledge” or conceptions. As Norwood Russell Hanson, repeating Plato, memorably wrote: “There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball” (Hanson 1958, p. 5). Typical research questions were: How do children conceptualise and understand the natural world (objects, events and processes) before they enter science classes? How does this “native” understanding and conceptualization change in response to instruction? Are there identifiable barriers to scientific understanding? Are there cultural differences in children’s science? How do students construct knowledge when they work in groups? How do students negotiate meaning? And, what is involved in forming consensus? This research tradition was largely empirical, 48

Philosophical problems with constructivism

descriptive or phenomenological. The most recent version of the authoritative “constructivism and research” bibliography prepared by Reinders Duit and colleagues at the University of Kiel is available online and contains 8,400 entries (Duit 2009). The tradition largely ignored the distinction, made since Plato, between belief or opinion and knowledge; the terms were synonymous in children’s science research. It was routine to see studies of change of beliefs given the title of “knowledge development.” The question of whether the new beliefs constituted knowledge did not arise. Indeed, the question is little attended to in educational research on children’s learning. The closest to it appearing is the oft-repeated claim that “knowledge is whatever can be retrieved from long-term memory.” The view is that if it is not in long-term memory it is not knowledge; and conversely if it is in long term memory, then it is knowledge. To a philosopher, and to many others, such a claim is manifestly silly: all sorts of nonsense and discredited beliefs can be retrieved from long-term memory. Some folk can retrieve all of Mao’s thoughts, all of the Old and New Testaments, all of the Qur’an or all of the Book of Mormon from long-term memory. Clearly such retrieval, by itself, does not make the constellation of remembered assertions into knowledge; that is a separate epistemological question. The “children’s science” tradition was reviewed at the time (Driver & Erickson 1983; Gilbert & Watts 1983), and it was widely recognized that theory played a very minor role in the tsumani of new studies. Roger Osborne and Merlin Wittrock wrote: “Most of the research on children’s ideas in science has not then been theory driven” (Osborne  & Wittrock 1985, p.  60). Michael Shayer observed: “The whole field of ‘alternative conceptions’ is that of vast empirical data, crying out for an interpretative model” (Shayer 1993, p.  816). Joseph Novak comments in one place that he had read 400 education research papers, of which about 20 were theory-informed. This is a major admission: if some practice is persistently not informed by theory, then it simply is not science. Lots of practices and hobbies involve observing, counting, measuring, cataloguing, but if this is done removed from any theoretical commitment or testing, then it is just a human activity. Stamp collecting and bird watching are engaging and skillful activities, but they are not science unless they are linked to hypotheses or theories that connect with extant science. The Children’s Science research program was buttressed by David Ausubel’s The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning (Ausubel 1963, 1968; Ausubel et al. 1978). Ausubel’s foundational premise – “The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (Ausubel 1968, p.  vi) – became the rallying cry of the program. Because history and philosophy of education are removed from education programs, that Ausubel’s basic dictum was enunciated 2,500 years earlier by Socrates, was seldom recognized. All the Socratic Dialogues begin with an interrogation: “What do you understand by X?” Joseph Novak, a co-author of the second edition of Ausubel’s book, wrote in criticism of Piagetian research, and its mistakenly associated discovery-learning pedagogy, that: While discovery learning strategies have some important and unique educational values, it is obvious that our cultural heritage, created by geniuses over the past three or four centuries, cannot be rediscovered by our pupils in 10 or 15 years. It follows, therefore, that the central task of schools is to make expository teaching and reception learning meaningful, and I will argue in this paper that Ausubel’s theory of cognitive learning is more relevant more powerful for science and mathematics education than the psychology of Jean Piaget. (Novak 1977b, pp. 453–454) 49

Michael R. Matthews

Another popular theory of conceptual change (or learning) was advanced by George Posner and colleagues: “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change” (Posner et al. 1982). They proposed that, for individual conceptual change or learning to take place, four conditions had to be met: 1 2 3 4

There must be dissatisfaction with current conceptions. The proposed replacement conception must be intelligible. The new conception must be initially plausible. The new conception must offer solutions to old problems and to novel ones; it must suggest the possibility of a fruitful research program.

Ten years after its publication two of the co-authors were moved to publish “A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change” (Strike & Posner 1992), in which they pointed out that the original paper was intended to be an account of rational conceptual change; it was not a psychological theory of conceptual change, much less a pedagogical template for classroom teaching: This theory is largely an epistemological theory, not a psychological theory. It follows that it is also a normative theory. It is rooted in a conception of the kinds of things that count as good reasons. (Strike & Posner 1992, p. 150) Kenneth Strike had been explicit about this in a parallel paper published at the time as the much-cited Posner et al. (1982) paper. He defends the view that the task of learning is primarily one of relating what one has encountered to one’s current concepts, making an assessment of its believability, and adjusting beliefs accordingly. This has come to be called “personal epistemology,” a construct that has generated much research.

Conceptual Change and Piagetian traditions in learning theory The Conceptual Change tradition was an alternative to experimental, scientific Piagetian studies of children’s reasoning and learning in science that had been at the forefront of educational research since the “rediscovery” of Piaget by Anglo-Americans in the early 1960s (Novak 1977). This Piagetian research powerfully influenced the crop of “Alphabet Curricula” or “Sputnik Curricula” commissioned by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in the 1960s that extolled inquiry and hands-on experiential learning in classrooms (Crane 1976). David Ausubel wrote, when commenting 50 years ago on the then National Science Foundation’s enthusiasm for “discovery based” school curricula: Actually, a moment’s reflection should convince anyone that most of what he really knows and meaningfully understands, consists of insights discovered by others which have been communicated to him in meaningful fashion. (Ausubel 1964, p. 291) That so many educators were oblivious to this basic point which is fundamental for the existence and transmission of culture is a mystery. The point is especially important for proponents of student-centered learning and teaching because the step from “student-centered learning” to “discovery learning” seems so natural: what could be more student-centered than discovery learning? Yet the latter is demonstrably a complete pedagogical failure as well as being philosophically naive. 50

Philosophical problems with constructivism

Against behaviorism Although Conceptual Change and Piagetian traditions were competing and oft-antagonistic traditions (Lawson 1993; Shayer 1993) they were united in taking children’s thinking, ideas and individuality seriously. Piagetians studied individual children. They observed them manipulating standardized objects (pendulums, deformable objects), they talked to and questioned them and they gave them pencil and paper tests. Engagement with the individual subject was paramount in their research. Both traditions were cognitivists; they were united in opposition to behaviorist learning theory and its Skinnerian token-economy and operant-conditioning reinforcement regimes in classrooms (Skinner 1971; Thoresen 1973). They both thought that something was “going on in the head” when learning occurred and researchers needed to shed light on what that was; behavior was an outcome or indicator of learning it was not the learning. Both traditions – Conceptual Change and Piagetian – were constructivist. Jon Magoon, who introduced the term “constructivism” into educational research, pointed out that “the major influence toward a more constructivist psychology, however, has been the research and writing of Jean Piaget” (Magoon 1977, p. 662). All Piagetians agree with this: the mind is structured, it has defined processing mechanisms, and the structure and mechanisms change with maturation and experience. External stimuli, including verbal stimuli, are not just stamped on the mind, they are processed; the mind is active; it is constructive. Although both are constructivist, they have been identified with separate labels. The first being called “social constructivism”; the second “personal constructivism” or sometimes “psychological constructivism.” Social constructivism is heterogeneous. Contained within it are a wide range of epistemological, ontological and pedagogical positions. Piagetian personal constructivism is more homogeneous; it contributes less philosophical variance to the constructivist family (Kitchener 1986). Social constructivism commits to the Hegelian notion that the “The ‘we think’ determines the ‘I think.’” This is an affirmation given wide currency in education by Paulo Freire. Personal ideas, cognition, and knowledge are dependent upon the cognitive furniture of the society and culture of the individual. Social constructivism stands against any individualist “Robinson Crusoe” understanding of cognition. The constructivist family is certainly a “broad Church.” At least the following varieties have been identified and defended in publications: contextual, dialectical, empirical, informationprocessing, methodological, moderate, Piagetian, post-epistemological, pragmatic, radical, realist, social, sociohistorical humanistic constructivism, didactic constructivism, socio-transformative constructivism, and situative constructivism. It is manifestly a difficult theory to pin down. This is acknowledged by its one-time major champion in science education: As we have thought about constructivism, we have come to realize that it is not a unitary construct. Every day we learn something new about constructivism. Like the bird in flight it has an elusive elegance that remains just beyond our grasp. (Tobin & Tippins 1993, p. 20) Just how anything that remains permanently “beyond our grasp” can be a theory of learning, a guide for research, or much assistance for teachers, is not explained. Such an admission from a lead theorist should caution those tempted to embrace, much less champion the position.

Expansion of social constructivism Social constructivism had its origins as a theory of children’s learning, but it expanded to encompass the whole domain of educational inquiry. This can be seen in the subheadings of one 51

Michael R. Matthews

science education article: “A constructivist view of learning,” “A constructivist view of teaching,” “A view of science,” “Aims of science education,” “A constructivist view of curriculum” and “A constructivist view of curriculum development” (Bell 1991). For many constructivists, the theory became a worldview or Weltanschauung: Constructivism offers a viable alternative view of knowledge, reality, science and education. . . . The constructivist view of education provides us with a hope for the future as individuals value their own and others’ understandings, take responsibility for their own destinies, and lead us forward into a changing but promising world. (Davis et al. 1993, pp. 628, 635) Or, in Ken Tobin’s autobiographical revelation: To become a constructivist is to use constructivism as a referent for thoughts and actions. That is to say when thinking or acting, beliefs associated with constructivism assume a higher value than other beliefs. For a variety of reasons the process is not easy. (Tobin 1991, p. 1) A leading advocate and recipient of many prestigious prizes, co-authored a piece in 1994 that starkly assets that the educational goal of constructivists is to turn students into constructivists: Thus, science educators seek to help teachers in changing from worldviews that are commensurable with objectivism to ones that are commensurable with constructivism. (Roth & Roychoudhury 1994, p. 6) Constructivism, in these accounts, has all the marks of an ideology, of a statement of faith; in the quotation, “constructivism” could easily be replaced with “communism,” “Catholicism,” “Islam,” “Maoism” or any other such overarching worldview and ideology. In education conferences of the 1980s and 1990s, constructivist fervor was palpable.

Constructivism and Thomas Kuhn Thomas Kuhn has arguably been the most culturally influential historian of science in the 20th century. His impact has been felt in all academic fields, and even beyond the academy. The first edition (1962) of his Structure of Scientific Revolutions sat largely unexamined on the publisher’s floor, read only by a minority of historians and philosophers of science; the second edition (1970) exploded over the philosophical and more generally scholarly communities. Educational constructivism came into being at the same time as the 1960s Kuhn-led revolution in philosophy of science. Kuhnism turned the heads of educators who rushed lemming-like over the Kuhnian cliff. They constituted a “Kuhnian cheer squad,” in the words of two researchers (Loving & Cobern 2000). Joseph Novak, as with so many educators and scholars from all disciplines, was awed by Kuhn and the “new wave” in historical-relativist philosophy of science that Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1962) launched: In philosophy, a consensus emerges that positivism is neither a valid nor a productive view of epistemology. . . . What is emerging is a constructivist view of epistemology, building on ideas of Kuhn (1962), Toulmin (1972) and others. (Novak 1977, pp. 5–6) 52

Philosophical problems with constructivism

It is telling that Novak in his autobiography says that although he carefully read Conant and Toulmin, he did not do the same for Kuhn (Novak 2018, p.  132). Novak is not alone in this: educators rarely study the arguments of philosophers, nor indeed of psychologists. Despite teaching subjects reliant, or parasitic on, these fields, they do not study them as a discipline; at most they are a subject in a graduate program. Peter Fensham in his comprehensive study of the research discipline of science education remarked that lack of rigorous preparation for science education research is evidenced by the extent of shallow learning theory in the field, saying that “science educators borrow psychological theories of learning . . . for example Bruner, Gagne and Piaget” (Fensham 2004, p. 105). And he goes on to say, damningly, that “The influence of these borrowings is better described as the lifting of slogan-like ideas from these theories” (ibid.). Even more slogan-like is the lifting of philosophical ideas. A casual glance at any multicultural, critical theory or cultural studies volume confirms this. Largely on account of the unfortunate separation of education departments from philosophy departments and the stripping of philosophy from teacher education and graduate programs, educators did not see the detailed criticisms of Kuhn that were advanced in the history and philosophy of science community. These began with Dudley Shapere, who acknowledged the “vast amount of positive value in Kuhn’s book” (Shapere 1964, p. 393), but went on to argue that his truly revolutionary account of theory change in the history of science is made to appear convincing only by inflating the definition of “paradigm” until that term becomes so vague and ambiguous that it cannot easily be withheld, so general that it cannot easily be applied, so mysterious that it cannot help explain, and so misleading that it is a positive hindrance to the understanding of some central aspects of science; and then, finally, these excesses must be counterbalanced by qualifications that simply contradict them. (Shapere 1964, p. 393) Israel Scheffler advanced an 11-point critique of Kuhn’s arguments, one of which dealt with Kuhn’s charge of irrationality in paradigm choice: [it] fails utterly, for it rests on a confusion. It fails to make the critical distinction between those standards or criteria which are internal to a paradigm, and those by which the paradigm is itself judged. (Scheffler 1966, p. 84) Alexander Bird provided a sympathetic appraisal of Thomas Kuhn but correctly maintained that Kuhn’s treatment of philosophical ideas is neither systematic nor rigorous. He rarely engaged in the stock-in-trade of modern philosophers, the careful and precise analysis of the details of other philosopher’s views, and when he did so the results were not encouraging. (Bird 2000, p. ix) The historian Jan Golinski wrote: I see Kuhn as having little positive influence on philosophers and almost none (directly) on historians. His most significant influence within science studies was mediated by sociologists, whose reading of his work he specifically repudiated. (Golinski 2012, p. 15) 53

Michael R. Matthews

Wolfgang Stegmüller opined that the crux of Kuhn’s theory of science was “a bit of musing” of a philosophical incompetent (Stegmüller 1976, p. 216). Mario Bunge recounts in his autobiography that he attended an influential 1966 colloquium on causality convened in Geneva by Piaget in which Kuhn participated. Bunge observed: Kuhn’s presentation impressed no one at the meeting, and it confirmed my impression that his history of science was second-hand, his philosophy confused and backward, and his sociology of science non-existent. (Bunge 2016, p. 181) Not only did educators miss the initial criticisms, but they also missed Kuhn’s recanting of his positions. In his Robert and Maurine Rothschild lecture at Harvard University in 1991, he appraised the sociological turn in the history and philosophy of science, acknowledging that it was “emphasized and developed by people who often called themselves Kuhnians” (Kuhn 1991, p.  3), but added that “I think their viewpoints damagingly mistaken, have been pained to be associated with it, and have for years attributed that association to misunderstanding” (ibid.). In reviewing his achievements, he regretted writing the “purple passages” in Structures. Unfortunately, it was often these passages that were taken up in the education community. By the time Kuhn regretted them and tried to close the stable door, they had bolted out into the text of thousands of higher degrees, articles and books. For him to say “sorry” is hardly sufficient; it does not atone for the enormous damage his “casual” or “misinterpreted” relativism wreaked on graduate student minds, and more generally on the academy and beyond. Philosophers should demonstrate more care in their writing; “purple passages” should not go unnoticed. But as Kuhn says, he was never trained in philosophy. The Kuhnian revolution had disastrous effects in education. Two generations of educators were lost in a Kuhnian landscape in which notions of “paradigm,” “incommensurability,” “conversion,” “different worlds” and so on confused discussion, hampered research and dimmed whatever light might be shed on real educational and social problems (Matthews 2004).

Constructivism, epistemology and learning theory Kenneth Strike outlines the common social constructivist position that learning is primarily the task of relating what one has encounted in the world and in classrooms, to one’s current concepts and expanding or adjusting beliefs as need be. This task means making an assessment of believability or reliability of beliefs. Many educators embrace this account of meaningful learning, but Strike says that the account has one unexpected implication: The result is that it is epistemology, not psychology that is the basic discipline for the study of learning. It is after all epistemology which is the discipline which is supposed to describe what counts as rationality. (Strike 1983, p. 69) This should not be a surprise, as epistemology and psychology were conjoined in the writings of the founders of educational constructivism – Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner. Piaget called this own theory “Genetic Epistemology,” and this philosophical concern is reflected in his book title – Psychology and Epistemology (Piaget 1972). Jerome Bruner, speaking of his famous Process of Education book (Bruner 1960) that presented a constructivist alternative to didactic, transmissionist, behaviorist-informed “banking” pedagogy, to use Freire’s expression, wrote that 54

Philosophical problems with constructivism

its ideas sprang from epistemology and the sciences of knowing . . . all of us were, I think, responding to the same “epistemic” malaise, the doubts about the nature of knowing that had come first out of the revolution in physics and then been formalized and amplified by philosophy. (Bruner 1983, p. 186) The major question for researchers, teachers and philosophers embracing this theory, was, what constitutes rational change? This, obviously, is not an empirical question, it is an epistemological question, and typically education researchers were not well prepared to answer it. Philosophy of education has been stripped out of teacher education programs everywhere; philosophy rarely features in education graduate programs.

Problems with constructivist epistemology Constructivism emphasizes that science is a creative human endeavor which is historically and culturally conditioned, and that its knowledge claims are not absolute. This is certainly worth saying, but it is a truism shared by all philosophers and historians of science. Beyond this widely agreed truism, constructivism is committed to certain epistemological positions that are keenly disputed. At its core, social constructivism has a subjectivist and empiricist understanding of human knowledge and consequently of scientific knowledge. As one of the most influential constructivists in science and mathematics education has put it: Knowledge is the result of an individual subject’s constructive activity, not a commodity that somehow resides outside the knower and can be conveyed or instilled by diligent perception or linguistic communication. (Von Glaserfeld 1990a, p. 37) Constructivists are epistemological relativists. Consider, for example: The constructivist epistemology asserts that the only tools available to a knower are the senses. It is only through seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting that an individual interacts with the environment. With these messages from the senses the individual builds a picture of the world. Therefore, constructivism asserts that knowledge resides in individuals. (Lorsbach & Tobin 1992, p. 5) And: Put into simple terms, constructivism can be described as essentially a theory about the limits of human knowledge, a belief that all knowledge is necessarily a product of our own cognitive acts. We can have no direct or unmediated knowledge of any external or objective reality. We construct our understanding through our experiences, and the character of our experience is influenced profoundly by our cognitive lens. (Confrey 1990, p. 108) And further: The theory of constructivism rests on two main principles. . . . Principle one states that knowledge is not passively received, but is actively built up by the cognizing 55

Michael R. Matthews

subject. . . . Principle two states that the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organisation of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality. . . . Thus we do not find truth but construct viable explanations of our experiences. (Wheatley 1991, p. 10) Such relativism has its philosophical problems, and these have been pointed out by many (Nola 1988; Norris 1997; Siegel 1987). Although children’s thoughts are private, their concepts are public. Whether or not particular beliefs are going to constitute knowledge is not a matter for the individual to determine; or rather, if they do so determine, then it is with reference to a public standard. These, and other considerations, led David Hamlyn to say: any view which in effect construes the child as a solitary inquirer attempting to discover the truth about the world must be rejected. (What after all could be meant by ‘truth’ in these circumstances?) (Hamlyn 1973, p. 184) This does lead to issues about what, and how many, constitute “public.” One constructivist article is titled: “In the Name of Constructivism: Science Education Research and the Construction of Local Knowledge” (Roth 1993). The title reflects the anti-universalist “all knowledge is local” mantra, but still it requires some specification of “local” and what are the processes of separating, even at a local level, opinion from knowledge. Parallel problems with “human rights are local” or “women’s rights are local” should be obvious. Clearly lots of different things can “make sense” to people, and people can disagree about whether a particular proposition makes sense to them or does not make sense. The ways in which a proposition can make sense are independent of the reference of the proposition; it depends on the meaning. Matters about the truth of a proposition are not so relaxed; they depend upon how the world is and what claims we make about it. Consequently, “making sense” is a very unstable plank with which to prop up curriculum proposals and adjudicate debates about curriculum content. Furthermore, most scientific advances have entailed commitment to propositions that literally defied sense – Copernicus’ rotating earth, Galileo’s point masses and colourless bodies, Newton’s inertial systems that in principle cannot be experienced and also his ideas of action at a distance, Darwin’s gradualist evolutionary assumptions so at odds with the fossil record, Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence and so forth (Cromer 1993). The routine topic of pendulum motion exhibits the problems with using “making sense” as a goal and arbiter in science education. In classical mechanics, the bob at its highest point is both at rest and accelerating with the acceleration of gravity; at its lowest point it is moving with maximum speed in a tangential direction, yet its acceleration is vertically upwards. Neither of these propositions makes immediate sense, yet they are consequences of the physical theory that allows construction of the pendulum clock and successful predictions to be made about the motion of pendulums. Within the Newtonian theory of circular motion, the propositions “make sense.” But Newtonian theory does not emerge from sensations; and not only is it not traceable to experience, it contradicts immediate experience; it is only approximately in accord with refined, experimental experience. This is why Lewis Wolpert, among others, comments that if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn’t science. . . . the way in which the universe works is not the way in which common sense works. (Wolpert 1992, p. 11) 56

Philosophical problems with constructivism

Relativism is one problem, and serious enough; but of orders more serious is when constructivism segues into complete skepticism, the view that we cannot have any knowledge of nature, its structure or properties. This is not skepticism about any particular claim (e.g., that a gremlin ate the student’s essay) but global skepticism about all claims concerning the world. Constructivists constantly assert that we have no direct access to reality, that reality remains forever hidden. The opposing “commonsense realism” view was nicely stated by Moritz Schlick in 1935 when he opposed the metaphysics of his fellow positivists Carnap and Neurath: I have been accused of maintaining that statements can be compared with facts. I plead guilty. I have maintained this. But I protest against my punishment: I refuse to sit in the seat of the metaphysicians. I have often compared propositions to facts; so I had no reason to suppose that it couldn’t be done. I found, for instance, in my Baedeker the statement: “this cathedral has two spires.” I was able to compare it with “reality” by looking at the cathedral, and this comparison convinced me that Baedeker’s assertion was true. (Schlick 1935, pp. 65–66, in Nola 2003, p. 146) Schlick’s “tourist” argument of course applies at the next level down. Viruses, bacteria, molecules and a host of microscopic entities were once only postulated and were indeed inaccessible to scientists and everyone else, but with refined technology they become as visible to students in laboratories as were Schlick’s cathedral spires to the tourist walking through town.

Problems with constructivist ontology Constructivists often embrace an idealist ontology, or idealist theory about the existential status of scientific and everyday objects; that is, they variously maintain that the world is created by and dependent upon human thought. Various Kuhn-inspired sociologists of science repeatedly state that different observers “live in different worlds” and that they create those worlds. These astounding claims pass over the major ambiguity: on the one hand, the complete truism that different observers and different groups have different experiences; on the other, that the world in which they live varies from observer to observer and group to group. The latter is not a truism and requires some argument, as does the more advanced claim that these various worlds are created by the observer. Kenneth Gergen, an influential social constructivist, expresses this position, saying there is “a multiplicity of ways in which “the world” is, and can be, constructed” (Gergen 1994, p. 82).

Educational idealism Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism is the best-known idealist variant in education. He says: The realist believes his constructs to be a replica or reflection of independently existing structures, while the constructivist remains aware of the experiencer’s role as originator of all structures . . . for the constructivist there are no structures other than those which the knower constitutes by his very own activity of coordination of experiential particles. (Von Glaserfeld 1987, p. 104) Realists need not make any such claims about “replication” and “reflection”; they indeed make claims about the world but recognise that “there is more to seeing than meets the eyeball” and 57

Michael R. Matthews

the claims are the outcome of social, personal and cultural circumstance. Elsewhere, von Glasersfeld writes: I can no more walk through the desk in front of me than I can argue that black is white at one and the same time. What constrains me, however, is not quite the same thing in the two cases. That the desk constitutes an obstacle to my physical movement is due to the particular distinctions my sensor system enables me to make and to the particular way in which I have come to coordinate them. Indeed, if I now could walk through the desk, it would no longer fit the abstraction I have made in prior experience. (Von Glaserfeld 1990b, p. 24) This argument has problems. For the realist, the inability of our body to “walk through” another body has nothing to do with our sensory powers but everything to do with the composition and structures of the bodies. Changing our sensory powers will no more allow us to walk through a hitherto impenetrable table than changing our shirt would allow us to do so. Upon dying we lose all sensory powers, but this does not mean our body can then penetrate a table. Our having or not having sensory powers makes no difference to the penetrability of the table; to think that it does is just philosophical idealism. Observations and theory clearly depend upon us, but not the objects observed or their structures. Philosophical alarm bells should ring when an author runs together “observations” with “events” and “objects.” For a realist, and for any serious scientist, there are categorical differences between these classes. Only a philosophical idealist can run them together without alarm bells ringing; and when they do ring the idealist case has to be argued, not just assumed. Rosalind Driver, a rightly famous and influential science educator, frequently affirmed the idealist position. For instance: science as public knowledge is not so much a “discovery” as a carefully checked “construction” . . . and that scientists construct theoretical entities (magnetic fields, genes, electron orbitals . . .) which in turn take on a “reality.” (Driver 1988, p. 137) Here it is being said that the earth does not have a structure until geophysicists impose it; there is not an evolutionary structure in the animal world till biologists impose such structure; atoms have no structure until such is imposed by physicists; and so on. One might ask: if gravity waves are our creation, why spend so much time and money looking for them? Despite Driver’s basic argument form being fallacious, it is nevertheless widespread. The argument has the form: Premise: Some concept is a human construction. Conclusion: Therefore the referent of the concept does not exist. One only has to state this argument to see that it is an invalid inference, and its validity depends upon making explicit a suppressed premise of the form: Suppressed premise: All concepts that are human constructions can have no existential reference. But this suppressed premise is simply dogma for which no evidence is provided. Not only are “electron orbitals” and “magnetic fields” human constructions, but so also are “my house,” 58

Philosophical problems with constructivism

“mountain,” “table” and all the other observational terms we use. If the foregoing widespread constructivist argument, utilized by Rosalind Driver, were valid, then not only would electron orbitals not exist, neither would our house, the tables in it, nor mountains that we might live near. Indeed, given that the personal pronoun “I” is a human construction, individual cognizing subjects might not exist. But such considerations are frequently dismissed as “philosophical quibbles.” Wallis Suchting provided a detailed, philosophically informed, line-by-line critique of von Glasersfeld’s hugely popular version of constructivism, concluding that: First, much of the doctrine known as ‘constructivism’ .  .  . is simply unintelligible. Second, to the extent that it is intelligible . . . it is simply confused. Third, there is a complete absence of any argument for whatever positions can be made out. . . . In general, far from being what it is claimed to be, namely, the New Age in philosophy of science, an even slightly perceptive ear can detect the familiar voice of a really quite primitive, traditional subjectivistic empiricism with some overtones of diverse provenance like Piaget and Kuhn. (Suchting 1992, p. 247) Constructivists simply ignored this lengthy and detailed critique of their position; the philosophical dogs barked, but the constructivist caravan moved on across the educational landscape.

Sociological idealism The ontological idealism embraced by educational constructivists mirrors and is encouraged by a comparable idealism common among new-style, post-Mertonian sociologists of science, particularly those associated with the Edinburgh school, so-called Strong Programme in Sociology of Science. This movement can be called “sociological constructivism” as distinguished from the two branches of educational constructivism – “social constructivism” (conceptual change program) and “personal constructivism” (Piagetian program). All of the “new wave” sociologists of scientific knowledge express their indebtedness to Thomas Kuhn for uncovering the pretences of “old time” positivist and empiricist accounts of science. Two leaders, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, claim that “out-there-ness” is the consequence of scientific work rather than its cause” (Latour & Woolgar 1986, p.  182). They go on to say that reality is the consequence rather than the cause of scientific construction. Woolgar says of his research program that it is consistent with the position of the idealist wing of ethnomethodology that there is no reality independent of the words (texts, signs, documents, and so on) used to apprehend it. In other words, reality is constituted in and through discourse. (Woolgar 1986, p. 312) The fact that the theoretical apparatus is humanly constructed, and that natural objects are considered in science only in their theoretical dress – apples as point masses in physics and exchange values in economics – does not imply that the real objects are human creations or that the real objects have no part in the appraisal of the scientific worth of the conceptual structures brought to bear upon them. The ontological idealism of the Edinburgh Programme has been delineated and critiqued by many (Bunge 1991, 1992; Laudan 1984; Slezak 1994). 59

Michael R. Matthews

Peter Slezak provided an admirable, detailed refutation of the Edinburgh Strong Programme’s work and drew attention to its deleterious educational consequences: If beliefs are intrinsically the products of “external” factors such as social causes and interests rather than “internal” considerations of evidence and reason, then it is an illusion to imagine that education might serve to instil the capacity for critical thought. . . . On these views the very distinction between education and indoctrination becomes otiose; ideas are merely ideology, and pedagogy is merely propaganda. (Slezak 1994, p. 266)

Cultural consequences of constructivism Constructivism is fraught with grave educational and cultural implications that are seldom recognized, much less engaged with.

Transmission of culture All cultures build up traditions and understandings that they pass on in formal and informal settings. Having such traditions is the hallmark of a healthy culture. Each new generation does not have to start completely anew the task of making meaning. Radical constructivism, with its in-principle aversion to transmission of knowledge, makes tradition nugatory; indeed, if it is seriously adopted it destroys traditional culture. The core of traditional, indeed any healthy, culture is the transmission of the culture’s beliefs and mores; it is plainly ridiculous, and culture destroying, for constructivists to maintain that putative knowledge cannot be so transmitted. For a liberal, cultural knowledge and understanding need to be transmitted; children should understand the knowledge repository of their culture but also be given the competence and freedom to appraise it.

Appraisal of culture It is notorious that people have for centuries thought that the grossest injustices, and the greatest evils, have all made sense. The subjection of women to men has, and still does, make perfectly good sense to millions of people and to scores of societies; explaining illness in terms of possession by evil spirits makes perfectly good sense to countless millions; the intellectual inferiority of particular races is perfectly sensible to millions of people, including some of the most advanced thinkers; to very sophisticated Germans it made sense to regard Jewish people as sub-humans and to institute extermination programs for them; apartheid made sense to South Africans just as racial discrimination did to US citizens until very recently. The list of atrocities and stupidities that have made perfect sense at some time or other, or in some place or other, is endless. It seems clear that the appeal to sense is not going to be sufficient to refute such views. But the appeal to truth, or right, which is independent of human desires or power, may be able to overturn such opinions and practices. The interests of the less powerful and marginalized are not advanced by championing the view that power is truth; minority rights have always been better advanced by holding on to the view that truth is power. Michael Devitt recognized these and other problems, when he commented that: I have a candidate for the most dangerous contemporary intellectual tendency, it is .  .  . constructivism. Constructivism is a combination of two Kantian ideas with 60

Philosophical problems with constructivism

twentieth-century relativism. The two Kantian ideas are, first, that we make the known world by imposing concepts, and, second, that the independent world is (at most) a mere ‘thing-in-itself ’ forever beyond our ken . . . [considering] its role in France, in the social sciences, in literature departments, and in some largely well-meaning, but confused, political movements [it] has led to a veritable epidemic of ‘world-making.’ Constructivism attacks the immune system that saves us from silliness. (Devitt 1991, p. ix)

Whither constructivism? After sustained philosophical criticism and more recently refutation of its claims to be a guide for successful pedagogy (Kirschner et al. 2006), there are signs that constructivist influence is waning. Thirty years ago there were hundreds of constructivist presentations at the US annual National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) and American Educational Research Association (AERA) conferences; in recent years only a handful of papers having “constructivism” in their title could be found on the program. The Constructivist Special Interest Group (SIG) at AERA has basically closed up its shop, having just four papers in 2015. The most energetic figure in the field has “Moved On” (Tobin 2000); while another enthusiast abandoned constructivism because “it turned out to be plagued with considerable contradictions” (Roth 2006, p. 326). Most have moved on to critical studies or cultural studies (McCarthy 2018) but have taken constructivism with them. For Ken Tobin: In contrast to the mainstream of research in science education, I advocate a multilogical methodology that embraces incommensurability, polysemia, subjectivity, and polyphonia as a means of preserving the integrity and potential of knowledge systems to generate and maintain disparate perspectives, outcomes, and implications for practice. In such a multilogical model, power discourses such as Western medicine carry no greater weight than complementary knowledge systems that may have been marginalized in a social world in which monosemia is dominant. (Tobin 2015, p. 3) Who knows what this means? It is certainly “beyond the grasp” of all but the most sophisticated initiates. How can something “beyond the grasp” ever be a basis for educational practice and curriculum development?

Conclusion Constructivism has provided benefits to education. It has alerted teachers to the function of prior learning and extant concepts in the process of learning new material; it has stressed the importance of understanding as a goal of science instruction; it has promoted pupil engagement in lessons and other such progressive matters. But liberal educationalists can rightly say that these are pedagogical commonplaces that go back at least to Socrates, who initiated the questioning or Socratic method of pedagogy, and included the medievals who standardly had to present arguments against their theses and then answer these. Assertion, criticism and resolution was the staple of medieval philosophy. It is clear that the best of constructivist pedagogy can be had without constructivist epistemology – Socrates, Aquinas, Montaigne, Locke, Mill, and Russell are just some who have conjoined engaging, constructivist-like pedagogy with non-constructivist epistemology and realist ontology. 61

Michael R. Matthews

Constructivism has also done a service by making educators aware of the human dimension of science: its fallibility, its connection to culture and interests, the place of convention in scientific theory, the historicity of concepts, the complex procedures of theory appraisal, and much else. But again, realist philosophers can rightly maintain that constructivism does not have a monopoly on these insights; they are learned in any introductory history and philosophy of science course. In brief: everything good in constructivism has been long known, while most, if not everything, novel is mistaken and misguided. Notoriously, fads come and go in education. Constructivism is one of them. Sadly generations of graduate students have had their precious learning-time wasted reading shallow, philosophically ill-informed literature; and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students around the world have left school with minimum competence in mathematics, science and reading, on account of being poorly taught in constructivist classes (Matthews 2015, pp.  782–794). This because so many teachers signed up to the “no guidance” mantra that: Constructivist teachers view themselves as gardeners, tour guides, learning councillors or facilitators rather than dispensers of information or judges of right and wrong answers. (Roth & Roychoudhury 1994, p. 27) The challenge for student-centered learning and teaching is to develop its program in a way that affirms all the better and supported affirmations of constructivism while avoiding the nowdiscredited epistemological, ontological and pedagogical facets that have become associated with the doctrine. The liberal education tradition, especially its more substantial philosophical defenders (Cuypers & Martin 2011; Peters 1966), provides one substantial resource for this challenge. There are others.

References Ashton P.T. (1992) Editorial. Journal of Teacher Education 43(5), 322. Ausubel D.P. (1963) The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. Grune & Stratton, New York. Ausubel D.P. (1964) Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. The Arithmetic Teacher 11(5), 290–302. Ausubel D.P. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, New York. Ausubel D.P., Novak J.D.  & Hanesian H. (1978) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Bell B.F. (1991) A constructivist view of learning and the draft forms 1–5 science syllabus. SAME Papers 1991, 154–180. Bird A. (2000) Thomas Kuhn. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bruner J.S. (1960) The Process of Education. Random House, New York. Bruner J.S. (1983) In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography. Harper & Row, New York. Bunge M. (1991) A critical examination of the new sociology of science: Part 1. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21(4), 524–560. Bunge M. (1992) A critical examination of the new sociology of science: Part 2. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22(1), 46–76. Bunge M. (2016) Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Philosopher-Scientist. Springer, Dordrecht. Confrey J. (1990) What constructivism implies for teaching. In Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. (Davis R., Maher C.  & Noddings N., eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 107–124. Crane L.T. (1976) The National Science Foundation & Pre-College Science Education: 1950–1975. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Cromer A. (1993) Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. Oxford University Press, New York. Cuypers S.E. & Martin C. (eds.). (2011) Reading R. S. Peters Today: Analysis, Ethics and the Aims of Education. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

62

Philosophical problems with constructivism Davis N.T.B., McCarty J., Shaw K.L. & Sidani-Tabbaa A. (1993) Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education 15, 627–636. Devitt M. (1991) Realism & Truth (2nd ed.). Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Driver R. (1988) A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. (Fensham P., ed.), Falmer Press, New York, pp. 133–149. Driver R. & Erickson G. (1983) Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks. Studies in Science Education 10, 37–60. Driver R., Guesne E.  & Tiberghien A. (eds.) (1985) Children’s Ideas in Science. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Duit R. (2009) Bibliography: STCSE. Retrieved from www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html on 7 December 2018. Fensham P.J. (2004) Defining an Identity: The Evolution of Science Education as a Field of Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Gergen K. (1994) Realities and Relations: Soundings in Social Construction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Gilbert J.K. & Watts D.M. (1983) Concepts, misconceptions & alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education 10, 61–98. Golinski J. (2012) Thomas Kuhn and interdisciplinary conversation: Why historians and philosophers of science stopped talking to one another. In Integrating History and Philosophy of Science. (Mauskopf S.  & Schmaltz T., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 13–28. Hamlyn D.W. (1973) Human learning. In The Philosophy of Education. (Peters R.S., ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 178–194. Hanson N.R. (1958) Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kang N.H. (2008) Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 478–498. Kirschner P.A., Sweller J. & Clark R.E. (2006) Why minimally guided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75–96. Kitchener R.F. (1986) Piaget’s Theory of Knowledge: Genetic Epistemology and Scientific Reason. Yale University Press, New Haven. Krahenbuhl K.S. (2016) Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 89(3), 97–105. Kuhn T.S. (1962/1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1nd ed.). Chicago University Press, Chicago. Kuhn T.S. (1991/2000) The trouble with historical philosophy of science: The Robert and Maurine Rothschild lecture, department of history of science, Harvard University. In The Road Since Structure: Thomas S. Kuhn. (Conant J. & Haugeland J., eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 105–120. Latour B. & Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London. Laudan L. (1984) The pseudo-science of science? In Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. (Brown J.R., ed.), Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp. 41–73. Lawson A.E. (1993) Constructivism taken to the absurd: A reply to Roth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30, 805–807. Lorsbach A. & Tobin K. (1992) Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. NARST Newsletter 30, 5–7. Loving C.C.  & Cobern W.A. (2000) Invoking Thomas Kuhn: What citation analysis reveals for science education. Science & Education 9(1–2), 187–206. Magoon A.J. (1977) Constructivist approaches in educational research. Review of Educational Research 47(4), 651–693. Matthews M.R. (2004) Thomas Kuhn and science education: What lessons can be learnt? Science Education 88(1), 90–118. Matthews M.R. (2015) Reflections on 25-years of journal editorship. Science & Education 24(5–6), 749–805. McCarthy C.L. (2018) Cultural studies of science education: An appraisal. In History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: New Perspectives. (Matthews M.R., ed.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 99–136. Nola R. (ed.) (1988) Relativism and Realism in Science. Reidel Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Nola R. (2003) “Naked before reality; skinless before the absolute”: A critique of the inaccessibility of reality argument in constructivism. Science & Education 12(2), 131–166. Norris C. (1997) Against Relativism: Philosophy of Science, Deconstruction and Critical Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.

63

Michael R. Matthews Novak J.D. (1977) An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education 61(4), 453–477. Novak J.D. (2018) A Search to Create a Science of Education: The Life of an Ivy League Professor, Business Consultant, and Research Scientist. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensacola, FL. Osborne R. & Wittrock M.C. (1985) The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education 12, 59–87. Peters R.S. (1966) Ethics and Education. George Allen and Unwin, London. Piaget J. (1972) Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Posner G.J., Strike K.A., Hewson P.W. & Gertzog W.A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66(2), 211–227. Roth M.-W. (1993) In the name of constructivism: Science education research and the construction of local knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30, 799–803. Roth M-W. & Roychoudhury A. (1994) Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(1), 5–30. Roth W.-M. (2006) Learning Science: A Singular Plural Perspective. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Scheffler I. (1966) Science and Subjectivity (1st ed.). Hackett, Indianapolis. Schlick M. (1935) Facts and propositions. Analysis 2(5), 65–70. Shapere D. (1964) The structure of scientific revolutions. Philosophical Review 73(3), 383–394. Shayer M. (1993) Piaget: Only the Galileo of cognitive development? Comment on Niaz and Lawson on genetic epistemology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(7), 815–818. Siegel H. (1987) Relativism Refuted. Reidel, Dordrecht. Skinner B.F. (1971) Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Slezak P. (1994) Sociology of science and science Education: Part I. Science & Education 3(3), 265–294. Stegmüller W. (1976) The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Springer, New York. Strike K.A. (1983) Misconceptions and conceptual change: Philosophical reflections on the research program. In Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. (Helm H. & Novak J.D., eds.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 67–82. Strike K.A. & Posner G.J. (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. (Duschl R. & Hamilton R., eds.), State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 147–176. Suchting W.A. (1992) Constructivism deconstructed. Science  & Education 1(3), 223–254. Reprinted in Constructivism in Science Education: A Philosophical Examination. (Matthews M.R., ed., 1998), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 61–92. Thoresen C.E. (ed.) (1973) Behavior Modification in Education: The Seventy-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Tobin K. (1991) Constructivist perspectives on research in science education. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Tobin K. (2000) Constructivism in science education: Moving on. In Constructivism in Education. (Phillips D.C., ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, pp. 227–253. Tobin K. (2015) Connecting science education to a world in crisis. Asia-Pacific Science Education 1(2). Tobin K. & Tippins D. (1993) Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In The Practice of Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education. (Tobin K., ed.), AAAS Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3–21. Toulmin S.E. (1972) Human Understanding. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Von Glaserfeld E. (1987) Construction of Knowledge. Intersystems Publications, Salinas CA. Von Glaserfeld E. (1990a) Environment and communication. In Transforming Children’s Mathematics Education: International Perspectives. (Steffe L.P. & Wood T., ed.), Lawerence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 30–38. Von Glaserfeld E. (1990b) An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it hot. In Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. (Davis R., Maher C. & Noddings N., eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 19–30. Wheatley G.H. (1991) Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education 75(1), 9–22. Wolpert L. (1992) The Unnatural Nature of Science. Faber & Faber, London. Woolgar S. (1986) On the alleged distinction between discourse and praxis. Social Studies of Science 16, 309–317.

64

3 HOW STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING AND TEACHING CAN OBSCURE THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE IN EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES AND WHY IT MATTERS Paul Ashwin

Introduction Student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) is an important corrective to traditional teachercentered approaches to learning and instruction. However, in this chapter I argue that it can obscure the educational character of teaching-learning processes by foregrounding students’ experiences of learning processes at the expense of a focus on the role of knowledge. Drawing on the conceptual work of Basil Bernstein, I argue that there are three aspects to this. First, it obscures the ways in which students are transformed by their engagement with knowledge; second, it obscures the importance of the subject knowledge expertise of teachers in higher education (HE); and third, it obscures the role of educational institutions in providing a context in which students can be transformed by their engagement with knowledge. I argue that as a whole, this lack of attention to knowledge can undermine the important role that universities play in making knowledge accessible to students.

Conceptual issues In this chapter, I consider the way in which SCLT characterizes teaching-learning processes in HE. This analysis is built around a particular view of the way in which we can gain an understanding of the social world. Briefly this view is that the complexity of the social world exceeds our capacity to know it and we can only develop an understanding of it by using concepts that simplify what is going on (see Ashwin 2009 for a full argument for this position and an exploration of different ways of simplifying teaching-learning interactions in HE). From this position, SCLT is a lens that we can use to understand what is going on in teaching-learning processes. There are also other ways that we can simplify these processes that would provide a different account of what is going on. It is important to be clear that 65

Paul Ashwin

the process of simplification means that different ways of simplifying teaching-learning processes focus on different aspects of teaching and learning processes. Different simplifications may overlap in some ways and contradict each other in other ways, which means that it is not possible to synthesize all simplifications together to create a full picture of what is going on. Attempts at such synthesis will lead to oversimplifications of teaching-learning processes. What we can do is to move between simplifications and ask what aspects of teaching-learning processes they foreground and what they put in the background. We can then consider what the consequences of using particular simplifications are: what do they help us to see that we were not able to see before, and what do they obscure by the ways in which they simplify teaching-learning processes?

How does SCLT simplify teaching-learning processes? In considering SCLT, it is important to be clear that it is not a recent phenomenon. Arguments that the learner should be at the center of the education process have been around for at least 250 years (Smith 2010; Taylor 2013). In HE, its origins tend to be seen as arising from the work of Carl Rogers (1951) and the argument that we cannot teach someone else only facilitate their learning (see Lea et al. 2003; Holmes 2004; O’Neill & McMahon 2005; Paris & Combs 2006; Macfarlane 2015; Sweetman 2017; Harju & Åkerblom 2017). Klemenčič (2017) argues that SCLT is best seen as a meta-concept that takes on particular meanings when associated with specific fields. She examines its different meanings as a pedagogic concept for individual learning, as a cultural frame for developing communities of learning, and as a lever for supporting learning systems. In this chapter, I consider how SCLT characterizes teaching-learning processes, which cuts across these three different fields and focuses on what elements of these processes are placed in the foreground when one considers them from the perspective of SCLT. SCLT’s characterization of teaching-learning processes in HE highlights four key elements of these processes (see Lea et al. 2003; Holmes 2004; O’Neill & McMahon 2005; Paris & Combs 2006; Biesta 2010; Macfarlane 2015; Sweetman 2017; Harju  & Åkerblom 2017). First, the central focus is on students’ active construction of learning. Second, the role of the teacher is to construct an environment that provides opportunities to meet the individual needs of the student and for them to work with other students. Third, this emphasizes the active choices of the student about what and how to learn and their responsibility for making these choices. Fourth, this involves a shift in power from the teacher to the student. If we consider this simplification, we can see that the aspects of the educational process that are highlighted are the student, the teacher, the relationship between student and the teacher, the environment in which they are located and other students located in that environment. The strengths of this simplification are that it recognizes the student and their learning as a key actor in the learning process. This is an important step in challenging an understanding of teaching-learning processes in which the student is treated as an object and the act of learning is seen as synonymous with the act of teaching. In other words, SCLT challenges the view that the student will learn whatever they are taught. Tagg (2019) refers to this as the “instructional paradigm” in which it is possible to work out what students have learned simply by counting the number of courses they have passed. However, while SCLT offers an important correction to these kinds of teacher-centered accounts of the teaching-learning processes, there are some important elements of the educational process that are left out of this simplification. In this chapter I will focus particularly on the way in which this characterization obscures the role of knowledge in the educational process. 66

Knowledge in educational processes

At this point it is worth commenting on the similarities and differences between the analysis in this chapter and McKenna and Quinn’s argument in Chapter 6. McKenna and Quinn identify three misconceptions related to SCLT: the lack of consideration of knowledge, a focus on the development of individual attributes at the expense of understanding students’ identities and the focus on students as customers that can develop when SCLT is taken up within neoliberal discourses. While there are overlaps in the focus of the argument in this chapter and that of McKenna and Quinn, particularly in relation to a focus on the importance of knowledge in the educational process, there is a difference in the underlying arguments. While McKenna and Quinn argue that they have identified three misconceptions of SCLT, the argument in this chapter is that the ways in which SCLT inevitably simplifies the educational process has the tendency to obscure the important role of knowledge in this process rather than this being a misconception of SCLT. I argue that in relation to knowledge, there are three key elements that are missing from this process of simplification. These are the central role that engagement with academic knowledge plays in the educational process, the importance of this knowledge in defining the expertise of teachers and the role that educational institutions play in providing access to this knowledge. The problem with casting knowledge into the background of the educational setting is that it limits our awareness of the ways in which knowledge changes as it moves through the educational process. Knowledge is key because it is what we seek to generate when we research, it is what we seek to give students access to when we teach, and it is what students seek to gain through their engagement with HE. In line with the preceding argument, a focus on knowledge in the educational process would require an alternative simplification of the educational process than that which is offered by SCLT. One simplification that usefully captures this way of thinking about knowledge is Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) notion of the “pedagogic device.” This brings together the contexts in which knowledge is produced through research, transformed into the curriculum of particular courses and then changed again as students develop their own understanding of that knowledge. It is important to be clear that for Bernstein the pedagogic device operates at the level of society rather than it being a device that is part of the pedagogic process. Thus it is about the ways in which societies produce research and the “distribution rules” that govern what counts as legitimate knowledge; the ways in which this knowledge is transformed into curriculum through “recontextualising rules”; and the ways in which these are transformed in pedagogic practices through the “evaluation rules” (Bernstein 1990, 2000). What is interesting in the context of HE is the way in which the work associated with all three sets of rules can take place within a single academic department (Ashwin 2009). In separating the ways in which knowledge is produced, transformed into curriculum, and understood by students, the pedagogic device can be seen as highlighting three different forms of knowledge: knowledge-as-research, knowledge-as-curriculum and knowledge-as-studentunderstanding (Ashwin 2014). What Bernstein makes clear is that the transformation of knowledge as it moves from each of these contexts is not simply based on the logic of knowledge itself. Rather these transformations are the sites of struggle in which different voices seek to impose particular versions of legitimate knowledge, curriculum and student understanding. It is important to be clear that the argument in this chapter is that Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) framing of the pedagogic device offers a way of foregrounding knowledge in the educational process. However, it is just as much of a simplification of the educational process as that which is offered by SCLT. So what is at stake in the argument in this chapter is not about which of these simplifications allows us to see more. The argument is rather about which of these simplifications allows us to attend best to educationally important issues when students are learning in HE. Equally, there are clearly other simplifications that could be used beyond the two that are 67

Paul Ashwin

considered here. Thus the overall intention of this chapter is to contribute to a discussion of which kinds of simplifications are most useful to think about particular kinds of questions rather than to propose the definitive way of understanding teaching-learning processes in HE (see Ashwin 2012 for a discussion of how this can contribute to theory development in HE research).

Review of the consequence of SCLT’s characterization of teaching-learning processes in higher education In this section, I review the issues that arise from the way in which knowledge is placed in the background of SCLT’s characterization of teaching-learning processes in HE. I argue that in underestimating the importance of knowledge in students’ engagement with their educational experience, teachers’ expertise, and the role of educational institutions, SCLT can be seen to undermine a commitment to HE as an educational enterprise. My argument is not that this is a necessary consequence of SCLT, but rather that it is a tendency that is supported by the unreflective use of the simplification of the educational process that is provided by SCLT.

SCLT and the underestimation of the educational importance of academic knowledge in teaching-learning processes in higher education As I argued earlier, the central focus of SCLT is on the active processes through which students construct their learning. This means that there is not an explicit focus on what students are learning. A similar process can be seen in the literature on student engagement in HE, where the issue of what students are engaging with is often left implicit. This is important, because as Ashwin and McVitty (2015) show, the meaning of student engagement changes when the object of student engagement changes. Similarly, the meaning of learning changes according to who is learning and what is being learned. This means that SCLT does not offer a rich sense of the process by which students develop an understanding of knowledge beyond describing it as an active process of construction that is shaped by the students’ previous understanding. The tendency to focus on the processes of learning rather than what is being learned is best illustrated by the tendency to describe the outcomes of HE in terms of generic skills or graduate attributes that students develop through their learning in HE. Rather than focusing on the knowledge that students’ gain from their engagement with HE, graduate attributes focus on the generic descriptions of the kinds of processes that graduates can engage with that are valued by employers and so will support individual prosperity and economic development. For example, Jackson (2014, pp. 220–221) argues: Enhancing the employability of graduating students features significantly in the strategic agenda of higher education providers worldwide. There has been a gradual shift in industry expectations of graduates from exhibiting academic expertise in a chosen discipline to a commercially aware candidate with a strong command of, and immediate ability to apply, a broad range of skills deemed essential in the workplace. While, at first, seeing the purpose of undergraduate education in terms of the development of generic skills might look convincing, it falls apart when we examine what this means in relation to specific skills. The issue here is that just because we can describe any process in generic terms, it does not mean that what is a stake in this process is meaningfully generic. After all, we can describe any social interaction in terms of as many generic skills that we have the imagination to construct. For example, Jackson (2014) identifies ten generic employability skills: 68

Knowledge in educational processes

working effectively with others; communicating effectively; self-awareness; thinking critically; analyzing data and using technology; problem-solving; developing initiative and enterprise; selfmanagement; social responsibility and accountability; and developing professionalism. It is quite possible to imagine a single interaction in which the practices of a student can be described in terms of all ten of these generic skills. However, if we do, it does not mean that the student has demonstrated all ten of these generic skills. This is because being able to describe particular practices in terms of particular generic skills is not the same as a student actually demonstrating these skills. A categorical error has been made in which a generic description of a practice has been mistaken for the demonstration of a generic skill. To look at this another way, we can take two of the skills listed by Jackson (2014): communication skills and problem-solving skills. In terms of communication skills, we can describe what is going on in different situations, at different times and in different locations in terms of communication skills. However, it does not follow that if a student is good at communicating in English, then they will also be good at communicating in Chinese. The same is true of problemsolving. If a student can solve a problem in chemistry, then it does not mean that they can solve a sociological problem. This is because skillful acts of communication or problem-solving require knowledge about the subject matter that is the focus of the act; knowledge of the situation the student is in, and knowledge of the people with whom the student is acting. Without such knowledge, these skills are simply empty descriptions of practices. Thus understanding the knowledge that students are engaged with and the understandings that they have developed of this knowledge are central to any educational understanding of their university experiences. The preceding discussion highlights how knowledge is important in understanding what students have gained from HE; knowledge also plays a crucial role in changing students’ understanding of themselves and the world. For example, in a longitudinal study examining how students studied sociology at university, Monica McLean, Andrea Abbas and I (see Ashwin et al. 2014, 2016, 2017; McLean et al. 2018) developed a rich sense of how engagement with sociological knowledge changed students’ sense of who they were and what they could do in the world. For example, one student told us: There is no destination with this discipline. . . . There is always something further and there is no point where you can stop and say “I understood, I am a sociologist.” . . . The thing is sociology makes you aware of every decision you make: how that would impact on my life and how it could impact on someone else. And it makes the decision harder to make. (quoted in Ashwin et al. 2014, p. 21) This quotation highlights how the student’s engagement with knowledge has changed her view of the world and her role in it. This relationship highlights the ways in which these skills are embedded in the knowledge of the discipline rather than being meaningfully generic. These kinds of changes happen in other subjects too. Table 3.1 shows studies from a range of disciplines that examined how university students’ understanding of knowledge change over time. The changes fall into three main stages. A basic account focuses only on the immediately visible aspects of the discipline; a middle “watershed” account in which students’ begin to focus on personal meaning; and a most inclusive account in which they go beyond personal meaning to see the discipline within a wider context. These changes give an insight into how engaging with knowledge at university changes students’ understanding of their disciplines, the world and themselves. This is a process that is so much more than the development of generic skills or the gaining of information. It is a process that fundamentally changes who students are and what they can achieve in the world. 69

Paul Ashwin Table 3.1 Structure of students’ accounts of different disciplines (adapted from Ashwin et al. 2014) Discipline

Studies

Least inclusive account

‘Watershed’ account

Most inclusive account

Mathematics

Wood et al. (2012) Sin et al. (2012) Reid et al. (2006) Reid (2001) Bradbeer et al. (2004) Stokes (2011)

Numbers

Models

Approach to life

Routine work Content

Meaningful work System

Moral work Extension of self

Instrument General world

Meaning Structured into parts

Communicating Interactions

Composition of earth – the earth

Processes – interacting systems

Relations – earth and society

Accountancy Law Music Geography Geoscience

These kinds of studies show that without a sense of the knowledge that students are engaged with, we cannot develop meaningful accounts of the educational processes that students are part of in HE. If knowledge is so important, this raises the question of why generic descriptions of these educational processes have become so dominant. The argument in this chapter is that SCLT’s focus on the learning processes is one reason for this, but there are others. For example, a great deal of research into teaching and learning in HE has tended to involve students from a range of disciplines rather than focusing on students’ learning in particular disciplines (see Entwistle 2018 for a discussion of the development of one of the fields of research that have informed our understanding in teaching and learning in HE). The argument here is that while generic descriptions can be useful to examine teaching-learning processes across different knowledge areas, it is important to remember to “bring the knowledge back in” (Young 2007) when we are discussing the educational processes in particular disciplines or degree courses in order to offer a meaningful account of their educational process.

SCLT and the underestimation of the importance of academic knowledge in teaching expertise As I discussed earlier, SCLT foregrounds the role of the teacher in constructing an environment that meets the needs of the student. There is an emphasis on their role as a facilitator of the students’ learning processes. The second consequence of SCLT’s simplification of teaching-learning processes is that it underplays the expertise of the teacher and in particular their expertise in making knowledge accessible to students. Holmes (2004) and Biesta (2010) argue that what they respectively refer to as “learnerism” and “learnification” of education has resulted in an over-focusing on the learning processes and the experiences of the individual learner rather than an understanding of the relationship between teachers and students. While a key part of these arguments are related to the ways in which this decontextualizes students as discussed by McKenna and Quinn in Chapter 6, this also has an impact on how we understand the educational role of the teacher. This is partly because, as Holmes (2004) and Biesta (2010) argue, there is a tendency to focus on the learning process without any sense of the purpose of that learning. Just as Brink (2018) argues that the discourse of excellence in HE encourages universities to focus on what they are good at rather than what they are good for, SCLT encourages us to focus on students’ learning but not what they are learning for. 70

Knowledge in educational processes

Holmes (2004) and Biesta (2010) argue that SCLT can be seen to imply that the responsibility for whether students have learned something or not is largely down to the student. SCLT can be seen to suggest that providing that students are active enough and the teacher does not place any obstacles in their way then they will be successful regardless of other factors. There are two important consequences of this. First, as Holmes (2004) argues, this gives SCLT an almost oppressive character with any failure in learning being due to the student being the wrong kind of learner or the teacher the wrong kind of teacher. Macfarlane (2015) further develops this argument and explores how SCLT demands that students offer public performances of their understanding rather than engaging in private contemplation. Macfarlane (2015) argues that students lose their right to silence and can be positioned as inappropriately passive if they prefer to work alone. There is also a tendency to underestimate and dismiss as irrelevant the discomfort that students can feel during class discussion. Second, the positioning of the teacher as a facilitator of learning, whose main job is not to get in the way of learning, undermines the importance of the subject knowledge expertise of the teacher and de-professionalizes them (Holmes 2004; Biesta 2010). In particular it loses a sense of what Lee Shulman (1986) termed “pedagogical content knowledge,” the knowledge of how to make particular kinds of academic knowledge accessible to particular students. Pedagogical content knowledge highlights that, while teaching can be usefully understood in terms of designing an environment for students, this environment has an educational intention within it. It is about designing ways in which particular students can develop an understanding of particular bodies of disciplinary and/or professional knowledge. This educational approach involves creating an environment in which students relate their identities to their disciplines/professions and the world and see themselves implicated in knowledge. Harju and Åkerblom (2017) show the importance of this teaching expertise in their exploration of how an SCLT innovation failed to operate in the way that was expected. An attempt to set up a student-led initiative faltered because the students involved wanted to frame their research projects in terms of the language of their everyday practices rather than the specialized language of the discipline that they were studying. The teacher needed to intervene because students’ everyday knowledge would not enable them to frame their research projects in ways that would allow them to demonstrate disciplinary understandings through these projects. Thus the subject expertise of the teacher was vital in understanding which ways of framing these projects would be educationally productive for the students. Overall, then SCLT’s characterization of the role of the teacher as being a facilitator of students’ learning underestimates the importance of pedagogical content knowledge in designing an environment in which students can have educationally rich experiences. The underestimation of the importance of teachers’ knowledge also can contribute to a situation in which the professionalism of teachers is undervalued.

SCLT and the underestimation of the importance of educational institutions As well as underestimating teaching expertise, the simplification that is offered by SCLT also puts the importance of educational institutions into the background. In fact, Holmes (2004) argues that this goes beyond putting them in the background and encourages an understanding of teaching and learning in which institutions are positioned in opposition to the natural process of learning. Rather than being understood as providing students with a thoughtfully designed context in which they can develop powerful relationships to knowledge, educational institutions are instead positioned as an authoritarian imposition which simply gets in the way of students’ 71

Paul Ashwin

ability to meet their needs as learners. This can lead to educators and institutions being caught in a trap, where if they resist changes toward SCLT, then this is taken as further evidence of their inflexibility and how they distort the “natural” process of learning. Thus any resistance to the idea of SCLT is read as a signal of an even greater need for a shift to SCLT rather than as a principled concern about a distortion of the educational process. Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) conceptualization of the pedagogic device offers an alternative characterization of the role of educational institutions. It highlights the importance of institutions providing a context in which different actors can come together in order to generate curricula. These processes can be conflictual and are not always inclusive, but Bernstein (1990, 2000) highlights how the construction of curricula is a necessary part of the educational process. Knowledge needs to be transformed from knowledge-as-research to knowledge-as-curriculum and is then transformed again by students as it becomes knowledge-as-student-understanding. These processes of transformation cannot happen without educational institutions. This is important because a lack of a sense of how institutions are central to the production of these different forms of knowledge can undermine a commitment to formal educational processes. A clear example of this is offered by those who argue that the main role of undergraduate degrees is to signal to employers that graduates are worth employing (Wolf 2002; Caplan 2018). Under this view, mass HE is seen as a waste of resources because it simply leads to previously non-graduate jobs being defined as graduate jobs without any increase in the quality of the practices of those undertaking these jobs. This view can only gain purchase if we lose sight of the role of educational institutions in transforming and providing access to specialized knowledge. We can see this in Caplan’s (2018) argument “against education.” He argues that there is no societal need for formal education because all knowledge can be meaningfully accessed from the Internet and that people’s failure to do so shows that they are simply not interested in gaining access to this knowledge. This highlights how the underestimation of how students are changed by their engagement with knowledge, the underestimation of the expertise of the teacher in designing an environment in which this engagement can be effectively supported, and the underestimation of the importance of educational institutions in providing a context in which knowledge is transformed into curricula can come together to undermine a commitment to the entire educational process.

Bringing together students, teachers, institutions and knowledge Thus the outcome of this analysis is that rather than centering the student in the educational process, we need to understand how HE brings students into relationship with knowledge, the role that teachers play in designing programs that encourage this to happen, and the role of institutions in providing a context in which the curriculum for these programs is transformed from knowledge-as-research to knowledge-as-curriculum and is transformed again into knowledge-asstudent-understanding. This highlights that the educational process involves the design of curricula that are focused on providing students with access to disciplinary and/or professional knowledge that will transform their sense of who they are and what they can do in the world. To do this, educators need to have a clear sense of who their students are, how the knowledge they will give them access to is powerful, and who it will enable their students to become in the wider lives as well as in their careers. It is clear that students might change in ways that their university teachers do not expect, but their teachers should have a sense of what they are intending to achieve by giving students access to this knowledge. In other words, they have a responsibility as educators to know how they think students will benefit by studying with them. It is also important to be clear that this is demanding work – it does not always work – and teachers need to continually collect, analyze 72

Knowledge in educational processes

and discuss evidence with their colleagues about how well their approaches to curriculum design and teaching are working (Ashwin et al. 2015). This role is so much more than being a facilitator of learning. It requires students to be active participants in the learning process in the ways described by SCLT, but it also requires teachers who have a rich understanding of how to make knowledge accessible to the particular students that they teach, and educational institutions which can provide a context in which curricula can be produced and students educated.

Conclusions In this chapter, I have shown how SCLT provides an account of teaching-learning processes that obscures the importance of knowledge within the educational process. I have also shown how this can lead to accounts of teaching and learning in HE that fail to take account of the ways in which students are transformed by their engagement with knowledge, that fail to value the importance of teachers’ understanding of how to make this knowledge accessible to students, and that fail to appreciate the crucial role that educational institutions play in providing a context for these processes to occur. It is important to be clear that the argument here is not that this is what SCLT intends to do. It is rather an unintended consequence of the aspects of the educational process that are foregrounded in the SCLT account of students’ experiences of learning in HE.

References Ashwin P. (2009) Analysing Teaching-Learning Interactions in Higher Education: Accounting for Structure and Agency. Continuum, London. Ashwin P. (2012) How often are theories developed through empirical research in higher education? Studies in Higher Education 37, 941–955. Ashwin P. (2014) Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding. Higher Education 67, 123–126. Ashwin P. & McVitty D. (2015) The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In The European Higher Education Area. (Curaj A., Matei L., Pricopie R., Salmi J. & Scott P., eds.), Springer International Publishing, pp. 343–359. Ashwin P., Abbas A. & McLean M. (2014) How do students’ accounts of sociology change over the course of their undergraduate degrees? Higher Education 67, 219–234. Ashwin P., Abbas A. & McLean M. (2016) Conceptualising transformative undergraduate experiences: A phenomenographic exploration of students’ personal projects. British Educational Research Journal 42(6), 962–977. Ashwin P., Abbas A. & McLean M. (2017) How does completing a dissertation transform undergraduate students’ understandings of disciplinary knowledge? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(4), 517–530. Ashwin P., Boud D., Coate K., Hallett F., Keane E., Krause K.L., Leibowitz B., McCune V., MacLaren I. & McArthur J. (2015) Reflective Teaching in Higher Education. Bloomsbury, London. Bernstein B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse: Volume IV Class, Codes and Control. Routledge, London. Bernstein B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research and Critique (Revised ed.). Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Oxford. Biesta G. (2010) Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Routledge, London. Bradbeer J., Healey M.  & Kneale P. (2004) Undergraduate geographers’ understandings of geography, learning and teaching: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 28, 17–34. Brink C. (2018) The Soul of a University: Why Excellence is not Enough. Policy Press, Bristol. Caplan B. (2018) The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Entwistle N. (2018) Student Learning and Academic Understanding: A Research Perspective with Implications for Teaching. Academic Press, London. Harju A. & Åkerblom A. (2017) Colliding collaboration in student-centred learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 42(8), 1532–1544.

73

Paul Ashwin Holmes L. (2004) Challenging the learning turn in education and training. Journal of European Industrial Training 28(8/9), 625–638. Jackson D. (2014) Testing a model of undergraduate competence in employability skills and its implications for stakeholders. Journal of Education and Work 27(2), 220–242. Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 30(1), 69–85. Lea S.J., Stephenson D. & Troy J. (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334. Macfarlane B. (2015) Student performativity in higher education: Converting learning as a private space into a public performance. Higher Education Research & Development 34(2), 338–350. McLean M., Abbas A.  & Ashwin P. (2018) Quality in Undergraduate Education: How Powerful Knowledge Disrupts Inequality. Bloomsbury, London. O’Neill G. & McMahon T. (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers. In Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. (O’Neill G., Moore S. & McMullin B., eds.), AISHE, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 27–36. Paris C. & Combs B. (2006) Lived meanings: What teachers mean when they say they are learner-centered. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12(5), 571–592. Reid A. (2001) Variation in the ways that instrumental and vocal students experience learning music. Music Education Research 3, 25–40. Reid A., Nagarajan V. & Dortins E. (2006) The experience of becoming a legal professional. Higher Education Research & Development 25, 85–99. Rogers C.R. (1951) Client-centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Shulman L. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teachers. Educational Researcher 15(2), 4–14. Sin S., Reid A. & Jones A. (2012) An exploration of students’ conceptions of accounting work. Accounting Education: An International Journal 21, 323–340. Smith T. (2010) Rousseau and Pestalozzi, Emile Gertrude and experiential education. In Sourcebook of Experiential Education: Key Thinkers and Their Contributions. (Smith T.  & Knapp C., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 26–31. Stokes A. (2011) A phenomenographic approach to investigating students’ conceptions of geoscience as an academic discipline. In Qualitative Enquiry in Geoscience Education Research: Geological Society of America Special Paper 474. (Feig A.  & Stokes A., eds.), Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 23–35. Sweetman R. (2017) HELOs and student centred learning–where’s the link? European Journal of Education 52(1), 44–55. Tagg J. (2019) The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education is Hard to Change, and How to Change it. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Taylor J.A. (2013) What is student centredness and is it enough? International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 4(2), 39. Wolf A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth. Penguin, London. Wood L., Petocz P.  & Reid A. (2012) Becoming a Mathematician: An International Perspective. Springer, Dordrecht. Young M. (2007) Bringing Knowledge Back in: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Routledge, London.

74

4 LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HARMONY WITH THE BRAIN Insights from neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

The beginnings of student-centered teaching In 1995 John Tagg and Bob Barr wrote the seminal article, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,” published in Change: The Magazine for Higher Learning. In the article, the authors laid out the foundation for what was to become student- (or learner-) centered teaching. Their idea was simple. Only one thing matters: did the students learn what the teacher wanted them to learn? Teaching is about developing the best ways to help students learn, not the best ways to cover content. At the same time, University of Oregon Professor of Education Robert Sylwester was authoring a book titled A Celebration of Neurons: An Educators Guide to the Human Brain (1995). His was the first book written for a general teaching audience about how the human brain learns and what that learning process means in terms of changing the way we teach. Sylwester discusses how neuroscientists are using a brain scanning process called functional magnetic resonance imagining (fMRI) to discover what parts of the human brain are involved in many different learning and memory processes. Sylwester pointed out that prior to the use of fMRI, educational research was closer to “folklore” than science because we could not look inside the brain to see what was happening when a student takes in, processes and retrieves new information. His book began a national discussion about how the brain learns. The following section provides an overview of fMRI technology and its applications for teaching and learning. After that, Professor Maryellen Weimer’s five elements of a learnercentered approach that she laid out in her book on learner-centered teaching will be introduced. The last section will introduce a definition of student- (or learner-)centered teaching.

fMRI and understanding how the brain learns For nearly 150 years, attempts have been made by scientists to understand the association between the anatomical structure of the brain and its function, that is what areas of the brain are involved in various behaviors such as learning, memory, vision, fear and emotion. Recent advances in technology have allowed a greater understanding of the workings of the human 75

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

brain beyond that gleaned from behavioral studies and anecdotal evidence from medical cases. One of these technologies is functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI. fMRI is a technique used to measure neural activity by detecting changes in blood flow to a given area of the brain. The concept behind fMRI, first defined by Ogawa et al. (1990), is that neural activity and neural blood flow are closely coupled. Thus, when an area of the brain is activated it increases its energy demand, and to meet the metabolic demand, blood flow to that area of the brain is increased. This change in blood flow, termed the “hemodynamic response” brings oxygen rich or “oxygenated” hemoglobin (the oxygen carrier protein within red blood cells) to the area. The changes in blood flow and the relationship of oxygenated/deoxygenated hemoglobin are termed the blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) contrast. These measurements allow for localized, real-time, non-invasive measurements of the brain during various stimulus presentations to allow researchers to determine which areas of the brain are active during a given task, or stimulus presentation (Ogawa et al. 1990). While fMRI can be used to study any number of neural activities, this technology is a powerful tool for the study of learning and memory. Previously, any direct investigations into the activation of brain areas in response to stimuli in humans were conducted with direct electrical stimulation of brain areas on patients requiring neural surgery for unrelated conditions such as epilepsy or brain tumor (Van Buren et al. 1978; Berger et al. 1989; Formaggio et al. 2013). With the advent of techniques such as fMRI, researchers now have a tool at their disposal that allows for non-invasive, real-time investigations of which brain areas are involved in various cognitive tasks in awake, healthy subjects (Lim et al. 2018). fMRI has been used to study learning and memory in a vast array of different paradigms. Including using fMRI to determine the association between brain areas and spatial learning tasks in immersive virtual reality environments (Wong et al. 2014), the role of consciousness and attention in learning (Meuwese et al. 2014), procedural learning and associative memory in a visual learning context (Manelis & Reder 2012) and many other learning paradigms. fMRI may be used during the entirety of the exposure to novel stimuli and subsequent testing phases, and thus would include imaging of the acquisition of new data, the integration of said data into previously learned data, transference from working to short-term to long-term memory and the recall or recognition of the previously novel stimuli (Kazura et al. 2014). While fMRI can be a powerful tool for studying learning and memory, a recent review by Karuza et al. 2014 notes that the majority of studies have focused on the outcome of learning as opposed to the acquisition phases of learning. Determining the association between brain areas and recognition and/or recall is important to the overall understanding of learning but it does not directly tell you if those same areas are also associated with the acquisition and integration phases of learning. As data from the wide array of studies, utilizing fMRI to investigate the activation of brain areas during learning and memory tasks in a variety of contexts, continues to amass it will become more and more possible to use these data to establish normal patterns of learning and memory acquisition, integration, storage and retrieval. Furthermore, it will become possible to evaluate when an individual varies from these normal patterns. These variances from normal patterns may serve not only to educate the field on the ways in which cognitive processes are altered in pathological states but may also potentially inform treatment paradigms to restore normal functioning (Sherwood et al. 2016).

Weimer sets in motion the student-centered movement It took another seven years after Tagg and Barr’s article for the first comprehensive book on student-centered teaching to be published. In 2002, Professor Maryellen Weimer wrote 76

Learning in harmony with the brain

Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, in which she detailed the five elements she saw as part of a learner-centered approach. First, the teacher’s role had to change from the giver of information to the facilitator of learning. Teachers’ responsibilities were not to cover the content but to create the best opportunities for students to have successful learning experiences. This was at the time a very radical idea. College was still seen as a sink-or-swim proposition for students. Second, there needed to be a sharing of power in the learning process. Weimer strongly suggested that students required some say in what was happening to them in their courses. The idea of power sharing was based on the belief that: 1

2

It is part of human nature to desire (some) control over what is happening to us. With control comes greater comfort to actively engage in the experience and greater trust in the experience. Students can’t learn to make good decisions and take on more responsibility if they are never given any choices or responsibility for their learning. Weimer pointed out that teachers control virtually every decision that impacts students’ learning.

Third, the function of content was to facilitate the development of lifelong learning and thinking skills as much as to build knowledge and understanding of the content itself. The Internet was emerging which provided access to content in ways previously unavailable. Teachers were no longer the sole source of content. Finding information, judging the quality of knowledge, and using knowledge to solve new problems were vital skills that students needed. Fourth, the students needed to take on a new set of responsibilities for their own learning. Neuroscience research has taught us that “it is the one who does the work who does the learning” (Doyle & Zakrajsek 2013, p.  7), so students needed to do more of the reading, writing, researching, and problem-solving if they were to become well educated. Fifth, the evaluation process used to measure learning needed to change. Learning was defined in 1994 by Robert Bjork at UCLA as the ability to use information after significant periods of disuse and to be able to transfer that information to solve new problems. This meant evaluations needed to be more expansive, measuring things like application of knowledge and skills, longer-term recall, problem-solving and thinking processes. Multiple forms of evaluations reflected a clearer picture of what the learner had learned.

Definition of student- (learner-)centered teaching Although there are multiple ways to define a student-centered approach to teaching, two elements are part of every definition. First, all teaching actions are designed and implemented to work in harmony with how the brain learns. This means teachers must continually seek to update their understanding of how the brain takes in, processes and retrieves information and the various factors that affect these processes. Without this understanding, teaching actions are just “best guesses” of how to effectively teach. The second element recognizes that the context of a teaching situation (time of day, number of students, academic readiness of the students, etc.) affect the teaching actions that can be successfully used. The key is to design teaching actions that optimize the opportunities for students to be successful, given the reality of the teaching situation. Each teaching situation is different and what can be effective with 20 students is often very difficult to do with 70 and impossible to do with 500. Figuring out what teaching actions work best is what makes an effective studentcentered approach. 77

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

What do we know about how students learn? In this section we explore how the brain learns from its initial encounter with new information to making that new information a more permanent part of memory.

Definition of learning The New York Academy of Sciences defines learning at the cellular level as a process of neurological change. As we absorb new skills and information, neurons form new connections and prune back others, and the brain recalibrates its networks and activity patterns. Each new learning experience changes the brain’s neuro connections, but whether the new connections become long-term memories depends on a variety of other actions by the learner. These actions include the use and practice of the new learning, especially over extended time periods, and proper sleep to stabilize the new information. Using Bjork’s (1994) definition of learning described on page 77, if a student can’t retrieve the new learning when they need it and apply the new learning to new situations, then learning has not taken place. Student-centered teaching is about designing and implementing teaching actions that produce long-term recall and the application of the new learning to new problems and situations.

Emotion and initial learning In this chapter we are making a distinction between initial learning, in which a new skill or information is understood and connected to prior knowledge, and learning that is more permanent, as defined by Bjork (1994). Squire and Kandel’s research (2000) showed that the more detailed, elaborate and emotional the learner can make the initial encounter with the new information, the better the chance of later recall because the same neural pathways used to process new learning are used to store it. So the more robust the initial moments of learning, the more connections that can be made to prior knowledge leading to increased memory pathways. For teachers, this means providing detailed and elaborated material that has an emotional context or personal emotional connection to the student. A 2014 study by psychologist Danielle McNamara showed clearly that although effort, intelligence and attention are key elements of learning, prior knowledge is the most important player in a student’s understanding of and connection to new learning. The more prior knowledge the greater likelihood that the brain will find a meaningful connection for the new learning and later recall the information. In fact, during sleep the brain will search every memory a student has ever made to find connections for the new learning (Walker 2017). Neuroscientist Lauri Nummenmaa in her 2014 research said when teachers engage the emotions of their learners, they create a synchronization that automatically allocates everyone’s attention in the same direction by generating a similar psychological state that prompts us to view and act in a similar manner. This ability for teachers to use emotion to connect with learners is among the most important skills a student-centered teacher can develop. In addition, the emotional connection also creates a physiological state of connection between the teacher and the learners which will make it more likely for students process the new information as the teacher sees it (Nummenmaa et al. 2014). The human brain evolved to see emotional information as something that is important. Students need to see content as something that will benefit them, otherwise their brains are designed to avoid things that can do them harm, waste their time or not be relevant or useful (Sharot 2017). 78

Learning in harmony with the brain

Making new learning more permanent It takes a lot longer than most people think for new learning to become a permanent part of the brain’s memory. This section explains what kinds of actions are needed to move new information from its fragile state when initially learned to a more permanent part of long-term memory.

Understanding memory at the cellular level Memory comes in two distinct forms, explicit (declarative) memory and implicit (non-declarative memory). The former is memory for facts, events, places, people and objects while the latter is for perceptual awareness and motor skills (Kandel et al. 2014). While short-term memory formation occurs from changes at the synapse, long-term memory formation requires changes at the genetic level. First, there is a modification of existing proteins and signals are sent from the synapse to the nucleus of the cells (the storage location of DNA) to initiate the expression of specific genes. When expressed, these genes code for messenger RNA (mRNA) sequences which are a form of code used by the cell to produce proteins. These mRNAs are then transported back to the synapse where they can be read and translated to initiate new protein synthesis. This sequence of events leads to the remodeling, formation or elimination of synaptic connections between neurons (Kandel et al. 2014; Bailey 1996; Kandel 2001; Bourne & Harris 2008, 2011; Bailey et al. 2015). The alterations in the structural components of synapses underlying synaptic plasticity are a representation at the cellular level of the consolidation of both implicit and explicit memory (Bailey & Kandel 1993; Bourne & Harris 2008; Bailey et al. 2015).

Distributed practice Humans have approximately 86 billion neurons (Herculano-Houzel  & Lent 2005), and each neuron can form up to 10,000 connections with other neurons, meaning the brain can have somewhere around 40 quadrillion (40,000,000,000,000,000) total connections (Ratey 2001). Our brains are adapting all the time, with unused connections fading away and new connections and networks being formed when new information is learned. To form lasting memories, practice typically needs to happen over extended periods of time. Psychologists have long studied this phenomenon called the distributed practice effect (Aaron & Tullis 2010; Ebbinghaus 1913). This building and strengthening can take many forms, but the process is similar in that distributed practice is crucial to learning. Just like building muscle takes time, new learning must be practiced repeatedly over extended periods of time to become a strong memory. When frequently activated and practiced, these new networks have the potential to form long-term memories. In fact, every time students practice newly learned information or skills the connections between the brain cells get stronger and the ability to recall the information also becomes easier and faster. At the level of neurons, this process of establishing and then maintaining the memory is called “long-term potentiation” (Ratey 2001). As a result of long-term potentiation, something that was at one time new and took much effort becomes routine and very easy.

Elaboration of new learning In addition to practice, new information that is elaborated using multiple senses has a much greater chance of becoming permanent. Daniel Schacter in his book the Seven Sins of Memory 79

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

makes the case that whether we like it or not, our memories are at the mercy of our elaborations (Schacter 2001). The more ways in which a learner uses information (like singing, reading, writing, drawing, discussing etc.), the more memory pathways are established. So if one cue (like a test question) doesn’t trigger one pathway, it may likely trigger another, leading to recall. When learners elaborate their new learning, they are optimizing their chances for later recall. Some examples of elaboration include annotating text material, drawing cognitive maps, taking notes from text material, and using note cards for study.

Wanting to remember A third way in which new learning is made more permanent is through sleep. Memories are made when the hippocampus (where working memory is located) sends important information to the more stable prefrontal cortex areas of the brain for safekeeping (Walker 2017). This happens during sleep. Only the memories that learners tell the brain are important to keep get sent on for safekeeping. Learners tell the brain through their actions. Information that is practiced, elaborated and repeated sends a message to the brain that it is important and should be kept. The brain removes all other information not designated as important. This clearing away of unimportant information (sensory inputs) is what allows the hippocampus to be ready to learn new things each new day (Mander et al. 2011). The significance of this clearing away process is that a student who did everything right to optimize their initial learning, engaged in class, took notes and left with an understanding of the new learning but waited until test time to study unfortunately will have formed no memories for this new learning. No message was sent to the brain that the material was important and should be kept, thus the brain made no memories for this material. As a result, the students will not be studying for the test but relearning material for the test. Learning can be hard work. What neuroscience researchers have made clear is that learning is an active process that takes work. The more work learners do, the stronger the connections in the brain and the more likely the new learning will become a more permanent memory.

Stress and students’ learning For decades scientists have known that long-term stress adversely affects the ability to learn and remember. Only recently was it discovered that even minor stressful events, lasting only a short time, interfere with student’s ability to learn and remember. Acute stress activates selective corticotropin-releasing hormones (CRHs), which disrupts the process by which the brain collects and stores memories (Baram et al. 2008). The best way for students to protect themselves from the hazards of stress is to exercise and sleep well. A 2012 study shows that aerobic exercise actually helps the brain repair the damage done from stress and protects the brain from the harmful effects of stress (Ebdrup 2012). Practices like studying regularly over time which can lead to greater confidence in being able to recall what has been learned is a great defense against stress.

How to teach in harmony with the brain – section one There are many teaching actions that can be used to teach in harmony with the brain. In section one of this discussion we explore the need to get more movement into the learning process and the powerful effect the use of emotion has on improving students’ learning. These two processes of movement and emotion are among the most important aspects of helping students learn in harmony with their brains. 80

Learning in harmony with the brain

What teachers control and don’t control about the learning process Successfully facilitating students’ learning is a remarkable accomplishment given the dozens of factors that can negatively impact learning, none of which teachers control. For example, teachers have no say over a student’s diet or when they eat, even though eating produces glucose, the energy source the brain needs for learning. Teachers don’t control if students hydrate so their memory functions as it is intended to, or if they exercise, which might be the most powerful way to improve learning, or if they sleep enough, the key to memory formation and readiness for new learning (Walker 2017). Teachers also have no say about their students’ living environment or external stressors. What teachers do control and what is at the heart of a student-centered teaching practice is first, their emotional readiness to teach. Their passion for their subject and for helping students to learn can so influence their learners that they become willing participants in the learning process (Nummenmaa 2014). Second, teachers control the development of the learning activities and assessments. This means the teacher can create learning experiences that actively engage the learner, challenge the learner, and help the learner to reach their potential. Third, teachers control the feedback they give to students and the specificity and timing of that feedback which plays such an important role in students’ learning. Finally, teachers control the level of respect they have for their students and their availability to students who are seeking help. Teachers also control their willingness to reach out to students in need and encourage them to seek help. Support for the positive impact teachers can have on students comes from a 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index survey of 30,000 college graduates that found the most important combination of factors in a successful college experience were: 1 2 3

A professor who cared about me as a person; A professor who made me excited about learning; Finding a mentor who encouraged me to pursue my dreams.

Movement and learning Though a great deal of our evolutionary history remains clouded in controversy, one thing anthropologists and paleoanthropologists agree on is that humans were constantly on the move. Anthropologist Richard Wrangham (2009) says a few hundred thousand years ago, men moved about 10–20 kilometers a day and women moved about half of that a day. The human brain developed while in almost constant motion (Medina 2008). Our brains are simply better at learning when they are in motion than when sitting. In some very significant ways schools have had it wrong for 200 years. While sitting at desks is practical for taking notes, it is not nearly as effective as walking about would be to learn the new material. There are several easy ways to get students moving while they are learning. For example, have students do walking discussion groups. In the same way that traditional class group discussions take place, 4–5 students in a group, several questions to answer sitting in a classroom, just have the groups get up and walk around campus (or the hallways in winter), stopping to write their answers but all the while moving, breathing and using their brains. Another easy way to get movement is to do station-to-station exploration of work students have completed, much like a poster session at a conference. Classrooms can also be equipped with furniture that allows for movement. The use of balance balls or desks with mini bikes underneath them allow for continuous peddling while learning. 81

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

How to teach in harmony with the brain – section two Among the most important teaching actions is the ability to gain and keep students’ attention. Humans only learn what they pay attention to. In this section we discuss the various types of attention, the role prior knowledge plays in learning and the vital role feedback plays in improving learning.

Getting and keeping attention Can I have your attention? You might really want to pay attention to this. For teachers these are common utterances. Teachers know that getting and holding students’ attention is a significant part of the learning process. In fact, the brain only learns what it pays attention to and when it comes to new learning, it can only pay attention to one thing at a time. The human brain is wired to attend to whatever is most interesting at a given time and to hold that attention until something causes the attention to shift. The amount of time before a person shifts attention is largely determined by past experiences. The human brain is wired after birth by all the experiences that it encounters. Because each of us has a unique set of experiences our brains are all wired differently. This wiring process directly influences the attention span. If your students are under the age of 30, they have lived their entire life in a media-based culture that is full of short bits of information (music videos, text messages, tweets etc.) that have wired their brains to deal with information that comes at them for shorter time periods.

Defining attention Attention has many different meanings, and there are many different ways to pay attention. In this section we discuss these variations and detail what kinds of attention are needed for effective learning. But what exactly does it mean to “pay attention”? It turns out there is disagreement among researchers about what is meant by the concept of attention. The problem comes in determining the kind of attention being used. The literature on attention refers to focused attention; very short, perhaps only a few seconds in duration and usually refers to attending to an immediate need like answering the phone. This kind of attention has changed little in humans over time. The literature also refers to sustained attention, which is the ability to work on a task over an extended period (Dawson & Medler 2009). This is the kind of attention most students need for academic success. This is the attention span that has shortened considerably in recent years. Finally, there is effortful attention which is often needed to study or participate in class. This type of attention is described in the dual-process model of attention and action control theory. It means to be successful, you have to increase your effort in direct relation to the demands for the control of attention (Osman 2004). Essentially, as the skills or learning tasks get more difficult, students need to pay more attention to understand and learn the material.

Keeping students’ attention The human brain constantly prioritizes, which means to make learning a priority over all the other things that students could be doing or thinking about teachers must make a clear case for why this learning should matter. There are several keys to keeping students’ attention. The first is having clearly stated rationales for why the information is valuable, meaningful and useful. Teachers must have an answer for the question, “why do we have to learn this?” 82

Learning in harmony with the brain

Second, the learning process needs to be active and engaging. The more students are doing something like discussing, sharing, role-playing, writing and solving problems, the greater likelihood they will attend to the learning. Third, the human brain likes novelty. Introducing new and different learning activities and doing unexpected things are effective ways to keep attention. Finally, a very powerful lesson for paying attention to their learning can come from sharing the list of skills and knowledge employers want in college graduates. These skills usually include writing and reading skillfully, scientific understanding and technical/computer skills, problem-solving and critical thinking, effective communication skills, playing well with others and being ethical in one’s behaviors. When answering the question “why do we have to learn this?” these expectations of employers go a long way to proving a clear and effective answer.

Multitasking and attention It is almost like a badge of honor to say that you are a multitasker in today’s world. It’s kind of like being a superhero of brain power. The only problem is that multitasking is much more complex than students realize. In cases in which the brain needs to process information, such as reading, listening in class or being part of a discussion, it is not possible to attend to two tasks at the same time (Foerde et al. 2006). Multitasking violates everything scientists know about how memory works. Imaging studies indicated that the memory tasks and the distraction stimuli engage different parts of the brain and that these regions compete when students try to multitask, causing both tasks to be disrupted (ibid.). The brain works hard to fool us into thinking it can process information from more than one source at a time. It can’t. When trying to do two things at once, the brain temporarily shuts down one task while trying to do the other (Dux et al. 2006).

Checking prior knowledge As stated earlier in the chapter, research by McNamara indicated how important prior knowledge is in the learning process. Given the problems students will experience when they lack the prior knowledge necessary to make connections to new learning, it is vital that teachers develop ways to assess prior knowledge and to remediate deficits whenever possible. The assessment process can take the form of a pretest, a questionnaire, or a written response to key questions about the prior knowledge. Another approach is to give the students an outline of the prior knowledge that the teacher assumes the students have based on previous course work and suggestions on how to fill in missing gaps in their background. These suggestions might include tutoring, attending a session the teacher is offering to fill in the gaps or online resources. One powerful way to connect to student’s prior knowledge is by using analogies, metaphors, example and stories. These tools help teachers to draw connections to prior knowledge that students may not even realize are related to their new learning.

Feedback At the heart of a student-centered teaching practice is giving a great deal of feedback to learners. Feedback comes in multiple forms. Feedback from the teacher to the student on tests, papers, presentations, properly needs to be added before hydrating or questions answered. But feedback also includes peer-to-peer feedback and student self-evaluation using rubrics and criteria designed in collaboration with students. All of these forms of feedback will be explored in this section. 83

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

Feedback to learners It is simply not possible for students to improve in many areas of their learning without clear and specific feedback as to what they did wrong or left out, or why their thinking process was incomplete or misguided. It is also vital that they know what they did right so they can continue those practices, and research on feedback suggests that the sooner the better (Timperley & Hattie 2007). A test returned the next day when the questions are still fresh in the students’ minds has a much greater likelihood to reinforce what was done right in the test preparation or to make clear what might need to be changed to improve on the next test. One lesson that many teachers have painfully learned is that students don’t always read or act on the feedback they receive. To correct this, teachers may want to require students to attend to the feedback by asking for a brief written summary of the feedback including how the student intends to use it to improve in the future, also making clear to students that their grade on the next paper or presentation will in part depend on the student making the changes the feedback suggested. Another effective way to have students gain feedback is having students critique each other’s work and provide feedback on the pluses and minuses of the work. The value of this process is significantly enhanced when a rubric is provided that guides the peer review. Teachers need to be careful not to ask students to give feedback on things they are clearly not trained to do.

Student self-evaluation Self-evaluation is defined as students judging the quality of their work, based on evidence and explicit criteria, for the purpose of doing better work in the future (Rolheiser & Ross 1999). When we teach students how to assess their own progress, and when they do so against known and challenging quality standards, a great deal of learning can take place. Perhaps just as important, students like to evaluate their work (ibid., p. 1). Rolheiser and Ross report in their summary of the research about self-evaluation that research indicates that self-evaluation plays a key role in fostering an upward-cycle of learning. When students evaluate their performance positively, self-evaluations encourage students to set higher goals and commit more personal resources or effort to them (Rolheiser & Ross 1999).

Helping students prepare their brains for learning One of the most important new insights into how the human brain learns is that it needs to be ready to learn if it is to work at its best. Students who show up to class without proper sleep, without regular exercise, and without eating or hydrating will experience much greater difficulty in paying attention, processing information and recalling information from memory (Norman 2012; Walker 2017). The problem is that most students do not understand how to prepare their brains for learning and what a significant impact being unprepared has on academic success. One key to being an effective student-centered educator is informing students about how to prepare their brains for learning. There are four key areas described later. A more comprehensive look at how students need to prepare themselves for learning can be found in the book The New Science of Learning by Doyle and Zakrajsek (2019).

Diet The human brain uses 25%–30% of the body’s energy – in the form of glucose – every day (Armstrong 2017). This means that if students don’t have a healthy diet and eat regular, 84

Learning in harmony with the brain

balanced  meals, they can starve their brains of the energy they need to function properly, causing the brain to work much less efficiently. A brain starved for glucose is unprepared to learn, meaning more effort with less result. The brain does much better if the blood glucose level can be held relatively stable throughout the day. To do this, students need to avoid simple carbohydrates containing sugar and white flour (e.g., pastries, white bread, and pasta). Rely instead on the complex carbohydrates found in fruits, whole grains, and vegetables. Protein is also important; instead of starting the day with a soft drink or an energy drink and a donut, try a breakfast of protein like eggs and complex carbs like multigrain toast with juice, coffee or water (Hallowell 2005).

Hydration In addition to the brain needing food it also needs to stay hydrated. Neurons store water in tiny balloon-like structures called vacuoles. Water is essential for optimal brain health and function. Water is necessary for the brain’s cognitive processes to work at their most efficient and effective levels (Masento et al. 2014). Dehydration often leads to fatigue, dizziness, poor concentration, and reduced cognitive abilities. Even mild levels of dehydration have been shown to negatively impact school performance (Norman 2012). Staying properly hydrated throughout the day is a bit of a balancing act. Although too little water can make thinking and learning difficult, too much water can be harmful (Kim 2012). The best advice is for students to drink when thirsty and to drink water whenever possible and eat foods that are high in water composition (e.g., watermelon, grapes, and raw fruits).

Exercise Almost everyone understands the value of exercise, especially aerobic exercise in terms of overall health. What is less well known is that exercise has been shown time and again to have positive effects on human learning. Mark Tarnopolsky, a genetic metabolic neurologist at McMasters University, has gone so far as to claim, “If there were a drug that could do for human health what exercise can, it would likely be the most valuable pharmaceutical ever developed” (as cited by Oaklander 2016, para. 7). Harvard psychiatrist and author John Ratey in his book Spark: The Revolutionary Science of Exercise and the Brain, reveals that when humans exercise (aerobic levels are best), specific neurochemicals and proteins, messengers of the brain, are released in greater amounts. These chemicals and proteins improve the ability of humans to take in, process, and remember new information and skills. Exercise strengthens the cellular machinery of learning by producing greater quantities of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which gives neurons the tools they need to take in information, process it, associate, remember it and put it in context (Ratey 2008, p. 45). BDNF improves every aspect of the learning process at the cellular level. Ratey calls BDNF “Miracle Gro for the Brain” (ibid.). UCLA neuroscientist Fernando Gómez-Pinilla’s research has also noted that a brain low on BDNF shuts itself off to new information (Vaynman et al. 2004). Exercise also increases the production of three particularly important neurochemicals involved in learning: serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These three neurochemicals help the brain to be alert, attentive, motivated for learning and positive toward learning (because they improve mood). They also help to enhance patience and self-control (Ratey 2008). The conclusion Ratey drew from his book on exercise and the brain is that exercise is the single most important thing a student can do to improve their learning. 85

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

Sleep Of all the research from the past 25 years on how the human brain learns, makes and stores memories and the many factors that impact those processes, the research on sleep is likely the most important. When a student is sleep deprived, meaning they got less than 7 hours of sleep for even one night, they are less able to pay attention, more irritable, will experience memory difficulties, are more impulsive, have slower reaction times and have a depressed immune system (Walker 2017). In addition, because sleep is when memories are made, a sleep-deprived student is sabotaging their own learning by making it difficult for the brain to create the new memories and get rid of unwanted information, which is needed to ensure the brain is ready for new learning the next day (Diering et al. 2017). Sleep affects every aspect of the learning and memory process and students need to recognize their responsibility to get enough sleep. (For a complete understanding of how sleep affects every aspect of a student’s life see, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams by Matthew Walker.)

Using a multisensory approach to teaching For a long time, scientists who studied human senses believed that each sense operated independently. As has been the case with many beliefs about the human brain, new research demonstrates that this was in error. In their article “Benefits of Multisensory Learning,” Ladan Shams and Aaron R. Seitz (2008) write, It is likely that the human brain has evolved to develop, learn and operate optimally in multisensory environments. We suggest that training protocols that employ unisensory stimulus regimes [e.g., lectures without interactive elements] do not engage multisensory learning mechanisms and, therefore, might not be optimal for learning. (p. 411) Teaching using a multisensory approach improves both the chances of students better understanding new material as they can connect new learning to prior knowledge learned through different sensory pathways, and greater chance of recalling the information as each sensory pathway forms its own memory pathway.

Sight and hearing One needs to look no further than the very survival of humans to understand that the brain has powerful senses of sight and hearing. If humans did not see predators, see food, see a safe place to sleep and see a mate to pass on their genes they often did not survive. In addition, if they did not hear the predators, the storms or the cries of their children, their survival was also in jeopardy. Today’s learners have brains that have evolved to be great at learning what they see and hear, especially when they occur together. A study by Najjar (1998) found that students had much better recall of visual information as compared to oral information, and even better recall when the information was presented using both oral and visual methods at the same time rather than just oral methods. Humans are incredible at remembering pictures. Hear a piece of information, and 3 days later you are likely to remember about 10% of it. Add a picture, and your ability to remember that same information will jump to about 65% (Medina 2008). 86

Learning in harmony with the brain

Smells impact on learning and memory It is not only sight and hearing that aid learners. Smells are powerful for learning and for making memories. The part of our brain that handles smell, the piriform cortex, is located directly next to the part responsible for memory and emotion (Herz & Engen 1996). As a result, our memories are intrinsically and strongly linked with odor. What does this mean for learning? In using smells as cues to enhance recall, a specific smell can associate directly with what a student is learning. Lwin, Morrin and Krishna (2010) found that after a time delay, scent-enhanced recall of verbal information and scent-based retrieval cues helped in the recall of pictures.

Adding the sense of touch to reading assignments Reading textbooks can be difficult because silent reading is a unisensory experience – only our eyes are involved. In addition, reading is a visually heavy process. In fact, reading is the slowest way humans input information into their brains (Dehaene 2009). One way for students to make the reading process easier and more effective is to make it multisensory. Students can do this by annotating their text while they read. Annotation is a simple process of making notes in the margin of a textbook that identifies, in the readers own words, the important concepts, ideas, facts, and details. By using a pencil, the student adds the sense of touch to the reading process, making it multisensory. And there are two additional benefits of annotation. First, by students translating what they are reading into their own words, they are identifying whether they understand what they are reading. The process of translation greatly adds to a student’s comprehension and recall of the text material. Second, by using their own words they are using the best way to make remembering what they read easier. Dunlosky and his colleagues in 2013 investigated ten different learning strategies, and one consistent finding was that anything that required learners to put things into their own words resulted in better learning (Dunlosky et al. 2013).

The brain learns in patterns: chunking information Harvard psychiatrist John Ratey in his 2001 book A User’s Guide to the Brain, describes the human brain “as a pattern seeking device.” He writes, “The brain works by relating whole concepts to one another and looks for similarities, differences and relationships between them” (p. 5). One way to enhance learning of new material is using patterns that are already familiar to students. Learning can be difficult or easy with the same amount of effort, depending on the patterns students can identify. The ability to identify patterns facilitates learning. Identifying, adapting and changing patterns are essential aspects of learning (Alder 2010). One key reason why patterns work so well in learning new things is that they allow the learner to “chunk” new material – that is, to combine bits of information into a cohesive whole. Psychologists noted a long time ago that our brain can process only a certain amount of material at any given time. Amazingly, this limitation is not based on a specific amount of information or material but rather on a number of chunks of material. One of the most cited works in all psychology is about chunking and the idea that the average human can maintain “seven plus or minus two” chunks of information at any given time (Miller 1956). Although others have argued that we can really hold an even smaller number of chunks of information (Gobet  & Clarkson 2004), the importance of getting information into patterns, which form chunks, remains. Chunking can greatly increase the amount of information you can process. 87

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle

The most common patterns students use are similarity and difference, cause and effect, comparison and contrast and their own words. One of the most important things a student-centered teacher focuses on is teaching the students the patterns of the content they are being asked to learn. How is the content organized? How does one solve problems in this area of knowledge? How does one think like a scientist, historian or economist? Patterns exist all over the learning process. For example, 90% of the time, the first sentence of every paragraph in a college textbook is the main idea.

Conclusions The message we sought to deliver in this chapter is that as higher education professionals we all have an obligation to follow where the research leads us even if it requires significant changes in the way we teach and in what we recommend to our students as the best ways for them to learn and study. As in any profession, when new research is confirmed, changes must be made to bring practices into harmony with the new research findings. There is now 20 years of research that supports a student-centered approach to teaching in higher education, an approach that puts students’ learning as the only meaningful outcome of a teaching experience. As the author of Classroom Assessment Techniques, Thomas Angelo once said, teaching in the absence of learning is just talking.” Perhaps the most effective way to summarize the 20 years of neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology research discussed in this chapter that supports a student-centered approach to teaching is found in the 2013 publication The New Science of Learning and states, “it is the one who does the work who does the learning” (Doyle & Zakrajsek 2013, p. 7). Our brains create new neural connections for every new learning experience we have. Whether those connection ever become part of our long-term memory depends on the amount of work we do to make new learning more permanent. This work usually includes first doing what is needed to understand the new learning by connecting it to current prior knowledge or adding new information to our backgrounds that will allow us to understand the new material. Second is to then practice the new learning in meaningful ways over an extended period of time, often weeks and months, to make it a part of our long-term memory. Without both of these actions taking place, it is likely no long-term learning will take place. We also sought to present a research-based list of teaching actions that can be easily implemented into classroom or online teaching practices. These actions have been shown to improve students’ learning because each of them is based on how the brain naturally takes in, processes and retrieves new information and how it makes this new information a permanent part of memory. Finally, we offered a list of suggestion for what students need to do to ready their brains for learning which included, proper diet, staying hydrated, engaging in aerobic exercise and getting adequate sleep. Teachers are not miracle workers. They need students that are ready to learn and are willing to do the work that is needed to be academically successful. When a student-centered approach to teaching is combined with students taking the proper steps to prepare their brains for learning opportunities for academic success are optimized. A teacher can’t ask for more than that!

References Aaron B.S. & Tullis J. (2010) What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology 61(3), 228–247. Alder A. (2010) Pattern Making, Pattern Breaking: Using Past Experience and New Behavior in Training, Education and Change Management. Ashgate, Burlington, VT.

88

Learning in harmony with the brain Armstrong L. (2017, August 14) The Roles of Glucose in the Brain [Web log post]. Retrieved from www. livestrong.com/article/358622-the-roles-of-glucose-in-the-brain/ on 7 December 2018. Bailey C.H. & Kandel E.R. (1993) Structural changes accompanying memory storage. Annual Review of Physiology 55, 397–426. Bailey C.H., Bartsch D. & Kandel E.R. (1996) Toward a molecular definition of long-term memory storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93(24), 13445–13452. Bailey C.H., Kandel E.R. & Harris K.M. (2015) Structural components of synaptic plasticity and memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 7(7), 1–29. Baram T., Chen Y., Dubé C.  & Burgdorff C. (2008, March 13) Short-term stress can affect learning and memory. Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311182434.htm on 7 December 2018. Barr B.  & Tagg J. (1995, November/December) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 13–25. Berger M.S., Kincaid J., Ojemann G.A. & Lettich E. (1989) Brain mapping techniques to maximize resection, safety, and seizure control in children with brain tumors. Neurosurgery 25(5), 786–792. Bjork D.R. (1994) Memory and metamemory: Considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. (Metcalfe J. & Shimamura A.P., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 185–205. Bourne J.N.  & Harris K.M. (2008) Balancing structure and function at hippocampal dendritic spines. Annual Review of Neuroscience 31, 47–67. Bourne J.N. & Harris K.M. (2011) Coordination of size and number of excitatory and inhibitory synapses results in a balanced structural plasticity along mature hippocampal CA1 dendrites during LTP. Hippocampus 21, 354–373. Dawson M. & Medler D. (2009) Sustained attention. Dictionary of Cognitive Science. Retrieved from www. bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/S/sustained_attention.html on 7 December 2018. Dehaene S. (2009) Reading in the Brain. Penguin, New York. Diering G.H., Nirujogi R., Roth R., Worley P., Pandey A. & Huganit R. (Reb 3, 2017) Homer1a drives homeostatic scaling-down of excitatory synapses during sleep. Science 355(6324), 511–515. Doyle T. & Zakrajsek T. (2013) The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Doyle T. & Zakrajsek T. (2019) The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain (2nd ed.). Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Marsh E.J., Nathan M.J. & Willingham D.T. (2013) Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1), 4–58. Dux P.E., Ivanoff J., Asplund C.L.O. & Marois R. (2006) Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron 52(6), 1109–1120. Ebbinghaus H. (1913) A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Ebdrup N. (2012, January 13) Stress and exercise repair the brain after a stroke. Science Nordic. Retrieved from http://sciencenordic.com/stress-and-exercise-repair-brain-after-stroke on 7 December 2018. Foerde K., Knowlton B. & Poldrack R. (2006) Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(31), 11778–11783. Formaggio E., Storti S.F., Tramontano V., Casarin A., Bertoldo A., Fiaschi A. & Managnotti P. (2013) Frequency and time-frequency analysis of intraoperative ECoG during awake brain stimulation. Frontiers in Neuroengineering 6(1). Gallup-Purdue Index Report (2014) Great Jobs Great Lives. Retrieved from www.luminafoundation.org/ files/resources/galluppurdueindex-report-2014.pdf on 7 December 2018. Gobet F. & Clarkson G. (2004) Chunks in memory: Evidence for the magical number four . . . or is it two? Memory 12(6), 732–747. Hallowell E. (2005, January) Overloaded circuits: Why smart people underperform. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2005/01/overloaded-circuits-why-smart-people-underperform on 7 December 2018. Herculano-Houzel S. & Lent R. (2005) Isotropic fractionator: A simple, rapid method for the quantification of total cell and neuron numbers in the brain. The Journal of Neuroscience 25(10), 2518–2521. Herz R.S. & Engen T. (1996) Odor memory: Review and analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3(3), 300–313.

89

Terrence J. Doyle and Brendan M. Doyle Kandel E.R. (2001) The molecular biology of memory storage: A dialogue between genes and synapses. Science 294(5544), 1030–1038. Kandel E.R., Dudai Y.  & Mayford M.R. (2014) The molecular and systems biology of memory. Cell 157(1), 163–186. Karuza E.A., Emberson L.L. & Aslin R.N. (2014) Combining fMRI and behavioral measures to examine the process of human learning. Journal of Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 109, 193–206. Kim B. (2012, June 11) Why Drinking Too Much Water Can Be Harmful to Your Health [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://drbenkim.com/drink-too-much-water-dangerous.html on 7 December 2018. Lim L.H., Idris Z., Reza F., Wan Hassan W.M.N., Mukmin L.A. & Abdullah J.M. (2018) Language mapping in awake surgery: Report of two cases with review of language networks. Asian Journal of Neurosurgery 13(2), 507–513. Lwin M.O., Morrin W. & Krishna A. (2010) Exploring the super additive effects of scent and pictures on verbal recall: An extension of dual coding theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20, 317–326. Mander B., Santhanam S., Saletin J.  & Walker M. (2011) Wake deterioration and sleep restoration of human learning. Current Biology 21(5), R183–184. Retrieved from http://walkerlab.berkeley.edu/ reprints/Mander-Walker_CB_2011.pdf on 7 December 2018. Manelis A. & Reder L.M. (2012) Procedural learning and associative memory mechanisms contribute to contextual cueing: Evidence from fMRI and eye-tracking. Learning and Memory 19(11), 527–534. Masento N.A., Golightly M., Field D.T., Butler L.T. & van Reekum C.M. (2014) Effects of hydration status on cognitive performance and mood. British Journal of Nutrition 111(10), 1841–1852. McNamara D. (2014) Reading Comprehension Components and Their Relation to Writing. Retrieved from https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/reading-comprehension-components-and-theirrelation-to-writing on 7 December 2018. Medina J. (2008) Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work Home and School. Pear Press, Seattle, WA. Meuwese J.D., Scholte H.S. & Lamme V.A. (2014) Latent memory of unattended stimuli reactivated by practice: An FMRI study on the role of consciousness and attention in learning. PLoS One 9(3). Miller G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97. Najjar L.J. (1998) Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors 40(2), 311–323. Norman P. (2012, July 23) Dehydration: It’s Impact on Learning. Retrieved from https://patch.com/virginia/ ashburn/bp-dehydration-its-impact-on-learning on 7 December 2018. Nummenmaa L., Glerean E., Hari R. & Hietanen J.K. (2014) Bodily maps of emotions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America 111(2) 646–651. Oaklander M. (2016, September 12) The new science of exercise. Time. Retrieved from http://time. com/4475628/the-new-science-of-exercise/ on 7 December 2018. Ogawa S., Lee T.M., Kay A.R.  & Tank D.W. (1990) Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87(24), 9868–9872. Osman M. (2004) An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(6), 988–1010. Ratey J. (2001) A User’s Guide to the Brain. Pantheon, New York. Ratey J. (2008) Spark: The New Science of Exercise and the Brain. Little Brown, New York. Rolheiser C. & Ross J.A. (1999) Student self-evaluation: What do we know? Orbit 30(4), 33–36. Schacter D. (2001) Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Shams L. & Seitz A. (2008) Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 12(11), 411–417. Sharot T. (2017) The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others. Holt and Company, New York. Sherwood M.S., Kane J.H., Weisend M.P. & Parker J.G. (2016) Enhanced control of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurophysiology with real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI) neurofeedback training and working memory practice. Neuroimage 124(Pt A), 214–223. Sherwood M.S., Weisend M.P., Kane J.H. & Parker J.G. (2016) Combining real-time fMRI neurofeedback training of the DLPFC with N-back practice results in neuroplastic effects confined to the neurofeedback target region. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 10, 138. Squire L.R.  & Kandel E.R. (2000) Memory: From Mind to Molecules. Scientific American Library, New York.

90

Learning in harmony with the brain Sylwester R. (1995) A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator’s Guide to the Human Brain. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Timperley H. & Hattie J. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1) 81–112. Van Buren J.M., Fedio P.  & Frederick G.C. (1978) Mechanism and localization of speech in the parietotemporal cortex. Neurosurgery 2(3), 233–239. Vaynman S., Ying Z. & Gomez-Pinilla F. (2004) Exercise induces BDNF and synapses to specific hippocampal subfields. Journal of Neuroscientific Research 76(3), 356–362. Walker M. (2017) Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams. Simon and Schuster, New York. Weimer M. (2002) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Wong C.W., Olafsson V., Plank M., Snider J., Halgren E., Poizner H. & Liu T.T. (2014) Resting-state fMRI activity predicts unsupervised learning and memory in an immersive virtual reality environment. PLoS One 9(10), e109622. Wrangham R. (2009) Catching Fire How Cooking Made US Human. Basic Books, Philadelphia, PA.

91

5 STUDENTS AS ACTORS AND AGENTS IN STUDENTCENTERED HIGHER EDUCATION Manja Klemenčič

Introduction1 Student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) in higher education (HE) refers to enhanced actorhood of students in teaching and learning processes and places emphasis on the acts of learning as opposed to the acts of teaching. Students have agency when they have the capabilities to participate in the learning-teaching processes and construction of knowledge that is inherent in these, and in the design and implementation of their learning environments.2 They become actors when they use the agency available to them to act in learning processes toward achieving their learning goals or when they are called to contribute to curriculum planning or other institutional decisions about student education. They also become actors when they take on roles of teaching assistants or service roles in programs that support student learning, such as peer advisors or interns in teaching and learning centers. Student actorhood in SCLT presupposes student agency, i.e., that students are subjects not objects of teaching and learning processes; that students are self-directed, not solely dependent on the directions of others; and that students are self-regulated in that they develop their own learning goals and strategies to realizing them (cf. Berlin 1969). Student actorhood also presupposes a certain degree of freedom to act and institutional opportunities to participate in decisions or acquire service roles in teaching and learning. When students act to disrupt and change the existing institutional framework, they emerge as agents of change. Unlike students as actors who act within the existing institutional practices and thus sustain and reinforce these, students as agents work purposefully toward changing these practices or institutional culture framing the existing practices. In other words, as “institutional entrepreneurs” (Battilana et al. 2009), students as agents work toward changing what the university community considers and values as acceptable practices; possibly facing resistance from other members of the university community. For example, to bring about the institutional change from a teaching paradigm to a student-learning paradigm (Barr & Tagg 1995; Blumberg 2019), students can be important agents (although undoubtedly not the sole agents) of such changes. Student agency in SCLT has intrinsic value: students are able to pursue acts of learning or shape learning environments as actors rather than as objects of teaching and learning processes, and contribute to institutional changes as agents rather than follow the decisions taken by 92

Students as actors and agents

administrators and teachers. The intrinsic value of student agency is compatible with the view of those who see the purpose of HE to prepare students to become agentic individuals as central to the functioning of political democracies and open market economies (Bromley et al. 2011). There is wide acceptance of the idea that (higher) education has a contribution to make in the maintenance and development of democratic societies and that the development of democratic citizenship is inherent in the idea of the university. While some scholarship has focused on how democratic citizenship education is or can be integrated into curriculum to educate students for active citizenship and civic competence (Fernández 2005; Wynne 2014; Veugelers et al. 2014), scholars and practitioners have also argued for considering higher education institutions (HEIs) as “sites of citizenship and democratic involvement” (Bergan 2004; Huber  & Harkavy 2007; Biesta 2009; Zgaga 2009; Klemenčič 2011). The argument for the “universities as sites of citizenship and civic involvement” is that to impart students with dispositions to active citizenship and civic involvement is to involve students in democratic governance and in civic service in their own HEIs. Granting students opportunities for representation and service roles supports and enables them to enact their political and civic agency and strengthens student university citizenship. Students as university citizens become aware of effective opportunities and efficacy as well as develop a sense of responsibilities to contribute to their university community. Furthermore, student agency in SCLT has instrumental value since it enhances student learning. There is ample empirical evidence of the effectiveness of SCLT practice for improved student learning and student motivation based on the practices of strengthened student agency (Hoidn 2017). Student agency implies students’ reflective engagement with their own learning which affords more focused, more strategic and better aligned engagement with the students’ wider learning, educational and professional goals. If students are involved in making decisions about their learning, if they are purposefully and actively participating in learning activities, if they are supported as self-directed and self-regulated learners, their learning behavior is more likely to result in improved learning outcomes, in deeper learning processes and lasting motivation to learn. Of course, to fully realize the instrumental value of student agency in student learning requires ample effort on the part of the teachers curating learning processes and environments and the SCLT support staff on the part of the students. In the remainder of this chapter, I first address definitional and theoretical issues associated with the concepts of student actorhood and agency. Students in HE have different degrees of agentic capabilities, depending on the institutional opportunities and their own motivations. The chapter explores the question whether and how students can act within given institutional frameworks to pursue their learning goals, to contribute to the design of learning processes and environments and adopt roles as teaching assistants or other service roles, or whether and how students as agents can initiate divergent changes to the existing norms and values underlying the structures and processes of teaching and learning. Next, student actorhood and agency are addressed in two intertwined yet distinct domains: in teaching and learning practices and within the institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning. In the former, the questions of the students’ autonomy, balance of power between teachers and students, and the responsibilities over student learning are highlighted. The latter discussion revolves around the questions of power relations between students and institutional decision-makers, students’ sense of agency in institutional governance and administration and the impact of students on their institutions. Before concluding with prescriptive advice on strengthening student agency in SCLT, the role of students as agents driving institutional change and institutional conditions that enable such agentic behavior are addressed. 93

Manja Klemenčič

Student actorhood and student agency When students have opportunities to participate in the construction of knowledge prompted by the teacher who designed active learning activities, and when they purposefully act on these opportunities, they emerge as actors in teaching and learning processes rather than passive and docile recipients of knowledge. This is what actorhood refers to. When students are asked for their input on course design and they choose to offer such input, or when they are offered opportunities to serve as teaching assistants and they take these roles, again they emerge as actors in decision-making on the course design. Student agency is built on agentic possibilities and agentic orientations (Klemenčič 2015, 2018). Students’ agentic possibilities, i.e., effective opportunities and positive freedoms to do and to be what they have reason to value as students within learning contexts, are exogenously given (they originate outside the individual). Universities and colleges as organizations have structures, rules and procedures that bestow students with more or less agentic opportunities for active participation in learning and teaching processes or to shape learning environments. HEIs also house ideas, beliefs and values which influence students’ beliefs and behaviors – including their sense of agency and efficacy as participants in teaching and learning processes and institutional governance. Students’ agentic orientations are students’ internal responses to external states of affairs; such responses include students’ predispositions, efficacy beliefs and will or motivations to enactments of agency. Predispositions refer here to the broad array of internalized routines, preconceptions, competences, schemas, and habits of mind (as suggested by Emirbayer & Mische 1998). Students’ efficacy refers to student judgment of, and belief in, their capabilities to exercise some degree of control over their own functioning as learners and over higher education environments that affect their lives as students (cf. Bandura 2001). Self-efficacy is also a central element of students’ self-regulation as the process by which students can control (make conscious decisions about) their learning trajectories; which includes various functions, such as task analysis, self-control and self-evaluation (Zimmerman 2008). Actorhood is not automatic even if students have agentic opportunities. Students’ will to enact agency, that is students purposefully choosing to participate in the learning processes or in shaping their learning environments, is an essential precondition for the achievement of actorhood. Tagg (2003, 2010) explains student choices in academic settings as “the cognitive economy” of student learning choices, which involve balancing between learning gains and learning costs. He makes a distinction between “the cool economy,” when students take a surface approach to learning and “the hot economy,” when they take a deep approach to learning. Tagg (2010) suggests several institutional conditions that help change the cognitive economy for students. One such condition is that teachers enable students to select (at least some of) their own learning goals, which reinforces ownership over learning goals and boosts intrinsic motivation for active engagement in learning. Another condition is that students have a sense of self-efficacy when confronting learning tasks. And yet another condition is that students purposefully monitor and regulate their learning strategies, i.e., they reflect over personal learning objectives and learning strategies, which allows them more strategic enactment of agency toward specific learning goals. All of these also constitute self-regulated and self-motivated learning (Zimmerman 2008). In choosing to engage in institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning, as for example to fill out the course evaluations, midterm course feedback, apply to be a member of the curriculum committee, or act as a teaching assistant, students weigh a different combination of potential gains and costs. Gains of such involvement comprise professional experience, which 94

Students as actors and agents

helps with skills development and CV building and expanding one’s social network and possibly gain letters of recommendation from influential members of the university community. Costs of involvement are investment of time (and opportunity cost of involvement elsewhere), but also potential risks of possible social sanctions if holding an adversarial position on a particular decision issue. Engagement in institutional governance of SCLT is undoubtedly also a reflection of a students’ sense of university citizenship and the sense of responsibility students feel to contribute to their HEI and its communities. And while engagement in service roles related to teaching and learning might be for students just another way to earn income, it may also be an indication of their university citizenship dispositions to contribute to improvement of teaching and learning processes. University citizenship here is not understood merely as political participation in student elections with the students relegating the power to act on their behalf to elected student representatives. It is also not about being a passive constituency with rights and duties that lie within the domain of study and student life. University citizenship refers to students’ having rights and responsibilities to participate in university life toward the betterment and well-being of the university and its communities. University leadership that supports students’ university citizenship shifts the narrative frames in university culture from “What can the university do to meet the students’ needs, to satisfy the students?” to “What students as full members of the university community – as citizens of the university – can do for their university?” (Klemenčič 2015). Agentic disposition to university citizenship is analogous to the self-regulated learner disposition: we ask self-regulated learners to think strategically about what they can do to advance their own learning and we ask students as university citizens to think purposefully how they can serve and contribute to the betterment and well-being of their university and its communities. Students’ sense of responsibility toward the university and university communities implies having a sense of belonging and also a sense of psychological ownership of the university (Klemenčič 2015, 2018). Students’ university citizenship is not important only for the public service outcomes of their engagement – contributing to some collective goods and to collective well-being. It is also important – purely instrumentally – for students’ own learning processes. Students learn about how to be an active member of a community, about how to be an active citizen, which is a transferable skill for future communities they will belong to. Enactment of citizenship indeed presumes some sense of belonging, but it also reinforces the sense of belonging: students build meaningful relationship, find a purpose and develop a sense of mattering (Strayhorn 2019). Such engagement may be particularly important for students from first-generation or lower socioeconomic background who have additional challenges in navigating student life, integrating into and developing a sense of belonging to the university (Reay et al. 2010). While the scholarly traditions in constructivist education are more concerned with the constitution and construction of students as actors in learning and teaching processes, the neoinstitutional scholarship focuses on students as organizational actors and what role they play in institutional stability and change of universities and colleges as organizations. Both strands of scholarship have in common the idea of students as legitimated actors in HE due to their inherent self-interest in quality teaching and learning that fosters learning gains and positive student outcomes. Namely, quality education is a goal and expected consequence of the shift to student-centered and learning-centered practices in higher education. And students stand to gain foremost from this goal. The conception of students as agents of institutional change emerges from the scholarship in organizational change that recognizes the political nature of the organizational change 95

Manja Klemenčič

processes (Battilana 2006; Battilana et al. 2009). This scholarship suggests that for actors to become agents, “they need to overcome potential resistance from other members of the organization and encourage them to adopt new practices” (Battilana & Casciaro 2012, p.  3). Citing Marsden and Friedkin (1993), Battilana and Casciaro (2012, p. 3) conceptualize change implementation within an organization as “an exercise in social influence, defined as the alteration of an attitude or behavior by one actor in response to another actor’s actions.” Such change in attitudes is at the heart of the institutional change from an instruction-centered to a learning-centered paradigm as proposed by Barr and Tagg (1995) and further advanced by Tagg (2019).

Students as actors in the teaching and learning processes The constitution of students as actors in teaching and learning processes has implications for how we conceive the balance of power between teachers and students in terms of the degree of their control over teaching-learning processes, the division of responsibilities in teaching and learning processes and students’ autonomy. As suggested by Van Lier (2008, p. 163), in SCLT learning depends on the activity and the initiative of the learner, more so than on any “inputs” that are transmitted to the learner by a teacher or a textbook. This does not, of course, diminish the need for texts and teachers, since they fulfil a crucial mediating function, but it places the emphasis on action, interaction and affordances, rather than on texts themselves. This presumption of self-directed learning as core to SCLT raises questions about students’ autonomy, the power relationships between students and teachers, and who is responsible for students’ learning.

Students’ autonomy Students’ autonomy is one of the central concepts in SCLT. Learner autonomy was originally defined by Holec (1981) in the context of foreign language learning as the learner’s ability to take charge of their own learning. Little (1991) developed the concept further, suggesting that learner autonomy implies willing, proactive and reflective involvement of students in their own learning (Little 1991, 2007). Little (2004, p.  1) suggests that students as autonomous learners “understand the purpose of their learning program, explicitly accept responsibility for their learning, share in the setting of learning goals, take initiatives in planning and executing learning activities, and regularly review their learning and evaluate its effectiveness” (see also Little 2004). Building on this definition, learner autonomy is addressed in two ways in the literature: (1) as a learning objective, especially within the reflective teaching and learning approaches (Sugerman 2000; Brockbank & McGill 2006) and (2) as a way to improve student learning achievements in the scholarship on self-regulated learning (SRL) (Zimmerman 1989). Reflective learning is an educational approach whereby teachers design activities that prompt students to purposefully reflect on their learning experience as part of the teaching and learning processes. Such reinforced metacognition about their learning process is expected to help students to achieve and even go beyond the expected and self-defined learning goals. Reflective learning practice can be part of classroom practices but can also be supported outside of the course work, for example, through students’ academic advising. 96

Students as actors and agents

Zimmerman (1989, p.  329) submits that students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process and they direct their own efforts to acquire knowledge and skill rather than relying on teachers, parents, or other agents of instruction. Three elements are essential for SRL: students (1) have developed SRL strategies, (2) have self-efficacy beliefs in their performance skills, and (3) are committed to academic goals (Zimmerman 1989, 1990). In line with an SRL approach, students’ autonomy implies a number of elements both intrinsic and extrinsic to the learner, such as knowledge of different learning strategies that can be developed into personal SRL strategies; commitment to academic goals and motivation to learn; ability to identify and set their own learning goals within and beyond the course learning goals; understanding one’s own learning needs, skills and routines; and knowledge of support resources that can be employed, if additional help is needed. These dispositions develop throughout students’ learning trajectory and are influenced by the sociocultural learning context in which students are embedded, including institutional support to learners.

Power relations between students and teachers Student-centered practices highlight more cooperative relations between teachers and students and more participatory roles of students in all aspects of course design and implementation. Little (2004) highlights this by suggesting that it is the responsibility of the teachers to help learners to become more autonomous. As discussed earlier, learner autonomy does not imply independence of students from their teachers and from the other students, but rather acknowledgment of interdependence between teachers and students in knowledge creation and inherently social nature of learning (Bandura 1977). So in SCLT the power shift is more about sharing responsibility for learning between students and teachers than teachers fully ceding control to students (Weimer 2013). As Weimer (2013, p. 94) suggests: “Faculty still make decisions about learning, just not all of them, and not always without student input.” Teachers can give students choice over classroom policies, assignments and assignment deadlines or might ask students to help create assessment criteria, for example. The academic requirements of the study program (the major or the concentration) continue to organize the content and time frame for student learning. The teacher still decides what students read for the course, although students can have options to introduce further reading to the class. Weimer (2013, p.  94) suggests that “power is redistributed in amounts proportional to students’ ability to handle it.” The more autonomous students are as learners, the more choices they can handle, that is the more freedom over content and organization of learning they can get. For example, there is a difference between how much choice a teacher should grant to a firstyear student or a college senior or to a PhD student. Transferring some decision-making power to students is one of the factors that enables students’ ownership over their learning and boosts motivation to invest time and effort in the learning activity (Pintrich 2003).

Responsibilities over students’ learning As discussed earlier, SCLT does not make teachers redundant and students’ learner autonomy does not imply students’ independence from teachers and self-instruction. There is a sense of shared responsibilities over teaching and learning processes based on mutual trust and interdependence of interests and resources teachers and students contribute to teaching-learning processes. To further develop what shared responsibilities mean in the SCLT context, one has to 97

Manja Klemenčič

distinguish between the responsibilities for the design of teaching-learning processes and how these unfold, and the responsibilities for the act of learning as engagement in the learning activities, assignments and with the learning materials. In the design of teaching-learning processes and environments, the responsibilities clearly tilt to the side of the teachers, whereas in the acts of learning, the principal responsibilities lie with the students. It is the teachers with subject matter expertise who have the main responsibility over curriculum design. However, the curriculum needs to be flexible enough to allow for changes based on input from students along the way (“responsive curriculum”).3 When it comes to students’ cognitive economy of learning choices regarding how much time and effort to invest in a course or a particular learning activity and what learning strategies to employ, the responsibilities lie with the student. Again, in student-oriented practice, it is the role of the teachers to help students to develop as self-regulated, self-motivated, i.e., autonomous learners. The teachers devise ways to induce students’ intrinsic motivations to engage in learning activities, such as helping them understand the value of the learning activity for their learning goals or creating opportunities for self-assessment (Boud 2003) or peer-assessment (Boud et al. 1999), both of which are known to have positive effects on student motivation to engage more and perform better in learning activities. But the bulk of responsibility to enact agency – to fully and purposefully engage in the learning activities offered in the classroom and outside of it – lies with the students. The student’s responsibility for learning at this stage is not optional or theoretical.4 If the student does not take the responsibility, nobody else will. Teachers cannot make students learn, even if they want to. Marton and Säljö’s (1976) distinction between students’ deep and surface approaches to learning explains this point well. Students either approach the task of studying an academic article to reproduce information from it, which Marton and Säljö termed as the “surface approach,” or they try to understand it for its meaning, implications, underlying concerns, which they termed as the “deep approach.”5

Students as actors in institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning While it is a common practice to have students participate in the structures and processes of decision-making in their HEIs (i.e., institutional governance), the actual degree of student involvement in institutional governance varies significantly across institutions. At the very least, students’ input is sought through course evaluations and student surveys, which are regarded by most institutions as relevant information sources for evidence-based decision-making. Student representatives are also frequently consulted by their departments. In systems with a strong tradition of democratic governance of HEIs, students are full voting members of governing bodies and hold a share of votes in the elections of institutional leaders. Even in HEIs with corporate type of governance arrangements, administrators seek student input and involve students to inform policy formulation, legitimize adopted policies, and to show accountability in external evaluations (Klemenčič 2015). Because of their direct impact on student experiences, student affairs and teaching and learning are the areas in which students have most institutional opportunities for input to decisionmaking and for service roles. This section discusses how students participate in institutional governance and administration of SCLT and explores power relations between institutional decision-makers/administrators and students, students’ sense of agency in institutional governance and administration, and mechanisms through which students have impact on SCLT at their institutions. 98

Students as actors and agents

Redefining power relations between institutional decisions-makers/ administrators and students The student voice literature is mostly normative and argues in favor of granting students more opportunities to voice their opinions and to participate in decision processes in the HE context (Taylor & Robinson 2009). However, the practices of involving students in institutional governance vary notably between private (i.e., independently financed or endowed) and public (i.e., state-funded or otherwise state-supported) HEIs. Scholarly literature on student voice as student involvement in institutional governance offers three sets of rationales for such involvement (Klemenčič 2018, 2020b). One perspective highlights the principles of democratic participation. Students are considered the key constituency in the HE enterprise since they are directly affected by the education provision and therefore – by default – are legitimate actors in institutional decisions. These rationales are common in democratic participatory governance arrangements. Another perspective justifies student involvement in governance through the efficiency argument: in complex cases of decision-making, especially those concerning student academic experience and student life, input from students is needed for better decisions. In other words, students are recognized to “have unique perspectives on educational processes, that their insights are valuable, and that they should be afforded opportunities to actively shape the education processes” (Cook-Sather 2006, p. 359). The efficiency argument is common in board-type governance arrangements in which the authority over decisions lies in the hands of the administration. The third perspective offers rationales for student involvement based on conceptions of student voice as an extension of student engagement in educationally purposeful activities (Kuh 2009). Thus, participation in institutional governance is associated with learning and development gains, such as better integration in the community, lower risk of drop out, and development of professional competences (Kuh 2009). These perspectives have informed institutional decision-makers on how and to what degree to involve students in institutional governance of SCLT (Ashwin & McVitty 2015). The following categorization depicts different modes of student involvement, each mode implying different strength of agency afforded to students: (1) students serve a data source; (2) students are consulted on specific decisions; (3) students have a granted presence in all decision bodies and processes concerning teaching and learning; (4) students are full partners in institutional governance of SCLT (adopted from Klemenčič 2018). 1

2

3

Involvement to provide information is the default and the weakest form of student involvement. It can be achieved in two ways. One is when the student body at large is solicited to provide data on their experiences through student surveys and course evaluations. The other way is soliciting student input through “town hall” meetings or other direct voice measures. Structured consultation with student representatives is a more formalized form of involvement, yet still weak in terms of student agency. Student capabilities to influence the processes and outcomes are limited since the flow of information from students happens at the discretion of administrators, under the terms set by the administrators, and based on information and frameworks that administrators provide to student representatives. Ultimately, the administrators (and faculty) have full power to decide whether or not to take student views into account. A more advanced form of involvement is structured dialogue whereby students and administrators hold regular (formal or informal) meetings. Practically this means that student representatives are involved in various consultative committees where they perform advisory functions or are informally consulted on a regular basis. They 99

Manja Klemenčič

have opportunities to launch their own agenda issues. They do not, however, have formal decision-making powers, i.e. voting or veto rights. (Klemenčič 2012, p. 639)

4

The regularity of interaction, even if students do not have formal decision-making power, contribute to two-way information flows, development of trust and building of collaborative relationships between students, teachers and administrators. Student involvement in institutional governance can be ascribed as partnership, as the strongest form of involvement, only when students have decision rights equal to other members of the structures in which they participate. Students can initiate new policies, which may or may not be adopted based on the consent of other members – teachers and administrators. Students are involved in each step of the decision-making processes.

Apart from the different modes of involvement, we ought also to consider what the objects of student involvement in institutional governance of SCLT are. In the report Engagement for Partnership: Students as Partners in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Healey et al. (2014, p. 24) put forward a model of students-as-partners and offer four objects of student engagement in: • • • •

Learning, teaching and assessment; Subject-based research and inquiry; Generating scholarship of teaching and learning; Curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy.

The first two objects of involvement are very much in line with the previous discussion on student agency and actorhood in teaching and learning processes. The latter two highlight two new domains of involvement: students can be involved as co-researchers investigating the teaching and learning they receive (Werder & Otis 2010, quoted in Healey et al. 2014) or students can act as pedagogical consultants (Cook-Sather 2011, 2013, quoted in Healey et al. 2014), such as when students of color and faculty members work together toward developing a culturally sustaining pedagogy, for example (Cook-Sather & Agu 2013). This latter notion of student role as pedagogical consultants can be extended into broader notions of student service roles in SCLT. There exists a special – and largely overlooked – category of “student administrators, that is, students who daily cross the boundary of merely being students and recipients of university services to participate in university programming and operations” (Klemenčič 2020a, pp. 3–4). Students’ service roles in SCTL range from direct involvement in teaching and learning processes as course teaching assistants (and graduate teaching fellows) to more indirect involvement as course research assistants, in support roles as peer advisers or learning technology support staff, or as interns in teaching and learning centers (Brenner et al. 2020). These service roles give student administrators significant formal and informal influence on SCLT at their institution. Finally, the notion of students as legitimate actors in decisions on SCLT is contested (Klemenčič 2018, 2020a). Accepting students as “peers” in decision processes goes against the established norms in many institutions. Administrators and teachers might categorically reject students as members of decision-making bodies on grounds of students’ lack of expertise and institutional memory. Or they might see students as having short-term perspectives placing their own immediate self-interests over the long-term institutional goals. The contestation of student involvement in decision-making on SCLT might come also from fellow students who worry about domestication of student representatives, i.e., when student 100

Students as actors and agents

representatives remain supportive of the administrative or teachers’ proposals even when these are at odds with student interests. Students can be co-opted into uncritical agreement with the proposals by the administrators and teachers if they worry about keeping the positions of involvement or obtaining favorable letters of recommendation. Or students lose the critical stance if they are so deeply socialized into the community of decision-makers that the affinity to this community becomes stronger than their affinity to the student communities.6

Students’ sense of agency and efficacy in institutional governance and administration Emergence of student actorhood in SCLT depends on students’ sense of agency as “I believe I can act,” efficacy in these processes as “I believe I can achieve a goal” and students’ motivation to individually or collectively enact their agency as “I want to act.” As discussed in the introduction, student motivations to act in the context of institutional governance go beyond immediate student self-interest. For genuine, conscientious involvement, students need to have a developed sense of citizenship enhanced by a sense of belonging defined as a feeling of attachment and allegiance to one’s university and psychological ownership of the university (Klemenčič 2015, 2018). The differences in students’ perceptions of their agency and efficacy can be significant across HEIs and even as students move within their institution. Furthermore, students in different parts of the HEIs or in different roles will experience different degrees of actorhood in SCLT. Some students, such as elected student representatives, have more opportunities through authority invested in their representative role and consequently also perceive more opportunities to influence decisions than their fellow students who do not hold these roles. However, student representatives’ sense of efficacy also varies depending on a number of factors. Both the institutional memory of student efficacy influencing decisions and students’ personal experiences in decision processes influence their perception of what is possible and likely for students to achieve. For example, students who sit on a university committee where they have full voting rights are more likely to demand voting rights in another committee where this is not the case. Students who have experienced efficacy in their agentic involvement – when their work or contribution was affirmed by others – will have a stronger sense of agency and might enact agency even in circumstances which on face value appear constraining to their action. Seeing successes or failures of other student representatives at the same or a different institution also forms a student’s perception on efficacy. Furthermore, administrators and teachers as the main decision-makers in SCLT explicitly or implicitly signal what possibilities students have to influence decisions. The same goes with the description of competences students have in various learning-teaching-related service roles. Students also interpret institutional documents stating rules of student involvement and form perceptions based on scholarly literature on student involvement. Students develop a sense of agency and efficacy from any or all of these sources.

Student impact on the social structures of academic and social life on campus Much of research in sociology of HE has focused on student outcomes, such as graduation rates or employability, as a function of the characteristics of institutions and of their educational programs. Most of scholarship is concerned with identifying causal linkages between various aspects of the post-secondary experience and the different dimensions of student development (Pascarella & Terenzini 1991, 2005; Kuh 2009; Mayhew et al. 2016). There are a number of notable theories that have been developed in this area and informed the vast empirical research 101

Manja Klemenčič

on student engagement in college (and industry of student engagement surveys) (Kuh 2009). This body of literature, however, has failed to recognize students’ potential and actual contributions to academic and social aspects of college life, i.e., the impact that students have or can have on their HEIs. A corrective to this limited perspective is scholarship on student representation and activism as two interrelated yet distinct forms of student politics (Klemenčič & Park 2018). The European Students Union (ESU) and its member national unions are a prime example of highly impactful involvement of student representatives in national and institutional policy making on teaching and learning (Klemenčič 2017, 2018; see also Chapter 3 by Šušnjar & Hovhannisyan in this Handbook). The quality of teaching and learning is an issue area that is less likely to mobilize students to activism than, for example, rising tuition fees or cuts in public funding for HE (Cini & Guzman-Concha 2017; Klemenčič & Park 2018). However, we find examples of student activism that directly target teaching and learning, such as the Black Studies movement (Rojas 2017) or student movement for multiculturalism (Yamane 2002). Another domain for student impact on HEIs is the service domain, referring to students in volunteer and paid jobs at their universities. Volunteer positions include leadership in student organizations and unpaid internship opportunities at the university (Klemenčič 2020a). Campus student employment refers to different types of part-time, paid positions available from the university (as the employer) to students enrolled at that university (Perna 2010, Klemenčič 2020c). The opportunities for students to work or volunteer on campus, however, vary significantly across institutions and countries. Through everyday activities in these service roles, students directly and purposefully shape the social structures of academic and social life on campus, i.e., persisting patterns of student behavior and interactions. While student representation certainly qualifies as potentially highimpact, other service roles, student on-campus employment and leadership roles in student groups and organizations too can be impactful on student communities and institutional practices. Of course, student impact occurs along a continuum: different student roles afford different degrees of impact, and the same student role affords different degrees of impact at different times or under different institutional conditions. In the context of SCLT, the most impactful service roles are those of student administrators, that is students who are employed part-time in (para)professional roles (rather than merely clerical) or who volunteer in such roles in the administration of teaching and learning. For example, students working in centers for teaching and learning shape learning and teaching practices when they serve as testers of learning activities or an audience for teachers to try out learning activities. These student administrators cross the boundaries of being merely students to being involved in institutional decision-making or implementation of these decisions. Furthermore, while teaching roles are common for graduate students, even undergraduate students in many institutional contexts act as undergraduate teaching assistants, thereby transcending studentship with teaching and contributing to course design and implementation. Students who work in advising roles as, for example, peer tutors or in libraries as library assistants also have opportunities to change teaching and learning environments through the input they offer to their colleagues and through their everyday work. Even though these are examples of fragmented and small-scale contributions that students can make to the decisions and practice of teaching and learning, collectively they make a qualitative difference not only to the communities they serve, but also to these students’ experience of learning and studentship more broadly. Namely, through service roles students also gain professional development, develop social networks, and can feel validated. 102

Students as actors and agents

Students as agents of institutional change toward SCLT Student roles in university or college contexts are defined by documented rules and regulations and are perpetuated through institutional structures, cultures and processes. Students inevitably interpret these institutional scripts and act in accordance with what they understand as institutional expectations of their behavior. However, they can also try to challenge these scripts through political action – through representative functions or through activism (Klemenčič & Park 2018) or they can transform these scripts through everyday behavior, such as through service roles. It is through such behaviors which transform the established routines and purposefully bring about new ways of thinking and doing that students as actors become agents of institutional transformation. Teaching and learning is an area where well-rehearsed sets of routine behaviors and institutionalized roles and scripts reinforce the maintenance of existing practices. Teachers are often guardians of the existing practices reluctant to give in to disruptive pressures to change behaviors. The reasons for this reluctance are multiple, including lack of knowledge, convenience, valuation of research over teaching, lack of institutional support, and incentives (see Tagg 2019 for an excellent analysis). Similarly, the administrators alone, even if committed to student-centered approaches (which not all are), cannot alone transform the institutional practices in SCLT (Tagg 2019). Inevitably, students are embedded within institutional norms and arrangements and students alone cannot unravel the institutional “instruction paradigm” (Barr & Tagg 1995). However, students can be entrepreneurial in deploying various social networks – of academics, administrators, other students and student groups – to advance a particular policy agenda. They also are particularly well suited to argue on moral grounds for more quality of teaching and learning. And students can employ scholarship on SCLT and on students-as-partners, to justify their demands for involvement and to gain expertise necessary for impactful contributions. The student course evaluations and engagement surveys can be complemented with more qualitative explorations into student learning and teaching experiences and behaviors conducted by the respective institutional research or quality assurance units; and students can join as researchers in such systematic inquiries into teaching and learning practices and experiences (Weller 2019). The flourishing scholarship on SCLT is lending a helping hand to advocates of SCLT, including students interested in driving changes.7 Yet, bestowing students with agency in institutional governance over teaching and learning can disrupt or stall the traditionally consensual decision-making processes. Indeed, students can come with adversarial positions. Or they are unable or unwilling to differentiate between their immediate self-interest as students and managing the complexity of various stakeholder demands to the administration. These are real, even if not unsurmountable, challenges of involving students in institutional governance. One of the consequences of SCLT is the potential transformation of the collective body of students into a newly empowered interest group which – at least in principle – can pursue shared interests in the area of quality of teaching and learning. But again, student motivations to act collectively in the domain of teaching and learning remain weak. The potential for collective action was always available to students (and episodes of student activism testify to this); however, the issues that have mobilized students to collective action tended to revolve more frequently around broad political or social concerns rather than educational issues (Klemenčič & Park 2018). Rather than activism, students have been much more effective in driving institutional change toward SCLT through representation. The example of the European Students’ Union’s (ESU’s) involvement in the Bologna Process, the intergovernmental policy process, testifies to how students enacted agency to reconstruct meanings, practices and structures of student involvement 103

Manja Klemenčič

in institutional governance of HEIs (Zgaga 2019) and worked toward the inclusion of studentcentered learning as one of the policy objectives in the European Higher Education Area (Klemenčič 2017, 2018). ESU’s emergence as a legitimate actor in the Bologna Process was a combination of policy entrepreneurship of ESU’s representatives, acceptance of the principle of student representation among several governments and other members of the Bologna Process, and the political momentum that the installation of the Bologna Process created in the European supranational policy space (Zgaga 2019). However, the implementation of SCLT across European HEIs has been slow and fragmented. In many institutions there continues to be resistance to or at least not sufficient institutional support by teachers and administrators for such a transformation. Student representatives lack expertise on how to construct student-centered classrooms and institutional environments. Institutional changes toward SCLT have to be designed and implemented jointly by students, administrators, teachers and specialists on SCLT. Even though in Europe students have been hugely successful in driving policy change, they cannot carry through institutional implementations of these policies on their own. As discussed by John Tagg (2019), the role of administrators and teachers is crucial in reforming HEIs toward more learning-centeredness.

Summary and conclusion This chapter advances the theoretical foundations about the role and responsibilities of students in SCLT. It applies theory of student agency to account for both student involvement in learning and teaching processes (i.e., in classroom practices) as well as in institutional governance of teaching and learning. The concept of students as actors presumes that students purposefully use their capabilities, i.e., their agency as both intrinsic dispositions and extrinsic opportunities, to act toward a particular learning goal or goal of influencing their learning environment. The concept of students as agents of institutional change (as institutional entrepreneurs) presumes that students push the existing institutional norms and rules of behavior to bring about ways of doing, thinking and valuing SCLT that are different from the status quo. The existing accounts that place the responsibility of and confer agency for the institutional changes toward SCLT only on administrators and teachers (Tagg 2019) miss important, even indispensable partners in these efforts – namely the students. There is no presumption that students are always and necessarily motivated to genuinely engage in learning-teaching processes or to contribute to the decisions concerning teaching and learning. Students might be focused on getting their degree as fast as possible or finding a job, or they are invested in extracurricular activities or have work or familial responsibilities. And teachers have limited capabilities to motivate students to actively participate in learning processes. But SCLT approaches better prepare us to motivate students to learn. Students might be involved in institutional decisions or in SCLT service roles because of selfish reasons for their personal and career advancement rather than service to the community. But the stronger and the more developed the structures of student voice in SCLT are, the more checks and balances exist on student representatives and why and how they serve in their roles. Transformation of teaching-oriented institutions into student-centered institutions opens up new agentic opportunities for student involvement in learning and teaching processes and in institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning. For example, when a university introduces or strengthens learning support services (i.e., student academic advising) this opens possibilities for students to act as peer student advisors or peer tutors. Or when a center for teaching and learning is opened, this creates opportunities for engaging students to review the curriculum or give structured feedback on teaching (Brenner et al. 2020). In those SCLT 104

Students as actors and agents

service roles, students on a daily basis shape how teaching and learning is practiced in their institutions. And students legitimate and give meaning to student actorhood in SCLT. The emergence and transformation of students as actors in SCLT in itself constitutes significant institutional change. But the consequence of this change may be that there is less need for students as agents since student-centered institutional ecosystems are based on the idea of universities and colleges as learning communities in which change is an accepted state of affairs (Tagg 2019) and students are accepted as legitimate participants in initiating and contributing to the institutional changes, including those in teaching and learning. HEIs are institutional contexts which can enable and empower student agency. The more an institution transforms to student-centeredness, the more enabling institutional conditions become for student agentic behavior and the less need there is for students to push the boundaries as agents. Practical ways to strengthen student agency and actorhood in SCLT include two sets of interventions. The first set of interventions are those that can strengthen students’ agentic possibilities through creating institutional opportunities and normative frameworks (i.e., institutional culture) for students to actively participate in learning-teaching processes. The second set of interventions are those that strengthen students’ agentic orientations including predispositions, efficacy beliefs and will or motivations to enactments of agency. The most notable interventions here include academic support to help students develop as self-regulated, lifelong learners who are capable of setting their own learning goals, assert their learning needs and navigate institutional resources to pursue their learning goals. Furthermore, institutional opportunities for students to adopt service roles in SCLT, such as course teaching assistants or peer tutors or interns in units responsible for or supporting SCLT, are also important interventions in this regard. Finally, public validation of SCLT in the classroom and student involvement in governance and administration of SCLT, with possibly concrete examples of student efficacy in these roles, are important signals of the institutional culture that values and embraces student actorhood.

Notes 1 I thank John Tagg and Sabine Hoidn for most helpful comments and corrections on the draft of this chapter. 2 I thank John Tagg for suggesting this formulation and the formulation in the next sentence helping me to distinguish between agency and actorhood. 3 I thank Sabine Hoidn for noting this point. 4 I thank John Tagg for helping me develop this point. 5 I thank John Tagg for helping me develop this point. 6 See a discussion on how to address these problems in Klemenčič (2015, 2018). 7 This chapter also provides a rationalized account of student actorhood and student agency, thus potentially informing students to perceive themselves as actors and contributing to student enactment of agency in SCLT.

References Ashwin P. & McVitty D. (2015) The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflection and Future Policies. (Pricopie R., Scott P., Salmi J. & Curaj A., eds.), Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 351–366. Bandura A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura A. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 1–26. Barr R.B.  & Tagg J. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27, 12–25. Battilana J. (2006) Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization 13(5), 653–676.

105

Manja Klemenčič Battilana J. & Casciaro T. (2012) Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal 55(2). Battilana J., Leca B. & Boxenbaum E. (2009) How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals 3(1), 65–107. Bergan S. (2004) Higher education governance and democratic participation: The university and democratic culture. In The University as Res Publica. (Bergan S., ed.), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 13–30. Berlin I. (1969) Two Concepts on Liberty, Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Biesta G. (2009) What kind of citizenship for European Higher Education? Beyond the competent active citizen. European Educational Research Journal 8(2), 146–158. Blumberg P. (2019) Making Learning-Centered Teaching Work: Practical Strategies for Implementation. Stylus, Sterling, Virginia. Boud D. (2003) Enhancing Learning Through Self-Assessment. Kogan Page, London. Boud D., Cohen R. & Sampson J. (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24(4), 413–426. Brenner T.J., Beaver A.G., Kuzmick M., Pollock P.  & Lue R.A. (2020) Partners in creating studentcentered learning: Case study of the derek bok center for teaching and learning at Harvard University. In The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK, Chapter 24. Brockbank A. & McGill I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning through Mentoring & Coaching. Kogan Page Publishers, London. Bromley P., Meyer J.W.  & Ramirez F.O. (2011) Student-centeredness in social science textbooks: 1970– 2008: A cross-national study. Social Forces 90(2), 547–570. Cini L. & Guzman-Concha C. (2017) Student movements in the age of austerity: The cases of Chile and England. Social Movement Studies 1–6. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2017.1331122. Cook-Sather A. (2006) Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry 36(4), 359–390. Cook-Sather A. (2011) Students as learners and teachers: College faculty and undergraduates co-create a professional development model. To Improve the Academy 29, 219–232. Cook-Sather A. (2013) Catalysing multiple forms of engagement: Student-staff partnerships exploring teaching and learning. In The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education. (Dunne E. & Owen D., eds.), Emerald, Bingley, pp. 549–565. Cook-Sather A.  & Agu P. (2013) Student consultants of color and faculty members working together toward culturally sustaining pedagogy. In To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development. (Groccia J.E. & Cruz L., eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 271–285. Emirbayer M. & Mische A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4), 962–1023. Fernández O. (2005) Towards European citizenship through higher education? European Journal of Education 40(1), 59–68. Healey M., Flint A. & Harrington K. (2014) Engagement through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. HE Academy, York. Hoidn S. (2017) Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillian, New York. Holec H. (1981) Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon, Oxford. Huber J. & Harkavy I. (2007) Higher Education and Democratic Culture: Citizenship, Human Rights and Civic Responsibility. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Klemenčič M. (2011) The public role of higher education and student participation in higher education governance. In Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: Looking Back and Looking Forward. (Brennan J. & Shah T., eds.), Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, CHERI, London, pp. 74–83. Retrieved from www.open.ac.uk/cheri/documents/Lookingbackandlookingforward.pdf on 25 October 2019. Klemenčič M. (2012) The changing conceptions of student participation in HE governance in the EHEA. In European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms. (Curaj A., Scott P., Sir, Vlasceanu L. & Wilson L., eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 631–653. Klemenčič M. (2015) Student involvement in quality enhancement. In The Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. (Huisman J., de Boer H., Dill D. & Souto-Otero M., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York, NY, pp. 526–543. Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 30(1), 69–85.

106

Students as actors and agents Klemenčič M. (2018) The student voice in quality assessment and improvement. In Research Handbook on Quality, Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. (Hazelkorn E., Coates H. & McCormick A., eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 332–343. Klemenčič M. (2020a) Student activism and organizations. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Higher Education. (Miriam E.D. & Marilyn J.A., eds.), SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, 1–13. Klemenčič M. (2020b) Student Governments. In Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. (Teixeira P., Shin J., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht. Klemenčič M. (2020c) Student Employees in Higher Education. In Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. (Teixeira P., Shin J., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht. Klemenčič M.  & Park B.Y. (2018) Student politics: Between representation and activism. In Research Handbook on Quality, Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. (Hazelkorn E., Coates H.  & McCormick A., eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 468–686. Kuh G.D. (2009) High impact activities: What they are, why they work, who benefits. In Improving Student Learning through the Curriculum. (Rust C., ed.), Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, pp. 20–39. Little D. (1991) Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Authentik, Dublin. Little D. (2004) Learner autonomy. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved from www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409#toc_3 on 8 August 2019. Little D. (2007) Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1), 14–29. Marsden P.V.  & Friedkin N.E. (1993) Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods & Research 22(1), 127–151. Marton F. & Säljö R. (1976) On qualitative differences in leaning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Education Psychology 46(1), 4–11. Mayhew M.J., Rockenbach A.N., Bowman N.A., Seifert T.A. & Wolniak G.C., Pascarella E.T. & Terenzini P.T. (2016) How College Affects Students: 21st Century Evidence That Higher Education Works. Volume 3. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Pascarella E. & Terenzini P. (1991) How College Affects Students. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Pascarella E.  & Terenzini P. (2005) How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Perna L.W. (ed.) (2010) Understanding the Working College Student: New Research and Its Implications for Policy and Practice. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. Pintrich P.R. (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4), 667–686. Reay D., Crozier G.  & Clayton J. (2010) “Fitting in” or “standing out”: Working class students in UK higher education. British Educational Research Journal 36(1), 107–124. Rojas F. (2017) From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Strayhorn T.L. (2019) College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. Routledge, New York and Abingdon. Sugerman D.A. (2000) Reflective Learning: Theory and Practice. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA. Šušnjar A. & Hovhannisyan G. (2020) Bridging the policy-practice gap: Student-centered learning from the students’ perspective. In The Routledge International Handbook on Student Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Chapter 33. Tagg J. (2003) The Learning Paradigm College. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Tagg J. (2010) Teachers as students: Changing the cognitive economy through professional development. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning 2, 7–35. Tagg J. (2019) The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education Is Hard to Change, and How to Change It. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. Taylor C.  & Robinson C. (2009) Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 17(2), 161–175. Van Lier L. (2008) Agency in the classroom. In Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. (Lantolf J.P. & Poehner M.E., eds.), Equinox, London, pp. 163–186. Veugelers W., de Groot I. & Nollet F. (2014) Higher education and citizenship development. European and Latin American Higher Education Between Mirrors 13, 179–196. Weimer M. (2013) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

107

Manja Klemenčič Weller S. (2019) Academic Practice: Developing a Professional in Higher Education (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, London, UK. Werder C.  & Otis M.M. (eds.) (2010) Engaging Student Voices in the Study of Teaching and Learning. Stylus, Virginia. Wynne R. (2014) Higher education student civic engagement: Conceptualizations of citizenship and engagement strategies. In Citizenship, Democracy and Higher Education in Europe, Canada and the USA. (Laker J., Naval C. & Mrnjaus K., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 60–85. Yamane D. (2002) Student Movements for Multiculturalism: Challenging the Curricular Color Line in Higher Education. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Zgaga P. (2009) Higher education and citizenship: “The full range of purposes.” European Educational Research Journal 8(2), 175–188. Zgaga P. (2019) European higher education reforms and the role of students. In Preparing Students for Life and Work: Policies and Reforms Affecting Higher Education’s Principal Mission. (Archer W. & Schuetze H.G., eds.). Brill, Leiden, pp. 273–288. Zimmerman B.J. (1989) A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3), 329–339. Zimmerman B.J. (1990) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist 25(1), 3–17. Zimmerman B.J. (2008) Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal 45(1), 166–183.

108

6 MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISAPPLICATIONS OF STUDENTCENTERED APPROACHES Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

Introduction A 1967 cartoon strip by Bud Blake shows a young boy, Tiger, telling his friend that he has taught his dog, Stripe, to whistle. “I don’t hear him whistling,” says the friend. Tiger explains “I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned it.” Understanding education in terms of what it is that teachers do at the expense of a focus on how students learn has long been criticized. In 1916, Dewey was calling for more democratic approaches to education which took the student’s context into account. In 1968, Freire called for a major shift away from the “banking model” of education to one that recognized the student’s role in co-constructing knowledge. Despite the long history of such calls, transmission modes of teaching endure. It is thus unsurprising that calls for student-centered learning (SCL) are widespread. In this chapter, we draw on the work of sociologist Margaret Archer (1995, 2000) to highlight misconceptions of SCL approaches. While we do not engage much with the history and theory of SCL, which is deliberated in depth in other chapters, we begin with a brief overview of a few of the theoretical perspectives.

The emergence of student-centered approaches In 1973 Trow indicated that the massification of higher education (HE) would challenge our assumptions of a homogeneous student body that shared prior knowledge, norms and values. He argued that broadened access would have significant implications for teaching and learning. If we are to attend to the needs of a diverse student body and enable their access to the powerful knowledge of the academy, then it is crucial that we have a deep sense of who our students are. It is from this context that SCL has emerged as a popular pedagogical approach globally. SCL has a proud history emerging from student activism in the 1960s when the demand for personal engagement with knowledge threatened the dominance of transmission modes of teaching. The agency of learners is central to SCL approaches as students are encouraged to participate actively in their own knowledge construction. The work of Freire (1968) on critical pedagogy aimed at empowering students from across socioeconomic backgrounds remains key to student-centered approaches. As the call for widening participation in HE has become a global 109

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

movement, so the potential of SCL has gained significance, particularly because of its focus on rethinking traditional pedagogies and on developing students as producers of knowledge. Despite this long history, there is still little agreement as to what SCL means or how it is practiced. According to Lea, Stephenson and Troy’s review of the SCL literature, the core tenets of SCL are reliance upon active rather than passive learning, an emphasis on deep learning and understanding, increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student, an increased sense of autonomy in the learner, an interdependence between teacher and learner (as opposed to complete learner dependence or independence . . .), mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship, and a reflexive approach to the learning and teaching process on the part of both teacher and learner. (2003, p. 322) Though such tenets seem simple, the implementation of SCL has been decidedly uneven. Many teachers hold strongly to the notion that their classes are student-centered. This phrase appears in many course validation documents and evaluation reports. It is a required criterion for academic credibility. Yet it does not seem to have penetrated beyond the periphery of practice. (Greener 2015, p. 1) Understanding it only as a method of getting students to become more active in class can prevent SCL from being properly theorized in terms of understanding the underpinning ideology. Implementing SCL requires both structural and cultural shifts across the institution. While the individual lecturer’s concern for her students and provision of spaces for student engagement in the classroom may be a necessary requirement for a student-centered approach, they are not sufficient. There are implications for selection of content, pedagogy, classroom structures, assessment and more. If SCL is to encompass more than just a focus on student activity, it needs to be underpinned by sound principles and pedagogic theories. The European Students Union research report (2015, pp. 5–7) on SCL lists the following nine principles as being key to understanding and implementing this approach: Principle I: SCL requires an on-going reflexive process Principle II: SCL does not have a “one-size-fits-all” solution Principle III: Students have different learning styles Principle IV: Students have different needs and interests Principle V: Choice is central to effective learning in SCL Principle VI: Students have different experiences and background knowledge Principle VII: Students should have control over their learning Principle VIII: SCL is about enabling not telling Principle IX: Learning needs cooperation between students and staff. Applying such principles has a number of implications for implementation. It requires continual improvement through reflexively considering how students are critically engaged and whether the learning outcomes are being achieved. Such reflexivity is crucial because SCL is not generic but rather needs to be adapted to suit the specific context. These principles further indicate 110

Misconceptions and misapplications

that the implementation of SCL requires appropriate institutional structures to support academics as they take on this approach. Another implication is that an understanding of students and their legitimate learning needs is central to the successful implementation of SCL; this can only be achieved through direct engagement with students about their experiences and values. Furthermore, a student-centered curriculum has to be designed in ways that ensure students are provided with the skills to make informed choices and to develop as independent lifelong learners. Applying these principles means that the students are expected to take on higher levels of cognitive engagement facilitated by their active interaction with the learning materials and with the teacher and their peers. While such principles are useful for the implementation of SCL, they don’t take into account many of the major forces at play in HE systems globally. Alongside a concern with institutional and individual contexts, the focus of such principles on learning needs to include consideration of the effects of large social structures. We found Archer’s theory of social change useful for understanding why SCL has at times been adopted in superficial or problematic ways, and it is to this theory that we now turn.

Theoretical argument The work of social realist Margaret Archer (1995, 2000) is useful to explain how misconceptions of SCL arise and why these lead to misapplications. Archer tells us that the social world comprises “people” and “parts” and that events and experiences emerge from the interplay between these. The “parts” are understood to be made of structures, which are social objects such as universities and policies, and cultures, which may include the norms and practices of particular social groups but are also understood more broadly to encompass ideologies, discourses and beliefs. “People” have agency to perform actions, they have personal projects and act toward achieving these. They do not, however, have complete freedom in this endeavor as they are constrained or enabled by the “parts” of structure and culture. When people enter any given context, structures and cultures pre-exist them and these will have effects on their actions. Coming into a university, for example, means coming into an institution with its own ethos, history, policies and politics. We may wish to bring about shifts in teaching approaches and may be supported by the institutional cultures and structures in doing so, or may find ourselves constrained by the context that pre-existed us. When SCL is implemented into a university, a program, or a module, it “bumps up” against the pre-existing structures and cultures which might be complementary or contradictory to this approach. Such structures and cultures include those more immediately within the institution and department and also include those pertaining to global forces, such as the shifting understandings of the purposes of HE or the increase in managerialism in universities. In cases where the pre-existing structures and cultures are complementary to the implementation of SCL, this is likely to lead to what Archer (1995, p. 303) refers to as a situational logic of “opportunism” where agents can explore new and congruent possibilities. In such a case, SCL is likely to be successfully implemented as planned. However, where the SCL intervention is contradictory to the pre-existing structures and cultures, there is likely to be either a situational logic of “correction” or one of “elimination.” Where “correction” is the outcome of the contradiction, the intervention is at risk of being appropriated or misapplied in ways that allow the powerful pre-existing structures and cultures to continue unchanged. Alternatively, the contradiction between the SCL implementation and pre-existing structures and cultures could lead to a situational logic of “elimination” where the intervention is dismissed or sidelined (ibid., p. 303). 111

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

In identifying three misconceptions, we argue that pre-existing structures and cultures need to be taken into account when SCL is implemented to avoid its misapplication in a process of “adaptation” or “elimination.”

Misconception one: focus on student but blind to knowledge The literature on SCL provides useful lenses for considering how it is that learning happens. The idea that students need to be actively involved in and adopt deep approaches to their learning in order to reconstruct the knowledge for themselves is broadly supported. Our concern is that the dominant focus on how learning happens can at times place the what of the learning in the background. The literature on SCL says little about the nature of the knowledge that is the target of such learning (Maclellan & Soden 2004). For example, Cannon and Newble (2000, pp. 16–17 in Baeten et al. 2010, p. 245) describe SCL as “ways of thinking about teaching and learning that emphasize student responsibility and activity in learning rather than content or what the teachers are doing” (emphasis added). In this section we argue that there needs to be emphasis on both student activity and the content introduced to students by their teachers. Students are not just learning; they are learning something and doing so toward some end. By foregrounding “what the student does” (Biggs 2012), we run the potential risk of denying students what Morrow (2009) calls epistemological access. Morrow defines epistemological access as “learning how to become successful in an academic practice” (2009, p. 78). This is not something that can simply be transmitted to students; they need to be actively involved in the process, so student-centered pedagogy is key to such epistemological access. But while active engagement is needed for epistemological access to be achieved, it is not sufficient on its own. There needs to be an equal consideration of the disciplinary knowledge in the selection of the learning content and the structuring of the tasks. While knowledge is central to the academic endeavor, there is a strong culture of it being taken for granted in what Maton (2014) refers to as “knowledge blindness.” Maton argues that all fields of study have both knowledge structures and knower structures. In order to become a legitimate member of the field, students need to take on specific forms of knowledge and specific ways of knowing. This is not to say that such structures are immutable or beyond critique, but rather that they should not be rendered invisible, for to do so is to prevent many students from fully accessing the goods of the university. The nature of knowledge differs from discipline to discipline. Disciplines vary along multiple lines: from how reality and truth are understood to how arguments are built, from the types of evidence that are considered valid to the ways of writing that are required for communicating knowledge and so on. The knowledge and knower structures that are legitimated by the specific field or discipline have significant effects on curriculum and pedagogy (Maton 2014). The structure of the target knowledge and knowers constrains how we can teach and assess. While such effects need to be open to critique, there is a danger in being oblivious to them and assuming that active student engagement is sufficient for meaningful learning. Disciplinary experts need to ensure that students get access to the disciplinary “style of reasoning” (Muller 2000, p. 88). Active engagement in the classroom does not always translate into access to the ways of making knowledge in the discipline. Garraway (2017, p. 121) found that unless carefully theorized, participatory pedagogies that include students in acquiring procedural knowledge are not necessarily “concerned with helping students to tap into the core epistemic nature of the field.” He concludes that students need to get access to the kind of knowledge that would enable them to be in control of their progress in the university; without such a focus, “the current participatory 112

Misconceptions and misapplications

teaching and learning initiatives are perhaps missing a significant learning opportunity” (Garraway 2017, p. 121). Students need to understand how knowledge is produced in the discipline in “ways that are interesting and accessible so that they too can produce such knowledge, and so that they can critique and develop the disciplinary knowledge production processes further” (McKenna 2013, p. 2). While SCL methodologies encourage students to engage with their personal knowledge of the world, knowledge that they believe is relevant to their lives, this does not automatically give them access to the abstract, conceptual knowledge that is offered through the vertical discourses of the academy (Bernstein 2000). It is important to differentiate between our everyday experiences and the powerful knowledge of the disciplines that explicitly “recognises a relationship to a reality that is independent of us” (Young & Muller 2013, p.  230). HE is about transforming the way students think by introducing them to a range of powerful theoretical lenses through which to view the world differently and to see beyond immediate contexts and experiences. Powerful knowledge is the means by which we are able to think “the unthinkable” and “the not-yet-thought” (Wheelahan 2007, p. 637). Students need access to such knowledge (Young 2008) if they are to participate fully in society and contribute to their fields. “If we accept the fundamental human rights principle that human beings should be treated equally, it follows that any curriculum should be based on an entitlement to this knowledge” (Young & Muller 2013, p. 231). Any pedagogical approach that places students at the center but then is blind to the target knowledge and knower structures has the potential to restrict students’ access. This is not to say that the knowledge of the academy has greater value than the rich experiences our students bring with them. “Specialisation is not a basis for denying respect or value to non-specialist common sense knowledge that people draw on in their daily lives” (Young & Muller 2013, p.  231), rather it is a case of understanding the purpose to which we are utilizing the knowledge and then selecting appropriately. The disciplinary expert has an important role to play in selecting the knowledge that will “allow those who have it to engage on a more or less equal footing in discussions on the natural and social worlds” (Garraway 2017, p. 110). Where the emphasis on SCL methodologies is at the cost of an emphasis on powerful knowledge, this can lead to relativist understandings of knowledge; knowledge that is “defined through (and reduced to) the perspective of the knower, through denying the existence of an independent objective reality” (Wheelahan 2007, p. 641). While “knowledge is always partial, socially mediated, and marked by the social conditions under which it was produced, which includes power and privilege” (ibid.), students should not come to the conclusion that “anything goes.” Much of the literature in the sociology of education fails to engage with deliberations about the nature of knowledge in different fields of study (Young & Muller 2010), and universities are often guilty of the same. If academics, as the experts in the field, have not reflected deeply enough on the nature of their disciplines, they run the risk of introducing student-centered approaches in ways that undermine the acquisition of powerful disciplinary knowledge. Without understanding how the nature and structure of the target knowledge is a mechanism that constrains and enables what forms of teaching and learning will be effective, we can slip into valorizing “best practices” that are seen to be generic across contexts. Students and their learning need to be central to educational processes, but this cannot be at the cost of a focus on the content and the forms of pedagogy that are most appropriate for enhancing epistemological access to the target knowledge. Wheelahan (2007) argues that many “progressive” curriculum experiments have foregrounded student activities and outcomes at the cost of a focus on abstract, principled knowledge. Where a culture of student-centeredness is 113

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

introduced in a way that neglects or dismisses the structure of the target knowledge, we are likely to see a situational logic of correction, where the knowledge is undermined.

Misconception two: discourse of the student as a decontextualized learner Placing the student at the center of the curriculum allows us to ensure that they are actively engaged and that their learning has personal meaning. This requires that we have a deep understanding of who our students are. Being able to teach in ways that address the needs of the students in front of us, and not some abstract notion of who our students are, is key to curriculum responsiveness. Scott (2009) argues that for students to have a reasonable chance of success, the education process must be aligned to students’ legitimate learning needs. Hong (2011) cites the example of SCL being implemented in Asian universities to argue that if it is implemented without careful examination of its appropriateness to the specific norms of the student body, it faces “a high risk of failure because Western-developed practices are often supported by structural conditions and cultural values that are not always found in Asia” (p. 519). Wong (2004) similarly states that the implementation of SCL can cause initial learning difficulties for students in educational cultures very different to such approaches. Measures of support may be needed, and crucially, the pedagogical approach needs to be clearly articulated so that expectations and benefits are made explicit to students. In the discussion of misconception one, we argued that each discipline and field has its own knowledge and knower structures that need to be explicitly taken into account in the implementation of SCL, however this should not be done in isolation of the knowledge that students bring with them. Indeed, student-centered approaches can provide a strong vehicle for connecting students’ lived experiences to powerful disciplinary knowledge. Concerns that the kinds of knowledge students bring with them are not taken into account in the classroom are regularly raised, such as in the student protests that swept through the South African higher education system in 2015 and 2016 (Vorster & Quinn 2017). Students report feeling marginalized and alienated by education systems that emerge from colonial histories and that dismiss particular forms of knowledge and ways of knowing (Vorster & Quinn 2017; Luescher et al. 2016). Student-centeredness thus has to include developing an understanding of our students’ repertoire of knowledge and connecting it to the target knowledge in ways that enhance epistemological access. However, it is here that we argue a kind of misapplication often occurs as the introduction of student-centered approaches “bumps up” against individualistic conceptions of students who are not conceptualized as members of society, enabled and constrained by a range of social structures and cultures. Accounts of students as “individuals with a set of inherent traits” dominate our understandings in what we have come to call “the discourse of the decontextualized learner” (Boughey & McKenna 2016, 2017; Hlengwa et al. 2018). Such accounts characterize students as individuals with a set of skills and traits decontextualized from their histories and the social structures that form the world. We thus fail to consider our students as social beings who belong to various groups with shared knowledge, values, norms and practices. This individualized framing of the student in such decontextualized ways is complementary to the myth of HE as a meritocracy (Mettler 2014; Guinier 2016). The belief that success in HE emerges primarily from students’ inherent skills (Mgqwashu 2018) hides the ways in which HE success correlates with socioeconomic background (Bathmaker et al. 2016; Reay & Vincent 2016; Naidoo 2004). Such decontextualized accounts of students allow us to avoid tackling the troubling ways in which the university is implicated in reinforcing the gendered, raced, and classed status quo of society (Case et al. 2018). 114

Misconceptions and misapplications

When SCL approaches are introduced into the ideological frame of the student as a “decontextualized learner” and the university as a meritocracy, a contradiction occurs, following which Archer suggests that there will be a situational logic of “correction” (1995, p.  303), whereby the student-centered approach will be appropriated to align to the dominant culture. In such a case, student-centeredness comes to be understood to mean garnering information about attributes of students – attributes which are discursively constructed as being neutral. The student-centered principle of finding out who our students are and what they know is then misinterpreted as being a process of collecting a set of metrics about a group of individuals, so we use various techniques to establish the characteristics of each person in front of us: we measure levels of motivation, language skills, well-being, approaches to learning, and so on. In all of these ways, we reduce students to individuals with inherent attributes and traits, rather than seeing them as social beings (O’Neill & McMahon 2005). This conception that SCL is about collating the traits of the individualized student potentially masks the ways in which gender, class, ethnicity and so on can function as social structures constraining student success (Langford 2010). In an ironic sleight of hand, therefore, this focus on the skills and attributes of the individual student which was meant to enhance access to knowledge can actually reduce it by allowing us to ignore the ways in which our curriculum structures, institutional cultures and academic literacy practices may exclude students. Individual traits are used to explain student success without consideration of how our structures and cultures might serve some more than others. “Powerful knowledge is not only distributed unequally but those who tend to get it are generally those already privileged” (Young & Muller 2013, p. 230). In a reflection on student-centered pedagogies in the schooling sector, Norquay (1999) argued that such approaches have the potential to deny social difference and also limit the ways teachers talk about social difference. Norquay goes further to suggest that this approach “is very much a White-Centered discourse in that it shares many attributes and effects of White privilege” (p. 183). It does this if it is applied in ways that suggest that the educational environment is apolitical and that the attributes of individuals are neutral and unrelated to sociocultural contexts.

Misconception three: student as customer The goal underpinning SCL approaches is one of providing meaningful access to knowledge to a diverse body of students. SCL is focused on ensuring that we come to know our students and that we are able to ensure that their learning needs are taken into account in the selection, sequencing and pacing of knowledge (Bernstein 2000) and the concomitant approach to teaching. While the implementation of such a goal may be complex, the need for it is fairly uncontentious. However, as we have shown, if a student-centered methodology is applied without taking the enabling or constraining conditions of pre-existing structures and cultures into account, it can result in a situational logic of “correction.” This means the methodology is misapplied in ways that entail it reinforcing dominant understandings that ultimately work against broad access to powerful knowledge. The third and final misapplication by which this can occur is through the potential capture of the student-centered ideology by the increasingly dominant neoliberal construction of the university. In a neoliberal account, higher education (HE) is a business within the marketplace and should thus attend to the demands of the market. In this understanding, the university provides students with private goods in the form of knowledge and skills which are the currency for their access to better paid jobs and better career prospects. This means that universities need to compete to ensure they are able to provide the commodity for which students are paying, and this entails conceptualizing the student as the customer. In order to be financially sustainable, 115

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

the university needs its customers to be satisfied with the product. And, as the old adage goes, the customer is always right. Such an articulation of the university is a far cry from that envisaged by most proponents of SCL, but it is not difficult to see how calls to come to know our students better and to center teaching and learning approaches around their needs could be appropriated by a neoliberal culture to complement the vision of higher education (HE) as a marketplace, the university as a business and the student as the customer. As O’Neill and McMahon explain, “the more consumer/client-centered culture in today’s society [has] provided a climate where the use of student-centered learning is thriving” (2005, p. 134). Garforth and Gallinat assert that a particularly insidious aspect of the capture [of higher education by neoliberalism] has been the explicit betrayal of supposed pedagogical benefits of engagement as an active practice and relationship between students and educators by attempts to make it into an object that can be “provided” or quantified in relation to external audiences or markets. (2018, pp. 13–14) In its starkest form, the neoliberal understanding of the university allows a misappropriation of student-centeredness to entail establishing what the student, as the customer, desires and then adapting the product, the curriculum, to suit them. This leads us dangerously into the territory in which the student needs to be appeased, kept safe and made comfortable at all times. The increased pressure to be responsive to student demands, according to Nixon et al. (2016, p. 930), “extinguishes more enduring intellectual development engendered through challenge, struggle and problem-solving.” Good-quality education is not always going to be comfortingly familiar; it is of necessity, at times, a space of discomfort (Boler & Zembylas 2003). Students need to be challenged to move outside of their realms of personal experience and encouraged to question their cherished beliefs and assumptions (Zembylas 2015; Leibowitz et al. 2010). If being studentcentered comes to mean entertaining all demands made by students, because of the need to keep the customer satisfied, then we will rapidly shy away from teaching complex concepts, setting difficult assessments, or hiring anyone who scores less than “highly popular” on internal student evaluations or rating websites. Perceiving students as customers is tied to the idea that students should have carte blanche to make their own curriculum choices. “Choice” has been appropriated as a core characteristic of neoliberalism whereby the supremacy of the free market means that the customer has free choice over the products they consume (Giroux 2005). Neoliberal choice refers to one’s choice of material gain and profit in the self-actualizing project (Chen 2013) and the notion of individualized choice is central to a HE sector operating “within consumer culture, and recast as a service provider” (Nixon et al. 2016, p.  929). This Homo economicus model suggests that choices are rational cost-benefit decisions, untouched by oppressive social structures and culture. However, curriculum choices are not unaffected by the cultures and structures within which they occur. What is more, sometimes, the structure of the target knowledge plays a role in what choices are appropriate, as we argued in the section on misapplication one, and to ignore this is to restrict access to powerful knowledge. Students are not always fully informed as to the ways in which the structure of knowledge plays a role and may thus choose courses that do not build the necessary fundamental knowledge or ensure the necessary incremental learning. While student-centeredness has been around as a pedagogical concept for many years, there has been a rise in recent years of the related notion of student engagement. With student engagement, there is the idea that it is only through active participation that learning occurs. The links between student-centeredness, which places the student at the center of decisions 116

Misconceptions and misapplications

about the educational process, and student engagement, which emphasizes the need for students to actively participate in their learning, are fairly self-evident. However, both are susceptible to capture by the recent shifts in HE toward academic capitalism, New Public Management and an audit culture (Garforth & Gallinat 2018; Shore 2010). We argue that student engagement is particularly vulnerable in this regard. With the rise of the student engagement movement (Zepke 2015; Trowler 2010), there has been a shift from a concern with student learning and pedagogical interventions to a concern with institutional and student performativity. The data come to be used to manage university activities toward enhancing results on the student engagement surveys rather than to assist in ensuring deep connection to meaningful learning. As institutions have begun to use such surveys in their brand positioning within the highly competitive HE market, so the surveys become an end unto themselves rather than simply one means toward an end. “Current policies in student engagement primarily seek to benefit the institution rather than the students themselves, leading to a narrow and target-driven model of student engagement” (Garforth & Gallinat 2018, p. 8). This is a problem because instead of promoting active engagement in learning, the privileging of performance-based metrics and the like may lead instead to conformism and game-playing. Such an emphasis is at odds with commonly espoused aims of HE, including the development of creativity and critical judgment, as well as ethical and social responsibility. Evidence of a nexus between student engagement and performativity can be found in the use of generic measurement instruments that have been developed to evaluate student engagement (Barnacle & Dall’Alba 2017, p. 1327). While it is not necessarily the case, student engagement can align well with the neoliberal agenda that education has to be facing toward the workplace at all times, that learning is about achieving relevant skills, and that quality is about measuring the extent to which students are satisfied with their levels of engagement. The pedagogical benefits of centering the education process on the learners and their learning can thus at times be seen to have been “corrected” to ensure complementarity with the neoliberal culture by it being made into an object that is “quantified in relation to external audiences and markets” (Garforth & Gallinat 2018, p.  13). Problematic affinities can arise between a focus on the student and “the broader neoliberal context that permeates many, especially more wealthy, nations. Neoliberalism manifests in policies that focus on the economic benefit to individuals of HE, rather than the broader social or intrinsic benefits” (Barnacle & Dall’Alba 2017, p. 1326). The pedagogic sense of having a curriculum focused on students and their construction of knowledge is fairly self-evident, but when this rationale is used for the implementation of largescale student-engagement surveys, the process can rapidly become one of performativity. “Critics question student engagement efforts that appear underpinned by a set of unexpressed – particularly neoliberal – values to which the student is expected to commit” (Barnacle & Dall’Alba 2017, p.  1326). Such values, for example the valuing of education toward employability, are imposed on students as part of their performance of engagement. “Rather than imposing particular values on students, they can be given an opportunity to take an informed stand on their own values, in line with an educative process” (ibid., p. 1328). While most students may indeed see the purpose of HE as being about opportunities for better forms of employment and social mobility, this is a narrow conception. Most academics would agree that we do not want students to be engaged simply to make them better forms of labour; we want engagement toward the development of high-level knowledge, engagement that leads to a commitment to social justice, engagement that fosters a critical citizenry, and so on. It is easy to dismiss these concerns as being about student engagement and not about student-centeredness, but this would be a mistake as the two share a number of characteristics and both are susceptible to such appropriation. 117

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn

Conclusion Archer’s social realism was drawn upon to look at the ways in which the pedagogical approach of SCL can be misconceptionalized and misapplied in that the approach contradicts the structural and cultural conditions in the context in which it is implemented. Structures and cultures in the context enable or constrain the implementation of a new approach and so we need to carefully interrogate context and not simply embrace student-centeredness as generic “best practice” to be readily implemented. Student-centeredness can either be complementary to the dominant structures and cultures or it can be contradictory. In this chapter we have suggested three ways in which contradictions can emerge between student-centeredness and the structural and cultural conditions in the context which then results in a situational logic of elimination or correction, whereby student-centeredness is either abandoned or is misappropriated. In the first misconception, the lack of awareness of how knowledge is structured can lead to the implementation of student-centeredness in ways that fail to make the target knowledge structures explicit and accessible. When students are studying, they are studying toward something. Providing safe spaces of engagement that do not include access to the target abstract and complex powerful knowledge is an epistemological injustice. Implementing SCL in ways that foreground justice and equality requires academics to have a strongly developed understanding of the knowledge creation processes in their discipline such that these can be made accessible to students. The student-centered approach then allows not only for the acquisition of such knowledge creation processes, but also the critique thereof. It is only by shining a light on what form of knowledge and what kind of knowers are being legitimated in the field or discipline that these become open to challenge. In the second misconception, the culture of the “decontextualized learner” whereby students are perceived as individuals with inherent attributes, rather than social beings, can allow student-centeredness to be implemented as a means by which individual student attributes are assessed and used as an explanation for student success or failure, and this hides the role of larger social structures such as racism, sexism and so on. We cannot teach images of ourselves; we need to take the time to understand students as individuals who bring with them a variety of cultural capital. For many students, their prior knowledge and ways of being in the world have been excluded and absented from the curriculum. SCL needs to make spaces to connect classroom learning to students’ lives. Metrics identifying students’ language, emotional and cognitive strengths may well be useful, but these do not tell us much about how students make their way through the social structures and cultures of the world or how their race, class, identity and so on may have led to experiences of privilege or oppression. It is only by understanding students as social beings that we can begin to engage with the ways in which HE can inadvertently serve to reinforce social divides. SCL when appropriately implemented can allow us to ask questions about whose interests are being served in curriculum choices and whose voices are being heard. The third contradiction which results in a misapplication of student-centeredness is its appropriation by a neoliberal culture, whereby student-centeredness becomes the means of identifying the demands of the customer who needs to be appeased. Student-centeredness offers us a crucial focus on who our learners are, a space to recognize and legitimate the knowledges they bring with them, and a deep concern for their learning processes. But as with any educational approach, it has the potential to be misapplied in ways that not only undermine its potential but actively contribute to social injustices. It is important to recall that being student-centered is not about appeasing student expectations which may be at odds with their learning needs. This chapter attempted to provoke reflection on how there can be misconceptions about the tenets of student-centeredness which lead to misapplications of student-centered principles. The 118

Misconceptions and misapplications

chapter cautions that we need to look carefully at the context in which it is being implemented and mediate the processes in ways that safeguard its central goal of enhanced access to powerful knowledge.

References Archer M. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Archer M. (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Baeten M., Kyndt E., Struyven K. & Dochy F. (2010) Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review 5(3), 243–260. Barnacle R. & Dall’Alba G. (2017) Committed to learn: Student engagement and care in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 36(7), 1326–1338. Bathmaker A-M., Ingram N., Abrahams J., Hoare A., Waller R. & Bradley H. (2016) Higher Education, Social Class and Social Mobility: The Degree Generation. Palgrave McMillan, London. Bernstein B.B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Md. Biggs J. (2012) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development 31(1), 39–55. Boler M. & Zembylas M. (2003) Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference. In Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change. (Trifonas P., ed.), Routledge Falmer, New York, pp. 110–136. Boughey C.  & McKenna S. (2016) Academic literacy and the decontextualized learner. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 4, 1–9. Boughey C.  & McKenna S. (2017) Analysing an audit cycle: A critical realist account. Studies in Higher Education 42(6), 963–975. Cannon R. & Newble D. (2000) A Handbook for Teachers in University and Colleges (4th ed.). Kogan Page, London. Case J., Marshall D., McKenna S. & Mogashana D. (2018) Going to University: The Influence of Higher Education on the Lives of Young South Africans. African Minds, Cape Town. Chen E. (2013) Neoliberalism and popular women’s culture: Rethinking choice, freedom and agency. European Journal of Cultural Studies 16(4), 440–452. Dewey J. (1916) Education and Democracy. Macmillan, New York. European Students Union (2015) Overview on Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education in Europe: Research Study. Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/?publication=overview-on-student-centred-learning-inhigher-education-in-europe on 26 July 2019. Freire P. (1968) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Continuum Publishing Company, New York. Garforth L. & Gallinat A. (2018) Constructing and practising student engagement. Learning and Teaching 11(1), 1–18. Garraway J.W. (2017) Participatory parity and epistemological access in the extended curriculum programmes. Education as Change 21(2), 109–125. Giroux H.A. (2005) The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics. College Literature 32(1), 1–19. Greener S. (2015) What do we mean by “student-centred” learning? Interactive Learning Environments 23(1), 1–2. Guinier L. (2016) The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America. Beacon, Boston, MA. Hlengwa A., McKenna S. & Njovane T. (2018) The lenses we use to research student experience. In Pathways to the Public Good: Access, Experiences and Outcomes of South African Undergraduate Education. (Ashwin P. & Case J., eds.), African Minds, Cape Town, pp. 149–163. Hong T.P.T. (2011) Issues to consider when implementing student-centred learning practices at Asian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(5), 519–528. Langford R. (2010) Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early childhood educators into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(1), 113–127. Lea S.J., Stephenson D. & Troy J. (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334. Leibowitz B., Bozalek V., Rohleder P., Carolissen R. & Swartz L. (2010) “Ah, but the whiteys love to talk about themselves”: Discomfort as a pedagogy for change. Race Ethnicity and Education 13(1), 83–100.

119

Sioux McKenna and Lynn Quinn Luescher T.M., Klemenčič M. & Jowi J.O. (eds.) (2016) Student Politics in Africa: Representation and Activism. African Minds, Cape Town. Maclellan E.  & Soden R. (2004) The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centred learning. Instructional Science 32(3), 253–268. Maton K. (2014) Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. Routledge, Abingdon. McKenna S. (2013) The dangers of student-centered learning: A caution about blind spots in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7(2), 1–5. Mettler S. (2014) Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic, New York. Mgqwashu E. (2018) Rurality and access to higher education. Keynote address at the First Year Experience Conference, Johannesburg. Morrow W. (2009) Bounds of Democracy: Epistemological Access in Higher Education. HSRC Press, Cape Town. Muller J. (2000) Reclaiming Knowledge: Social Theory, Curriculum and Education Policy. Routledge Falmer, London. Naidoo R. (2004) Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25, 457–471. Nixon E, Scullion R. & Hearn R. (2016) Her majesty the student: Marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student-consumer. Studies in Higher Education 43(6), 927–943. Norquay N. (1999) Social difference and the problem of the “unique individual”: An uneasy legacy of child-centred pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation 24(2), 183–196. O’Neill G. & McMahon T. (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers. In Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. (O’Neill G., Moore S. & McMullin B., eds.), AISHE, Dublin, pp. 27–36. Reay D. & Vincent C. (2016) Theorizing Social Class and Education. Routledge, London. Scott I. (2009) First year experience as terrain of failure or platform for development? Critical choices for higher education. In Focus on First-Year Success: Perspectives Emerging from South Africa and Beyond. (Leibowitz B., van der Merwe A. & van Schalkwyk S., eds.), African SUN MeDia, Stellenbosch, pp. 17–36. Shore C. (2010) Beyond the multiversity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic university. Social Anthropology 18(1), 15–29. Trow M. (1973) Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Berkeley. Trowler V. (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. Higher Education Academy, 1–52. Retrieved from www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/studentengagement/StudentEngagementLiterature Review.pdf on 7 December 2018. Vorster J. & Quinn L. (2017) The “decolonial turn”: What does it mean for academic staff development? Education as Change 21(1), 31–49. Wheelahan L. (2007) How competency-based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education 5, 637–651. Wong J. (2004) Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually based? International Education Journal 4(4), 154–166. Young M. (2008) Constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education 32, 1–28. Young M. & Muller J. (2010) Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education 45(1), 11–27. Young M. & Muller J. (2013) On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education 1(3), 229–250. Zepke N. (2015) What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times? Higher Education 69, 693–704. Zembylas M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: The tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education 10(2), 163–174.

120

PART II

Student-centered learning processes and outcomes

7 PROMOTING ENGAGEMENT, UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICAL AWARENESS Tapping the potential of peer-to-peer studentcentered learning experiences in the humanities and beyond Liz Dawes Duraisingh

Introduction This chapter makes the case that providing carefully designed peer-to-peer student-centered learning (SCL) opportunities within higher education (HE) can lead to multiple intellectual and personal benefits for learners. It draws from a design-based study that sought to develop precollegiate students’ understanding of the topic of human migration via an online, social mediatype platform. Participants explored the phenomenon of human migration individually, often in deeply personal ways, and then learned both with and from other students engaged in the same exploration. This chapter suggests that experiences which enable learners to tap into the knowledge, experiences and perspectives of diverse peers can enhance their substantive understanding of a phenomenon, as well as promote deeper understandings regarding the constructed and contingent nature of knowledge, including the ways in which their own perspectives and understandings have been influenced by cultural, political and social forces. While this study involved teenage participants, the overarching design principles remain relevant for HE contexts. Indeed, somewhat older students are likely to gain more from such experiences given their presumably enhanced capacities for critical and abstract thinking including about themselves (Harter 1999); at the same time, students in the 18–25 age bracket in particular are still developmentally primed to grapple with issues concerning their own identities and lives, especially in the context of an increasingly complex world (Arnett 2015). It is also worth noting that while technology was leveraged to connect young people from different classes with one another in this study, the design principles could be replicated within a single class, with or without technology. In what follows, some theoretical background is presented. The background to the designbased research study and the research methods are then described. The findings are reported in a way that highlights the special potential of carefully crafted peer-to-peer SCL experiences to

123

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

accelerate learning in ways that can be intellectually enriching as well as engaging for students. The implications for HE contexts are discussed as well as some puzzles, limitations and potential avenues for further research.

Theoretical background This section outlines the literature and practices that influenced the approach to SCL taken in this study: research related to peer-to-peer learning pedagogy, especially in the context of HE settings; young people’s developmental needs; epistemological understanding both with regards to the study of history and general cognitive development; and design-based research practices in education.

Student-centered learning This study was an initiative of Project Zero, a research center known for promoting and even articulating broadly constructivist student-centered approaches to learning (e.g., Blythe 1998; Gardner 1985; Tishman et al. 1993). That is, young people are seen to actively construct knowledge rather than passively receive it, and productive learning environments are seen to be ones in which individual learners are given opportunities to develop their own ideas and “thinking dispositions” through a variety of modalities that allow for different learning styles and intelligences. Following from Bruner (1960), Perkins (2009) argues that learners of all ages benefit from authentic learning experiences that mirror real life or expert versions of a phenomenon. It is important for learners to be given opportunities to engage with the kinds of questions, problems, or processes that resemble those taken on by practitioners or experts. Learners also need opportunities to apply or “perform” their emerging understandings in novel situations rather than merely repeat what they have been told to learn (Wiske 1998). Collaborative or peer-to-peer learning opportunities are typically part and parcel of studentcentered pedagogical approaches given the benefits of students learning with and from one another (Crumly 2015), particularly when learning is documented or “made visible” in ways that account for both individual and group learning (Krechevsky et al. 2013). Light structures, such as thinking routines (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison 2011), can be powerful mechanisms for giving individual students voice and pushing thinking in group settings. The study that is the focus of this chapter incorporates and extends this body of studentcentered practice and research; as described later, it involves an experimental online learning community designed to foster thoughtful intercultural interactions among youth from around the world in ways that leverage the affordances of social media-type environments. It particularly featured the concept of slow looking and listening (Tishman 2018) on the grounds that starting with students’ own observations and intentionally seeking to have them move beyond first impressions can lead to them developing new insights or more nuanced understandings about a phenomenon, especially if they are doing so in conjunction with other learners and benefiting from their close observations too.

Peer-to-peer learning Peer-to-peer learning is a broad descriptor for educational practices that involve opportunities for learners to both support and learn from one another; as noted previously, it is associated with SCL approaches. Practices include peer mentoring, peer feedback, and collaborative assignments. In HE and beyond, the term “peer learning” is most closely associated with Eric Mazur’s 124

Promoting engagement and understanding

work in undergraduate physics classes. The specific pedagogic format he developed carefully builds in opportunities for collaborative knowledge retrieval and application in the pursuit of understanding agreed-upon concepts such as the laws of gravity (Mazur 1997). Mazur’s pedagogy has been widely adapted and modified within different contexts and has been particularly influential in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) or science courses. In other HE contexts, forms of peer-to-peer learning have foregrounded learning goals other than content mastery, such as enculturating students into academic practices and building their self-esteem as scholars (Hilsdon 2014). Meanwhile, Mazur himself has pointed to domain-general benefits of peer learning such as critical thinking and metacognitive monitoring (Schell & Butler 2018), as well as the building of cooperative rather than competitive classroom learning environments. The design of the study reported on here resonates in some ways with Mazur’s peer learning model. However, students in this case were invited to engage in a more open-ended exploration of a complex and ambiguous topic. In this regard, the study highlights the potential for SCL to advance student understanding in social studies or humanities-oriented disciplines which involve grappling with less defined or agreed-upon content areas than, for example, physics or computer science. It also focuses on different potential affordances of group learning: while Mazur’s model amplifies opportunities for retrieving and applying knowledge, this study focuses on opportunities for students to share complementary knowledge and experiences and to negotiate multiple perspectives (Nokes-Malach et al. 2015).

The developmental needs of students The field of emerging adulthood suggests that vital development work – once the purview of late adolescence (Erikson 1968) – is being deferred until later in the life cycle and squarely into what for many are their college years (Arnett 2015). It is therefore important for students enrolled in HE to have at least some learning experiences that allow them to tap into issues concerning their own lives, identities and values, in ways that can simultaneously enhance their intellectual growth. Sociologists point out that while previous generations were largely ascribed particular identities, individuals today face a plethora of choices regarding identity construction – choices which demand an ongoing “reflexive project of the self ” (Giddens 1991) and active attention to the kinds of life stories they want to put together (Beck 1992). New technologies are also altering how young people experience social life and the range of narratives or identities that are accessible to them (Turkle 1997). The learning design at the heart of this study was intended to promote participants’ intellectual understanding of a topic and provide a venue for them to explore their own identities and perspectives through interaction with diverse peers, with the aim of promoting and even accelerating development in both areas simultaneously (Dawes Duraisingh 2017).

Why epistemology matters: insights from history education This chapter also draws on research into young people’s understanding of history, a discipline that is relevant here given the study’s focus on the topic of human migration – a complex and ongoing part of human existence. Following a cognitive psychology tradition, this literature sheds light on the tacit second-order or meta-historical ideas that underpin the ways in which young people make sense of the past, including epistemological ideas about the nature and status of historical evidence and interpretations and historical causality and change. Many of these concepts are “unnatural” or counter-intuitive (Boix Mansilla & Gardner 1997; Gardner 2000; 125

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

Wineburg 2001, 2018); young people often fail, for example, to consider the constructed nature of what counts as historical knowledge or the complex interplay between structural forces and individual volition (Ashby 2005; Ashby et al. 1997; Barton 2008; Lee 2005). Meanwhile, Boix Mansilla (2001) indicates that a particular challenge can be learners focusing on recording the past as accurately and completely as possible, which accords with an objectivist epistemology that allows for only one “truth.” While much of this literature relates to children, research among college-level students indicates that this challenge is also highly relevant to young adult learners (Carretero & Kriger 2008; Wertsch 1994; Wineburg 2018). Lee and Shemilt (2003, 2004, 2009) and Blow (2011) have developed empirically based progression models for different meta-historical concepts; these models show how young people’s ideas about history can become more powerful and enable them to “do more” with their historical thinking and/or overcome “epistemological and methodological dead ends” (Seixas 2004, p.  105). For example, Lee and Shemilt (2004) outline six levels of thinking about historical accounts, including, for instance, the idea that accounts of the past are merely matters of opinion because nobody alive was there to see what happened, and the more sophisticated idea that accounts of the past must answer questions and fit criteria.

Epistemological issues and general cognitive development Non-domain specific theories about young people’s cognitive development are also relevant. Perry’s (1968) developmental scheme, for instance, takes account of the tendency of many adolescents to lapse into extreme relativism – which maps on to some students’ tendency to view all historical accounts as being as good as one another. Meanwhile, Wertsch (1994) found that American college students typically produced a “quest for freedom” narrative when asked to explain the origins of the US: he differentiated between students who merely related the narrative as if it were uncontested information and those who discursively distanced themselves from it by stepping outside of the narrative framework to pass commentary on it. Relatedly, VanSledright (1998, p.  76) claims that an individual’s “historical positionality” – that is, “your own temporal bearings that you use to make sense of yourself in relation to the past and your imagined future” – are related to epistemological understandings or “how you know what you know and come to know it.” It is hard to pin down students’ underlying epistemological stances, which may in any case be rather inconsistent or in flux, especially given that they may be trying to achieve several different things at once as they interact with other people or consider the past. However, theories which seek to account for the increasing sophistication by which individuals make meaning of the world, such as the potential move from passively accepting information from sources of authority to taking the responsibility of making meaning for oneself, embrace a constructivist as well as a cognitive developmental stance (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich 2002; Kegan 1982; Perry 1968). It is also worth noting that prevailing theory and practice in qualitative research routinely call for researcher reflexivity given that researchers cannot help but interact with the people and/ or context under investigation and will bring a certain interpretative lens to their data (Luttrell 2010). Well-designed peer-to-peer SCL opportunities can offer students a powerful experiential demonstration of the constructed nature of knowledge and how their own perspective on the world is influenced by various factors including their geographic location, the communities to which they belong, their life experiences to date, and even prevailing cultural and political narratives. Such opportunities are increasingly important given our age of information overload and interconnectivity. Learning experiences that offer opportunities to grapple with epistemologies – what is 126

Promoting engagement and understanding

worth knowing and why and how knowledge is constructed and validated – can prove useful for finding one’s way through the morass and discerning among competing, overlapping or merely false accounts (VanSledright 2009; Wineburg 2018), as well as the development of self-awareness regarding how one is situated within the wider world and interpreting it (Takacs 2003).

Background to the study: Out of Eden Learn This study involved a curriculum called Stories of Human Migration. The curriculum was developed as part of an online learning community and research project called Out of Eden Learn, the name of which derives from a collaboration with writer Paul Salopek and his Out of Eden Walk project.1 The curriculum, co-designed by the author, Sarah Sheya and Emi Kane, convened teenage youth growing up in different parts of the world to investigate the topic of human migration in parallel with one another and to learn from and interact with one another regarding their various stories and perspectives. This English-medium curriculum encouraged them to think about the topic of migration expansively and in ways related to their own lives, whether or not they considered themselves to be migrants. Numerous external sources were also incorporated into the curriculum, including firsthand narratives of migrant and refugee experiences. At the time of the study, the curriculum invited young people to listen attentively to and then recount the migration stories of family or friends; take slow walks in their neighborhoods, paying particular attention to both visible and invisible borders; analyze contrasting media representations of migrants and migration; and create resources to help newcomers navigate their local communities. They then posted their work and read and commented on one another’s work. The curriculum therefore combined low-technology activities that encouraged young people to engage with their communities and a social media-type format that inherently promoted constructivist approaches to education (Schrader 2015).2 This curriculum was offered as part of a broader effort to promote thoughtful intercultural inquiry and exchange in the context of the Internet’s “echo chamber effect,” whereby people tend to connect with people who are like themselves and the content on their screens both reflects and reinforces their existing interests, views or predilections (Pariser 2011; Zuckerman 2013). In all Out of Eden Learn curricula, participants are invited to (1) slow down to observe the world carefully and listen attentively to others; (2) exchange stories and perspectives with one another; and (3) connect their own lives to bigger human stories and systems. Consistent with these goals and inspired by Project Zero thinking routines, a “Dialogue Toolkit” was developed for the platform (Kreikemeier & James 2018) to encourage young people to listen and respond thoughtfully to one other: as noted earlier, light structures can facilitate SCL.3 It is worth noting that since this study was conducted, three new tools have been added to the toolkit (POV/Point of View, Challenge, and Name) to encourage more critical conversations among young people, while participants are also given opportunities to reflect on their own learning both as part of the activities and in a post survey. Overall, the curriculum design seeks to offer a rich learning experience that leverages the opportunity for young people to learn both with and from one another.

Methods In what follows, the overall design-based approach to research is described. Next, the sample and various data collection methods are outlined: teacher interviews; student work and comments by other students on that work taken from the Out of Eden Learn platform; and student postsurvey responses. Finally, the analytic process is described. 127

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

Design-based approaches to educational research build on existing knowledge and research to try to create effective learning interventions or contexts; learners’ responses to these interventions or contexts are then studied and the design is further iterated upon. Meanwhile, tools and theory can be generated from these “natural laboratories” in ways that go beyond the confines of a single study (The Design-Based Research Collective 2003; Sandoval and Bell 2004): a great deal can be learned from what learners choose to say and do within these designed spaces, and this kind of research benefits from being grounded in real-world practices that account for the complexity and messiness of learning. The findings reported on below reveal some of the learning possibilities that can happen when students are given opportunities to learn both with and from one another in engaging and personally relevant ways. All data analysis was conducted by the co-designers of the Stories of Human Migration curriculum. Fourteen interviews with teachers from six countries were conducted to understand how they implemented the curriculum and incorporated it into their existing practices and what they believed their students gained from participating in the program. For the purposes of this paper, the transcripts were analyzed to look for signs of resonance with student work and survey responses, and to provide important contextual information. Data analysis focused on a close examination of student work and comments. The 140 participants in the sample, all teens, came from Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Singapore, and the US (five different states). They participated in Out of Eden Learn via regular classroom instruction: the decision to participate was therefore taken by their respective teachers. These students were selected because they were in the two learning groups with the highest levels of participation out of a total of eight groups who were following the Stories of Human Migration curriculum at that time. Detailed demographic data were not collected for individual students because their identities were protected on the platform. However, it is known that they were situated in a variety of public and private institutions – some demographically quite homogeneous and others more racially and ethnically diverse – and that they were variously enrolled in English language, history, journalism and photography classes. Student work from the platform, with all accompanying comments, was exported from the platform into a spreadsheet for a first round of analysis. This work included student responses associated with the curriculum activities: conducting interviews, taking neighborhood walks, engaging in media analysis and producing newcomer resources, as outlined previously. Initially, 50 pieces with accompanying dialogue threads were coded using an abductive approach (Deterding & Waters 2018). That is, while the coding was informed by a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz 2006) and there was a genuine attempt to learn open-endedly from what young people were doing and saying – such as making personal connections to peers’ migration stories, critically analyzing news articles, or stating that they now felt motivated to follow migration in the news more carefully – the research team’s interpretations were also shaped by the goals and design of the curriculum. Additionally, post-survey responses by 65 participants were exported from Qualtrics software and analyzed. Some but not all of the survey responses were by the same young people whose work and comments were analyzed. Questions included ones that asked participants what they thought they had learned about human migration; if particular interactions with other participants had felt important to them; what they thought was challenging about learning about the topic of human migration; and if or how the learning experience had impacted what they were now doing (e.g., how they were interpreting news media, interacting with people in person or via social media, talking about migration or thinking about the world). An initial codebook comprising ten primary categories and 44 sub-categories was developed, with the data analyzed using Dedoose coding software by three researchers who divided up the data, 128

Promoting engagement and understanding

meeting periodically to compare findings and discuss challenges. In all, 485 pieces of student work, along with associated comments, were examined. The post survey responses were similarly analyzed, providing a helpful complement to the student work in that they allowed for private reflection by participants about their learning. The codebook was consolidated and the data recoded, with 76 pieces of student work coded by all three researchers to establish consistency. A pedagogic framework was developed for educators (Dawes Duraisingh, Sheya & Kane 2018). In this chapter the findings are discussed in terms of the affordances of peer-to-peer SCL opportunities.

Study findings The findings from this study indicate that learning gains can occur across three distinct dimensions in peer-to-peer SCL experiences, at least in the case of this curriculum: curiosity and engagement about the topic; nuanced understanding of the topic; and critical awareness including one’s own relationship to or perspective on the topic.

Curiosity and engagement While this study was conducted with pre-collegiate students who did not necessarily choose to be enrolled in the program or even in school itself, instructors at all levels of education are generally concerned with learner engagement and motivation (Barkley 2010). Even accounting for the fact that they were provided with a toolkit to facilitate dialogue and were posting comments in a safe online environment where their true identities were not revealed, there was ample evidence that young people in this study responded with warmth and appreciation to one another: they frequently expressed gratitude for the opportunity to interact with peers who had different life experiences from their own, praised one another’s work and thanked other participants for taking the time to read their work. Participants seemed to admire peers who shared personal migration stories, especially if they made themselves somewhat vulnerable in doing so. For example: I find it so interesting that even throughout the hardships you faced, not just with the move, but also your parents’ divorce, that you kept a positive outlook on the journey itself. You were introduced to new people and new things and you embraced that, I admire that so much! Such comments arguably demonstrate the developmental needs of young people on the cusp of adulthood as much as their intellectual interest in migration. Participants often asked questions of one another to encourage further sharing: “It must of [sic] been hard, going all the way from Africa to the United States. How was it adjusting to the new environment? Why did you move?” or “What was the hardest thing you had to adjust to, the new culture, people, living arrangements, etc.?” Some participants moved beyond endorsing a post or asking questions to disagreeing with an expressed view: I see your point definitely, but I personally do not agree with it. . . . I do agree with your views on legal immigration as opposed to illegal, but I do believe it is important to remember that not everyone has the same opportunities or abilities, and that sometimes it’s necessary to break rules in order to survive. Participants frequently pointed out connections and similarities among stories, including to their own lived experiences – for example, a Korean student connected a student’s neighbor’s story about 129

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

overcoming adversity to her own experiences of being bullied as an outsider in a Seoul elementary school: When an outsider tries to enter a tight-knit community, they can face a lot of hostility and, in your case, potentially abuse based on their appearance. It is a huge obstacle which prevents humans from interacting with each other positively and productively, and with the election of our new president, I don’t see that ending any time soon. While one would naturally expect more substantive and sophisticated discourse at the HE level, the widespread popularity of social media across all ages suggests that this format, which facilitates peer-to-peer interaction, can be an effective way to engage young people in the exploration of a topic. In addition, participants made a variety of comments in their survey reflections that indicated some longer-term impact in terms of engagement around the topic of human migration and ways of interacting with the world. For instance, they talked about being more media savvy: “I now read media outlets with more ‘caution’ knowing that it is important to have an opinion of your own rather than having it easily swayed by how media portrays certain issues.” Others reported feeling empowered and equipped to discuss the topic of migration with friends and family members – for example, “Now that I know of this situation I love discussing with my grandparents. This was something I did not discuss before, but now I can do it.” Another student expressed that she is now more attentive to topics connected to migration and “can give deeper opinions” when she engages in conversations around migration. Several claimed that they were now making more effort to engage with migrant students in their school communities. For instance, one student said: Because of the current immigration issues in the United States and this learning experience I find myself more involved in the news media and just interacting with the people around me who have different cultures and backgrounds and asking them what they think as well as conversing with them in general about this topic. Here the student reports a higher level of intellectual engagement with the topic and a broader dispositional shift to seek out different perspectives.

Nuanced understanding This peer-to-peer SCL format was also found to facilitate substantive and conceptual understanding of the topic of human migration. The experience primarily helped participants understand that there is considerable diversity in terms of individual migration experiences – across different contexts and situations but also within the same communities or groups of migrants. Such understandings were enhanced by peers from different contexts sharing stories with one another and being surprised both by the variation across stories but also some similarities. For example, one participant described her mother’s largely positive experience of migrating from Malaysia to Singapore but pointed out: However, this is not representative of all the migrants. I have been researching about rural-urban migration in China and India recently, and though the migration does allow for more job opportunities, it does have many downsides and impacts on the person and the country. 130

Promoting engagement and understanding

Others commented on the variety of reasons for people migrating, as represented by the stories posted by peers on the platform, as well as differences across countries and different time periods in the way in which migrants are received. If migration is defined in expansive terms, all students in a classroom are able to juxtapose stories of migration that matter to them or to people that they know and develop more nuanced understandings of the topic. Participants also had the opportunity to explore the complexity of individual experiences and the myriad emotions that can be involved. One student described her stepmother’s migration from Cambodia to Thailand and then to the US during the Vietnam War, and how that experience still influences her behavior: “When she was crossing the border, her mother took all their clothes in order to sew pockets in the bands to make sure that they could keep their valuables. Yay still sews pockets in her bras to keep her money in.” Participants also shared stories that showed how migrants develop new cultural practices while still retaining the ones related to their heritage, such as cooking certain dishes or remembering particular celebrations. Young people also shared personal stories of migration, which often generated a good deal of interest about these life experiences. For instance, one student whose mother’s second marriage entailed him moving from Mexico to Argentina recounted: At first I was very shy so it was difficult for me to adapt to the new form of life but even so this journey made me see the different traditions of people and let me make new good friends and I am proud of it. Young people in this study less frequently grasped the opportunity to explore the complex relationship between structural forces compelling or inducing migration and individual motivations to migrate. All participants benefited from rich and detailed accounts of individual migration stories that accounted both for factors beyond an individual’s control – such as wars or political oppression – and individual desires or aspirations such as seeking educational or work opportunities or pursuing love. However, they did not necessarily reflect on or seek to unravel the complexity of push-pull factors involved in immigration stories – most likely a flaw in the curriculum materials which left this thinking to happen spontaneously rather than an inherent limitation of the peer-to-peer SCL format.

Critical awareness A key affordance of a curriculum and learning context such as this, and arguably of particular importance for learners in HE, is the opportunity for participants to reflect critically on and consider their own and other people’s perspectives on migration. Young people generally appreciated the opportunity to learn from a variety of migration stories and recognized the importance and complexity of perspective taking. As one participant noted, I was able to see different perspectives and other stories that were unique. I was also able to share my own thoughts at the same time. This was a very different experience [to be able to] look at stories through different perspectives of different people. However, understanding the perspectives of those caught up in forced migration, for example, is not cognitively or emotionally easy, as some but not all participants recognized: “I had to think hard about what I posted in case it could offend someone, which is the last thing that I wanted.” Given the timely and potentially sensitive nature of the topic of human migration, critical media news literacy was woven into the curriculum – with participant responses indicating 131

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

different levels of complexity that align with the literature on epistemological understanding and historical understanding. For example, some emphasized figuring out the “truth” – certainly not to be taken for granted in the current news media climate. One student, for instance, commented on the way in which “word choice can be manipulated,” adding, “It is really kind of scary, because how can anyone really know the truth about immigrants in Turkey if articles on the topic voice opinion instead of facts!” Other participants focused on which kinds of media they believed to be most trustworthy, with some viewing level of detail or “thoroughness of facts” as most important and others deeming oral interviews or videos to be inherently more trustworthy than written articles. Some were concerned about the ways in which media can “dehumanize” refugees and other migrants; others accused outlets of hiding or withholding information. In the most nuanced responses, however, participants actively considered specific aspects of pieces of media: the purpose, intended audience, likely perspective or affiliations of the author, and/or use and effect of particular language and visuals. They analyzed the tone and visuals of specific news sources and how certain journalistic choices were intended to elicit particular emotions or reactions by news consumers, such as compassion, anger or outrage. Participants frequently commented to one another that they had experienced a shift in their perspective or thinking about migration or migrants: for instance, one participant wrote, “Wow I really enjoyed this post! You took this to a unique place that dealt with pressing social issues. I never really considered the negative borders that are around that I can’t even see.” Some participants spoke about considering individuals in a new way or hesitating to think they know their story: Yes, I think about the students who come to our school from other countries much differently. Some of them could have gone through a lot to come here in search of a better life, and I wouldn’t even know it. Some attested that they had developed new attitudes as a result of engaging with other young people around the topic of migration. One participant reflected: As a result of my participation in this learning journey, I have begun to make an effort to become less judgmental and more understanding because I, now, have reflected on and realized my bad habit of subconsciously enforcing my own biases on others. Another participant said, “I feel that my participation in this learning journey taught me to consider the similarities and differences between cultures more so I could look at issues from multiple perspectives.” Some actively reflected on their own tendencies to see the world in a particular way or to quickly judge people: my interaction with [student name] was one that I felt was extremely important because her insights really opened up my eyes, to understand and reflect on my own biases . . . reading about her experience where her first impression was proven wrong, made me reflect about the times in which I stubbornly labeled people by my first impressions of them. A small number of participants commented in more meta ways about how their own experiences and cultural context helped shape their views on migration. One student noted the difficulty of understanding other people’s experiences: “rules, norms, and boundaries or the ways in which we move around are culturally generated and our perception of what is normal is 132

Promoting engagement and understanding

shaped by the environments in which we grew up.” In a related line of research involving Out of Eden Learn, researchers found that a small number of participants were able to reflect on their own perceptions of different cultures and how they had been shaped by different influences – which they attributed to this learning experience (Dawes Duraisingh et al. forthcoming). Such insights, which were relatively rare among these teenage participants would presumably be more common among college-age students, as one college professor found in his earth sciences class which sought to tap into the life experiences and perspectives of students, in part to make them more aware of their epistemologies and to appreciate the legitimacy of their own viewpoints and life experiences. Such learning experiences can be transformational for students, especially those who may have hitherto felt sidelined or marginalized by education systems (Takacs 2003).

Challenges: overgeneralization, overconfidence and othering Peer-to-peer SCL designs such as the one involved in this study certainly offer important learning opportunities, even if they by no means guarantee that learners will embrace or benefit from them. However, challenges were also observed – ones that in this case were potentially exacerbated by the online format and elements of intercultural dialogue. These challenges can be distilled down into the “three Os” of overgeneralization, overconfidence, and othering – a schema applicable beyond the parameters of this particular curriculum (Dawes Duraisingh et al. forthcoming). Overgeneralization involved participants invoking single stories about migration or migrants, making highly general or sweeping statements about migrants, or ignoring similarities and/or differences among different migration stories. Participants manifested overconfidence when they seemed to lack appropriate humility about how much they actually knew about the topic, over-asserted themselves as being able to represent particular groups, or presumed their own experiences and/or perspectives as the norm. Othering, meanwhile, involved participants appearing to romanticize or exotify other people’s lives or situations or to make migrants objects of pity in uncritical or even disrespectful ways. In practice, the three Os were often entangled and could also appear in statements that otherwise reflected positive aspects. US youth, who made up just over half the participants in this study, sometimes tapped into the idea of the American Dream in ways that sounded overgeneralizing or overconfident. For instance, the following comment, while presumably well-intentioned, arguably sounds patronizing, especially to those for whom opportunities seem beyond reach: “Stories like this are always so nice to hear. Anyone can make it in America if they work hard, despite hardship; America is the land of opportunity.” There was sometimes a fine line between pity and empathy. For instance, one participant commented that as result of reading various news articles she is now more aware of challenges associated with migration: “I  realized how hard life is for these people. I now know that even if this situation seems so unreal, it happens every day.” She arguably overgeneralizes about migrants’ experience; furthermore, the wording “these people” seems to put a gap between herself and the people she has read about in ways that assume that none of her peers have had firsthand experience of migration. Participants could express binary ways of thinking about migrant experiences and issues related to migration, often in ways that reflected prevalent political and media discourses in the Global North. For example, one student contrasted “desirable” and “undesirable” migrants: From my point of view immigrants can be a problem as well as a solution it depends of [sic] what kind of people they are, if they have studied and they work to help the countries, they are a solution, but if they haven’t studied and the government is spending the money on people that don’t work and only make problems they are a problem. 133

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

Some of these challenges are understandable given the sensitivity of the topic and the potential risks of misunderstanding associated with intercultural encounters. Among teenage youth at least, the immediacy of “insider” firsthand accounts, while engaging and motivating, can lead to a misplaced sense of learning the “truth” about certain cultures or groups of people and the replacing of one single story with another. In this context, however, most problematic comments were made about curriculum resources such as articles, videos and other multimedia content rather than directly to or about peers and their stories. There is ample opportunity here for instructors to unpack such comments to further enhance student learning; meanwhile, some teachers in their interviews talked about pre-emptively cautioning students to consider how their comments might be perceived by peers living in different contexts and with different life experiences.

Discussion This study involved young people aged 13–18 years old: clearly one would expect more sophisticated responses from students enrolled in HE. Yet the affordances of a design that taps into young people’s own connections to a topic that gives them opportunities to explore or discover those connections, and then allows them to learn both with and from one another, has applicability well beyond pre-collegiate classrooms. As discussed earlier, if designed well, such experiences can promote curiosity and engagement, more nuanced understanding about a topic and, crucially, a development of greater critical awareness or self-awareness about one’s own perspective on the world and even how that perspective has been shaped by various influences. It is hard to disentwine which elements of this design-based study were most effective or adaptable to other learning contexts. However, the incorporation of an inquiry-based approach that involved the principles of “slow looking” and which drew directly from participants’ own experiences was a powerful point of departure for learning: participants often found themselves reconsidering what they knew about migration in situations that were close to them at the same time as they were learning about more distant contexts. The development of the Dialogue Toolkit, which was inspired by Project Zero’s thinking routines, further supported productive peer-to-peer exchange, including the posing of thoughtful questions. Creating diverse learning groups – or finding ways to draw out differences in experience, perspective, or opinion – was also a key element: the variety made the space inherently more interesting and engaging, helped participants to develop more nuanced understandings of the topic, and potentially called into question their own experiences, perspectives or opinions as being a baseline norm. In addition, facilitating explicit opportunities for participants to reflect on the learning taking place and to become more aware of their own perspectives and experiences relative to those of others were important. At the least, the design enhanced participants’ appreciation for and knowledge of diverse experiences and perspectives. Throughout, tapping young people’s developmentally driven inclination to explore their own lives, identities and values served the dual purpose of helping them to grow as individuals and to develop intellectually in ways potentially involving important epistemological insights. The three Os point to some accompanying challenges that were of particular resonance given the thematic focus and online intercultural context, but which have broad applicability in any peer-to-peer learning situation. In particular, the power of young people learning firsthand about the world from one another can lead to them being overconfident that they have now heard “the truth” about something rather than one particular perspective, at least in a precollegiate setting. On the one hand, it could be helpful to intentionally toggle between research papers in which researchers are suitably cautious in terms of the claims that they make and more 134

Promoting engagement and understanding

immediate student-generated observations and anecdotes; on the other, it could be useful to preemptively make the challenges of the three Os explicit to participants from the outset. Of course, many uncertainties remain, including the relevance or transferability of the Stories of Human Migration study to HE settings. Some of the factors at play, such as the relative novelty for participants to be able to interact with peers from different backgrounds, may be diminished in HE settings. However, HE students often find themselves for the first time in learning situations with peers who have very different life experiences from their own: in the US, for example, people increasingly live in segregated neighborhoods and attend relatively homogeneous schools (Rothstein 2015; Ryan 2011). The topic of human migration particularly lent itself to young people sharing personal stories involving a high level of human interest but many other topics in the social sciences and the humanities would presumably offer similar opportunities. Out of Eden Learn has developed a curriculum around the topic of planetary health, for instance, which draws on the learning principles of the platform to introduce and develop understanding of scientific concepts related to the environment and health; however, more theoretical or abstract STEM topics may be less amenable to this pedagogic approach. More fundamentally, this design presupposes constructivist approaches to teaching and learning and the value of multiple perspectives; courses that assume a more objectivist philosophy or one right way of doing things would be a poor fit for the kind of pedagogy espoused here. For instance, in contrast, Mazur developed his peer learning pedagogy to help students master specific and uncontested disciplinary content. It is also worth noting that due to the fact that teachers were incorporating the curriculum into different subject contexts and were located in a variety of countries with different curricula and standards, formal assessment goals and tools were not part of the study: instead, this learning experience complemented what teachers were already trying to accomplish with their students. In this sense this study points to useful tools and approaches rather than a whole package for instructors, like that offered by Mazur.

Conclusions What principles or advice can be distilled from this one study for instructors working in higher education? The study suggests the potential benefits of inviting students to: • •

•

• •

•

Slow down to observe the world carefully and listen attentively to others so that they can push beyond immediate impressions; Learn from their own and other students’ direct observations and/or life experiences, perhaps via a platform where students can browse a variety of observations and perspectives at their own pace; Try out light structures such as thinking routines or Out of Eden Learn’s Dialogue Toolkit to enhance their interactions with one another and reinforce the practice of slowing down in their consideration of other people’s perspectives; Compare and contrast different ways in which popular media or other sources have represented the topic, using a critical lens; Reflect on what they have learned from being introduced to a variety of perspectives and experiences – both in terms of the complexity and nuance of the topic and the ways in which knowledge about the topic is constructed, including their own perspectives or understanding of it; Be mindful of the three Os of overgeneralization, overconfidence and othering in their responses. 135

Liz Dawes Duraisingh

The ideas shared here are clearly only one way of approaching peer-to-peer SCL. While pedagogic design is important, skilled instructors are ultimately essential for creating a climate conducive for learning and sharing at any age level, and to support students to make the most of learning opportunities presented to them: they also need to make judicious use of such strategies to make sure they fit the learning goals and student needs at hand (Nokes-Malach et al. 2015). Design-based research in a variety of HE settings could reveal the potential affordances and limitations of student-centered teaching and learning strategies such as the ones presented here that have largely been developed in pre-collegiate settings; straightforward survey or interview studies could reveal how receptive students are to such approaches and what they think they can gain from them. Given the complex and interconnected world in which we live, we owe it to students to give them the kinds of learning experiences that will help them to navigate this complexity, as well as to better understand and situate their own identities, lives, and perspectives within this landscape.

Acknowledgments Sarah Sheya and Emi Kane designed the Stories of Human Migration curriculum with the author. They received input from other Project Zero colleagues, including project co-directors Carrie James and Shari Tishman, and Anastasia Aguiar and Susannah Blair. Sarah Sheya and Emi Kane also conducted the research with the author and developed the pedagogic framework from which this chapter draws. The author also wishes to thank all teachers and students who participated in the research, especially those teachers who were involved in the initial piloting of the curriculum: Brenda Ball, Sharonne Blum, Oliver Brown, Lee Hua Ong, Chris Sloan and Sandra Teng. The research was supported by the Abundance Foundation and Global Cities Inc., a program of Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Notes 1 More information on the Out of Eden Walk project can be found online at: www.nationalgeographic. org/projects/out-of-eden-walk. 2 The full curriculum is available at https://learn.outofedenwalk.com, although it has been modified and updated since this study; in particular, the final major activity has been redesigned to more explicitly support participants to reflect on and synthesize their learning. 3 The toolkit is available at https://learn.outofedenwalk.com.

References Arnett J. (2015) Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, New York. Ashby R. (2005) Students’ approaches to validating historical claims. In Understanding History: Recent Research in History Education. (Ashby R., Gordon P. & Lee P., eds.), Routledge, London, pp. 21–36. Ashby R., Lee P. & Dickinson A. (1997) How children explain the “why” of history: The CHATA research project on teaching history. Social Education 61, 17–21. Barkley E. (2010) Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Barton K.C. (2008) Research on students’ ideas about history. In Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education. (Levstik L.S. & Tyson C.A., eds.), New York and London: Routledge, pp. 239–258. Beck U. (1992) Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA. Blow F. (2011) “Everything flows and nothing stays”: How students make sense of the historical concepts of change, continuity and development. Teaching History 145, 47–55. Blythe T. (1998) The Teaching for Understanding Guide. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

136

Promoting engagement and understanding Boix Mansilla V. (2001) The Pursuit of Understanding: A Study of Exemplary High School Students’ Conceptions of Knowledge Validation in Science and History. EdD Thesis. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Boix Mansilla V. & Gardner H. (1997) On kinds of disciplines and kinds of understanding. Phi Delta Kappan 78( January), 381–386. Bruner J. (1960) The Process of Education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Carretero M. & Kriger M. (2008) Narrativas históricas y construcción de la identidad nacional: Representaciones de alumnos argentinos sobre el “descubrimiento” de américa. Cultura y Educacion 20(2), 229–242. Charmaz K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Crumly C. (2015) Pedagogies for Student-centered Learning: Online and On-Ground. Project Muse, Fortress Press, Baltimore, MD. Dawes Duraisingh E. (2017) Making narrative connections? Exploring how late teens relate their own lives to the historically significant past. London Review of Education: Negotiating the Nation 15(2), 174–193. Dawes Duraisingh L., Blair S. & Aguiar A. (forthcoming) Learning about Culture(s) in the Contemporary Context: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Grey Areas Via Intercultural Digital Exchange. Intercultural Education. Dawes Duraisingh L., Sheya S. & Kane E. (2018) When youth dialogue: A pedagogic framework for changing the conversation about migration. Global Education Review 5(4), 211–235. The Design-Based Research Collective (2003) Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1), 5–8. Deterding N.M. & Waters MC. (2018) Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research 1–32. Erikson E.H. (1968) Identity, Youth, and Crisis. W.W. Norton, New York. Gardner H. (1985) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, New York. Gardner H. (2000) The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests, the K-12 Education that Every Child Deserves. Penguin Books, New York. Giddens A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Harter S. (1999) The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. Guilford Press, New York. Hilsdon J. (2014) Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51(3), 244–254. Hofer B.K. & Pintrich P.R. (eds.) (2002) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway, NJ. Kegan R. (1982) The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Krechevsky M., Mardell B., Rivard M. & Wilson D. (2013) Visible Learners: Promoting Reggio-Inspired Approaches in All Schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kreikemeier A. & James C. (2018) Commenting across difference: Youth dialogue in an intercultural virtual exchange program. Digital Culture & Education 10, 49–66. Lee P. (2005) Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. (Donovan S. & Bransford J., eds.), National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 31–78. Lee P. & Shemilt D. (2003) A scaffold, not a cage: Progression and progression models in history. Teaching History 113, 13–23. Lee P. & Shemilt D. (2004) “I just wish we could go back in the past and find out what really happened”: Progression in understanding about historical accounts. Teaching History 117, 25–31. Lee P. & Shemilt D. (2009) Is any explanation better than none? Over-determined narratives, senseless agencies and one-way streets in students’ learning about cause and consequence in history. Teaching History 137, 42–49. Luttrell W. (ed.) (2010) Qualitative Educational Research: Readings in Reflexive Methodology and Transformative Practice. Routledge, New York. Mazur E. (1997) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Nokes-Malach T., Richey J. & Gadgil E. (2015) When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review 27(4), 645–656.

137

Liz Dawes Duraisingh Pariser E. (2011) Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Group US, New York. Perkins D. (2009) Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education. JosseyBass, San Francisco, CA. Perry W.G. (1968) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Year: A Scheme. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York. Ritchhart R., Church M. & Morrison K. (2011) Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Rothstein R. (2015) The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems 7(1), 21–30. Ryan J. (2011) Five Miles Away, a World Apart: One City, Two Schools, and the Story of Educational Opportunity in Modern America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Sandoval W.A. & Bell P. (2004) Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist 39(4), 199–201. Schell J.A. & Butler A.C. (2018) Insights from the science of learning can inform evidence-based implementation of peer instruction. Frontiers in Education, 3. Schrader D.E. (2015) Constructivism and learning in the age of social media. In Constructivism Reconsidered in the Age of Social Media: New Directions for Teaching and Learning. (Stabile C. & Ershler J., eds.). JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp. 23–36. Seixas P. (2004) Theorizing historical consciousness. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo. Takacs D. (2003) How does your positionality bias your epistemology? Thought & Action 19(1), 27–38. Tishman S. (2018) Slow Looking: The Art and Practice of Learning through Observation. Routledge, New York. Tishman S., Jay E. & Perkins D.N. (1993) Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice 32(3), 147–153. Turkle S. (1997) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster, New York. VanSledright B. (1998) On the importance of historical positionality to thinking about and teaching history. International Journal of Social Education 12(2), 1. VanSledright B. (2009) Thinking historically. Journal of Curriculum Studies 41(3), 433–438. Wertsch J.V. (1994) Struggling with the past: Some dynamics of historical representation. In Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences. (Carretero M. & Voss J.F., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 323–338. Wineburg S. (2001) Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Wineburg S. (2018) Why Learn History (When It’s Already on Your Phone). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wiske M. (1998) Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Zuckerman E. (2013) Rewire: Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection. W.W. Norton, New York.

138

8 CAUTIOUSLY INDEPENDENT How student-centered learning encourages emerging adults to take risks Tisha Admire Duncan and Allison A. Buskirk-Cohen

Introduction The transition from high school to college requires that students adapt to a multitude of changes in their lives. For many, they face new physical living circumstances, and must adjust emotionally to living away from their hometown and from their families. Their social lives are disrupted and they must navigate new friendships and romantic relationships. Their own biological maturity is still progressing, as they develop during this period of emerging adulthood (Steinberg 2016; Taber-Thomas & PerezEdgar 2015). Academically, expectations shift as well. Different standards are used in K-12 than in higher education, and have resulted in a range of problems for students (Kirst & Venezia 2001). Faculty expect students to engage in more independent and critical thinking (Huber & Kuncel 2016), yet there are questions about whether young adults are actually doing so (Arum & Roksa 2011). Research shows that supportive relationships can help students make effective school transitions (e.g., Benner et al. 2017; Holdsworth et al. 2018) and succeed academically in college (Buskirk-Cohen & Plants in press; Freeman et al. 2007). Learner-centered education may be particularly well suited for today’s emerging adults (Buskirk-Cohen et al. 2015). It specifically attends to the developmental needs of the learner; it “creates a sense of relevance for students and enhances their engagement in the learning process” (Meyer & Roe 2013, p. 118). Students are asked to bring their experiences, beliefs, and motivation to the classroom where they are valued for how they influence the educational process. In this chapter, we explore how faculty can foster relationships in the classroom from a theoretical and applied perspective. We review the theoretical background on emerging adulthood; constructivism and student-centered instruction; secure attachment and learning; and broader emotional support and sense of belonging. A case study in teacher education is provided, demonstrating how these constructs work together in a higher education classroom setting. Finally, implications for faculty in higher education are discussed.

Theoretical background Emerging adults Emerging adulthood brings about an age of significant change. This relatively new shift in identifying young adults between the ages of 18–25 was coined by the work of Arnett (2000). 139

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen

He argues that persons in this group experience disequilibrium as they transition between childhood and adulthood. They struggle with finding their balance in no longer being considered adolescents but not yet confident enough to consider themselves adults (Arnett 2000). Young adults today spend more time exploring who they are and from whence they come more so than generations of the past. Three main areas for identity exploration are love, work and worldviews with identity formation involving “trying out various life possibilities and gradually moving toward making enduring decisions” (Arnett 2000, p. 473). Relationships are an important component to how they connect and ground themselves. There is a sense of longing to be connected with a group or groups, whether that be friends, family or strangers. As late adolescent college students, they “must establish autonomy, develop intellectual skills, develop a sense of morality and learn to love and work with others” (Meyer & Roe 2013, p. 118). Emerging adults have a desire to ask questions, know more, learn more, and explore. However, this does not mean they are completely confident in making the decision to explore independently (Arnett 2000). Meyer and Roe’s (2013) research with late adolescent college students indicates a need to focus on the development of both independent and interdependent persons. The freedom to make decisions and desire for autonomy is related to independence, while yearning for close relationships and a need to connect meaningfully to others is interdependence (Meyer & Roe 2013). They have a strong reliance on gathering input and advice from those with whom they are associated, hence their digital footprint and presence on social media platforms. Within this realm of experience, they communicate, seek out companions, learn new information, share their voices, make judgments, and remain in a constant quest of approval. Each semester students enter college classrooms around the world with a set of expectations. Expectations of the instructor to provide input into their learning and guidance on how to accomplish this task successfully, including “choosing and organizing the content, interpreting and applying the concepts, and evaluating student learning, while the students’ efforts are focused on recording the information” (Wright 2011, p. 93). They also bring unspoken assumptions based on their prior experiences in an academic setting; one where the instructor provides the majority of the insight, wisdom, and knowledge while the student passively receives. However, in a constructivist classroom, the student is participatory in the learning process and the instructor is the facilitator. Wright (2011, p.  93) contends, “Students are the center of the educational enterprise, and their cognitive and affective experiences should guide all decisions as to what is done and how.” It is a classroom where teacher and students are collaborators in building the environment based on preferences, interests, and prior knowledge, because they are working in tandem, building a solid relationship which allows for trust among all members of the class in order to take risks and step out of one’s comfort zone.

(Radical) constructivism and student-centered instruction Constructivism in its earliest forms was defined through personal exploration by Piaget (1967) and through social connections by Vygotsky (1978), but it is a field with a myriad of transformations with little agreement on solely one definition. There are constructivist theories of learning, constructivist theories of teaching, and constructivist theories of knowledge (Matthews 1998). What is evident among these iterations and debates is a common thread of shifting the “focus from knowledge as a product to knowing as a process” (Jones & Brader-Araje 2002, p. 3). According to Weimer (2002, pp. 12–13): Constructivism prescribes a whole new level of student involvement with content. It makes content much more the means to knowledge than the end of it. It and the 140

Cautiously independent

empirical work in psychology change the function of content so it is less about covering it and more about using it to develop unique and individual ways of understanding. For the purposes of this chapter, the concept of radical constructivism is the basis of reference, defined by Von Glaserfeld (1998, p. 24) as one which “introduces a new, more tangible relationship between knowledge and reality, . . . called a relationship of ‘viability.’” This notion of viability “means that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory, is considered ‘viable’ as long as it is useful in accomplishing a task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself ” (1998, p. 24). Viability is the result of knowledge used as tool within the realm of experience. Student-centered instruction, or learner-centered instruction as it is sometimes referred to, is one of many pedagogical approaches for incorporating constructivist principles in the classroom, particularly in the social science fields of education and psychology. The elements and perspectives on the role of the individual as an active learner and the importance of decision-making are what make constructivism’s perspectives so appealing for educators (Jones & Brader-Araje 2002). Radical constructivism allows for students to incorporate their background experiences and newly gained knowledge with scenarios and real-life applications related to their prospective careers, while Vygotsky’s (1978) work on the role of others, or social context, in learning environments becomes a key component (Jones & Brader-Araje 2002). For example, pre-service teachers will design and teach lesson plans for their peers and students in their field experiences classes rather than use an imaginary class list. They identify and use applications and technology tools within their course assignments that will become part of their professional portfolio for when they have their own classrooms. How often are educators of all levels of learners determining the value of the work as well as the level of motivation that is needed in order to be successful? Within a student-centered classroom, the students are the ones who will ask these questions and make these decisions. However, the shift in learner-centered education from the instructor as the expert to that of a facilitator is not without its challenges. For students and instructors, it can be a novel and intimidating experience. Students must be more active participants in the classroom, taking on leadership roles and challenging one another. As Buskirk-Cohen et al. (2015, p. 9) note, “a sense of community can and will emerge as relationships and trust form among members of the group.” In order for this change to occur, however, students need to have both academic and affective resources. Academically, they must have the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the classroom. Affectively, they must have the emotional security that allows them to feel comfortable taking chances and exploring their learning environment.

Secure attachment and learning To feel securely connected to others is a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary 1995). One meaningful way humans connect with each other is through attachment relationships. Ainsworth (1973) and Bowlby (1969) defined attachment as a deep and enduring bond connecting one individual to another. There are variations in attachment styles among individuals. In the classic Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth et al. 1978), mothers, their infants, and a stranger are observed in a series of eight episodes that each last about three minutes. Throughout the time, the child is observed playing in the room while mother and stranger enter and leave at different times. The four aspects of the child’s behavior that are evaluated include the amount of exploration the child engages in, the child’s reactions to the departure of the mother, the stranger anxiety, and the child’s reunion with mother. Four patterns of attachment have been 141

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen

identified: secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-disorganized/disoriented (e.g., Main & Solomon 1990). Attachment styles tend to be fairly consistent across the lifespan (Fraley 2002; Waters et al. 2000). In adulthood, attachment styles are measured using interviews, Q-sort assessments, and questionnaires (Crowell & Treboux 1995; Ravitz et al. 2010). The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI: George et al. 1985; Hesse 2008) captures generalized representations of attachment based on the Strange Situation, while the Attachment Interview (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991) assesses prototypes of adult attachment based on Bowlby’s ideas. The Current Relationship Interview (CRI: Crowell 1990), Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ: Feeney et al. 1994), and Reciprocal Attachment Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991) are examples of self-report questionnaires that evaluate the attachment representation within an adult partnership. Common Q-sort assessments include the Adult Attachment Q-sort (Kobak 1989) and Marital Q-sort (Kobak & Hazan 1991), which assess dimensions of attachment by having participants sort descriptors. Finally, the Adult Attachment Styles (AAS: Hazan & Shaver 1987), Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991) and the Reciprocal Attachment Questionnaire (West et al. 1987; West & Sheldon-Keller 1992) are examples of questionnaires and rating scales typically used. Secure attachment has been linked with a plethora of positive outcomes, while the other types of insecure attachment are associated with negative outcomes (see Rothbard & Shaver 1994, for a review). Young children show preference toward an attachment figure and use that person to help them cope with distress and explore their environment (Stevenson-Hinde & Verschueren 2002). The secure child relies on the mother for comfort and security, and views her as a secure base (Bergin & Bergin 2009). The secure child feels confident in leaving the mother to explore the environment and returns to her when assistance or support is needed (Simmons et al. 2009). Among adolescents, secure attachment allows them to assert their autonomy and engage in problem-solving with their attachment figure (Allen et al. 2003). As adults, secure individuals are self-confident, socially skilled, and likely to form satisfying long-term relationships (Rothbard & Shaver 1994). While much research has explored children’s attachment to parents (and, more specifically, to mothers), there is evidence that children also may be attached to non-family members, such as teachers (Bergin & Bergin 2009). Measures assessing teacher-student relationships tend to be grounded in attachment theory (Hagenauer & Volet 2014). For example, the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta 2001) measures a teacher’s perception of conflict, closeness, and dependency with students. In the classroom, secure attachment encourages children to explore freely and also forms the basis for socializing children (Bergin & Bergin 2009). In preschool children, positive teacher-student relationships predict growth in language and conceptual knowledge (Pianta et al. 1997) as well as social competence (Howes & Ritchie 1999). In elementary school children, positive findings also have emerged. For example, fifth-grade children with warm, sensitive teachers demonstrated greater growth in math and reading ability (Pianta et al. 2008), though associations were small. Attachment has not been well studied in college settings. In one exception, Han, Pistole and Caldwell (2017) examined parental and professor attachment in Asian international students. They found that secure attachment (to parents and professors) positively predicted academic integration. Secure professor attachment positively predicted grade point average. Returning for a moment to the idea of learner-centered education, the instructor might serve as a secure base from which students are confident to explore their environment. Those students who have formed a strong emotional connection with the instructor will see that person as a resource for information and encouragement, while also feeling emotionally prepared 142

Cautiously independent

to take ownership over their educational experience. As a note of caution, the original conceptions of the attachment construct view it as a deep and enduring bond (Ainsworth 1973; Bowlby 1969), and one may wonder when college students and instructors have the opportunity to become truly attached to one another. Along this line of reasoning, the research on broader emotional support and sense of belonging in educational settings provides valuable information.

Broader emotional support and sense of belonging Emotional support is linked to academic success in a variety of ways. Research suggests that perceived social support can be a powerful motivator of academic success for middle school and high school students. For example, in a study of Mexican American fifth- and sixth-grade early adolescents from low-income families, Wentzel et al. (2016) found that teachers contribute to academic outcomes. Academic values of adolescents were predicted by perceived teacher expectations and emotional support (Wentzel et al. 2016). Teachers who are highly critical and controlling tend to create classrooms in which students display low levels of social and academic engagement (Weinstein & Marshall 1984; Wentzel 2002). In a study of sixth grade students, Wentzel (2002) found that high expectations of teachers was a consistent positive predictor of students’ goals and interests. Additionally, negative feedback from teachers was the most consistent negative predictor of academic performance and social behavior. In summary, Roorda, Koomen, Spilt and Oort (2011) conducted a meta-analysis examining studies of affective dimensions of teacher-student relationships in the preschool through high school years. Results provided support for positive relationships and school engagement and, to a lesser extent, positive relationships and achievement. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) emphasizes the need for belonging, which is dependent on social connections for fulfillment. College students face new challenges in developing new relationships and groups, moving away from home, and increased expectations of autonomy (Cleary et al. 2011). The research on belonging in college populations has been limited to consideration of belonging at the campus level (e.g., Castellanos & Jones 2003; Johnson 2011; Museus & Maramba 2011; Strayhorn 2010). A positive sense of belonging has been linked with academic and social adjustment (Hurtado et al. 2007; Ostrove & Long 2007), self-esteem (Hope et al. 2013), positive racial identity (Johnson et al. 2007) and major selection and satisfaction (Green & Glasson 2009). The emerging literature on belonging at the classroom level also shows positive associations for students. For example, in their study of college undergraduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors, Wilson and colleagues (2015) found that a sense of belonging, especially class belonging, was related to behavioral and emotional engagement. Furthermore, in their survey of undergraduate senior students, Kim and Lundberg (2016) found that student-faculty interaction was related to greater levels of classroom engagement. In turn, the greater levels of engagement facilitated students’ cognitive skills development and that students’ academic self-challenge and sense of belonging mediated the relationship between faculty interaction and classroom engagement. There may be certain characteristics of college professors that contribute to sense of belonging. In their study of college freshmen, Freeman and colleagues (2007) found that student perceptions of their instructors’ warmth and openness was positively related to a sense of belonging and to student participation in the course. Faculty set the tone for students’ interactions and model respect and valuing (Mae et al. 2013; Wilson & Gore 2013). In one study, Kay and colleagues (2011, p.  237) found that professors’ beliefs about classroom community building were directly related to student perceptions of belongingness. They conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 award-winning professors from two major universities. Their analysis revealed a 143

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen

high priority placed on communicating clear expectations, providing multiple opportunities for students to collaborate, and “communing with the information.” Similarly, Booker (2016) conducted in-depth interviews with six African American female college students. They indicated that their decision to persist at college was based on faculty being accessible, approachable, and providing authentic instruction. Taken together, the research on emotional support, sense of belonging, and academic success suggests that instructors play an important role in the academic lives of their students. The associations between these constructs are multifaceted and complex. For example, in their study of undergraduate students, Zumbrunn and colleagues (2014) found that supportive classroom environment perceptions predicted students’ belonging beliefs. These beliefs, in term, predicted students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in the course. Their findings suggest that instructor academic and social support can significantly contribute to students’ feelings of belonging. Instructor support was related to the extent to which students felt like a part of the class. Zumbrunn and colleagues (2014) also suggested that instructor enthusiasm, passion, and the level of interest and caring they show toward their students play a significant role in supporting student motivation and engagement in the classroom social context.

Case study – teacher education Pre-service teacher education The field of teacher education provides a ripe opportunity to model instructional practices and develop classrooms based on student-centered instruction. Pre-service teachers are forming their own philosophies of education and teaching styles while in the college classroom. These future teachers, many of whom are also classified as emerging adults, struggle with SCL structured around the framework of constructivism. For many, school is a place where they have excelled personally. They have found comfort in the structure, rules and protocol of following orders without having to really be the decision makers. Most have always desired to become an educator, citing the ability to work with children, sharing knowledge, providing a service to their community and/or honoring a teacher who was influential in their academic path. This case study highlights the experiences and perspectives of an instructor and students participating in a student-centered learning environment. Throughout this section, various student reflections and comments gathered from end of the semester course evaluations and a required final reflective essay are included as anonymous direct quotes to provide insight from participants.

Course overview Over the last ten years, the design of a social studies methods course for pre-service teachers has progressively shifted from a traditional format to one which is student-centered. Undergraduates, primarily ages 19–21 at a small, private women’s college in North Carolina can enroll in this course without being formally admitted into the teacher education program. Typically, course enrollment ranges between 7 and 12 students, classified as sophomores, juniors, or seniors, and is offered in both spring and fall semesters. The instructor frequently observed the students entering the course with an academic background which encouraged rote memorization and a focus on assessments without regard for fully developing in-depth knowledge and understanding of the content. This was confirmed as one student reflected, “I had always insisted that I wouldn’t be the kind of teacher that pressed for meaningless memorization, but I had been teaching myself that way for years without asking 144

Cautiously independent

myself to think critically about the content” (Student 2018). With a desire for more student interaction and responsibility for retaining information, the course was revised.

Course design Constructivism is at the core of the epistemological approach to the course design. The course objectives (Table 8.1) center on the pedagogy of social studies for elementary-aged children, kindergarten through sixth grade, and are the basis for the products that students must create to demonstrate proficiency of course material. These objectives also align with state and national standards in the social studies curriculum. In its initial shift from traditional to student-centered design, students were given the option of choosing an assessment using a menu model to demonstrate proficiency of the course objectives at the end of the semester for the final exam (Duncan & Buskirk-Cohen 2011). All other components in the course used traditional instructional methods, such as a teacher developed syllabus with pre-determined assignments and direct instruction. There were occasional opportunities for independent practice. At the end of each semester, the course design was evaluated and revised based on student evaluations, performance, and both instructor and student final reflections in order to identify ways to more fully incorporate SCL. Over time, continual adjustments were made each semester in the syllabus, presentation of material and role of the students in the learning process. Gradually, the course design shifted from instructor-directed assignments to opportunities for the pre-service teachers to take more and more ownership of how to show proficiency of the course objectives through student designed products including research papers, interviews, videos, presentations, and podcasts. These activities allowed for students to practice the theoretical and practical applications they would be expected to perform as future educators (Wright 2011). Students are presented with the constructivist framework, rationale for SCL, and connections to applications as future educators throughout the semester. Grading and assessment: Grading for the course comprised ten products aligned with the ten course objectives, each submitted with a student designed rubric and reflection addressing what was learned and how it impacts the student as a future classroom teacher (Duncan 2013). Students were not evaluated on participation or attendance. In addition, in lieu of a traditional final exam, students were tasked with writing a final reflective essay evaluating what they had Table 8.1 Social studies methods course objectives Social Studies Methods Course Objectives 1

Understand the benefits and describe key features of interdisciplinary instruction and learning experiences. 2 Know, understand, and apply the five themes of geography. 3 Identify states and capitals, as well as major bodies of water and continents. 4 Describe key ideas from the K-6 national standards in art, dance, theater and music. 5 Describe key ideas from the K-6 national standards in social studies, as well as K-6 North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS) goals and objectives. 6 Learn to make and read various types of maps. 7 Identify community resources for teaching social studies. 8 Develop and implement strategies for assessing student achievement in social studies. 9 Analyze cultural sensitivity in social studies curricula and diversity in the US. 10 Identify citizens’ roles and responsibilities in American democracy.

145

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen

learned related to the course content as well as from the experience of the constructivist design of the course. A nongraded pre- and post-assessment were also incorporated in order to differentiate instruction for all students. If mastery was shown in the pre-assessment given the on the first day of class, then students were not required to submit an assignment for that component, but rather given a score based on a rubric. As such, each student had the opportunity to design their own learning path over the course of the semester. This process also supported the idea of viewing the instructor as a secure base from which students could explore different opportunities to demonstrate proficiency. There is a focus on relationship development with a concerted effort made to know who the students are, where they come from and their goals as future classroom teachers. It is important to note that the use of SCL does not negate the importance of solid forms of assessment. The role of assessment is still used within the course, primarily through the use of student-designed rubrics. As pre-service teachers, students will be responsible one day with being able to evaluate the work of their students, so it is important for them to experience self-assessment and rubric design within this methods course. The process of rubric design is one where students typically need the most guidance and facilitation of instruction. For many, the rubrics that have been used to evaluate their work have focused on the “pretty,” or the ability to follow directions rather than the depth of content. In short, they have not been forced to consider the value and purpose of a high-quality rubric used for assessment. Students are responsible for determining the categories, descriptions and point value given to each course product. Nearly all class meetings throughout the semester included time to discuss rubric development and interpretation. Furthermore, all student final reflections indicated a reference to the importance of rubric design for their learning growth as future teachers. For many, it was the first time in their academic career that they had given thought to the criteria used for grading their work. The following are comments from student reflections: At the beginning of the course I do not think I really grasped the concepts of creating your own rubric and you will be graded on what is on your rubric. I was also worried about whether I was doing the assignment correctly when in reality the choice was up to me of how I wanted to create the assignment. (Student 2018) I realized that the purpose of creating a rubric for this product was to set my own goals and standards of what I believed excellent meant to me. For example, I had to think, what does excellent look like? Or what does need improvement look like? (Student 2018) I have not only learned more about the material, but I have learned a lot about myself as a student. I recognized where my strengths and weaknesses are in terms of creating my product, reflection, and rubrics. (Student 2018) Devoting weekly class time to discussing assessment criteria can seem daunting, but it truly is where the shift from student to teacher happens for these learners. No longer are they only reading about formative and summative assessments, evaluations, and test design, but they are personally experiencing each of these content areas in depth in order to be able to develop high-quality assessments for their future students. The viability of knowledge used as a tool also engages learners in a more meaningful and relevant way, as this student affirms: 146

Cautiously independent

Frequently, I see in classrooms a disengagement because students might not feel like their voices are heard especially when teachers are only providing direct instruction. The learner-centered approach guides learning in the way students find it helpful. (Student 2018) Additionally, another pre-service student teacher commented: The student-led learning for this course challenged me to take control of my learning and gave me the amazing opportunity to learn from my peers. Deciding what criteria my assignments would follow made me ask “What do my assignments need to make them valuable?” and “How much am I willing to give?” (Student 2018) When students have a voice in what they learn based on their schema and goals beyond the college classroom, then the assignments come to life in such a way that they prompt inner dialogue and more confident decision-making. Community meeting: Each class session begins with an opening where students are invited to share their concerns, academic or personal, with the group. This models the instructional strategy of a community meeting or morning meeting, which is typically used in the elementary school setting. It also facilitates a sense of belonging at the class level and supports the idea of forming attachments with other students. The teacher also attends to any course-related business items, such as feedback on recent assignment submissions, upcoming due dates and schedule changes. While it may seem uncommon to allow time for this level of personal sharing in a college classroom, it has provided a new level of student engagement, particularly in the last two years. More and more of the students enrolled in the course comment on how this learning community helps them to be more cognizant of the work they present, as well as relying on their peers for support and encouragement. Students attribute growth in the quality of written work “after being given meaningful assignments, helpful strategies and resources, and the guidance of the people around me” with success that was “further enhanced by being in a course that was collaboratively shaped by myself and my peers” (Student 2018). Studentcentered instruction values the whole learner and the knowledge, ideals and experiences they bring to the classroom. Student-led discussions: Most recently, a component was added whereby students were asked to select a course topic to teach to the class. They were responsible for identifying any readings, the lesson design, and for answering questions by their peers. The instructor offered support to ensure the presenter had a clear understanding of the topic selected prior to instruction, as well as to provide input on the lesson plan if requested. Involving students with this type of in-class activity shifted the role of the faculty member from direct instructor to guide in order to clarify understanding and aid students in assimilating the material in a meaningful way (Wright 2011). Because this course is a methods course for pre-service teachers, allowing them the opportunity to create a lesson plan and implement it with their peers was invaluable for increasing their confidence in their roles as future teachers. Students most frequently reflected on this new component as being impactful and meaningful. One student stated in her final reflective essay: Each time the class met I was excited to see my peers and have discussions that were led by us students. By asking students to present the chapter and not providing rigid, detailed guidelines for each product and reflection I was able to make the assignments personal to fitting my future teaching goals. Giving me the power to ask questions and 147

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen

allowing students to pick out the important content in the chapters made the content relevant to us. (Student 2018) The safety and comfort level in taking a risk within the community occurs in part due to the time spent early on in the semester learning about one another and developing strong, supportive relationships. As Zumbrunn and colleagues (2014, p. 779) noted in their experimental study, instructors who “create a supportive social context appear more likely to foster higher motivation and achievement patterns in their students.” Our opening discussions were not always on academic topics but oftentimes personal or professional questions that the students were experiencing in the moment of the semester. In this space, one student reflected that building the sense of community and the learner-centered approach provided the freedom to express the directions that we wanted our learning to take us, but it was also less threatening to make mistakes and easier to discuss them with the group of learners around me. (Student 2018) This student’s reflection emphasized the importance of attachment in providing the confidence to take risks in the educational environment. The open community shared ideas on current events, campus activities, career or program of study plans, and celebrations of success.

Discussion The course design is nontraditional and can initially cause anxiety and concern for students. They struggle with what they perceive as not having enough guidance or instruction from the teacher since the instructor’s role is primarily to facilitate rather than to direct the learning. With this level of student-centered input, the instructor must work from the outset to establish a learning community where there is mutual trust and respect for the learning process for all members (Curzon-Hobson 2002). The majority of the first half of the semester is dedicated to providing encouragement and support to students to take risks, ask questions, and move out of their learning comfort zone in order to see how their contributions were needed and desired as part of the larger classroom community. When asked to comment on the design of the studentcentered course, this student responded: The best part of all of this was how we all worked together to shape the learning process. The student-led structure connects back to making sure that every student is essential. This is true – every child is essential in our classrooms, and we were all essential for the success of this course. (Student 2018) The movement to a fully immersed classroom using SCL did not occur in one semester. It took time and many reiterations to come to a point where the instructor felt comfortable in releasing control from director to facilitator of learning (Duncan 2019). Furthermore, the course continues to shift and change based on student input, design, questions and individual needs. In working with emerging adults who may often experience instability, the instructor also discovered the power of building a learning community where students felt secure and comfortable enough

148

Cautiously independent

to take risks with academic content. They have spent many years in the traditional learning environment being told what and how to learn.

Conclusion and implications for teacher education Building strong relationships takes time, particularly with emerging adults who are wrestling with identity exploration, instability and possibilities for their chosen career path. It takes time to create a place of trust among student and instructor which provides broader emotional support and sense of belonging in order to create lasting change and adjustment in perspective (Meyer & Roe 2013). For too many years the reliance on the instructor to be the expert who bestows knowledge has led many students to lack confidence and trust in their own ability to learn. Constructivism through student-centered instruction encourages learners to incorporate what they already know and have experienced with new information in such a way that it becomes meaningful and relevant, which in turn increases engagement and retention (Weimer 2002). A smaller teacherstudent ratio in the college classroom can benefit faculty in order to be able to devote attention to the needs of individual learners and allow room for impromptu discussions and connections to the content (Duncan 2019). Allowing time each class period to inquire about students’ personal lives, questions regarding the course material and/or adjustments to class assignments can be beneficial as well. Fluidity and flexibility in the classroom are critical to establishing a learning community which fosters trust, respect and safety for taking academic, personal and social risks. Furthermore, the release of control can be anxiety-provoking for both instructor and student, but the outcomes of higher quality output and student engagement are worth the time needed in order to make adjustments to the pacing of course objectives and material. In academia, one can often get caught in the expert mindset of knowing all of the answers to the questions posed. However, for too many years students have waited to receive the answers without thinking critically through asking the hard questions. If no one knows the questions to ask, then how can these future adults who will become contributing members to society function with selfconfidence and independence? Perhaps the college classroom is the place where students can begin to learn much more about who they are and who they will become.

References Ainsworth M.D.S. (1973) The development of infant-mother attachment. In Reviews of Child Development Research. Volume 3. (Caldwell B. & Ricciui H., eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–94. Ainsworth M.D.S., Blehar M.C., Waters E. & Wall S. (1978) Patterns of Attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situation and at Home. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Allen J.P., McElhaney K.B., Land D.J., Kuperminc G.P., Moore C.W., O’Beirne-Kelly H. & Kilmer S.L. (2003) A secure base in adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the mother-adolescent relationship. Child Development 74(1), 292–307. Arnett J.J. (2000) Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55(5), 469–480. Arum R. & Roksa J. (2011) Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bartholomew K. & Horowitz L.M. (1991) Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(2), 226–244. Baumeister R.F. & Leary M.R. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3), 497–529. Benner A.D., Boyle A.E. & Bakhtiari F. (2017) Understanding students’ transition to high school: Demographic variation and the role of supportive relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46(10), 2129–2142.

149

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen Bergin C. & Bergin D. (2009) Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review 21(2), 141–170. Booker K. (2016) Connection and commitment: How sense of belonging and classroom community influence degree persistence for African American undergraduate women. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 28(2), 218–229. Bowlby J. (1969) Attachment. Volume 1. Basic, New York. Buskirk-Cohen A.A., Duncan T.A. & Levicoff M. (2015) Using generational theory to rethink teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 21(1), 25–36. Buskirk-Cohen A.A. & Plants A. (2019). Caring about Success: Students’ Perceptions of Professors’ Caring Matters More than Grit. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(1), 108–114. Castellanos J. & Jones L. (2003) The Majority in the Minority: Expanding the Representation of Latina/o Faculty, Administrators, and Students in Higher Education. Stylus Publishing, LLC, Sterling, VA. Cleary M., Walter G. & Jackson D. (2011) “Not always smooth sailing”: Mental health issues associated with the transition from high school to college. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 32(4), 250–254. Crowell J.A. (1990) Current Relationship Interview. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Crowell J.A. & Treboux D. (1995) A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for theory and research. Social Development 4(3), 294–327. Curzon-Hobson A. (2002) A pedagogy of trust in higher learning. Teaching in Higher Education 7(3), 265–276. Duncan T.A. (2013) Differentiated contracts: Giving students freedom to learn. Kappa Delta Pi Record 49(4), 174–179. Duncan T.A. (2019) Creating disequilibrium: Building confidence in pre-service teachers using critically engaging constructivist methods. In Handbook of Research on Critical Thinking Strategies in Pre-Service Learning Environments. (Mariano G.J. & Figliano F.J., eds.), IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp. 516–537. Duncan T.A. & Buskirk-Cohen A.A. (2011) Exploring learner-centered assessment: A cross-disciplinary approach. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(2), 246–259. Feeney J.A., Noller P. & Hanrahan M. (1994) Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the conceptualization of security and insecurity. In Attachment in Adults: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. (Sperling M.B. & Berman W.H., eds.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 128–152. Fraley C.R. (2002) Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6(2), 123–151. Freeman T.M., Anderman L.H. & Jensen J.M. (2007) Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education 75(3), 203–220. George C., Kaplan N. & Main M. (1985) The Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley. Green A. & Glasson G. (2009) African Americans majoring in science at Predominantly white universities (A review of the literature). College Student Journal 43(2), 366–374. Hagenauer G. & Volet S.E. (2014) Teacher-student relationship at university: An important yet underresearch field. Oxford Review of Education 40(3), 370–388. Han S., Pistole M.C. & Caldwell J.M. (2017) Acculturative stress, parental and professor attachment, and college adjustment in Asian international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 45(2), 111–126. Hazan C. & Shaver P. (1987) Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(3), 511. Hesse E. (2008) The adult attachment interview: Protocol, method of analysis, and empirical studies. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Cassidy J. & Shaver P.R., eds.), The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 552–598. Holdsworth S., Turner M. & Scott-Young C.M. (2018) . . . Not drowning, waving: Resilience and university: A student perspective. Studies in Higher Education 43(11), 1837–1853. Hope E.C., Chavous T.M., Jagers R.J. & Sellers R.M. (2013) Connecting self-esteem and achievement: Diversity in academic identification and dis-identification patterns among black college students. American Educational Research Journal 50(5), 1122–1151. Howes C. & Ritchie S. (1999) Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances. Development and Psychopathology 11(2), 251–268. Huber C.R. & Kuncel N.R. (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 86(2), 431–468.

150

Cautiously independent Hurtado S., Han J.C., Sáenz V.B., Espinosa L.L., Cabrera N.L. & Cerna O.S. (2007) Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education 48(7), 841–887. Johnson D.R. (2011) Examining sense of belonging and campus racial diversity experiences among women of color in STEM living-learning programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 17(3), 209–223. Johnson D.R., Soldner M., Leonard J.B., Alvarez P., Inkelas K.K., Rowan-Kenyon H.T. & Longerbeam S.D. (2007) Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development 48(5), 525–542. Jones M.G. & Brader-Araje L. (2002) The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal 5(3), 1–10. Kay D., Summers J.J. & Svinicki M.D. (2011) Conceptualizations of classroom community in higher education: Insights from award winning professors. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research 5(4), 230–245. Kim Y.K. & Lundberg C.A. (2016) A structural model of the relationship between student: Faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Education 57(3), 288–309. Kirst M. & Venezia A. (2001) Bridging the great divide between secondary schools and postsecondary education. Phi Delta Kappan 83(1), 92–97. Kobak R.R. (1989) The Attachment Interview Q-Set. Unpublished manuscript. University of Delaware, Newark. Kobak R.R. & Hazan C. (1991) Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(6), 861–869. Mae B., Cortez D. & Preiss R.W. (2013) Safe spaces, difficult dialogues, and critical thinking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7(2), Article 5. Main M. & Solomon J. (1990) Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the ainsworth strange situation. Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention 1, 121–160. Maslow A.H. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4), 370–396. Matthews M.R. (ed.) (1998) Constructivism in Science Education: A philosophical Examination. Springer Science & Business Media, New York. Meyer L.L. & Roe C.J.R. (2013) Linking teaching methods and assessment to the developmental needs of family science students. Family Science Review 18(1), 117–133. Museus S.D. & Maramba D.C. (2011) The impact of culture on Filipino American students’ sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education 34(2), 231–258. Ostrove J.M. & Long S.M. (2007) Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education 30(4), 363–389. Piaget J. (1967) On the Development of Memory and Identity. Retrieved from https://commons.clarku.edu/ heinz-werner-lectures/19 on 17 December 2018. Pianta R.C. (2001) Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz, FL. Pianta R.C., Belsky J., Vandergrift N., Houts R. & Morrison F.J. (2008) Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal 45(2), 365–397. Pianta R.C., Nimetz S.L. & Bennett E. (1997) Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12(3), 263–280. Ravitz P., Maunder R., Hunter J., Sthankiya B. & Lancee W. (2010) Adult attachment measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 69(4), 419–432. Roorda D.L., Koomen H.M., Spilt J.L. & Oort F.J. (2011) The influence of affective teacher: Student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research 81(4), 493–529. Rothbard J.C. & Shaver P.R. (1994) Continuity of attachment across the life span. In Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives. (Sperling M.B. & Berman W.H., eds.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 31–71. Simmons B.L., Gooty J., Nelson D.L. & Little L.M. (2009) Secure attachment: Implications for hope, trust, burnout, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 30(2), 233–247. Steinberg L. (2016) Commentary on special issue on the adolescent brain: Redefining adolescence. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 70, 343–346.

151

T. Admire Duncan & A. A. Buskirk-Cohen Stevenson-Hinde J. & Verschueren K. (2002) Attachment in childhood. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development. (Smith P.K. & Hart C., eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England, pp. 182–204. Strayhorn T.L. (2010) Majority as temporary minority: Examining the influence of faculty-student relationships on satisfaction among white undergraduates at historically black colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Development 51(5), 509–524. Taber-Thomas B. & Perez-Edgar K. (2015) Emerging adulthood brain development. In The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood. (Arnett J.J., ed.), Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 126–141. Von Glaserfeld E. (1998) Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In Constructivism in Science Education. (Matthews M.R., ed.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 11–30. Vygotsky L. (1978) Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children 23(3), 34–41. Waters E., Merrick S., Treboux D., Crowell J. & Albersheim L. (2000) Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development 71(3), 684–689. Weimer M. (2002) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco. Weinstein R.S. & Marshall H.H. (1984) Ecology of Students’ Achievement Expectations. National Institute of Education Grant Final Report. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED257820.pdf on 04 August 2019. Wentzel K.R. (2002) Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development 73(1), 287–301. Wentzel K.R., Russell S. & Baker S. (2016) Emotional support and expectations from parents, teachers, and peers predict adolescent competence at school. Journal of Educational Psychology 108(2), 242–255. West M. & Sheldon-Keller A. (1992) The assessment of dimensions relevant to adult reciprocal attachment. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 37(9), 600–606. West M., Sheldon-Keller A. & Reiffer L. (1987) An approach to the delineation of adult attachment. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 175(12), 738–741. Wilson D., Jones D., Bocell F., Crawford J., Kim M.J., Veilleux N., Floyd-Smith T., Bates R. & Plett M. (2015) Belonging and academic engagement among undergraduate STEM students: A multiinstitutional study. Research in Higher Education 56(7), 750–776. Wilson S. & Gore J. (2013) An attachment model of university connectedness. The Journal of Experimental Education 81(2), 178–198. Wright G.B. (2011) Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(1), 92–97. Zumbrunn S., McKim C., Buhs E. & Hawley L.R. (2014) Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science 42(5), 661–684.

152

9 STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACHES TO FOSTERING MEDIA LITERACY IN COLLEGE STUDENTS Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

Introduction Today’s college students rely heavily on the Internet for finding information as part of their schoolwork and daily lives (Head & Eisenberg 2010). However, the quality of information in today’s vast and complex online environment varies drastically. Much online information is unvetted, with original sources either unavailable or unclear. With the proliferation of news apps and social media platforms, students may feel overwhelmed by the volume of information coming through their newsfeeds and social media alerts (Metzger & Flanagin 2015). Without awareness of its source, students may inadvertently create and share content that is inaccurate or spread fake news (Vosoughi et al. 2018). In this context, college students need to think critically about the digital media they consume and produce, taking into consideration how biases impact media usage. Recent findings indicate that, when asked to determine if online information is trustworthy, students at all levels (including college) appear to lack basic fact-checking skills (McGrew et al. 2018). McGrew et al. (2018) assessed students’ ability to evaluate the credibility of online information about social and political topics. Middle school, high school, and college students across 12 states completed tasks assessing their competencies in determining who is behind the information, what is the evidence for the claim and what do others say about it.1 Responses were evaluated based on the extent to which students attempted to verify the information and its source. The main findings were that students at all levels tended to accept information at face value and failed to investigate claims and information sources adequately. In another large-scale study, conducted by the Pew Research Center, over 5,000 American adults were given ten news statements (half opinion, half factual) and asked to categorize them as fact or opinion (Mitchell et al. 2018). Adults often misjudged opinion statements as facts when the statements aligned with their political views, and their overall accuracy was surprisingly low. Only about 1 in 3 adults classified all of the opinion statements correctly, and only 1 in 4 classified all of the factual statements correctly. Such findings underscore the need for educators to develop curricular materials to teach students how to fact-check information and recognize the sorts of qualified and unqualified statements of opinion they are likely to encounter in news media. This chapter shares 153

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

student-centered approaches aimed at fostering college students’ media literacy knowledge and skills and their metacognitive awareness of their own information processing biases.

About media literacy The field of media literacy education provides insight into the knowledge and skills needed to engage effectively with media across formats and platforms, while acknowledging considerable overlap across information, media, and digital literacies (Martens 2010). A commonly cited definition of media literacy, put forth by the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy, describes a media literate individual as someone who is able to “decode, evaluate, analyze and produce both print and electronic media” (Aufderheide 1993, p. 9). Media literacy interventions are typically motivated by the desire to either protect or empower individuals (Hobbs 2010). The “protectionist” perspective views media literacy as a means of preventing or reducing risks associated with media use. This includes public health interventions aimed at fostering awareness of how media may promote risky behaviors, such as violence, tobacco and alcohol use, and poor body image (Bergsma & Carney 2008), or information campaigns about cyberbullying, ageinappropriate content (e.g., sexting), poor privacy practices and susceptibility to advertisements (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). Protectionist efforts have also aimed to inform users about algorithms and other features of digital media that influence what information is accessible and how companies may mine users’ data (e.g., search histories; Valentine & Wukovitz 2013). This chapter focuses on the “empowerment” perspective aimed at helping students become engaged consumers and producers of information (Kellner & Share 2005). This perspective aligns well with student-centered approaches that view media literacy as a participatory, collaborative project. According to this perspective, individuals can make better-informed decisions if they are able to analyze and evaluate media content, recognize and address problems of misrepresentation, grasp the affordances and limitations of media platforms for purposes ranging from academic work to civic engagement and develop participatory competencies (Kafai & Peppler 2011). This may involve their gaining skills in information production by “composing or generating content using creativity and confidence in self-expression, with awareness of purpose, audience, and composition techniques” (Hobbs 2010, p. 19). In this chapter, we describe design features of media that increase its efficacy for myriad purposes ranging from advertising to teaching and learning, and we conclude by describing active-learning approaches to teaching students how to create and evaluate online information. In keeping with the empowerment perspective, we believe that teaching students about human information processing – in particular, how its features potentially lead to inaccuracies in how media messages are interpreted – may help them make more informed media-related decisions. In the next section we describe biases in how humans take in information from the world around them and shortcuts they take when making decisions or judgments. We also describe classic demonstrations and examples from the media that you can use in your classes to illustrate these psychological concepts to your students.

About the human information processing system A fundamental aspect of the human information processing system is its limited capacity. More specifically, whether you are trying to remember a phone number or a grocery shopping list, there is a limit to how many items you can hold in mind before you start losing track of them. In general, working memory2 (what can be held in mind and manipulated during thinking) is estimated to have a limit of seven items plus or minus two (Miller 1956), and it may be limited to 154

Fostering media literacy in college

as few as four items plus or minus one (Cowan 2001). Given this constraint on processing capacity, humans have evolved mechanisms to reduce the amount of information they take in and increase the efficiency of processing it for purposes of comprehension, judgment and decisionmaking. Perceptual and attentional biases selectively filter what information gets into the system and how it is used. Humans also rely on mental shortcuts, also known as heuristics, that support quick judgments and thus reduce cognitive effort in decision-making (Gigerenzer et al. 1999).

System 1 and System 2 Cognitive science research suggests that human judgment and decision-making relies on two distinct information-processing systems, referred to as System 1 and System 2 (Stanovich & West 2000; Kahneman 2003).3 The two systems function in parallel; they differ in how consciously, quickly and carefully information is processed and in the extent to which they place demands on processing capacity (Evans & Stanovich 2013). Whereas System 1 supports quick, effortless decision-making, System 2 requires focused attention and thus taxes working memory. System 1 produces what appear to be intuitive or “gut” reactions, yet such responses are often based on knowledge accumulated through hours of practice while developing expertise in a given domain, and thus reflect automaticity in accessing relevant information. For example, Wineburg and McGrew (2017) observed that expert fact-checkers immediately turned to trusted external sources to determine if online information was true. However, in other cases, System 1 responses may reflect use of heuristics that make them prone to error and bias (Tversky & Kahneman 1974). In contrast, System 2 judgments are the products of systematic, analytic thinking. As such, we rely on System 2 to monitor our System 1 judgments for errors and biases (Stanovich & Stanovich 2010). Unfortunately, because System 2 thinking is effortful and imposes considerable demands on working memory, people are reluctant to use it and cannot sustain it for long periods of time when they do. Instead, people typically behave as “cognitive misers,” unwilling to expend the effort needed to think through a problem clearly. When able to produce a plausible System 1 judgment, people simply do not give the problem further consideration, even if their initial response is wrong or biased. Applying this to media literacy, consider the situation where you read an inflammatory news article or see a disturbing image. Here, your emotional response and decision to share the information via social media is a product of your System 1. Indeed, in a large-scale study tracing the spread of fake news stories via Twitter, Vosoughi et al. (2018) found that fake news stories contained more novel information and were more likely to provoke reactions of surprise, disgust and fear among readers. Unlike robots that transmitted true and false news stories at equivalent rates, people tended to share fake news more often than true news, thus contributing to the spread of misinformation. As McGrew and colleagues (2018) demonstrated, under most circumstances people do not investigate the veracity of information they encounter online. If you were to take the time to check if an inflammatory news article were true or if an image had been edited before you shared it with others, your skepticism and deliberate research efforts would be the result of your System 2. Researchers have developed the Cognitive Reflection Test (Frederick 2005, see Table 9.1) to assess the extent to which people routinely engage in analytic thinking (or conversely, how poorly they monitor their intuitive responses). In this test, people are asked three questions, each of which has an intuitive answer that is incorrect. In order to answer the questions correctly, people must suppress their “gut” response and engage their System 2 thinking. Frederick (2005) found that across multiple college samples, students’ average scores ranged from less than one to about two items correct (out of three). You can use the Cognitive Reflection Test in your 155

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks Table 9.1 The Cognitive Reflection Test Problem

Intuitive Answer

Correct Answer

A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?

10 cents

5 cents

100 minutes

5 minutes

24 days

47 days

Source: Adapted from Frederick S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4), 25–42.

classes as an activity to initiate discussion of Systems 1 and 2; see also Toplak et al. (2014) for an expanded version of this test. Studies utilizing the Cognitive Reflection Test have found that the extent to which people routinely engage in System 2 analytic thinking is stable over time (Stagnaro et al. 2018), and have drawn links between analytic thinking, increased skepticism, and decreased endorsements of pseudoscientific beliefs (Pennycook et al. 2015). Pennycook and Rand (2018) also found positive associations between analytic thinking and accuracy in rejecting implausible (fake) news headlines and accepting plausible (real) news headlines. Like scientific reasoning more generally, systematic, analytic thinking can be taught. One way of encouraging System 2 thinking is through learning activities that increase students’ metacognitive awareness of the biases and heuristics that lead them to make poor decisions. Metacognition (i.e., thinking about one’s thinking) gives students insights into how they learn and may allow them to engage more strategically with information (Hattie & Yates 2014).

Raising awareness about cognitive biases Developing students’ metacognitive awareness may involve teaching them about System 1 biases that allow them to make quick judgments, but also lead to flawed thinking. These cognitive biases include naive realism, confirmation bias, belief perseverance, illusory truth, inattentional blindness and illusions of attention. Understanding how cognitive biases shape perceptions of media content can help students understand why people interpret the same content differently and may encourage them to think carefully about their own interpretations. Table 9.2 describes some common cognitive biases and provides classic demonstrations of each bias and illustrative examples involving online media. As a student-centered instructor, you can use these examples as a starting point for in-class demonstrations, assignments, and discussions that develop students’ metacognitive awareness of how cognitive biases impact media consumption.

Raising awareness about cognitive heuristics Social psychology research provides further insight into how System 1 and System 2 thinking affect whether we are persuaded by media content. According to the Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion (Chen & Chaiken 1999), one’s attitude toward a message, such as an advertisement or a politician’s speech, depends on the extent to which the message is evaluated based 156

Fostering media literacy in college Table 9.2 Cognitive biases and the media Cognitive Bias

Classic Demonstration

In the Media

Naive Realism: We tend to believe that our experiences and observations of the world are accurate, even though mental representations are interpretations of experience rather than veridical.

Müller-Lyer Illusion (Müller-Lyer 1889): In this illusion, participants look at two identical lines. One line has arrow heads at each end, pointing in (toward the line). The other line has arrow heads at each end, pointing out (away from the line). The line with arrow heads pointing in is typically perceived as longer than the line with arrow heads pointing out.

Confirmation Bias: We tend to look for information that supports our beliefs and ignore contradictory information.

2–4–6 Task (Wason 1960): Participants were told that the number series 2, 4, 6 follows a rule. Their task was to figure out the rule by offering any new series of three numbers. After each series, participants received feedback on whether the number series they proposed followed the rule. Having formulated a hypothetical rule (e.g., increasing numbers by two), participants typically offered other number series that confirmed their rule (e.g., 8, 10, 12), rather than a series (e.g., 7, 10, 11) that might potentially disconfirm the rule. Risky Firefighters (Anderson et al. 1980): Participants were presented with data indicating a positive or negative relationship between risk preference and performance as a firefighter. They were then debriefed and told that the data was fictional and there is no relationship between risk preference and firefighting performance. Despite debriefing, participants continued to believe that a relationship existed between risk preference and firefighting performance.

Color Perception: Individuals perceive the world in different ways yet assume the accuracy of their mental representations. An example that set off debates across social media platforms was a photograph of a striped dress. Some individuals perceived the color of the dress as white and gold, while others perceived it as blue and black (Rogers 2015). Filter Bubbles (Pariser 2011): Websites across the Internet, including search engines, track users’ behavior in order to offer content that aligns with their interests and beliefs. The algorithms that determine what content is accessible create filter bubbles that may exclude diverse perspectives that do not align with the users’ beliefs.

Belief Perseverance: Our inaccurate beliefs tend to persevere, even in the face of scientific evidence.

Vaccines and Autism: Although scientists agree that vaccines are safe (Taylor et al. 2014), people continue to believe that vaccines are linked to autism and thus refuse to vaccinate children. Venkatraman et al. (2015) found that anti-vaccine views proliferate on websites with unmoderated, user-generated content, like YouTube. Efforts to use scientific evidence to persuade people holding antivaccination beliefs are largely ineffective in changing their views (Horne et al. 2015). (Continued)

157

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks Table 9.2 (Continued) Cognitive Bias

Classic Demonstration

In the Media

Illusory Truth: Our tendency is to believe information that we hear repeatedly because it is familiar, even if it is untrue.

Repeated Statements Are More True (Hasher et al. 1977): Participants received a list of statements and were asked to indicate their confidence that each statement was true or false. This process was repeated for three sessions spaced 2 weeks apart. Participants reported feeling more confident in the truthfulness of statements repeated across sessions, as compared to statements that they only saw in one session. The Invisible Gorilla (Simons & Chabris 1999): Participants were asked to watch a video clip of two teams passing around a basketball. While watching the video, participants were asked to count the passes. During the video, an unexpected event occurred: a person in a gorilla suit walked through the scene. When asked if anything unusual occurred during the video, more than half of the participants did not report seeing the gorilla. Interestingly, when Levin and Angelone (2008) described the experiment to their undergraduate students and asked if they would have noticed the gorilla, 90% of participants thought they would have seen it.

News Headlines: Pennycook et al. (2018) found that seeing headlines from plausible fake news stories just once increased individuals’ endorsement of the headlines’ accuracy.

Inattentional Blindness: We tend to miss the obvious or unexpected when our attention is focused on something else. Illusion of Attention: Related to inattentional blindness, we also tend to overestimate our ability to pay attention to everything we see.

Advertising: In their book, Chabris and Simons (2010) describe how empathetic responses to personal stories featured in advertisements draw attention away from thinking critically about the message. Advertisers often feature personal narratives in their campaigns because we respond with greater empathy to anecdotes than to statistics. Sponsored Content (McGrew et al. 2018): People often fail to recognize that online articles tagged as “sponsored” are paid advertisements designed to entice users to follow the link (also known as clickbait).

on cognitive heuristics (i.e., mental shortcuts) or based on its content. For example, people are influenced by physical appearance and personality when determining their support for political candidates (Budesheim & DePaola 1994). This System 1 response may override consideration of candidates’ positions on issues. In contrast, when we base our support on systematic evaluation of candidates’ positions, we are engaging System 2 thinking. Table 9.3 lists cognitive heuristics that we rely on when evaluating the credibility of information. Cognitive heuristics may also include rules of thumb such as experts should be trusted, group agreement indicates accuracy, or more information makes for a stronger argument (Chaiken et al. 1989). In a student-centered class, you might consider asking students to apply these heuristics toward understanding historical events, such as the US decision to invade Iraq during the war on terror (Badie 2010), and the related phenomenon of groupthink, defined as a psychological drive for consensus that suppresses consideration of alternative points of view in decisionmaking (Janis 1972). 158

Fostering media literacy in college Table 9.3 Cognitive heuristics commonly used to judge the credibility of information Cognitive Heuristic

Description: Individuals are likely to

Reputation Endorsement

believe sources that they recognize. believe information that is recommended by people they know or groups of people they don’t know (e.g., online reviews). believe information that is the same across a few sources. believe information that is consistent with their beliefs and reject information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. evaluate information that does not meet their expectations (in terms of content and presentation) as not credible. evaluate information that appears biased or persuasive as not credible.

Consistency Self-Confirmation Expectancy Violation Persuasive Intent

Source: Adapted from Metzger M. J. & Flanagin A. J. (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 210–220.

According to the dual-process model of online credibility assessment (Metzger & Flanagin 2015), two factors determine the extent to which people engage in analytic processing of media messages: motivation and ability. People’s willingness to expend effort to evaluate the trustworthiness of information depends on their level of concern about basing a decision on faulty information (i.e., motivation) and their knowledge and skills in verifying information (i.e., ability). As cognitive misers, we seek to exert the minimum amount of effort during thinking that, given our motivations, allows us to be sufficiently confident in our conclusions (Chen, Duckworth & Chaiken 1999). When we are highly motivated, for example by a desire for accuracy, a desire to defend our interests, attitudes and beliefs, or a desire to align our attitudes and beliefs with those around us, we are likely to exert more cognitive effort. When we are less motivated, we are more likely to base our evaluations on cognitive heuristics. As instructors, we want our students to engage in critical thinking and consider multiple perspectives when interpreting media messages. However, exposure to counter-attitudinal information alone may be ineffective in reducing reliance on cognitive heuristics. In a recent study on political polarization (Bail et al. 2018), participants who were frequent Twitter users and identified as either Republican or Democrat were asked to follow bots that shared messages from members of the opposing political party. After a month, Republican users held more conservative opinions, and Democrats (albeit to a lesser extent) held more liberal opinions than previously. These findings suggest that exposure to counter-positions actually strengthened and solidified people’s political views, rather than encouraging them to consider both sides of an issue. That is, in line with the persuasive-intent heuristic (Table 9.3), information that participants perceived to be biased was not viewed as credible. Such results suggest that for analytic thinking to override heuristics-based judgments, people must be sufficiently metacognitively aware to recognize when their reactions are based on a cognitive heuristic, check their emotions, and generate a more thoughtful alternative response (Caulfield 2017; Stanovich & Stanovich 2010).

Multimedia design Understanding how we process information is key for developing effective media content, ranging from advertising to educational materials. In this section, we first describe how advertisers target System 1 thinking to persuade people to purchase products or services and interventions 159

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

to promote critical thinking about advertisements. We then move on to educational media and outline strategies that instructors and their students can use to improve the efficacy of their multimedia design.

Psychology of advertising Advertisers’ main goal is to convince people to spend money on a product or service. In general, people respond to these persuasive attempts using a combination of heuristics and analytic thinking. When your motivation or ability to analyze an advertisement’s message is low, you are more likely to form an opinion based on a System 1 response to the perceived expertise or attractiveness of the communicator, or to factors such as a desire for social acceptance or fear of social rejection (Fennis & Stroebe 2010). Consumer research indicates that advertisements may impact your memory for, affect toward, and opinion about products or services without your conscious awareness (Johar et al. 2006). Such findings highlight the importance of teaching students to think metacognitively about how we process persuasive information embedded in advertisements and other sponsored content. Research by Ashley et al. (2012) suggests that college students do not think critically about media messages in advertising and publicity materials. Students watched advertisements, publicity videos, and news reports and were asked to describe each video’s message, purpose, sender, and missing viewpoints, and their emotional or attitudinal response. Overall, students recognized that advertisements sought to encourage viewers to buy products but struggled to differentiate between the brand and the actor as the source of the message. Students often misconstrued the publicity video as having an informational purpose rather than a persuasive purpose and conversely misconstrued the news report as having a persuasive purpose rather than an informational purpose.

Interventions to promote critical thinking about advertisements Media literacy interventions can strengthen students’ System 2 responses to advertisements by raising their awareness of the mechanisms underlying persuasive media content. In a metaanalysis of media-literacy interventions, Jeong et al. (2012) found such interventions improved participants’ understanding of production techniques used to create persuasive media content, recognition of the persuasive intent of media content and skepticism toward media content, awareness of how audiences are influenced by media content, and awareness that media content may not accurately represent reality. Jeong et al. (2012) also reported evidence that medialiteracy interventions were able to change attitudes, beliefs, self-efficacy, and choices, particularly around risky and antisocial behaviors such as tobacco use, violence and underage drinking. Goldstein et al. (2010) published a set of instructor resources for teaching undergraduates about the psychology of advertising; see Table 9.4 for examples of student-centered activities. Advertising can appeal to and reinforce social stereotypes, which often underpin our cognitive biases (Lafky et al. 1996). Helping students become aware of stereotypes in advertising is one way of encouraging them to think critically about media content. For example, Jones (1991) showed college students a series of advertisements depicting different stereotypes of gender roles. After identifying the stereotypes, students considered whether the advertisements would still seem “natural” if the genders of individuals in the advertisements changed. Students’ comments and class discussion revealed that they were previously unaware of the pervasiveness of genderrole stereotypes in media content. This activity also helped them recognize how media portrayals shape their expectations. Another student-centered approach, adopted by Greene (2013), 160

Fostering media literacy in college Table 9.4 Sample activities for teaching psychology of advertising Type of Ad

Activity Description

Political

Students watch political ads and consider how the design of the ads aims to evoke specific emotions in viewers. Students consider the target audience of the ads and evaluate if the ads would successfully elicit the desired emotions in that audience. Students watch anti-smoking public service announcements and identify the target audience, message, and purpose of the announcements. Students then evaluate which announcements they think are most successful at changing the target audience’s attitudes about smoking. Students watch product advertisements which use sexually suggestive content. Students consider the target audience and evaluate the message that the advertisement is communicating about the product by associating it with sexuality. Students may also watch alcohol advertisements and determine features of those advertisements which may be persuasive to underage consumers.

Public service

Product

Source: Adapted from Goldstein S.  B., Barton L., Breslin E., Brink A., Castro C., Hatfield C., .  .  . Yu S. (2010) Instructor Resources for Media Psychology. Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from https://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/goldstein10.pdf.

engaged students in creating counter-advertisements with the aim of reducing risky behaviors. While planning anti-tobacco and alcohol use messages, students heard multiple perspectives, reflected on their own behavior and had opportunities to apply knowledge and skills they had gained via analysis of advertisements.

Design of media for teaching and learning The Heuristic-Systematic Model discusses motivation and ability in relation to persuasion and attitude change, but these two factors also play a key role in behavior change. According to behavioral scientist B.  J. Fogg (2009), behavior change depends on a person’s motivation to engage in a target behavior, the ability to do so and opportunities/prompts to engage in the behavior. Technology companies take this into account when developing products aimed at changing users’ behavior (also known as persuasive design). For example, a strong motivator of social media use is the need to belong, which involves forming and maintaining relationships (Seidman 2013). Social media companies strive to make their platforms simple and easy to use to lower the threshold of ability. Lastly, social media companies design prompts, such as notifications and reminders, to keep users coming back. Outside of coursework in product design, marketing, communications and journalism, most students do not learn about multimedia production techniques (such as those used in developing user interfaces and advertisements) in relation to constraints on human information processing (i.e., selective attention and limited working memory capacity). The lack of emphasis on multimedia design as a curricular focus is perhaps surprising given the popularity of various multimedia tools for teaching and learning. Teaching materials now include slideshows and pre-recorded lectures (commonly used in massive open online courses, or MOOCs), screencasts or content acquisition podcasts (i.e., video recordings of a screen or slideshow with narration; see Kennedy et al. 2016), course management systems with features such as discussion boards and wikis, and e-learning platforms that accompany popular textbooks. Additionally, media creation is becoming increasingly integrated into higher education through assignments requiring students to produce digital content (e.g., blogs, websites, videos, podcasts and games). Digital content creation 161

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

provides opportunities for students to internalize, synthesize and share knowledge, and reflect on ways to be an ethical contributor to online communities (Hobbs 2017). Multimedia production skills are highly desired and often required for post-college careers; hence, it is imperative to teach multimedia design as a component of students’ general education (Hobbs 2017). Research-based principles of multimedia production and design emphasize the need to design instructional multimedia purposefully in order to avoid overloading the human information-processing system (Mayer & Moreno 2003). Notably, because working memory has largely separable resources for processing verbal and visual-spatial information (Shah & Miyake 1996), its capacity can effectively be increased through utilization of both representational formats (Clark & Paivio 1991). In the field of instructional design, this is known as the multimedia principle, which states that “people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone” (Mayer 2009, p. 223). People also learn better when they actively engage with material to be learned (Freeman et al. 2014). To make sense of multimedia information, we must actively manipulate the material and relate it to prior knowledge. This is known as elaborative encoding and may involve connecting information to aspects of one’s life or talking about it with others (Brown et al. 2014). In the absence of elaborative encoding, we are likely to quickly forget the information as new material comes into the system and displaces (i.e., pushes out) information previously held in working memory. Effective multimedia instruction reduces unnecessary, irrelevant, and potentially distracting information, draws users’ attention to relevant information, and encourages them to relate to the presenter and make connections between the information and prior knowledge (DeLeeuw & Mayer 2008). Table 9.5 presents 12 research-based principles of multimedia instruction, organized

Table 9.5 Principles for multimedia instruction How can I reduce unnecessary, irrelevant, and distracting information? Coherence Signaling Redundancy Spatial contiguity Temporal contiguity

Do not include information that is irrelevant to your goal. Draw users’ attention to critical information. When narrating, do not include redundant text. Locate important text next to the relevant parts of the graphic. When narrating, relevant graphics should appear as you speak.

How can I scaffold users’ introduction to relevant information? Segmenting Pre-training Modality

Break information up into small pieces that users can go through at their own pace. Introduce key terms beforehand. When showing graphics, use narration instead of text.

How can I encourage users to relate to the presenter and make connections to prior knowledge? Multimedia Personalization Voice Embodiment

Use graphics and narration instead of just narration. When narrating, use a conversational style. When narrating, use a human voice, not a machine voice. On-screen characters should use human-like gestures.

Source: Adapted from Mayer R. E. (2009) Multimedia Learning (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, New York.

162

Fostering media literacy in college

in relation to these broad aims. Students benefit from opportunities to learn these principles while engaged in projects that hone their media production skills; for ideas on how to scaffold digital assignments with your students, see Hobbs (2017).

Developing skills in evaluating media In the remainder of this chapter, we return to the pressing issues facing students today who must grapple with the proliferation of online information, including fake news and pseudoscientific claims. We describe three different types of student-centered assignments aimed at empowering students to evaluate the quality of online information and develop skills in information sourcing. We contrast checklist and contextual approaches used to teach students how to analyze and evaluate digital media and conclude by describing how editing Wikipedia can teach your students to author reputable online content, address systemic gaps in media coverage, work collaboratively and engage in peer review.

The CRAAP test The checklist approach is a popular strategy for teaching students to evaluate the credibility of online information. One of the most widely used checklists is the CRAAP test, developed by librarians at California State University, Chico (Blakeslee 2004). The CRAAP test requires students to evaluate online information using guiding questions for five credibility criteria: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose (see Table 9.6). Wichowski and Kohl (2013) describe how the CRAAP test can be flexibly applied to evaluate online information across platforms and formats. They argue that the CRAAP test criteria reflect heuristics that individuals already use to evaluate online information and that students conducting online research as part of schoolwork are motivated to use it. Despite their popularity, checklist approaches like the CRAAP test have been critiqued. Meola (2004) argues that answering checklist questions does not always result in a clear indication of a website’s credibility. A checklist with more questions may be more reliable but would discourage students and instructors from using it. Additionally, Meola argues that teaching students to rely on a checklist encourages them to think “mechanically,” rather than critically, about information. Instead, Meola suggests a contextual approach in which students are taught to how to verify online information by comparing it with information from scholarly sources and other reputable information sources.

Table 9.6 The CRAAP test Criteria

Description

Currency Relevance Authority Accuracy Purpose

When was the information released? Is it out of date? Is the information appropriate for my needs? Is it pertinent to its stated purpose? Who is the author or producer of the information? What are their credentials? Has the information been verified? Are reputable sources cited? Why does the information exist? What are the producer’s goals for the reader?

Source: Adapted from Meriam Library (2010) Evaluating Information: Applying the CRAAP Test. California State University, Chico. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf.

163

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks

Four moves and a habit As Meola (2004) notes, an alternative to the checklist approach is a contextual approach, in which students conducting scholarly research are taught to use external sources to verify the credibility of online information. This practice is also referred to as lateral reading (Wineburg & McGrew 2017). Caulfield (2017) outlines four strategies and a habit that students can use to quickly verify contextual information using external sources (see Table 9.7) and provides a set of student-centered materials for implementing training in the four moves on his blog.4 These materials include online images and news stories that can be incorporated into in-class demonstrations to teach fact-checking skills and homework assignments to provide additional practice. The images and stories address diverse social and political topics allowing instructors to implement lessons across a wide range of courses, from political science and government to public health and medicine. The materials are currently being field-tested through the Digital Polarization Initiative of the American Democracy Project,5 which aims to teach college students across the nation how to fact-check online information as part of efforts to foster their civic, information, and Internet literacy.

Table 9.7 Four moves and a habit of expert fact-checkers Move

Description

Move 1: Look for trusted work

Students should search for the topic or claim to see if there is additional information available. Students are encouraged to use Snopes.com, Fact Check: NPR, and other trusted sources to determine if someone else has already fact-checked the information. Students should look for the original source of the information. To determine whether a photograph has been edited, students are shown how to do a reverse image search in their browser. When using Google or another search engine, students are instructed to keep looking as critical information may not show up at the top of the list of search results. Students are encouraged to read laterally (Wineburg & McGrew 2017) by opening up multiple tabs on a browser to find out what others say about the information source and its biases or hidden agenda. Wikipedia is often a great place to start learning about organizations, including their commercial interests and ideologies. Students should restart their search process if they realize that their current approach is not working. Students are encouraged to refine their search terms when they hit a dead end. Students should recognize when their emotional response to information may affect how they evaluate its trustworthiness. The stronger one’s reaction to a story (System 1 response), the more important it is to investigate the information (System 2 response).

Move 2: Find the original

Move 3: Investigate the source

Move 4: Circle back

Habit: Check your emotions!

Source: Adapted from Caulfield M. (2017) Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers . . . and Other People who Care About Facts. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/.

164

Fostering media literacy in college

Wikipedia for verifying and creating information Not only is Wikipedia a free online encyclopedia, but it is also a valuable resource for teaching college students how to produce information that is linked with reputable sources. Wiki Education6 provides support for instructors interested in developing assignments in which students edit existing Wikipedia articles to improve content and sources or write new articles on course-related topics. The Wikipedia community places great emphasis on making sure that information is properly sourced. In an investigation by Nature (Giles 2005), articles on scientific topics from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica were sent to experts for peer review and were found to be comparably accurate. Given the high standards imposed by Wikipedia today, editing Wikipedia provides opportunities for students to learn how to distinguish different types of source materials (e.g., primary and secondary sources) and use them appropriately. Before students begin writing their own articles, it is important to teach them how to evaluate existing Wikipedia content. Wikipedia articles vary in their completeness, and many existing articles are “stubs” that lack sufficient content and sources. McGrew et al. (2017) recommend showing students how to recognize high-quality Wikipedia articles and how to use the references section as a starting point for their research – a practice often used by expert fact-checkers. Calhoun (2014) also recommends teaching students how to use Wikipedia to get an overview of a topic area, identify useful search terms, and find credible sources for their topic. Wikipedia-editing activities have been shown to increase students’ critical thinking about online information. Traphagan, Traphagan, Dickens and Resta (2014) presented findings from a small-scale study examining the impact of Wikipedia editing on college students’ perceptions of Wikipedia for academic purposes. Students reported increased understanding of how Wikipedia articles are created and edited. Following the activities, students appeared to have a more nuanced understanding of when and how to use Wikipedia in academic contexts. Wikipedia-editing assignments can also serve to highlight systemic biases in online information, specifically with regard to who produces information and what information gets covered. Even though anyone with Internet access can edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors differ by gender and Internet-skill, with skilled males most likely to contribute to Wikipedia articles than other groups (Hargittai & Shaw 2015). WikiProjects like ART+Feminism (Evans, Mabey & Mandiberg 2015) and PSYCH+Feminism (Brooks et al. 2017) aim to increase the number of biographies of notable women on Wikipedia and the quality of existing biographies in part by engaging college students as new editors. Involving students in these projects draws their attention to biases that extend to other media forms. Wikipedia editing can either take place in a single session or over multiple weeks of the semester. Oliver (2015) describes a two-hour library lesson in which a small sample of high school graduates were introduced to library resources, considered the pros and cons of using Wikipedia, learned about editing Wikipedia articles and edited articles themselves. This structure allowed students to gain practice in using library resources to address gaps and inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles. Shane-Simpson, Che and Brooks (2016) reported gains in students’ understanding and evaluation of different types of sources, as well as their understanding of Wikipedia, after completing a semester-long Wikipedia-editing project. Shane-Simpson and Brooks (2016) provide recommendations, summarized in Table 9.8, for integrating Wikipedia-editing assignments into coursework.

165

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks Table 9.8 Integrating Wikipedia editing into your course Before You Start 1 2 3

Contact Wiki Education for support: https://wikiedu.org/. Create a Wikipedia account and link it to the Wiki Education Dashboard: https://dashboard. wikiedu.org/. Explore Wiki Education training materials for instructors and students on the Dashboard: https:// dashboard.wikiedu.org/training.

Planning the Assignment 1

2 3 4

Consider the type of assignment that you would like to use: a Assignment Type 1: Find Wikipedia articles in your discipline that need to be updated and assign small groups of students to work on these articles. b Assignment Type 2: Identify gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage of your discipline and assign small groups of students to write articles on these topics. Create a course on the Wiki Education Dashboard. Assign students to complete the Wiki Education training modules. Scaffold the assignment by creating a template for students to use.

Important Considerations 1 2 3 4

Work with your university library to teach students how to find, summarize and cite sources. During class, go over the assignment and important information from the trainings. If students are working in small groups, assign students in each group to different tasks to prevent social loafing, and set up a peer-review process using a rubric. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, teach students how to communicate properly with other users to promote positive interactions.

Source: Adapted from Shane-Simpson C. & Brooks P.  J. (2016) The dos and don’ts of Wikipedia editing in the undergraduate psychology classroom. Observer 29(2), 32–33. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-dos-and-donts-of-wikipedia-editing-in-the-undergraduatepsychology-classroom.

Conclusions In this chapter, we described how student-centered teaching practices may be used to infuse media literacy into college-level coursework. We aligned our approach with the empowerment perspective on media literacy, where students are supported in developing knowledge and skills necessary to become discerning media consumers and producers. Given the complexity of today’s media landscape, we also emphasized lessons aimed at fostering students’ metacognitive awareness of how they process media messages. Such lessons can be used to illustrate System 1 cognitive biases and heuristics while aiming to promote System 2 analytic thinking. Traditionally, instruction on the psychology of media has been restricted to fields such as communications, journalism and marketing. Teaching students how to be critical consumers of information and how to design multimedia that minimizes cognitive load and facilitates comprehension of complex information will benefit them irrespective of their career choice. We have argued for integration of media literacy across the curriculum to promote transfer of strategies across varied academic and non-academic contexts and have shared materials that can be applied to courses across disciplines.

Notes 1 The tasks are available on the Stanford History Education Group website https://sheg.stanford.edu/ civic-online-reasoning (retrieved January 10, 2019).

166

Fostering media literacy in college 2 Working memory is the temporary storage (i.e., short-term memory) and manipulation of information. Some contents of working memory may be consolidated into more permanent long-term memories. Additionally, information from long-term memory may be pulled into working memory when relevant to the task at hand. 3 For a popular book on Systems 1 and 2, see Kahneman (2011). 4 https://fourmoves.blog/ (retrieved January 10, 2019). 5 For more information about the Digital Polarization Initiative, visit: www.aascu.org/AcademicAffairs/ ADP/DigiPo/ (retrieved January 10, 2019). 6 For more information about Wiki Education, visit: https://wikiedu.org/ (retrieved January 10, 2019).

References Anderson C.A., Lepper M.R. & Ross L. (1980) Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(6), 1037–1049. Ashley S., Lyden G. & Fasbinder D. (2012) Exploring message meaning: A qualitative media literacy study of college freshmen. Journal of Media Literacy Education 4(3), 229–243. Aufderheide P. (1993) Media Literacy: A Report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365294 on 7 December 2018. Badie D. (2010) Groupthink, Iraq, and the war on terror: Explaining US policy shift toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis 6(4), 277–296. Bail C.A., Argyle L.P., Brown T.W., Bumpus J.P., Chen H., Hunzaker M.F., .  .  . Volfovsky A. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(37), 9216–9221. Bergsma L.J. & Carney M.E. (2008) Effectiveness of health-promoting media literacy education: A systematic review. Health Education Research 23(3), 522–542. Blakeslee S. (2004) The CRAAP test. LOEX Quarterly 31(3), 6–7. Retrieved from https://commons. emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol31/iss3/4/ on 7 December 2018. Brooks P.J., Che E.S., Walters S. & Shane-Simpson C. (2017) Launching PSYCH+Feminism to engage undergraduates in Wikipedia editing. In How We Teach Now: The GSTA Guide to Student-Centered Teaching. (Obeid R., Schwartz A.M., Shane-Simpson C. & Brooks P.J., eds.), Society for the Teaching of Psychology, pp.  296–309. Retrieved from https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/howweteachnow on 7 December 2018. Brown P.C., Roediger H.L., III & McDaniel M.A. (2014) Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Budesheim T.L. & DePaola S.J. (1994) Beauty or the beast? The effects of appearance, personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(4), 339–348. Calhoun C. (2014) Using Wikipedia in information literacy instruction: Tips for developing research skills. College & Research Libraries News 75(1), 32–33. Caulfield M. (2017) Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers .  .  . and Other People Who Care about Facts. Retrieved from https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/ on 7 December 2018. Chabris C. & Simons D. (2010) The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Crown Publishers, New York. Chaiken S., Liberman A. & Eagly A.H. (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Unintended Thought. (Uleman J.S. & Bargh J.A., eds.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 212–252. Chen S. & Chaiken S. (1999) The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. (Chaiken S. & Trope Y., eds.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 73–96. Chen S., Duckworth K. & Chaiken S. (1999) Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry 10(1), 44–49. Clark J.M. & Paivio A. (1991) Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3(3), 149–210. Cowan N. (2001) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 87114. DeLeeuw K.E. & Mayer R.E. (2008) A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology 100(1), 223–234.

167

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks Evans J.S.B. & Stanovich K.E. (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3), 223–241. Evans S., Mabey J. & Mandiberg M. (2015) Editing for equality: The outcomes of the Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thons. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 34(2), 194–203. Fennis B.M. & Stroebe W. (2010) The Psychology of Advertising. Psychology Press, New York. Fogg B.J. (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (p. 40). ACM. Retrieved from www.mebook.se/images/page_file/38/Fogg%20 Behavior%20Model.pdf on 7 December 2018. Frederick S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4), 25–42. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. & Wenderoth M.P. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23), 8410–8415. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.J. & the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press, New York. Giles J. (2005) Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 900–901. Goldstein S.B., Barton L., Breslin E., Brink A., Castro C., Hatfield C., . . . Yu S. (2010) Instructor Resources for Media Psychology. Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from https://teachpsych.org/ resources/Documents/otrp/resources/goldstein10.pdf on 7 December 2018. Greene K. (2013) The theory of active involvement: Processes underlying interventions that engage adolescents in message planning and/or production. Health Communication 28(7), 644–656. Hargittai E. & Shaw A. (2015) Mind the skills gap: The role of Internet know-how and gender in differentiated contributions to Wikipedia. Information, Communication & Society 18(4), 424–442. Hasher L., Goldstein D. & Toppino T. (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16(1), 107–112. Hattie J. & Yates G.C. (2014) Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Routledge, New York. Head A.J. & Eisenberg M.B. (2010) Truth Be Told: How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age. University of Washington: Project Information Literacy. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2281485 on 7 December 2018. Hobbs R. (2010) Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/reneehobbs/13/ on 7 December 2018. Hobbs R. (2017) Create to Learn: Introduction to Digital Literacy. John Wiley & Sons, Malden, MA. Horne Z., Powell D., Hummel J.E. & Holyoak K.J. (2015) Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33), 10321–10324. Janis I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Oxford, UK. Jeong S.-H., Cho H. & Hwang Y. (2012) Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication 62(3), 454–472. Johar G.V., Maheswaran D. & Peracchio L.A. (2006) MAPping the frontiers: Theoretical advances in consumer research on memory, affect, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 33(1), 139–149. Jones M. (1991) Gender stereotyping in advertisements. Teaching of Psychology 18(4), 231–233. Kafai Y.B. & Peppler K.A. (2011) Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education 35(1), 89–119. Kahneman D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58(9), 697–720. Kahneman D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Kellner D. & Share J. (2005) Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(3), 369–386. Kennedy M.J., Hirsch S.E., Dillon S.E., Rabideaux L., Alves K.D. & Driver M.K. (2016) Using content acquisition podcasts to increase student knowledge and to reduce perceived cognitive load. Teaching of Psychology 43(2), 153–158. Lafky S., Duffy M., Steinmaus M. & Berkowitz D. (1996) Looking through gendered lenses: Female stereotyping in advertisements and gender role expectations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73(2), 379–388. Levin D.T. & Angelone B.L. (2008) The visual metacognition questionnaire: A measure of intuitions about vision. American Journal of Psychology 121(3), 451–472. Martens H. (2010) Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(1), 1–22.

168

Fostering media literacy in college Mayer R.E. (2009) Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York. Mayer R.E. & Moreno R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 43–52. McGrew S., Breakstone J., Ortega T., Smith M. & Wineburg S. (2017, Fall) The challenge that’s bigger than fake news. American Educator, 4–9. Retrieved from www.aft.org/ae/fall2017/mcgrew_ortega_ breakstone_wineburg on 7 December 2018. McGrew S., Breakstone J., Ortega T., Smith M. & Wineburg S. (2018) Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education 46(2), 165–193. Meola M. (2004) Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates Web-site evaluation. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 4(3), 331–344. Meriam Library (2010) Evaluating Information: Applying the CRAAP Test. California State University, Chico. Retrieved from www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf on 7 December 2018. Metzger M.J. & Flanagin A.J. (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 210–220. Metzger M.J. & Flanagin A.J. (2015) Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. (Sundar S.S., ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 445–466. Miller G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97. Mitchell A., Gottfried J., Barthel M. & Sumida N. (2018, June 18) Distinguishing between factual and opinion statements in the news. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/ distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/ on 7 December 2018. Müller-Lyer F.C. (1889) Optische Urteilstauschungen. Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie, Physiologische Abteilung 2, 263–270. O’Keeffe G.S., Clarke-Pearson K. & Council on Communications and Media (2011) The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics 127(4), 800–804. Oliver J.T. (2015) One-shot Wikipedia: An edit-sprint toward information literacy. Reference Services Review 43(1), 81–97. Pariser E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, New York. Pennycook G., Cannon T.D. & Rand D.G. (2018) Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. Pennycook G., Fugelsang J.A. & Koehler D.J. (2015) Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(6), 425–432. Pennycook G. & Rand D.G. (2018) Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3165567 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3165567 Rogers A. (2015, February 26) The science of why no one agrees on the color of this dress. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/ on 7 December 2018. Seidman G. (2013) Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences 54(3), 402–407. Shah P. & Miyake A. (1996) The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125(1), 4–27. Shane-Simpson C. & Brooks P.J. (2016) The dos and don’ts of Wikipedia editing in the undergraduate psychology classroom. Observer 29(2), 32–33. Retrieved from www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/ the-dos-and-donts-of-wikipedia-editing-in-the-undergraduate-psychology-classroom on 7 December 2018. Shane-Simpson C., Che E. & Brooks P.J. (2016) Giving psychology away: Implementation of Wikipedia editing in an introductory human development course. Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3), 268–293. Simons D.J. & Chabris C.F. (1999) Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9), 1059–1074. Stagnaro M.N., Pennycook G. & Rand D.G. (2018) Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision Making 13(3), 260–267. Stanovich K.E. & Stanovich P.J. (2010) A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development. (Preiss D.D. & Sternberg R.J., eds.), Springer Publishing Company, New York, pp. 195–237.

169

Jessica E. Brodsky and Patricia J. Brooks Stanovich K.E. & West R.F. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, 645–665. Taylor L.E., Swerdfeger A.L. & Eslick G.D. (2014) Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidencebased meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine 32(29), 3623–3629. Toplak M.E., West R.F. & Stanovich K.E. (2014) Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning 20(2), 147–168. Traphagan T., Traphagan J., Dickens L.N. & Resta P. (2014) Changes in college students’ perceptions of use of web-based resources for academic tasks with Wikipedia projects: A preliminary exploration. Interactive Learning Environments 22(3), 253–270. Tversky A. & Kahneman D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131. Valentine A. & Wukovitz L. (2013) Using the filter bubble to create a teachable moment: A case study utilizing online personalization to engage students in information literacy instruction. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice 1(1), 24–34. Venkatraman A., Garg N. & Kumar N. (2015) Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism. Vaccine 33(12), 1422–1425. Vosoughi S., Roy D. & Aral S. (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380), 1146–1151. Wason P.C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12(3), 129–140. Wichowski D. & Kohl L. (2013) Establishing credibility in the information jungle: Blogs, microblogs, and the CRAAP test. In Online Credibility and Digital Ethos: Evaluating Computer-Mediated Communication. (Folk M. & Apostel S., eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 229–251. Wineburg S. & McGrew S. (2017) Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information (Working Paper No. 2017-A1). Stanford History Education Group. Retrieved from https:// ssrn.com/abstract=3048994 on 7 December 2018.

170

10 ENHANCING ASIAN STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT BY INCORPORATING ASIAN INTELLECTUAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RESOURCES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

Introduction In Australia, international students account for more than 20% of tertiary education students – the highest proportion of international students in all OECD countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019). The majority of these international students are from Asian countries, thus there has been great interest in learning about learning practices of Asian students at Australian universities. Researchers started paying more attention to researching how Asian students learn in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this early period, most researchers, relying heavily on personal experiences and anecdotes, argued that Asian learners lack learner autonomy and require step-by-step guidance and support; are uncritical consumers of information presented in the textbook or in lectures; hold preference for a reproductive approach to learning; and possess a limited range of learning strategies, especially rote memorization (Flowerdew 1998; Atkinson 1999; Ramsden 1992; Samuelowicz 1987). Asian students often receive knowledge from teachers as a truth rather than trying to think independently, challenging the teacher’s knowledge and drawing their own conclusions (Ruby & Ladd 1999). Such beliefs have been so prevalent and entrenched that even Asian students themselves have often internalized these descriptions and accept the image of themselves as lacking in initiative, being socially inept and boringly bookish (Ryan & Louie 2006). These learning attributes contrast the image of teaching and learning practices at Western educational institutions where the ideal student is often seen as inquiring, questioning and self-reliant. This indicates that Asian learners must encounter a lot of difficulties when studying in a Western environment. It has been shown, however, that Asian students achieve similar rates of academic success as compared to domestic students in their higher education studies in Australia (DEST 2004). Moreover, many Asian learners have been found to outperform their Western counterparts on international comparisons of student achievement. Performance in reading, math and science 171

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

on PISA assessments of students from Shanghai, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore was consistently higher than those of students coming from Australia, the US, UK and Europe. An important note is that PISA assesses meta-cognitive content knowledge and problem-solving abilities. These skills are not conducive to rote learning. Therefore, if Asian students only deploy a rote approach to learning in preparation for PISA assessment, they should achieve lower scores. This paradox has driven many researchers from a range of theoretical perspectives (e.g., Biggs 1996; Cheng 2000, 2002; Lee 1996) to start reconstructing the stereotyped views on Asian learners questioning if Asian students only learn content by rote (like a mindless machine), because how then could rote learners obtain so many impressive academic achievements both at Western institutions and on international tests. This doubtfulness initiated the birth of the second phase of research that aimed to seek evidence demonstrating that Asian learners are not simply rote and surface learners. The most well-known representative of this perspective is John Biggs (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996), who mainly draws on Confucian heritage discourse, arguing that it is not accurate when researchers use Confucian teachings as the underpinning theory to argue that Asian learners are rote and surface learners. This is because Confucius actually saw himself as a deep learner and Confucianism encourages deep teaching and learning (Biggs 1991). Based on this inference, later Biggs (Biggs 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994) wrote several papers aiming to dispel Western misconceptions. They collected empirical evidence to reveal that Chinese learners did value active and reflective thinking, open-mindedness and a spirit of inquiry and they engage in autonomous, problem-solving activities; and Chinese societies did value an exploratory and reflective approach to learning. They explained that Western researchers and educators did not see these positive aspects of “Confucian heritage” education because the process of absorbing and digesting knowledge of Asian learners differs from that of their Western counterparts and Westerners were not aware of this differentiation. In summary, this perspective aims to defend that when facing an academic task, Western and Asian learners have the same primary goal of trying to reach understanding, but they use different approaches to learning.

Engaging Asian students with learning in Australia Needless to say, Australia’s international education activities have become an important sector contributing to the country’s economy. International students contribute more than $32.2 billion to the Australian economy every year (Universities Australia 2018). It is noted that the number of overseas arrivals from Asia for education purposes currently accounts for 80% of international students in Australia, with the vast majority of these students coming from China, India, Korea, Vietnam and Malaysia (as the top five Asian countries). International students in Australia are often referred to as passive and quiet (Pham 2014). They have been largely seen as “inferior others” (Leask 2006, p. 186) who need to be filled with Euro-American knowledge or as “complex others” who could negotiate their identities and voices with the host institutions and staff but still need to assimilate the Australian academic conventions (Magyar & RobinsonPant 2011). In classes, Asian students are seen as being obedient to authority, passive, dependent, surface/rote learners prone to plagiarism, lacking in critical thinking and adopting inadequate learning strategies (Atkinson 1999; Ballard & Clancy 1991; Carson 1992; Flowerdew 1998; Fox 1994; Hammond & Gao 2002; Liu 1998). Hence, concerns about deep engagement of Asian students in cognitive and affective dimensions of doing a learning task have been raised. Pressures are being placed by the government upon universities, and, in turn, by universities upon organizational units and individual teachers, to raise student engagement. Australian institutions have implemented various methods to increase student engagement. These strategies 172

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement

include co-curricular initiatives (e.g., support services), curriculum-related activities (e.g., teaching quality), and an integrated holistic approach which combines all practices in a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated strategy used across disciplines and institutions. Despite of these efforts, Asian students still face challenges including building a social network and avoiding isolation (e.g., loneliness), meeting university standards of literacy (e.g., critical reading) and self-management of study, and adjusting to the fragmented life of a university student juggling study, peer socialization, independence and family commitments. Although there have been various initiatives, previous researchers largely ignored the strengths and intellectual and cultural resources of Asian students in order to create opportunities for them to use their own resources. Intellectual heritages are defined as theories, ideologies, metaphors, conceptual categories, images and ideas of various cultural traditions (Singh & Tamatea 2012; Turner 2010). This study used an innovative approach which argued that to enhance Asian students’ engagement, opportunities for them to use their own intellectual and cultural resources need to be created. The approach was to tap into resources of Asian students that had been largely ignored in the literature. This meant that the mainstream pedagogies needed to be revised to become hybrid pedagogies which include both Western and non-Western fundamentals. For instance, student-centered learning activities in non-Western classrooms should be developed based on elements of active learning practices commonly emphasized in Western classrooms and teachercentered pedagogies often seen in non-Western classrooms. This cultural approach was initiated by the argument that marginalized civilizations (e.g., Africa, Asia) have a rich arena of philosophical and ethical-sociopolitical thought. Influential examples include Confucius’s teachings with key concepts of memorization, effort attributions, and intrinsic significance which have become key educational values in Asia. Recent Chinese teaching practices (e.g., “action education” by Gu 2003) have also attracted curiosity from academics of developed education systems due to their significant contribution to the outstanding performance of Asian students on Asian tests. India is also widely recognized for its rich science, technology, philosophy, literature, art and critical theory. Extraordinary Indian intellectuals include Gandhi, who produced an ideology founded on “peaceful resistance,” “self-reliant” and “self-sufficient” methods of production to have a simple life; and Sanskrit scholars, who initiated mnemocultures emphasizing speech and gestures over writing and documentations that constitute Euro-American epistemic forms (Rao 2014). Asian students are nurtured with these intellectual heritages in their home education, so they surely possess and could access these heritages while studying in Australia. If Australian higher education would recognize and incorporate the students’ intellectual resources in curricula, it could create opportunities for Asian students to actively engage with their learning methods. In fact, the literature has documented academics who have successfully embedded diverse theoretical tools and ideologies into Western mainstream curricula to enhance students’ learning and engagement. For instance, Haigh (2009) used Indian concepts of gunas and dharma to design an internationalized curriculum. Johnson (2006) used the writings of the Mahabharata (Indian texts) as an alternative lens to enhance teachers’ awareness of other enlightenments when thinking about primary education. Singh (2009) made successful efforts toward “deparochialising research education” by encouraging research students to use Chinese theoretical concepts to theorize their research. However, beyond Singh’s “pedagogies of intellectual equality,” we know very little about the forms of pedagogies that were utilized to bring about these successes. Singh (2009) did warrant that pedagogies do not provide any definite answers about connecting diverse intellectual heritages to Australian education. There are still big gaps in our knowledge about the credibility and value of intellectual heritages of many cultural traditions and effective pedagogies to transfer these heritages in Australian higher education curricula. 173

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

This research aimed to fill this gap by unpacking how intellectual and cultural resources of Asian countries could enhance students’ learning and engagement. Outcomes of the study will make a contribution to enriching knowledge and understanding of academics about how to incorporate diverse pedagogies and educational values in teaching so that students with diverse backgrounds could be given equal opportunities to learn.

Measuring students’ engagement There is to date a large body of research on student engagement in education, but clear and consistent definitions of engagement remain elusive (Wang & Eccles 2012; Kahu 2013). According to Kahu’s (2013) conceptual framework of engagement, antecedents and consequences, student engagement refers to the affective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions involved in doing a learning task. Behavior includes three elements: positive behavior such as abiding by rules and attending class; involvement in learning, for example – time focusing on tasks and question asking; and participation in outside class activities. The psychological dimension relates to self-regulation and study methods involving deep learning. The affective dimension relates to emotional factors, which can include sense of belonging and more short-term emotions such as enjoyment or interest in a task. This framework relates to engagement with learning in general. In Australia, the agenda has been significantly influenced by the introduction of the Australian University Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) and an associated drive to align engagement measures with quality assurance determinations (Coates 2006). The AUSSE was introduced to Australia under the offices of the Australian Council for Educational Research in 2007 (Coates 2010). The antecedents to the AUSSE are found in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) that emerged in the US in 1998 following work by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Colorado, and the Postsecondary Research and School of Education at Indiana University. The NSSE has now been developed for use as a cross-sectional survey instrument in the US and Canada, in South Africa (as the South African Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE)), in Australia as mentioned (Coates 2006), and in China as the National Survey on Student Engagement China (NSSE-C). The NSSE includes a series of items against which the students rate their behaviors or their perception of some provision in the curriculum or campus. There are five benchmarks within the NSSE: level of academic achievement; active and collaborative learning; student staff interaction; enriching educational experiences; and a supportive campus environment. The present study utilized these five benchmarks as the overarching framework to measure the students’ engagement. However, due to the scope of the research, the study only focused on the first three components which are level of academic achievement, active and collaborative learning, and student-staff interaction.

Theoretical framework The study aimed to develop hybrid pedagogies that incorporated Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources into teaching and learning activities of the target classes. The development of the hybrid pedagogies is informed by two complementary conceptual frameworks including the southern theory of Connell (2007) and the third generation of activity theory of Engeström (1999). Connell (2007) is critical of the concept of the global labor division, with the North producing theories and the South borrowing and initiating. This division has been well recognized in academia worldwide. Connell argues for the legitimization of discourses that are informed by southern historical experiences and cultural practices because southern civilizations 174

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement

actually have the rich arena of social-scientific thought. Connell also proposes that southern social philosophies and scientific thought could be alternative solutions for various social, economic and political problems facing northern countries. She therefore suggests that to solve global issues there should be the creation of “global theory” or a “dirty theory” (Connell 2007, p. 224) including both northern and southern ideas. Sharing the same point of view with Connell, Engeström (1999) claims that there is a need to create a “third space” to develop transformed practices to solve conflicts between diverse systems (e.g., cultures, values). These transformed practices should be developed based on the combination of diverse cultural and intellectual values. However, Engeström advances Connell’s “global theory” by providing an analysis of a wide range of factors that could pull and push the development of transformed practices. Figure 10.1 presents the application of Engeström’s analysis to this research. As shown in Figure 10.1, the development of a theoretical framework and pedagogical principles to embed international students’ intellectual heritages into Australian higher education curricula is located in the “third space” where Australian universities’ academic conventions meet international students’ intellectual heritages. This development will take into account contradictions and conflicts created by the integration of these two systems in the third space.

Methodology The program in which the target classes were delivered was an undergraduate program at a reputational university in Australia. The program had 20%–30% international students, of whom most came from Asian countries. Teaching staff were, therefore, strongly encouraged to diversify their pedagogies as much as possible to ensure they catered to the needs of students from various cultural backgrounds. The study involved 300 university students of which 70 were Asian students at an Australian university. The target classes were taught by the teacher who was the first researcher of this study. The students ranged from 18 to 22 years of age. Most of them came to Australia for a university degree and stayed in Australia for one to three years. Sixty percent were females and 40% were males. The following sections explain how the hybrid pedagogies were developed and how data were collected.

The development of hybrid pedagogies The core idea of the hybrid pedagogies implemented in the study was the embedding of Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources in all teaching, learning and assessment activities wherever possible. For example, the teaching and learning resources included not only readings written by Western researchers and about Western countries but also by Asian researchers and about Asian countries. Specifically, ideologies of Asian countries like teachings of Confucius and Gandhi were incorporated in lectures to give students some theoretical foundation. Then activities in tutorials were developed based on a combination of both Western and non-Western theories. In addition, teaching and learning practices were designed based on two pedagogical fundamentals of Asian education which were “well-structured” (Pham 2014) and “knowledge-points” (Gu 2003). These fundamentals aimed to ensure that the students obtained a foundational understanding of key concepts and contents before they developed advanced knowledge either independently or with scaffolds given by the teacher. An exemplary activity incorporating this idea is the following: the students worked on the articles in their respective groups. They were asked to first read and reflect individually prior to being allowed to talk freely. Specifically, the students had to summarize key ideas of each article 175

176

Figure 10.1

Community: Australian universities, academics, students etc.

Third space of the two activity systems

Rules: Euro-American theories, metaphors etc.

Subject: Australian academics, students

Third space

Theory & Pedagogies to incorporate diverse intellectual heritages

Labor division: Tasks for academics, students

Object: Learning outcomes

Artifacts: Co-curricular and curriculum-related activities

Australian universities’ academic conventions

Labor division: Tasks for Asian students

Object: Learning outcomes

Community: Asian students’ communities, friends etc.

Rules: Theories, metaphors etc. of Asian countries

Subject: International students

Artifacts: Co-curricular and curriculum-related activities

Asian students’ intellectual heritages

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement

and point out how these key ideas were connected to concepts they were taught in the lecturing section. These step-by-step procedures aimed to ensure that every group member had a sound understanding of the articles so that their contributions in small group discussions would be more informed and thoughtful. After the students obtained foundational knowledge, the teacher provided the students with scaffolds and detailed guidance to direct and support them in exploring the texts and sharing their own thoughts and ideas, not contained in the texts – a type of pedagogy underpinned by hierarchical epistemology. For example, the guided reciprocal peer questioning strategies originally developed by King (1997) were used to guide the students to develop and use questions to unpack information of texts. Some sample questions were: “How would you use . . . to . . .? Explain why . . .? What is the difference between . . . and . . .?” The students used these hints to ask and answer each other’s questions, including both questions in the articles and their own questions that were related to the text but were not discussed in them.

Data collection This study consisted of two data sources. The first source was the university’s report which contained both quantitative and qualitative data yielded from online surveys completed by the students at the end of each year. Quantitative data were the students’ performance and their perceptions toward teaching and learning activities in the units. Qualitative data was collected from open-ended questions in the online surveys. The surveys consisted of a large number of items about different aspects of teaching and learning. Only relevant data were collected and used for the purpose of this research study. The second data source was the qualitative data that the teacher informally gathered observing a focus group while delivering workshop activities in a class. The observation schedule was mainly based on Behavior States, developed by Gillies (2006). This schedule was originally developed by Sharan and Shachar (1988) and was modified by Gillies and Ashman (1996). The schedule has four Behavior State categories which are described in Table 10.1. In addition, the teacher also collected students’ emails sent to her to reflect how they perceived the teaching and learning activities in class. During the teaching periods and after the classes finished, the teacher arranged informal meetings with the students who were passionate about transformative pedagogies applied in the classes. These students often discussed verbally with the researcher in the class and sometimes emailed her to share their thought about activities applied in the lessons. At the informal meetings, the researcher further discussed with these students what they liked and disliked about the teaching and learning activities. Table 10.1 Behavior States schedule Categories

Behavior States

1 Cooperative behavior

Task-oriented group behavior Listening Competitive behaviors to exclude others Opposition Criticism Work alone on task Nonparticipation in group activities and not working individually

2

Noncooperative behavior

3 Individual on-task behavior 4 Off-task behavior

177

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

Data analysis Regarding the quantitative data obtained from the university’s report, the researcher was provided with the results of the students’ academic performance and their perceptions toward teaching and learning activities. Therefore, no statistical analysis was required. To analyze the quantitative data obtained in the two target classes, the researcher applied simple percentage calculation. To analyze qualitative data yielded from open-ended questions in the online surveys and emails, thematic analysis (Creswell 2012) was applied. Data were disentangled into segments (this can be a word, a single sentence or a paragraph) so that annotations and codes could be attached to them. After codes were developed, codes around phenomena discovered in the data were grouped into categories which were more abstract. Finally, to analyze observation data, relevant behavior patterns were coded for frequency and the frequency was converted into percentage to compare different behavior patterns.

Study findings The following sessions will present how students performed and how they interacted with each other and the teacher when hybrid pedagogies were applied. In brief, the hybrid pedagogies created more opportunities for non-Western students to utilize their intellectual resources and interact with other students and the teacher. They therefore enhanced academic performance and became more active and engaged in class activities.

Students’ performance As explained earlier, the study utilized the students’ academic performance as the first indicator of their engagement. Therefore, the students’ academic achievements were compared between 2 years when the pedagogies had not been modified (the first 2 years) and 2 years when the pedagogies were embedded with Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources (the last 2 years). Figure 10.2 shows that there was an improvement in the students’ academic performance in the 2 years when the pedagogies were developed in a hybrid approach which tapped into cultural and intellectual resources of Asian students. In detail, in 2013 and 2014 when the pedagogies mainly developed based on Western theories and philosophies, the students’ academic performance was within the range from 60% to 70% out of 100%. Differently, in 2015 and 2016 when hybrid pedagogies which embedded Asian intellectual resources were applied in the same course, the students’ academic achievements jumped to a range of 71% to 75% out of 100%. These academic performances were the averages of both local and international students because all grades were summed and the average was documented in the final report that the researcher was allowed to access. Although it was impossible to select academic performance of only Asian students, the results obtained in other data sources evidenced that Asian students improved across the years. First, according to the university’s record in the first 2 years, ten Asian students failed the units, whereas in the last 2 years only three of them failed. Second, the data collected in the target classes where the teacher taught showed a marked increase in quality of assignments of Asian students. In general, they were more engaged in using the literature and showed quality in deep discussions about theories and key concepts covered in the classes.

Students’ interactions in class The students’ interactions were used as the second indicator to show Asian students’ engagement. Two data sources were used to unpack their engagement. The first one was an item in 178

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement Academic performance of students in the target course across the years 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure 10.2 Academic performance of students in the same course across the years Notes: • The numbers on the y-axis are the percentages out of 100%.

the online survey that asked the students for their perceptions toward whether the teaching and learning activities utilized in the classes were interactive. The students’ perceptions are reported in Table 10.2. Table 10.2 shows that the students expressed their attitudes toward greater opportunities for interactions in the units that utilized the hybrid pedagogies compared with the classes that utilized the traditional pedagogy. In fact, the score of 4.61 given by the students studying in the target classes was one of the highest scores compared with other items in the survey. This meant that the students highly appreciated interactive opportunities that were created by the application of the hybrid pedagogies. Data collected in the focus classes about how the students worked cooperatively also showed a larger number of cooperative behaviors as compared to other behaviors in group work (e.g., noncooperative behaviors, individual on-task behaviors and off-task behaviors). The analysis of qualitative data revealed that one of the reasons that engaged the Asian students in group discussions was “interesting resources.” They stated that the resources used in workshops were really useful, beneficial and valuable. They found inspiring information in readings and wanted to unpack and share with their group. Some students expressed their appreciation of being exposed to new sources of information about diverse values in teaching and learning. Table 10.2 Students’ perceptions about how the classes were interactive Item

Score of the Units That Embedded Asian Intellectual Resources

Scores of Other Units That Utilized the Traditional Pedagogy

[The classes] provide opportunities for interaction

4.61 out of 5.0

4.52 out of 5.0

179

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham Table 10.3 Students’ perceptions about interactive opportunities provided by the teacher Item

The Teacher’s Score

Other Teachers’ Score Average

[The teacher] provided opportunities for interactions

4.61 out of 5.0

4.52 out of 5.0

Students’ interactions with the teacher Students’ perceptions about the opportunities that the teacher created to enhance studentteacher interactions were analyzed and used as another indicator showing the students’ engagement in the classes under study. Table 10.3 displays their perceptions. The results reported in Table 10.3 reveal that, compared to teachers of other classes, the students rated that the teacher created better opportunities for students to interact with her. Here are some quotes from the qualitative data that explained why the students liked the teacher’s pedagogies. [The teacher] has brought a lot of non-Western theories in the lectures. This made her lectures unique and different. Being able to see different views of education allows us, at least for me, to identify, appreciate and evaluate what’s good . . . . [The teacher] brought Confucius education into the lecture, and provides the general discussion for its merits and demerits. The part I felt most fascinating is that, as a Chinese student, we are here to develop critical thinking, to expand out horizon, more importantly, we are here to experience diversity and multiculturalism. Having such attention to non-Western theories . . . welcomes international students as their cultural knowledge is being valued. When interviewing the students, the researcher found that they highly valued the regulation of their interactions in class. When the students were asked to take turns to contribute and lead the group, they initially perceived these regulations as “strict” and “strange” but then appreciated the benefits regarding improvement in their performance on the final assignment. Specifically, the interviewees revealed that the regulations regarding participation gave every student the opportunity to share and explore ideas and challenge or convince others. This especially benefited those students who rarely expressed their ideas in class. Some statements regarding this aspect are: When the teacher does not set up the regulation, those who are less attentive would chat and fool around. Only those who are attentive, usually four or five persons in the class, would actively discuss. I listen but quickly forget. When we take turn, I am forced to practice how to express my own ideas and compare and contrast with others’ opinions. I could subsequently get a better understanding of what we discuss. Another student revealed that the compulsory regulation helped the class discover talented students. Wow . . . some people always seem very quiet. They almost never talk in the class, so we think they do not understand much but when they are required to talk, we realize that they are so talented and we learn a lot from what they say. 180

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement

It was noted that the students also expressed that it was the group leader who played an important role in pushing them to participate in discussions, leading to their improvement in learning. Here are two sample messages regarding this point. When the group is not well-organized, I find it easy to make an excuse not to make any contribution. However, when my group leader rules out that we take turn to speak in class, I force myself to read and follow what is being discussed. Consequently, I get a better picture of everything. Another added that: I first find my group leader is rigid and pushing but then understand that I would not be engaged in and get such a good understanding of the course without his leadership. In sum, it was clear that the improvement of the students’ performance on the final essay assignment was related to the lecturer’s scaffolding and detailed guidance as well as their direct regulation of participation. Explicit regulation of interaction ensured that the students engaged in discussion and shared their thoughts. This meant they needed to follow the discussion systematically before synthesizing various ideas and comparing different points of view. These types of social interaction can thus provide the foundation for higher-order knowledge development.

Discussion and conclusion This research has attempted to develop and utilize student-centered pedagogies to enhance Asian students’ engagement and learning. The hybrid pedagogies were developed by incorporating Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources and values. The literature has documented several forms of pedagogies in legitimizing marginalized knowledge. For example, Moll et al. (1992) developed the “funds of knowledge” approach requiring teachers to bring minority students’ prior knowledge into the mainstream curriculum. Slightly different, Singh (2009, 2010) proved the effective deployment of “pedagogies of intellectual equality” to help Chinese research students to theorize their research and critique Australian education. Singh claimed that academics’ ignorance of Chinese intellectual assets acted as a stimulus, pushing Chinese students to look for and utilize their multilingual competence and theoretical tools. Other researchers, by using the sociocultural perspective, further argue for the deployment of culturally appropriate pedagogies to transfer new knowledges into the existing curriculum (e.g., Pham 2014; Zipin 2005). These researchers advocate for this need because people sharing a culture tend to share deeply embedded inter-subjective ways of knowing that are never completely abandoned for others (Zipin 2005). Pham (2014, 2016) conducted extensive research on transnational cultural and intellectual exchange and found that to embed Euro-American theoretical tools into Confucian heritage culture classrooms, there is a need to develop “hybrid pedagogies” because Confucian teachers and students refused to accept “foreign” knowledge and pedagogies that disharmonized with their deep cultural values. In this study, Asian students highly appreciated resources that embedded diverse intellectual values because they gave them opportunities to share their knowledge with their local counterparts. They also highly appreciated teaching and learning activities that embedded Asian pedagogical principles. The first pedagogical practice was the concept of “knowledge point.” Asian teachers are typically trained and expected to identify for students at least three elements of a curriculum topic: the knowledge point (zhishi dian) [知識點], the key point (zhong dian) 181

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham

[重點], and the difficult point (nan dian) [難點] (Gu 2003). Subsequently on graduation, Gu (2003) notes that Asian teachers tend to explicitly name the concepts that students will need to learn, specify the key aspects of the concepts related to the topic, and identify the aspects that students are likely to find most difficult. The support given to this approach is consistent with the results reported in this study when Asian students showed their appreciation and engagement when the hybrid pedagogies enabled them to obtain a good understanding of basic contents before developing advanced knowledge. Second, the students were very supportive to well-structured pedagogies that the teacher applied in both classes. These pedagogical practices were advocated by Pham and Renshaw (2015a, 2015b) who found that Asian students studied more effectively if they were provided with more detailed scaffolding and guidance. Asian students often felt reluctant to use their peers as a learning source because they often believe that only the teacher can give “trustworthy” feedback and correct answers (Yang et al. 2006). On the teacher’s side, the literature also has reported that Asian teachers tend to believe that they master a profound body of knowledge and can transmit this knowledge to students (Phuong-Mai 2008). They then assume that they have the responsibility to evaluate students’ progress and may become suspicious of peer evaluation. Saito and Fujita (2004) found evidence in their studies to confirm this suspicion. The results also revealed another important point. To engage Asian students in learning, there must be a good balance between verbal interactions and quiet learning culture, which could be online discussion or small group work. This is because extensive research has reported that Asian students are often not very keen on speaking in public to express perhaps uninformed ideas or ask for assistance with understanding concepts (Pham 2014; Phuong-Mai 2008). One explanation for this reluctance draws upon the value of preserving “face,” which is a feature of many Asian cultures. “Preserving face” has high cultural value because it entails “a person’s social and professional position, reputation and self-image” (Irwin 1996, p. 67). Losing face can inflict extremely serious personal damage (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). Researchers have documented that Asian students will try to avoid the loss of face at all costs (Ferraro 1994; Irwin 1996). In schools, Asian students are seen as losing face when they are unable to answer the teacher’s or a friend’s questions or even when they are just challenged to confirm their knowledge (Burns 1991). Therefore, Asian students often prefer not to express personal ideas because they may look silly if their points of view are incorrect (California Department of Education 1994; Vang 1999). Another important aspect is the important role of a group leader. Day et al. (2004) and Dickson et al. (2003) propose that from the westerner’s point of view, the group only cooperates well when every member is equal in power. Therefore, group leadership is not a common principle applied in student-centered classrooms. However, various studies reported in the literature (e.g., Phuong-Mai 2008; Pham 2014) found that for Asian students leadership was a necessary condition for effective teamwork. This was because group leaders could bring about plenty of benefits including keeping harmony, supervising, involving all group members in making decisions and motivating group members. In conclusion, the results of the present study made a contribution to opening up a new approach to address the long-term unsolved issue of internationalizing education in Australia. Over the past two decades, internationalizing teaching and learning has become a priority in almost all Australian universities’ agendas. Recently, the Asian Century white paper and Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012) strengthened this agenda by setting the incorporation of Asian values as a cross-curriculum priority. Current internationalization strategies have, however, been found to be ineffective in enabling Australian education to broaden its academic conventions. The evidence reported in this study may 182

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement

offer a solution for this fundamental issue. The findings also revealed indications for developing practical pedagogical principles that could enable academics to design syllabi, assessment and pedagogy to incorporate diverse intellectual heritages in their teaching.

References Asian Century White paper and Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2012) Retrieved from www.acara.edu.au on 10 March 2019. Atkinson D. (1999) TESOL and culture, TESOL Quarterly 33(4), 625–653. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2019) Retrieved from on www.abs.gov.au/ausstats on 10 June 2019. Ballard B. & Clancy J. (1991) Teaching Students from Overseas: A Brief Guide for Lecturers and Supervisors. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Biggs J.B. (1989) Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development 8(1), 7–25. Biggs J.B. (1990) Effects of language medium of instruction on approaches to learning. Educational Research Journal (Hong Kong) 5, 18–28. Biggs J.B. (1991) Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal 6, 27–39. Biggs J.B. (1992) Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the learning and study process questionnaires. In Education Paper 14. Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Biggs J.B. (1993) What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63(1), 3–19. Biggs J.B. (1994) What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West. Australian Educational Researcher 21(1), 19–39. Biggs J.B. (1996) Western misperceptions of the Confucian heritage learning culture. In The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences. (Watson D.A & Biggs J.B., eds.), Comparative Education Research Centre and Melbourne, The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Hong Kong, pp. 45–67. Burns R.B. (1991) Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian University. Higher Education Research and Development 10(1), 61–77. California Department of Education (1994) Handbook for Teaching Vietnamese-Speaking Students. Author, Sacramento, CA. Carson J. (1992) Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Writing 1, 37–60. Cheng X. (2000) Asian students’ reticence revisited. System 28, 435–446. Cheng X. (2002) Chinese EFL students’ cultures of learning. In Culture, Communication and Language Pedagogy. (Lee C. & Littlewood W., eds.), Hong Kong Baptist University Press, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, pp. 103–116. Coates H. (2006) Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education: University Connections. Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Coates H. (2010) Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education 60(1), 1–17. Connell R. (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Polity Press, Cambridge and Malden, MA. Creswell J.W. (2012) Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA. Day D., Gronn P. & Salas E. (2004) Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6), 857–880. Department of Education, Science and Training (2004) International Higher Education Students: How do they differ from other education students? Strategic Analysis and Evaluation Group Research Note No. 2. Retrieved from www.dest.gov.au/research/publications/research_notes/2.htm on 20 September 2019. Dickson M., Den-Hartog D. & Mitchelson J.K. (2003) Research on leadership in a crosscultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly 14(6), 729–768. Engeström Y. (1999) Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ferraro G.P. (1994) The Cultural Dimension of International Business (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Flowerdew L. (1998) A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal 52(4), 323–328.

183

Thanh Pham and Lam Hoang Pham Fox H. (1994) Listening to the World. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL. Gillies R. (2006) The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research 41, 257–279. Gillies R. & Ashman A. (1996) Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Interaction 6, 187–200. Gu L. (2003) Jiaoxue Gaige de Xingdong yu Quanshi [Education Reform: Action and Interpretation]. People’s Education Press, Beijing. Haigh M. (2009) Fostering cross-cultural empathy with non-western curricular structures. International Education 13(2), 271–284. Hammond S. & Gao H. (2002) Pan Gu’s paradigm: Chinese education’s return to holistic communication in learning. In Chinese Communication Studies: Contexts and Comparisons. (Lu X., Jia W. & Heisey R., eds.), Ablex, Westport, CT, pp. 227–244). Hofstede G. & Hofstede J. (2005) Cultures and Organization-Software of the Minds (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York. Irwin H. (1996) Communicating with Asia. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Johnson R. (2006) Locating non-Western enlightenment texts for a global curriculum. Intercultural Education 17(1), 21–32. Kahu E.R. (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5), 758–773. King A. (1997) Ask to think ð tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher-level complex learning. Educational Psychologist 32(4), 221–235. Leask B. (2006) Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31(2), 183–199. Lee W.O. (1996) The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences. (Watkins D.A. & Biggs J.B., eds.), Comparative Education Research Centre and Melbourne, The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Hong Kong, pp. 25–41. Liu D. (1998) Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal 52, 3–10. Magyar A. & Robinson-Pant A. (2011) Internationalising doctoral research. Teachers and Teaching 17(6), 663–677. Moll L., Amanti C., Neff D. & Gonzalez N. (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching. Theory into Practice 2, 132–141. Pham T. (2014) Implementing Cross-Culture Pedagogies: Cooperative Learning at Confucian Heritage Cultures. Springer, Singapore. Pham T. (2016) Student-centredness: Exploring the culturally appropriate pedagogical space in Vietnamese higher education classrooms using activity theory. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online) 41(1). Pham T. & Renshaw P.D. (2015a) Adapting evidence-based pedagogy to local cultural contexts: A design research study of policy borrowing in Vietnam. Pedagogies: An International Journal 10(3), 256–274. Pham T. & Renshaw P.D. (2015b) Formative assessment in Confucian heritage cultures classrooms: Activity theory analysis of tensions, contradictions and hybrid practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40(1), 45–59. Phuong-Mai N. (2008) Culture and Cooperation Cooperative Learning in Asian Confucian Heritage Cultures: The Case of Viet Nam. IVLOS Institute of Education of Utrecht University, Netherlands. Ramsden P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Routledge, London. Rao V. (2014) Cultures of Memory in South Asia: Orality, Literacy and the Problem of Inheritance. Springer, New Delhi. Ruby R. & Ladd P. (1999) Learning styles and adjustment issues of international students. Journal of Education for Business 7(6), 363–379. Ryan J. & Louie K. (2006) False Dichotomy? “Western” and “Confucian” concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory 39(4), 404–417. Saito H. & Fujita T. (2004) Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research 8(1), 31–54. Samuelowicz K. (1987) Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development 6(2), 121–133. Sharan S. & Shachar H. (1988) Language and Learning in the Cooperative Classroom. Springer, New York. Singh M. (2009) Using Chinese in internationalising research education. Globalisation, Societies & Education 7(2), 185–201.

184

Enhancing Asian students’ engagement Singh M. (2010) Connecting intellectual projects in China and Australia. Australian Journal of Education 54(1), 31–45. Singh M. & Tamatea L. (2012) Innovations in partnership-driven teacher education. Local – Global 9, 20–43. Turner C. (2010) Investigating Sociological Theory. Sage, London. Universities Australia (2018) International Students Inject $31 Billion a Year into Australia’s Economy-Boosting Aussie Jobs and Wages. Retried from www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/ International-students-inject-32-billion-a-year-into-Australia-s-economy-boosting-Aussie-jobs-andwages#.XQ6izi1L0mU on 10 June 2019. Vang T. (1999) Hmong-American students: Challenges and opportunities. In Asian-American Education: Prospects and Challenges. (Park C. & Chi M., eds.), Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp. 219–236. Wang M.T. & Eccles J.S. (2012) Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development 83(3), 877–895. Yang M., Badger R. & Yu Z. (2006) A Comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15, 179–200. Zipin L. (2005) Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy. Discourse 30(3), 317–331.

185

11 TRANSFORMING A LARGE UNIVERSITY PHYSICS COURSE TO STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING, WITHOUT SACRIFICING CONTENT A case study Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

Introduction Imagine, for a moment, the cognitive experience of being a typical student in a traditionally taught university science course. You go to lecture (sleep deprived, of course) and within 10 minutes you are already overloaded with unfamiliar terms, definitions, and equations. Your instructor describes verbally how to carry out a complex multi-step task and then asks, “Any questions?” – without ever letting you practice that task. When you try to solve a similar problem on the homework, you struggle and make mistakes, but now there is no instructor to give you feedback about your errors. A week later your homework is returned, marked incorrect, but you cannot recall why you made those mistakes. When you attempt to solve another similar problem on an exam, you might discover that you haven’t actually learned that task correctly at all. In all seriousness, this scenario remains too common in large college courses, especially in introductory courses in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Stains et al. 2018). Yet educational researchers find that almost any type of learning that allows students to think and practice in the classroom is superior to passive lectures (Freeman et al. 2014). Instructional methods that promote this type of active engagement can include “clicker” questions, small-group work, peer instruction, studio-style classrooms, and think-pair-share activities, among many possible approaches (Hake 1998; Crouch & Mazur 2001; Freeman et al. 2014; Fraser et al. 2014; Stains et al. 2018). When correctly implemented, active learning involves two key features: students spend much of the class period actually practicing the skills that they are trying to learn, and they get timely feedback from instructors and/or peers about their efforts. This combination of practice with feedback is essential to acquiring expert performance and is central to the cognitive framework of “deliberate practice” (Ericsson et al. 1993; Ericsson 2008). When we describe active learning to our colleagues in this way, they often acknowledge that students will learn more, yet they still remain hesitant to change their own teaching. They fear 186

Transforming a university physics course

that they would have to sacrifice content (this is inevitable with most styles of active learning, to be sure). They worry about students’ perceptions and the dreaded end-of-semester course evaluations. And they worry about how much work it will take to change their course materials to use active learning. This case study seeks to alleviate these fears and show that it is possible to transform a course to student-centered learning – both in the lecture hall and on the homework – with moderate investment of time and without sacrificing content, while simultaneously improving students’ perceptions of the course. The transformation was implemented in a large introductory physics course at Harvard University, and proceeded in two stages: first, the lectures were transformed from passive, traditional lectures to a type of hybrid “interactive lecture” involving small-group work interspersed with instructor feedback. These transformed lectures are designed to approximate, within the environment of a large lecture class, the cognitive activities that students would experience in one-on-one tutoring (Lepper & Woolverton 2002; Wood & Tanner 2012). In a second stage, the homework exercises were changed to include not only traditional physics problem-solving but also questions focused on specific “subskills” that provided detailed and immediate feedback. Both of these transformed components follow the principles of deliberate practice. Some aspects of this overall course transformation that make it unique or noteworthy are that: (1) the transformed course covered precisely the same material as the original course, down to the level of daily coverage as reflected on the syllabus; (2) the transformation was implemented week by week while the course was being taught, without significant preparation in advance; (3) only the lecture content was changed in the initial stage of the transformation, with all other aspects (syllabus, homework, exams, labs, discussions) remaining the same; and (4) the second stage of the transformation, in which homework assignments were changed to reflect principles of deliberate practice, is a genuine innovation that has not yet been described in the literature. At each stage of the transformation, its impact on learning was measured by comparing students’ performance on identical, comprehensive 3-hour final examinations. This hybrid “interactive lecture” style of classroom pedagogy has been shown to yield increased learning while allowing instructors to teach the same content, in the same amount of class time, as traditional lectures (Deslauriers et al. 2011; Deslauriers & Wieman 2011; Jones et al. 2015). The work involved in creating course materials for this style of teaching is only slightly more than that required to create a new course from scratch. However, the course transformation described here does require an experienced mentor who can advise on these new course materials and can also guide the existing instructor on how to manage an active classroom environment. In our experience, close mentoring and advising from an instructor who is an expert in active learning is essential to make this kind of course transformation a success. Many courses have been transformed to active learning over the past decade at two major research universities – the University of Colorado (CU) and the University of British Columbia (UBC) – through the Science Education Initiative led by Carl Wieman. As described in his recent book, Wieman (2017) found to his surprise that the results of educational research on teaching and learning were not particularly effective in convincing faculty to change their approach to teaching. This is consistent with earlier observations that faculty do not approach their own teaching with the data-driven scientific mindset that they apply to their research (Handelsman et al. 2004). Faculty seem far more compelled by personal anecdotes and descriptions of the experiences of colleagues who transformed their courses. As it turns out, a major motivation for instructors to adopt active learning (and to sustain this change) is that they find it more rewarding to teach in an active classroom. Thus, conveying the personal experience of an instructor who has switched to interactive teaching can be surprisingly effective in changing the culture of teaching in a department. Although there are existing case studies of course 187

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

transformations in upper-level undergraduate courses (Chasteen et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2015), this chapter offers the first description of a real-time transformation of a large introductory course that preserves the same content on a lecture-by-lecture basis. With this case study, we hope to show our faculty colleagues that it is possible to transform these kinds of courses and to offer the kind of personal insight that might convince them to do so. Indeed, our description of this experience to our colleagues has been the single greatest factor inspiring them to adopt active learning in their own classes. This course transformation followed many of the strategies used previously by the Science Education Initiative (SEI). One of the authors (L.M.) had been teaching or co-teaching in our department’s two largest-enrollment introductory physics courses for about eight years using a lecture style of instruction. The other author (L.D.) arrived on campus in August and led the transformation starting that September – there were only a few weeks of preparation before transforming these courses. L.D. was co-instructor and also a mentor and guide throughout the process; he had previously led successful transformations of many other courses at UBC. Our experience confirmed the findings of the SEI, that the initial learning curve for faculty adopting active teaching methods is quite steep and requires active mentoring from an expert. The remainder of this case study is organized as follows. First, we articulate the specific goals we had set out for this transformation. Next, we describe the existing conditions of the courses that would be transformed. We then offer a detailed narrative of the process of transforming these courses. This narrative highlights the personal experiences of an instructor who is learning to teach using active learning. We give particular attention to the work of transforming existing lectures into student-centered activities and changing existing homework to use the principles of deliberate practice. We conclude with some reflections on lessons learned and a brief discussion of the impact of this course transformation on the broader culture of teaching in our department.

Goals of the course transformation Before embarking on a course transformation, it is essential to identify the goals one hopes to achieve. Our transformation had three main goals: (1) increased learning and more positive attitudes for the students, (2) a more rewarding teaching experience for us as faculty, and (3) to serve as a positive example that could influence our colleagues. First and foremost, any course transformation should help students to learn more, to be more engaged with the course and to have fewer students fail or drop out. We believe that improving student learning must be the primary objective of any significant change in pedagogical methods. As faculty, we have an ethical obligation not to make any changes that we know in advance would have an adverse effect on students’ learning. This obligation has important consequences for faculty involved in disciplinebased educational research (DBER) (National Research Council 2012), in which we use our courses and students as a sort of “laboratory” in which to test and refine improved instructional techniques. For instance, based on the exhaustive meta-analysis of Freeman et al. (2014), there is conclusive evidence that traditional lecture teaching is less effective than any type of active learning strategy. In light of these results, we agree with Wieman (2014) that it would be unethical today to lead a randomized experiment comparing exam scores in active learning with a control group that received only traditional lectures. In such an experiment, the control group would be intentionally subjected to a pedagogy that is known to lead to lower exam scores. Such research would yield little to no benefit, at the cost of exposing students to an inferior instructional approach. The case study described here is therefore a pseudo-experiment: after making the decision to introduce active learning in these courses, we did so for the entire cohort of students, 188

Transforming a university physics course

instead of splitting the cohort into control and experimental groups. With the expectation that students would learn more with active learning, we could not ethically withhold active learning from half of the students. As a result, the assessment of learning could only compare the exam scores between two successive years of students, instead of a randomized experimental design. In addition to measuring learning using exam scores, we also sought to measure students’ attitudes toward the course and toward the subject of physics using traditional end-of-semester course evaluations, and also using a validated instrument known as the CLASS – the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (Adams et al. 2006). As faculty, the two authors had distinct personal goals. The instructor L.M., who had taught the course before using traditional lectures, wanted to learn how to teach using active learning but was skeptical that the same course material could be covered. The active learning expert L.D. wanted to demonstrate that such a transformation could be implemented in a large introductory lecture course with little advance preparation and while preserving precisely the same content. Finally, we both sought to use this experience to change attitudes in our department. For many years, only one member of our department had used active learning methods consistently in teaching large lecture courses (Mazur 1997; Crouch & Mazur 2001). We hoped that a clear story about a successful transformation of a course (and instructor) from lecturing to active learning could inspire others to consider making similar changes. We also sought to collect some data that could convince our colleagues that active learning is indeed more effective than lecturing.

Characteristics of the existing lecture course In Harvard’s physics department, the two largest courses offered every year are Physical Sciences 2 (PS2) and Physical Sciences 3 (PS3). These courses enroll 200–250 students each and together offer a year-long introduction to physics aimed at life science and pre-medical students. PS2 teaches Newtonian mechanics, including fluids and statistical physics, while PS3 teaches electricity, magnetism, waves, and optics. Although this material is introductory and assumes no prior background in physics, it is not a prerequisite for other courses for most of these students. As a result, about half of the students are in their third undergraduate year, while the rest are either second-year or fourth-year students. This population of upper-year students taking a required course on introductory material is particularly challenging territory for introducing new teaching methods. These students generally have well-developed expectations of what should happen in a science lecture course, and they have learned strategies to succeed in such courses. Because many of these students plan to apply to medical school, they are extremely concerned about their grades and they react with suspicion to unfamiliar expectations or unusual pedagogical approaches. Before the course transformation, these courses were quite well established with an extensive set of course materials (lecture notes, homework, laboratories, discussion sections and review materials). The author L.M. had been teaching or co-teaching these courses for about eight years using a traditional lecture style. Student evaluations of the course and instructor were fairly positive for a large course that is a requirement for life science or pre-medical students. The “overall” course rating was typically around 3.3 out of 5, and the instructor L.M. usually scored around 4.2 out of 5. These data provide important context because many instructors worry about their evaluations, and student evaluations are “widely perceived as favoring entertaining lectures and penalizing active learning techniques” (Wieman 2017, p. 138). Faculty and students perceived these courses to be solid, well-organized courses that taught challenging, required material to a large and somewhat hostile audience of students. This transformation did not target

189

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

these courses because they were deficient; on the contrary, PS2 and PS3 were chosen in part because they were already seen as successful. The content of PS2 and PS3 was aligned closely with students’ interests, by introducing topics such as diffusion-limited metabolism, action potentials in neurons, and MRI imaging techniques – all high-interest applications of physics in medicine and biology. But other than these innovations in course content, the pedagogy in these courses was quite traditional. Students attended lectures twice a week for 90 minutes in a large lecture hall with fixed seats, as shown in Figure 11.1. The lectures included classic physics demonstrations which helped to maintain students’ interest, and the lecturers placed a high premium on keeping students engaged and entertained during class. Every week, students attended a one-hour discussion section on problem-solving strategies led by a graduate teaching assistant (TA). Every other week, students had a three-hour laboratory session with experiments that were related to the lectures. Weekly homework assignments featured complex multi-step problems that were intended to prepare students for similar problems on exams. Problems that had numerical answers were submitted online, and students would be told if they got the correct answer. Problems involving algebraic derivations, diagrams, or explanations were submitted on paper and graded each week by the TAs. Students took two in-class exams and a comprehensive 3-hour final examination each semester. In addition to the generally favorable course evaluations and the well-received integration of biomedical applications of physics, there was some other evidence that these courses were successful in teaching students to solve physics problems. Students reported that they felt very well prepared for the physics questions that appeared on the MCAT, the standardized admissions

Figure 11.1 The lecture hall used for both the traditional lecture course and for student-centered active learning Source: Science Center C. Photo by Katherine L Borrazzo, February 22, 2016. Copyright ©2016 The Harvard Crimson, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

190

Transforming a university physics course

exam prepared by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC 2017) that is required for all applicants to US medical schools. In addition, our department had long used the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) as a pre- and post-test in PS2 to evaluate students’ conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics (Hestenes et al. 1992). Typical lecture courses were known to yield roughly 20% normalized gain on the FCI (Hake 1998), while PS2 students achieved gains of 40%. This was about at the top range for a lecture-based course, which confirmed our impression of these courses as successful examples of traditional lecture-based instruction. Nonetheless, the existing instructor knew from the education research literature that active learning was superior; for instance, actively taught courses in Newtonian mechanics routinely saw normalized gains of 50%–60% on the FCI (Crouch & Mazur 2001). In-class engagement was often disappointing, with many students distracted by laptops or phones or not attending lectures at all. Active learning had never before been attempted in part because it seemed like a huge effort to change this well-established course, and also because of some widely held concerns about switching to active learning (Wieman 2017): (1) student evaluations would go down, (2) using group work in class would help the weaker students at the expense of the top students, (3) it would be impossible to cover all of the content, and (4) it would benefit conceptual learning but lead to weaker traditional problem-solving. While our primary goal was not to conduct research into the effectiveness of active versus traditional learning, we knew that our empirically minded science colleagues would want some data to show that in this particular implementation of active learning, students actually did learn more than they did from passive lectures. Fortunately, the cohort of students in this class is quite stable from year to year, and there were comprehensive final exams given in the year before the transformation that were reasonably well balanced with coverage across all of the key topic areas and a good mix of conceptual, analytical and numerical problem-solving. Those final exams had never been released to the students, so they could be administered again at the end of the transformed course as a comparative measure of student learning.

Phase 1: transforming lectures to this hybrid style of active learning Transforming a course, as described here, requires at a minimum two key components. First, the instructors must write new course materials that will replace the existing lectures and provide the scaffolding required for active learning. Second, the existing instructor must learn how to teach successfully in the active classroom. Both of these elements of the transformation were facilitated by having an active-learning expert serve as mentor and guide.

Creating course materials for active learning The heart of the course transformation consisted of creating, for each lecture, (1) a list of detailed learning goals for that lecture, (2) a set of in-class activities that would allow students to practice the skills and thinking needed to achieve these learning goals, and (3) a short pre-reading to introduce low Bloom’s level definitions and concepts required for students to engage productively in the activities. The pre-reading for each class is typically two pages that students are asked to read before they come to class. Creating these materials does take time: at first, transforming a single 90-minute lecture probably required 5–10 hours of work. After the third or fourth lecture, however, the time required dropped to around 3–4 hours per lecture. We estimate that this is roughly comparable to the amount of time an experienced instructor might spend creating a single lecture for a new course. Creating the short pre-readings (two pages at most) also required about 45 minutes per lecture. 191

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

The first step in creating these new materials was to examine each existing lecture and identify the essential skills and concepts from that lecture. For instance, in a lecture on Newtonian dynamics, students would need to identify the forces that act on an object, find relationships between different forces in a problem, and solve for the motion of each object using Newton’s second law, F = ma. This list of skills guided the construction of four to five activities, each targeted to allow students to practice a few of these key skills. Writing a list of detailed learning goals naturally accompanied the creation of these activities. As emphasized in Wieman’s book (2017), it is valuable but extremely challenging for faculty to write effective learning goals. The existing instructor had never succeeded in doing so for previous lecture-based courses, and found through this transformation that writing learning goals and creating activities often went hand in hand. After starting with some vague learning goals, and creating some activities, the deep thinking that went into creating activities helped to refine and focus the final list of learning goals. The learning goals and activities were printed on handouts for students to use in class. The goal for each activity is to engage students in expert-like thinking and problem-solving for about five to seven minutes; they are not expected to complete an entire activity. Most activities are scaffolded so that it is easy for students to get started, but they often cannot finish them because they get stuck at a key step. Students are then eager to learn how to get past that stumbling block and are primed to hear the instructor describe how to solve the problem. Indeed, in many cases students are asked to attempt a task before being told exactly how to do it. This approach may seem backwards, and students often fail and get frustrated. Yet this frustration makes students emotionally invested in the problem and helps them to remember the correct procedure when the instructor swoops in and explains it in detail. Most activities end with a “bonus” question designed to challenge those few very strong groups that can finish the entire activity and would be bored waiting for others to finish. In order to complete these in-class activities, students often need some background knowledge, such as vocabulary definitions or equations, that are purely factual and are low on Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956; Anderson et al. 2001). This material does not lend itself to active learning and should be offloaded for students to read in advance. A two-page handout was sufficient for almost all classes, and these short pre-readings could be quickly drafted for each class after the activities were written. Each pre-reading included all of the key formulas and equations for that class, important vocabulary, brief conceptual definitions, and a list of learning goals. As long as it took less than 15–20 minutes, most students would actually read these handouts before coming to class. The importance of the learning goals was emphasized by including them on the pre-reading and also on the handouts they used in class for the activities.

Learning to teach in the active classroom In this type of transformation, the instructor must also learn how to manage an active classroom. Here the mentorship of the expert L.D. was essential. In class, students usually sat in groups of three, which is the most effective size especially given the fixed rows of seats in the lecture hall (Figure 11.1). Figure 11.2 outlines the components of a typical interactive lecture. Each class began with some motivational remarks – perhaps a compelling demonstration or a story connected to the pre-reading. Motivation is always important for learning, but especially so for active learning, as it demands a great deal of the students and they need to work hard and stay focused during class. Moreover, since students work in groups, one student’s motivation can have an effect on the learning of his or her group mates. Thus, it was essential to get students motivated immediately

192

Transforming a university physics course

Motivational Introduction (3 min.) Preamble to Activity 1 (1 min.) Student Activity 1 (5–7 min.) Instructor Feedback 1 (4–6 min.) Preamble to Activity 2 (1 min.) Student Activity 2 (5–7 min.) Instructor Feedback 2 (4–6 min.) “Am I getting it?” Quiz (3–4 min.) Feedback on Quiz (2–3 min.)   

Activities 3 and 4, each with instructor feedback

Preamble to Activity 5 (1 min.) Student Activity 5 (5–7 min.) Instructor Feedback 5 (4–6 min.) Student reflection/metacognition (1 min.) Figure 11.2 Schematic of a typical class period (shaded areas indicate instructor-focused activities; unshaded areas are student-focused)

at the start of class, and to keep them motivated throughout each activity. A quick reference to the pre-reading could be helpful, but rapidly “reviewing” key points from the pre-reading was counterproductive: the well-prepared students found it boring, while students who had not done the pre-reading were unable to follow the fast pace of the review. After this motivational introduction, the instructor started the first activity with a brief preamble to highlight some key concepts or facts that the students would need. Then, the students had about 5–7 minutes to work in groups on the activity. The instructor and the graduate TAs walked around the lecture hall, looking at what the groups were doing, answering questions, and interjecting where needed to keep all groups on task and moving forward productively. At times, it would be clear that an activity was failing – for instance if nearly all students were stuck

193

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

at the very beginning. In these cases, immediate intervention was required, and the instructor either stopped the activity and lectured through the solution, or gathered everyone’s attention together, gave a hint or advice, and asked students to continue on. As students were never expected to complete the entire activity, the instructor had to make a judgment about when to interrupt and stop the activity. Initially, this felt extremely awkward, and it is here that real-time advice from an expert such as L.D. was most crucial. If the instructor stopped too early, students would not be sufficiently invested and would not be primed to get the most out of the instructor’s feedback. If the instructor stopped too late, many groups would finish the activity and would be bored by the feedback. Intervening 1 minute too early or too late could make all the difference. At the appropriate moment, the instructor interrupted the class, gathered everyone’s attention, and explained the correct solution to the problem. This feedback was informed by what the instructor had observed during the activity. The instructor quickly glossed over those steps that most students clearly already understood, and focused attention on the key stumbling blocks, where students were most eager to learn. The instructor highlighted common mistakes that were observed during the activity, and invited students to ask additional questions for clarification. This feedback lasted about as long as the activity, and was indeed a mini-lecture, but it was specifically tailored to address the key confusions and misconceptions that emerged during the activity, and students were in an optimal frame of mind to receive this feedback after having invested time and effort in the activity. This pattern of short activities followed by short feedback continued throughout the entire class period. Once or twice in each class, students had a formative assessment quiz called “Am I getting it?” in which they entered answers online using their mobile devices. At the end of each class, students completed a “1-minute paper” (Cross & Angelo 1988; Stead 2005) to reflect on the most important thing they had learned, and also on the concept they felt was the most confusing. The instructor skimmed these metacognitive reflections, which provided fodder for discussion during the next class period. After about four weeks of teaching in this style, the instructor L.M. felt confident enough to try it without having the expert L.D. by his side. The course materials for the rest of the semester were created week by week until all 24 class lectures had been transformed. Because the topics and coverage for each lecture were the precisely the same as the previous year, all other materials for the course (homework, discussion sections, labs, reviews) could be used without any revision. It would have been unreasonable to change all of these materials, which had been developed and refined over many years, within the span of a single semester. The transformation of the class meetings themselves from traditional lectures to active learning, and the transformation of the existing instructor to learn how to teach in this style, was a major achievement to be accomplished in real time.

Phase 2: transforming homework to include deliberate practice In the spring semester, the course materials for PS3 were similarly transformed using the same approach as in PS2. In addition, a new feature was introduced: homework exercises based on the principles of deliberate practice. This cognitive framework describes how people achieve expert performance in a discipline (Ericsson et al. 1993; Ericsson 2008). Key features involve (1) breaking down a complicated task into specific “subskills,” (2) practicing these subskills, with expert feedback, to the point of mastery, and then (3) integrating these subskills, again with expert feedback, to perform the complex task. In many fields, such as athletics or musical performance, students spend many hours on “drills and skills” before practicing the ultimate target goals of competing in a match or playing a complex work of music. However, most college 194

Transforming a university physics course

science courses do not have homework oriented around these principles of deliberate practice. Many homework questions are complex multi-part problems that are similar to what students will see on exams; indeed, students often beg to see as many “exam-style” problems as possible. Practicing only these complex problems would be analogous to playing scrimmages in athletic practice and never isolating specific subskills. In addition, the essential role of expert feedback is absent: students rarely get detailed, immediate feedback as they progress on their homework. Written homework, when graded, is typically returned to the student a week or more after it is submitted, making any feedback almost useless. Online homework systems can give students immediate feedback, but usually cannot give specific insight into the subskills or concepts that require further practice. Thus, in the second phase of our course transformation, the homework expanded to include these crucial elements of subskills and feedback. In the existing course, each weekly homework assignment had about a dozen complex “exam-style” problems that required numerical answers, multi-step derivations, or written explanations. Some questions were administered online, and marked as correct or incorrect based on the numerical answer alone, while other questions were graded by the TAs. In the transformed homework, the existing questions were supplemented with 30–40 subskill questions, all to be completed online before students attempted the rest of the assignment. Each of these questions tested a very specific subskill that was required for that week’s material – for instance, the ability to identify which pair of forces in a problem are related by Newton’s third law. Nearly all of these questions were multiple choice, and they never involved lengthy calculations. An essential guiding principle was that an expert should be able to solve all of the subskill questions correctly in 10 minutes or less. This distinguishes our particular implementation of online subskill questions from typical online homework, in which traditional homework questions are moved to an online platform. While online homework by itself offers pedagogical benefits (Bonham et al. 2003; Cheng et al. 2004; Chamala et al. 2006; RichardsBabb et al. 2011; Wenner et al. 2011; Parker & Loudon 2012), the crucial innovation here is to add a large number of focused subskill questions in addition to the existing complex homework tasks. Ideally, much of the time that students invest on the subskill questions is recovered because they can then solve the complex tasks more quickly. As these subskill questions were highly specific, when a student chose a particular wrong answer, the online homework system could give targeted feedback aimed at whatever misconception would be likely to yield that wrong answer. In contrast, if a student gets an incorrect answer on a complex numerical problem, it is almost impossible to diagnose why that particular answer was chosen. When students chose the correct answer to a subskill question, the feedback asked them to reflect on their reasoning and confirm that it was sound. Most standard online homework systems or course management systems can implement these kinds of subskill questions; the only requirement is that feedback for correct or incorrect answers must be customized based on the student’s answer choice: feedback A for choice A, feedback B for choice B, and so on. Students could answer these questions until they got them correct, with a grade penalty of 5% each time they repeated a question. The small grade penalty discouraged students from simply guessing randomly on multiple-choice questions. Students were told to complete the subskill questions before attempting the more complex problems, with the explanation that this approach would be more efficient: they could solve the complex problems more quickly because they had already mastered the key subskills beforehand. Since an expert could solve these questions in almost no time at all, the subskill problems proved to be highly adaptive – strong students could breeze through them and did not find them to be an imposition, while weaker students spent a lot of time on them and got rich, detailed feedback on specific areas where they needed more practice. Based on students’ self-reported time spent on homework, it was estimated that, 195

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

on average, adding 30–40 subskill questions to each assignment only increased the total time spent on homework by about 20 minutes, which was roughly 5%–10% of their total homework time. This result suggests that there was a significant payoff: the time spent on the subskill questions did reduce the amount of time required for students to complete the complex tasks on the rest of the homework. Even the strongest students found the subskill questions to be valuable, as these students had previously been able to solve problems correctly without knowing the actual subskills that were involved. We are preparing for publication a controlled research study on these types of subskill questions and homework transformations based on deliberate practice. This study confirms that students learn more when their homework includes these kinds of subskill questions, and that the time invested on subskills leads to reduced time spent on the complex problems. Not surprisingly, the principles of deliberate practice that have proven so successful in achieving expert performance in other domains also apply to students in college science courses.

Results and lessons learned As noted earlier, there were three broad goals for this transformation: for the students, for the instructors, and for our broader department. Here we discuss our progress toward these goals and lessons learned.

Increased student learning As mentioned earlier, our primary goal in this course transformation was for students to learn more physics. Since each cohort of students took the identical final exam, a comparison of their exam scores offers one measure of the effect of this course transformation on students’ learning. The PS2 course was transformed in two stages: first, the lectures were transformed to active learning, and then the following year the homework was transformed based on deliberate practice. As shown in Figure 11.3, the final exam average increased from 71% before the transformation, to 77% after phase one, to 81% after phase two, with standard errors of roughly 1% on each of these means. In the PS3 course, both transformations were implemented in a single semester, with lectures and homework changing simultaneously. Here the final exam average increased from 77% to 87%, again with a standard error of roughly 1%. Although these results did not arise from a randomized experiment, the cohort of students in this large course are quite consistent from year to year – they have similar scores on college entrance exams, similar prior coursework, and similar motivation for taking the course. These learning gains are consistent with what has been observed in the literature, and they were very helpful in showing our colleagues that active learning is worthwhile. In subsequent years, these data were also valuable in convincing students of the value of active learning. Students seem much more willing to accept results achieved by their own peers in their own course rather than a huge meta-analysis of hundreds of studies carried out at many institutions. We encourage other faculty who are considering transforming their courses to find some way to collect data that supports increased student learning. To an expert in education research, large meta-analyses like that of Freeman et al. (2014) are far more convincing than a pseudo-experiment comparing one student cohort with another. But students and faculty find native case studies like this one to be much more relatable, so these case studies can be quite powerful in changing opinions about active learning. One common concern about using group work in class is that strong students will spend much of their time helping their weaker classmates, at the expense of their own learning. In this 196

Transforming a university physics course

Score on comprehensive 3-hour final examination (%)

100

05

Course Transformation: Lecture and Homework Physical Sciences 2: Mechanics and Fluids

Physical Sciences 3: Electromagnetism, Waves and Optics

00 Increase in student-centered learning 85

80

75

70

65

60 Lecture & Trad. HW

Active Learn. & Trad. HW

Active Learn. & Lecture & Trad. HW Active Learn. & Deliberate Practice Deliberate Practice HW HW

Figure 11.3 Learning gains from the course transformation, as measured by scores on comprehensive final examinations

transformation, however, all students benefited from active learning. The number of students who failed the final exam dropped to zero, while the number of students who scored above 90% more than doubled, compared with the traditionally taught course. Indeed, in PS3 the number of perfect scores on the final exam increased from 3 students to 20 students as a result of the transformation. Moreover, from analyzing performance on specific questions on the final exams, it was clear that both conceptual learning and traditional problem-solving benefited from active learning. And the transformed course covered precisely the same content – even to the extent of the instructor performing the same in-class lecture demonstrations as in previous years.

Improved student attitudes Another common concern about active learning is that students’ attitudes will be unfavorable, and in particular student course evaluations will punish the use of active teaching methods. In this transformation, however, student evaluations did not go down; indeed, the overall course evaluations were higher than ever (they reached 3.5 out of 5 for the first time), and the evaluation of the instructor was nearly identical, even though he lectured only during the short instructor feedback segments. In addition, students in the transformed course became more “expert-like” in their attitudes toward learning physics, as measured by the well-known CLASS instrument (Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey) (Adams et al. 2006). This survey presents students with a set of statements about learning physics, and asks students to rate how much they agree with each statement. For instance, one statement says, “I do not expect physics equations to help my understanding of the ideas; they are just for doing calculations.” Novice learners 197

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers

will tend to agree with this statement, while experts in physics will strongly disagree. Thus, this survey instrument can measure the degree to which students’ perceptions and attitudes about learning physics are similar to those of expert physicists. If given as a pre-test and a post-test, the CLASS can measure the change in students’ attitudes during a course. In a typical first course in physics (mechanics), students’ scores on the CLASS become less expert-like after taking the course (Adams et al. 2006). When we compared pre-test and post-test scores in the transformed PS2 course, by contrast, we saw a clear gain in expert-like attitudes toward physics. This result confirms other qualitative observations made during the course: the TAs noticed that students’ questions in their discussion sections were more sophisticated in the transformed course, and the instructor observed that students’ comments on the “one-minute papers” focused on deeper conceptual topics rather than surface misunderstandings.

Personal rewards of teaching actively engaged students One of the most enjoyable but also challenging aspects of teaching in this style is that it is highly adaptive. Instead of presenting a lecture as planned in advance, the active instructor must respond to the students in real time during the class. Some activities might fail, in which case one can always lecture through them, explaining each step as would have been done in a traditional format. Some activities expose new misconceptions and require the instructor to teach aspects of the material that had never been planned. The amount of information being processed by the instructor is vastly more than in a traditional classroom: there are individual questions from student groups, observations shared by the TAs, and numerous misconceptions observed from glancing over students’ shoulders as they work on their activities. All of this information gets processed and distilled into the feedback that follows each activity. At first it can be overwhelming, but soon it becomes exhilarating. The instructor L.M., a 20-year veteran of the lecture hall, found the intellectual engagement in teaching a fully active classroom unlike any prior teaching experience. Teaching in this style does demand exceptional expertise in the scientific content as well as in common misconceptions and confusions held by students. We would not advise an instructor to lead a fully active classroom in a subject he or she is teaching for the very first time – it is essential to have some experience with student thinking in order to design effective activities and to provide tailored feedback in class. Indeed, one could imagine an instructor giving a rehearsed, well-polished lecture without having any expertise on the topic, but it would be impossible to get away with this in an active classroom.

Impact on faculty colleagues Finally, one of the most compelling outcomes of this transformation was its impact on other faculty in our department and elsewhere at Harvard. As mentioned previously, for many years there was only one physics faculty member who consistently used active learning in large courses. Some colleagues were unaware of the possibilities of active learning, or doubted its pedagogical value. Others accepted that it would lead to improved learning but hesitated to use active methods in their own classes due to widely shared fears about the effort involved, the effect on course evaluations, and uncertainty about how to use these strategies effectively in a large lecture course. Over the past few years, the course transformation described here has led over a dozen colleagues in multiple departments – from senior faculty to first-time instructors – to change their teaching and adopt this hybrid style of “interactive lectures.” A key feature in spreading these methods to other instructors is the role of an expert mentor in guiding the development of new course materials and showing how to use these materials in a large lecture course. This 198

Transforming a university physics course

mentoring was often implemented by having the expert serve as co-instructor in a course. Once a faculty member had taught one or two semesters in this fashion, he or she could then serve as a mentor to other faculty. It was also essential to show that students learned more (as measured by their exam scores) and that the course evaluations improved. This experience was consistent with what Wieman (2017) has observed in efforts to promote active learning in science departments at other research universities.

Conclusion This case study shows that it is possible to transform a large course from traditional lectures to active learning, while the course is being taught, all without sacrificing content. In the second stage of the transformation, the homework assignments were expanded to include focused subskills with detailed and timely feedback, based on the principles of deliberate practice. Exam results, course evaluations, and student surveys all suggest that students learned more, and their attitudes about physics were more favorable, in the transformed course compared with the traditionally taught course. Faculty who wish to transform a course, or administrators who wish to encourage active learning, are advised to seek out an expert in this type of active learning who can serve as a guide and perhaps also as co-instructor to assist in the transformation. While this “apprenticeship” model seems challenging to scale up, once a few faculty in a department have taught using this approach, they can then serve to mentor others. In considering the resources required for a course transformation, in addition to the work of the expert mentor, the existing instructor should expect to spend an amount of time that is only modestly greater than what would be required to produce lecture notes for a new lecture course.

References Adams W.K., Perkins K.K., Podolefsky N.S., Dubson M., Finkelstein N.D. & Wieman C.E. (2006) New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research 2(1), 010101. Anderson L.W., Krathwohl D.R. & Bloom B.S. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Association of American Medical Colleges (2017) The Official Guide to the MCAT Exam (5th ed.). Ruveneco, Washington, DC. Bloom B.S., Engelhart M.D., Furst E.J., Hill W.H. & Krathwohl D.R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company, New York. Bonham S.W., Deardorff D.L. & Beichner R.J. (2003) Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(10), 1050–1071. Chamala R.R., Ciochina R., Grossman R.B., Finkel F., Kannan S. & Ramachandran P. (2006) EPOCH: An organic chemistry homework program that offers response-specific feedback to students. Journal of Chemical Education 83(1), 164–169. Chasteen S.V., Perkins K.K., Beale P.D., Pollock S.J. & Wieman C.E. (2011) A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us. Journal of College Science Teaching 40(4), 70–76. Cheng K.K., Thacket R.L. & Crouch C. (2004) Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics 72(11), 1447–1453. Cross K.P. & Angelo T.A. (1988) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty. National Center for the Improvement of Postsecondary Teaching & Learning, Ann Arbor, MI. Crouch C.H. & Mazur E. (2001) Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69(9), 970. Deslauriers L., Schelew E. & Wieman C. (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science 332(6031), 862–864.

199

Logan S. McCarty and Louis Deslauriers Deslauriers L. & Wieman C. (2011) Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research 7(1), 1–6. Ericsson K.A. (2008) Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine 15(11), 988–994. Ericsson K.A., Krampe R.T. & Tesch-Römer C. (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100(3), 363–406. Fraser J.M., Timan A.L., Miller K., Dowd J.E., Tucker L. & Mazur E. (2014) Teaching and physics education research: Bridging the gap. Reports on Progress in Physics 77(3), 032401. Freeman S., Eddy S., McDonough M., Smith M., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. & Wenderoth M. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111(23), 8410–8415. Hake R.R. (1998) Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66(1), 64–74. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., DeHaan R. & Wood W.B. (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670), 521–522. Hestenes D., Wells M. & Swackhamer G. (1992) Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30(3), 141–158. Jones J.D., Madison W.K. & Wieman C. (2015) Transforming a fourth-year modern optics course using a deliberate practice framework. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research 11(2), 1–16. Lepper M.R. & Woolverton M. (2002) The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In Improving Academic Achievement. (Aronson J., ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 135–158. Mazur E. (1997) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. National Research Council (2012) Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Parker L.L. & Loudon G.M. (2012) Case study using online homework in undergraduate organic chemistry: Results and student attitudes. Journal of Chemical Education 90(1), 37–44. Richards-Babb M., Drelick J., Henry Z. & Robertson-Honecker J. (2011) Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. Journal of College Science Teaching 40(4), 81–93. Stains M., Harshman J., Barker M.K., et al. (2018) Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science 359(6383), 1468–1470. Stead D.R. (2005) A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education 6(2), 118–131. Wenner J.M., Burn H.E. & Baer E.M. (2011) The math you need, when you need it: Online modules that remediate mathematical skills in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of College Science Teaching 41(1), 16–24. Wieman C.E. (2014) Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111(23), 8319–8320. Wieman C.E. (2017) Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wood W.B. & Tanner K.D. (2012) The role of the lecturer as tutor: Doing what effective tutors do in a large lecture class. CBE: Life Sciences Education 11(4), 3–9.

200

12 THE POWERFUL ROLE OF TESTING IN STUDENTCENTERED LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

Introduction Human beings spend their lives learning. Knowledge and skill construction begin in infancy, as babies develop high sensitivity to sound, movement, tactility, shape, numeracy and awareness of the physical world. Infants do not just move through these environments as passive agents. They exhibit memory and preferences, illustrating that have learned. In this way, humans start out as active, discovery-oriented and self-directed learners. While adults shape the environments within which infants exist, of their own accord small humans seek novelty, exhibit partiality for and dictate what and how they want to learn (National Research Council 1999). Around preschool, when compulsory schooling starts, learning takes on new meaning and becomes progressively more passive (National Research Council 1999). From primary through secondary school, many students form conceptual frameworks that firmly position formal learning as something that is externally dictated, scheduled, situated, designed, controlled, passive, and directed. Surprisingly, despite spending most of their waking hours in the presence of educational experts, by the time students commence their first year in post-secondary education, they have been provided little, if any, direct instruction on how to learn effectively (Karpicke 2009). When left to their own devices, most students develop their own idiosyncratic learning strategies, which are likely to vary in effectiveness (Karpicke 2009). By the time they get to college, students have programmed themselves to study in suboptimal ways (Yan et al. 2014). The transmission model of education perpetuates students’ conceptual frameworks of learning as externally rather than internally directed. The lecture model exemplifies lecturebased teaching, which continues to dominate higher education (HE) classrooms (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine 2018). In the transmission model, students sit passively in the presence of a knowledge expert who “transmits” information outwardly. Instructors measure the effectiveness of those transmissions through assessments, typically midterm and final exams.

201

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

Trends in HE suggest that while transmission is still the go-to pedagogy for most instructors, it is starting to lose ground. More and more, instructors across the disciplines are embracing instructional designs that are more student-centered (Schell & Butler 2018). There is no shortage of prescribed student-centered pedagogies for HE instructors to choose from. Popular examples include Peer Instruction (Mazur 1997), project-based learning, flipped classrooms (Schell & Mazur 2015), inquiry-based learning, team-based learning, discovery learning, problem-based learning, expeditionary learning, game-based learning and more. We encourage HE instructors to continue to improve their teaching by trying studentcentered pedagogies that educational scholars have documented as beneficial to learning. In this chapter, we offer one specific approach that is highly accessible, flexible, and will ensure one’s pedagogy remains student-centered. We suggest that instructors develop a strong understanding of empirical principles from the science of learning and slowly begin to incorporate those principles into their daily instruction practices. The purpose of this this chapter is to offer one of the most powerful principles as a starting point for transforming your pedagogy: retrieval-enhanced learning. Colloquially known as the “testing effect,” retrieval-enhanced learning is the principle that learning is heightened when learners enact pulling or retrieving information from memory (Brown et al. 2014; Butler 2010; Karpicke 2012, 2016; Karpicke & Roediger 2008; National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2018; Roediger & Butler 2011; Roediger & Karpicke 2006a, 2006b; Schell & Butler 2018). Researchers studying the testing effect have found that “taking a test usually enhances later performance on the material relative to rereading it or to having no re-exposure at all” (Roediger & Butler 2010, p. 20). In other words, the testing effect denotes that tests not only assess but also cause learning. Most people believe you learn best by putting information into your brain. With decades of research and support, the principle of retrieval-enhanced learning demonstrates that deeper learning happens when you take information out of your brain. Retrieval practice is the act of using retrieval as a learning or study strategy. Despite its potent learning effects, the large majority of HE students do not engage in retrieval practice as a primary learning strategy (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2018, Schell & Butler 2018). Instead, they rely on reading, re-reading, and review of instructional materials (Karpicke et al. 2009), which is far less effective for long-term retention and transfer of knowledge (Roediger & Butler 2010). The science underpinning the principle of retrieval-enhanced learning is prolific, robust, and comprehensive (Brown et al. 2014; Butler 2010; Karpicke 2012, 2016; Karpicke & Roediger 2008; Roediger & Butler 2010; Roediger & Karpicke 2006a, 2006b; Schell & Butler 2018). The thesis of this chapter is that using the principle of retrieval-enhanced learning to guide pedagogy in HE is one of the easiest and most promising ways instructors can deliver studentcentered learning (SCL). While instructors are encouraged to draw on prescribed, more formal pedagogical methods, we also recommend they consider integrating retrieval practice as a flexible, highly adaptable way to ensure SCL. Unfortunately, most HE instructors do not take full advantage of the testing effect. Instead, most instructors use testing as a mechanism for assessing or measuring learning. Coupled with research that suggests many college students do not engage in retrieval practice as a learning strategy, the science of learning and retrieval offers an opportunity for transformation in HE instruction. There are a number of ways to incorporate retrieval practice to drive learning into the HE classroom. Research across institutional types and student populations illustrates that testing for learning through retrieval practice has a number of benefits including retention of knowledge and skills, motivation for learning, and the ability to transfer learning to new and unfamiliar contexts (Karpicke & Roediger 2008; National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2018; National Research Council 1999; Roediger & Butler 2011; Schell & Butler 2018). 202

The powerful role of testing

We have organized this chapter to answer three big questions: What is retrieval practice? Why should HE instructors use retrieval? And how should HE instructors use retrieval to optimize learning? In the first section, we define retrieval as an evidence-based strategy that promotes effective learning and frame it as a SCL activity. In the second section, we outline five benefits of using retrieval based on the current science of learning literature. Finally, to help frame a pedagogy of retrieval in our third and fourth sections, we detail when HE instructors should consider using retrieval, and define the activities and structure of retrieval events that lead to the most beneficial learning outcomes for students.

What is retrieval practice? According to leading retrieval experts Roediger and Butler (2011, p. 20), retrieval practice is the “act of calling information to mind rather than rereading it or hearing it. The idea is to produce ‘an effort from within’ to induce better retention.” The learner’s effort to generate information through retrieval is what makes retrieval practice an active rather than passive learning strategy. Active learning “is a process whereby learners deliberately take control of their own learning and construct knowledge rather than passively receiving it” (Schell & Butler 2018, p.  2). The emphasis here is on conscious, deliberate control rather than more passive efforts such as listening to a lecture or reading a book. One of the most potent characteristics of retrieval practice is that it leads to new knowledge construction: as students retrieve information from their memories in response to retrieval cues or prompts, they develop new awareness of the quality of their learning state and what they need to do to improve that learning state. As they engage in further study, their knowledge grows, changes and develops (Schell & Butler 2018). The benefits of retrieval practice on student learning are significant. Students who engage in retrieval practice demonstrate a dramatically increased ability to retain knowledge, ranging from complex to simple materials, greater motivation for learning, increased engagement in learning, increased problem-solving abilities and a greater ability to transfer their learning across contexts (Brown et al. 2014; Butler 2010; Carpenter 2012; Karpicke 2016). We detail these benefits in the second section of this chapter. Despite HE’s far-reaching benefits for learning, instead of incorporating retrieval practice in their study regime, most HE students use far less optimized, rehearsal-based strategies for learning, such listening, reading texts and class notes, re-reading, re-studying, and rehearsing material (Karpicke et al. 2009). Please note, we are not implying such activities are not important for learning. Indeed, they may be necessary for initial encoding and consolidation of new information (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine 2018). That said, if learners want to remember what they learn and increase their ability to use that learning on their exams and, more importantly, in future situations, they should engage in retrieval far more often than they currently do. HE instructors are uniquely positioned to assist students in developing their understanding and application of retrieval-based learning strategies. What is most compelling about retrieval practice is that it can be incorporated in just about any classroom and in any number of ways, including through quizzing, free-writes, flashcards, presentations, group discussion, and more. Any act of pulling information or skill from memory counts as retrieval. If HE instructors are looking for a formal evidence-based pedagogy that incorporates retrieval practice, we recommend the student-centered, Peer Instruction method (Mazur 1997; Schell & Butler 2018). Developed by Eric Mazur at Harvard University in the 1990s, Peer Instruction involves posing a sequence of questions to students and allowing time for them to retrieve 203

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

information that information on their own and in peer discussion. The seven steps are the following (excerpted from p. 10 of Mazur 1997). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question posed (1 min) Students given time to think (1 min) Students record individual answers (optional) Students convince their neighbors – peer instruction (1–2 min) Students record revised answers (optional) Feedback to teacher: tally of answers Explanation of correct answer (2+ min)

For a detailed review of the alignment of retrieval and Peer Instruction (Mazur 1997), see Schell and Butler (2018). HE instructors who incorporate retrieval practice using simple methods such as daily quizzes or through more substantive methods such as Peer Instruction can be sure that they are using robust research-based techniques that drive SCL.

The “why” of retrieval practice: Five key benefits The benefits of using retrieval practice to enhance learning are well documented in the literature. In this section, we outline five of the most compelling reasons to implement retrieval practice in the HE classroom, enriching your instruction to become more student-centered.

Benefit 1: Retrieval enhances retention For over a hundred years, researchers have found that pulling information from memory, such as during a test, has a greater impact on the retention of knowledge than repeatedly studying the same information (Roediger & Butler 2011). Using retrieval practice, defined previously as any activity in which information is being pulled from the memory, therefore increases learning above and beyond repeatedly placing information into the brain. Roediger and Karpicke (2006a) reviewed studies spanning decades, conducted in both laboratories and classroom environments, that investigated how testing positively impacts learning. Although repeated studying might help students perform on a test soon after they have learned the material, repeated testing will help them retain the information on a longer-term basis (Roediger & Karpicke 2006a). For example, Roediger and Karpicke (2006b) directly compared the effects of repeated testing and repeated studying of short prose passages on later retention (i.e., performance on a delayed test). Although students in the repeated study group performed better on an immediate recall test, students in the repeated testing condition performed better on delayed tests, both 2 days and 1 week later. In a college classroom setting, Lyle and Crawford (2011) also found that engaging students in brief retrieval practices after statistics lectures resulted in increased performance on a majority of the course’s exams. Despite the many studies that have demonstrated the power of pulling information from memory for long-term learning, many students use learning strategies outside of the classroom that could be defined as repeated studying, rather than retrieval (Carrier 2003; Karpicke et al. 2009). For example, Karpicke et al. (2009) found that 84% of college students reported using repeated reading as a study strategy. In comparison, only 11% reported explicitly that they use recall, or self-testing, activities when studying. Roediger and Karpicke (2006b) believe this may be because students recognize that studying does have short-term benefits. However, realizing 204

The powerful role of testing

the power of retrieval, and students’ current misunderstanding of the most effective learning strategies they could be using, indicates that HE instructors can support students by incorporating retrieval practice into their classroom environments. This will help empower students and equip them with research-based strategies to enhance their learning both inside and outside the classroom.

Benefit 2: Retrieval enhances knowledge transfer In addition to improving long-term retention, retrieval also helps students transfer their learning to new contexts and settings, one of the most significant goals of learning in HE (Butler 2010; Butler et al. 2017; Carpenter 2012). The goals of HE in the new economy of the 21st century are high. Employers now report that they are searching for students who have the “soft” skills to be adaptable professionals – skills such as problem-solving, critical and innovative thinking, and the ability to work collaboratively in ambiguous environments (Binkley et al. 2012). Each of these skills requires effective transfer. Students must be able to apply what they have learned in one context to problems in a new context. Researchers have found that utilizing retrieval practice to boost learning and retention can also enhance these transfer skills. Butler (2010, p.  1118) hypothesized that the strength of students’ initial learning will positively influence transfer of knowledge among contexts due to superior retention and the creation of “numerous retrieval routes to access that information.” In a series of experiments with college students, Butler (2010) indeed found that learners were better able to transfer their knowledge to new contexts after repeated testing, retrieving the information from their memory, rather than repeated studying, pulling information into their memory. Yang et al. (2018) found similar benefits of repeated testing, expanding on previous research of what they term the “forward testing effect.” Formerly, many studies found that repeated testing of information within a given domain positively influenced the learning and retention of new information in the same domain. However, in this set of experiments, Yang et al. (2018, p. 15) discovered that “interim testing can be profitably used to enhance learning and retention of new information from both the same and different domains.” Overall, these studies demonstrate the power of retrieval to enhance knowledge transfer. If we want our students to be able to use the information learned in our courses across situations and over time, implementing retrieval practice will help ensure the value of the learning taking place in our classrooms.

Benefit 3: Retrieval enhances social-emotional well-being Beyond assisting with the cognitive aspects of learning, regularly engaging in classroom retrieval practice may impact students’ social-emotional health and well-being in the learning space. In a time when the number of college students managing psychological issues is growing, and anxiety appears to be the most common mental health concern for undergraduates (Mistler et al. 2012), HE instructors must stay attuned to how their practices affect students’ emotional well-being. In the fall of 2018, the American College Health Association (ACHA) reported that nearly 40% of male and 54% of female college students said they had found academics to be either traumatic or very difficult to handle in the last 12 months (ACHA 2018). Testing in particular has been known to have effects on students beyond their cognitive impact, and researchers have investigated the influence of testing on students’ emotional health, their motivation, and their self-efficacy (Hinze & Rapp 2014). Anxiety generated by testing, known as test anxiety, has also been found to hinder academic performance (Cassady & Johnson 2002). 205

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

Although many teachers may be concerned that implementing frequent testing in the classroom will result in increased anxiety among their students (which no one would wish for), providing opportunities for low-stakes testing may actually reduce students’ overall test anxiety and emotional well-being. Agarwal et al. (2014) investigated this hypothesis among 1,400 middle and high school students who were in classrooms that regularly utilized retrieval practice, mostly in the form of low-stakes quizzes administered with clickers. This meant that students’ responses did not count substantially toward their grade in the course. Overall, 72% of the students reported that using retrieval practice in this way reduced their anxiety for unit tests and exams, and 81% of students said they experienced the same or less test anxiety in their classes using retrieval compared with their other classes. Only 6% reported increased nervousness. When asked why they believed the clickers helped them learn, more than half of the students listed reduced test anxiety. Hinze and Rapp (2014) further investigated the hypothesis that low-stakes quizzing may increase the benefits of retrieval over higher-pressure testing situations. They found that lowstakes quizzing resulted in greater long-term test performance, even though students performed similarly on low- and high-stakes quizzes: “While participants under performance pressure were able to immediately retrieve and produce content on quizzes, this retrieval was less effective for long-term retention after high-stakes pressure potentially because other executive control processes were not available” (Hinze & Rapp 2014, p. 603). These studies reveal that implementing low-stakes quizzing, or other low-stakes retrieval practice, may not only reduce students’ test anxiety on exams but also assist them with performance by encouraging undisrupted retrieval that will result in superior long-term retention. When our students feel immense pressure to perform on exams that count for a large portion of their grade, providing them with ample opportunities to engage in retrieval practice that is low stakes prior to the exam may decrease their anxiety, increase their confidence, and assist with performance.

Benefit 4: Retrieval encourages student motivation Embedding retrieval practice into your daily teaching methods may also increase student motivation. In order to engage in meaningful retrieval during class time, such as frequent quizzing, students will realize they need to keep up with their learning outside of class (McDaniel et al. 2007; Roediger et al. 2011). In courses that use direct instruction or lecture without any instructor-to-student or peer-to-peer interaction, namely those courses that are solely focused on transferring knowledge into students’ brains rather than retrieving information from the brain, students become passive consumers of knowledge. This requires no intentional preparation for class. But in a classroom where students know ahead of time that they will be expected to participate, to answer questions, and to engage with their peers, their motivation to interact with the material before class will likely increase. More than 60 years ago, Fitch et al. (1951) assessed whether implementing frequent quizzing in large lecture courses would increase performance and motivation. In line with the research cited earlier, they found that students who were given frequent (i.e., weekly) quizzes had significantly higher achievement than students who were only quizzed on a monthly basis. Even further, they discovered that students who engaged in frequent quizzing were motivated to attend more discussion groups outside of class. They also took this result to mean that frequent quizzing may motivate more “outside endeavor with respect to the course” (Fitch et al. 1951, p. 18). Yang et al. (2017, p.  275) similarly found that frequent testing motivated students to “commit study time to encoding new information, which enhances learning and retention.” 206

The powerful role of testing

Some HE instructors who choose to implement retrieval in their classrooms may also increase student motivation through heightened accountability. Both peer instruction and team-based learning, innovative pedagogies that are effective for learning and may provide ample opportunities for retrieval (Liu & Beaujean 2017; Schell & Butler 2018), include significant peer-to-peer interactions. If students are working with partners or in teams, they will experience the benefits of retrieving information through group discussion and many will also experience increased motivation so as to avoid letting down their peers during class.

Benefit 5: Retrieval helps students self-direct their learning Lastly, implementing retrieval practice in the classroom helps instructors encourage self-directed, self-regulated learning – the characteristic that defines our best learners. By constantly being prompted to pull knowledge from their memory, students will begin to gain the metacognitive skills necessary to understand their gaps in knowledge, identifying where they are excelling and where they may need to spend extra time and effort (Roediger & Karpicke 2006b; Soderstrom & Bjork 2014). This can happen both inside and outside of the classroom. If students engage in self-testing on their own, they can start to make better decisions about where to spend their time studying (Roediger et al. 2011). And indeed, predominant theories about how students allocate their study time propose that students will spend the most time studying what they believe they do not know (Soderstrom & Bjork 2014) – but first they must have an opportunity to identify their gaps. Without this opportunity, students may be plagued by “foresight bias” – our tendency to overestimate our future performance (Soderstrom & Bjork 2014), and fail to study material they believe they have already mastered. Despite the widely reported benefits of retrieval, as aforementioned, we know that students do not typically engage in optimal study practices, such as self-testing, when they are studying on their own (Karpicke et al. 2009; Yan et al. 2014). Consequently, this presents an opportunity for HE instructors to aid students in realizing the power of testing, both in the classroom and on their own. When Lyle and Crawford (2011) decided to implement a short, low-stakes retrieval activity at the end of statistics lectures, they found that not only did students perform better on their exams than students in sections that did not engage in retrieval after lectures, but they also said the practice helped them identify the most important topics and monitor their own learning. By encouraging retrieval of knowledge before a high-stakes exam, instructors can provide students with the opportunity to self-regulate their learning in the course, study smarter, and become strong independent learners. In summary, retrieval practice leads to a wide range of learning outcomes for students, particularly when the practice is repeated. Each of these five benefits builds the case for using retrieval practice to drive student-centered learning and teaching in HE.

When to incorporate retrieval No matter where they are in their educational journey, students can benefit from retrieval practice (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2018). Studies demonstrate that retrieval practice enhances learning in elementary school, high school, college, and beyond (Brown et al. 2014; Carpenter 2012; McDermott et al. 2014). In addition, research from decades of cognitive science research indicates that retrieval practice helps learning when the material is both complex or less complex; when it requires inferences; when it requires verbal or visuospatial tasks (Carpenter & Pashler 2007); and when it requires near or proximal transfer of knowledge and far transfer of knowledge to unfamiliar contexts (Butler 2010; Butler et al. 2017; Carpenter 207

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

2012; Schell & Butler 2018). The following list outlines four recommendations for how to make decisions about when to incorporate retrieval in your syllabus or curriculum.

Incorporate retrieval when it is important that students remember their learning Retrieval leads to powerful mnemonic effects (Roediger & Butler 2011). As such, we recommend using retrieval when it is critical students retain specific knowledge or skills and when they need their learning for future use. Often, HE instructors use quizzing or questioning for logistical purposes. For example, instructors may “test” if students completed a reading by asking them an obscure detail found in the text, or even simply by taking attendance. We recommend that in order to leverage the power of retrieval, HE instructors consider using retrieval primarily for material that is truly critical for students to retain. In particular, we recommend that HE instructors organize retrieval practice activities to align directly with their stated learning outcomes. For example, if an instructor’s syllabus lists that “after participating in this math course, students will understand that the Pythagorean theorem can be used to calculate the shortest distance between two points,” then that learning outcome is an ideal place to start designing opportunities to engage students in retrieval practice. Because retrieval practice leads to the transfer of learning and the ability to flexibly use learning in future contexts, when students need particular knowledge or skills in a future course, retrieval may help. Instructors could engage students in retrieval of the theorem itself, of the algebraic procedural knowledge required to solve Pythagorean problems, or even take their students out to a baseball field and ask them to estimate the distance between first and third base without access to their notes or reading.

Incorporate retrieval when exams or testing is your primary assessment tool Retrieval practice is perhaps most critical when HE instructors use tests to measure students’ learning (Schell & Porter 2018). As we have discussed, far too often students study for tests by reading, re-reading, and reading again, and instructors prepare them for those tests through transmission of information. If students are going to be assessed on their ability to read or to listen, then studying by reading and re-reading and listening to lecture is appropriate. However, if students are going to be assessed in a way that requires them to pull information from memory, in response to cues and prompts they may or may not have seen before, and do all of that in a timed environment, then retrieval practice should play a prominent role in classroom instruction and out-of-class preparation. Failing to provide students with opportunities to hone their retrieval skills, but requiring them to perform on high-stakes exams that require advanced retrieval capacities, is one of the most problematic gaps in HE pedagogy.

Incorporate retrieval when students have had some first exposure to the material Most of the research on retrieval practice measures its benefits after some first exposure to material through more passive studying (reading, listening, re-reading) and with repeated retrieval practice to follow, in the following sequence: Study, Test, Test, Test. For example, following along with the example of the Pythagorean theorem, students might study how to calculate the shortest distance between two points by reading a passage in their text book. The instructor could then follow that first exposure by presenting a problem that requires students to retrieve how to calculate the hypotenuse. Based on the research conducted in laboratory 208

The powerful role of testing

settings, repeated retrieval activities (around three repetitions) following that first exposure may benefit students (Roediger & Butler 2011). Note that varying the examples students complete through retrieval activities may further enhance their ability to transfer that learning to new settings and problems in the future (Butler et al. 2017). As such, instead of giving students the same hypotenuse example three times (Study, Test, Test, Test), consider varying the example problems students are required to work (Study, Test a, Test b, Test c.)

Incorporate retrieval even when students do not know the answer According to Chan et al. (2018), engaging students in retrieval practice before they have encoded the information that is the basis of the “retrieval test” can “potentiate” new learning of that information. Relatedly, retrieval appears beneficial even when students do not know the answer to the question (Brown et al. 2014). For example, having students attempt to use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the shortest distance between first and third base on a baseball field before showing them the solution may lead to better learning. However, students must receive feedback on their answers in order for the retrieval benefit to be maintained. Trying to come up with an answer rather than having it presented to you, or trying to solve a problem before being shown the solution, leads to better learning and longer retention of the correct answer or solution, even when your attempted response is wrong, so long as corrective feedback is provided. (Brown et al. 2014, p. 101) Asking students to struggle to define a concept before you have defined it may also help prime students for future learning. This method is called potentiating and may also be useful as an aid to begin a lecture. This is particularly the case if the content involves problem-solving and if subsequent retrieval of the content follows at the end of the class period. Pre-questions appear to have effects when they are paired with repeated retrieval, but the case is less clear if pre-questions on their own have robust mnemonic effects (Carpenter et al. 2018). In summary, retrieval can be used before class, during class and after class. It can be used online or in virtual environments, for complex and less complex materials. When directed by an instructor, retrieval offers a powerful way to punctuate or break up learning. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that corrective feedback is provided and that opportunities for repeated retrieval practice are provided. Further, it is critical that the questions instructors pose during retrieval practice are tied to knowledge and skills that are important for students to retain.

How to design student-centered instruction using retrieval Following and adopting the work, concept and ideas of Dr. Andrew Butler of Washington University, we provide a framework for the use of retrieval practice that differentiates between retrieval activities and their structures in this section of the chapter.

Retrieval activities HE instructors and students can draw on a wide variety of activities to leverage retrieval practice. For the purposes of this chapter, we describe an activity as an intentional task or set of tasks where students enact the effort of pulling information from memory or in the case of potentiating, attempt to retrieve information they will encode in the future. 209

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

The following are examples of some familiar learning activities that can be designed to incorporate retrieval practice before, during or after learning. Lowstakes, self- or instructor-led quizzing Open-ended questions Multiple-choice questions Free-writes or “brain dumps” Group discussion questions Flash cards Small or large group presentations Clicker questions or classroom response systems One-minute papers For a practical guide and additional examples, please see www.retrievalpractice.org, led by retrieval practice expert and scientist, Dr. Pooja Agarwal.

The structure of retrieval Beyond simply implementing retrieval activities, certain structures of retrieval can be used to optimize student learning. In this section, we will showcase five ways you can structure retrieval for it to be most effective and student centered.

Repeated retrieval In this chapter we have already discussed several retrieval studies that evaluate the efficacy of repeated testing, typically in comparison to repeated studying. Built into these studies are acts of what we might call “repeated retrieval,” or asking the brain to pull the same information from memory (recall) more than once. However, the question may remain whether recalling information multiple times increases learning over and above a single act of retrieval. Karpicke and Roediger (2007) investigated this very question through a series of experiments that compared the long-term retention results of several different study and test conditions. For example, they asked how engaging in a standard condition (study-test-study-test) would compare to a repeated study condition (study-study-study-test) and a repeated test condition (study-test-test-test). Students in both the standard and repeated test conditions, those that encouraged more instances of retrieval, performed better 1 week later than their peers in the repeated study condition. This indicates that engaging in more acts of retrieval increases long-term knowledge retention. Karpicke and Roediger (2007) further posit that the standard condition may create the best circumstances for learning because it includes the opportunity for timely feedback. We will continue discussing the power of feedback during retrieval practice in the following sections. In a second experiment, Karpicke and Roediger (2007) considered how dropping successfully recalled items from study-test sequences influences long-term retention. This time, they compared the same standard condition (study-test-study-test) with a new condition (studystudy-test-test) and two additional conditions – one of which dropped successfully recalled items from the second study phase and one which dropped successfully recalled items from both the second study phase and the second test phase. These conditions are important to investigate because they mirror “what study guides often instruct students to do in when studying facts by using flash cards and other methods: Drop material that is already ‘learned’ (or recallable) from

210

The powerful role of testing

further practice and focus on material that is not yet learned” (Karpicke & Roediger 2007, p. 157). Karpicke and Roediger found that the fourth condition, dropping recalled items from the second study and test phases, resulted in the fastest initial learning. However, students in the standard condition and the third condition (when recalled items were dropped from the second study phase but not the second test phase) demonstrated the greatest long-term recall. The study-study-test-test condition also outperformed the condition which dropped items from the second testing phase. These results demonstrate the power of repeated retrieval on long-term retention. Looking for an easy way to boost repeated retrieval in your classroom? Encourage students to refrain from dropping learned material from their study guides or during self-testing. The more times students practice retrieving learned information from their memory, the more likely they are to retain that knowledge long-term.

Variation In addition to increasing the number of opportunities for retrieval, researchers have also found there is a benefit to varying the practice – in particular, encouraging the retrieval of information to apply to new examples. This is related to one of the key benefits of retrieval we discussed earlier, namely the transfer of knowledge to new contexts and situations. Retrieval questions can be multiple choice or open-ended, and varying retrieval can include asking both kinds of questions (McDermott et al. 2014). To begin, Glass (2009) investigated the difference between the act of simply retrieving facts from the memory and actually applying that knowledge to a new inferential question. Implementing an experimental design in two college psychology courses, he found that students who were encouraged to retrieve information and apply it to a previously seen (repeated) question performed better on a fairly immediate test. This makes logical sense – the more times a student sees a question, the easier they will find it to answer the question correctly in the future. However, students who had previously been encouraged to retrieve information and apply it to different questions performed better when answering a novel question on a final exam. This also makes sense – the students had previously been practicing applying retrieved knowledge to new contexts. Therefore, if one of the ultimate goals of learning is to transfer knowledge to new situations, then varying how students apply their knowledge may have positive results. Butler et al. (2017) further explored the power of retrieving knowledge to apply to different examples. In this series of experiments, students were asked to view video clips about geology. After the clip, they answered a series of questions about the presented concept. The quiz either presented the same question three times or presented three different questions. When the students returned 2 days later to answer a set of new questions, those who had previously been asked different questions (rather than the same repeated question) had higher performance. This demonstrates that “variable practice produced superior transfer to new application questions relative to same practice” (Butler et al. 2017, p. 437). These studies show us how we can encourage students to use retrieval practice to increase their long-term retention of knowledge and then transfer that knowledge to new contexts and situations. But Butler et al. (2017) also remind us of the challenges this research can present to educators. For instance, students often study the same examples – perhaps those that are presented in class or in a textbook. Rather than repeatedly studying and retrieving knowledge for these few examples, we can encourage our students to vary their practice by providing additional examples or questions along the way.

211

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

Spacing Another way to increase the value of retrieval is to engage in spaced, rather than massed, practice. Cepeda et al. (2006) begin their meta-analysis of what they term “distributed practice” by noting that the spacing of studying across time has been of interest to researchers for over a century. Indeed, they include over 300 experiments from more than 180 distinct articles in their meta-analysis. Overall, they find that spacing out learning episodes assists with long-term knowledge retention. Thus, when our students engage in cramming the night before an exam, although it may help them with performance on that specific learning task the next day, they will be unlikely to retain that information over time. Despite the general agreement that spacing learning episodes increases retention, there has been considerable conflicting research about the most effective ways to spread learning over time. Roediger and Karpicke (2010) summarize much of the research on spaced retrieval, looking specifically at whether learning is best supported through repeated testing that is equally spaced over time or through testing that occurs over an expanded schedule. The expanded schedule means that “a first retrieval attempt occurs shortly after initial learning and subsequent retrieval attempts are staggered so that each successive retrieval occurs after an increasingly long interval” (Roediger & Butler 2011, p. 22). Citing several studies, both Roediger and Karpicke (2010) and Roediger and Butler (2011) find that the expanded schedule results in better performance on a fairly immediate test, but the equal interval schedule results in greater long-term retention. These authors believe this may be due to the fact that using an equal interval schedule means delaying the first act of retrieval, therefore increasing its difficulty and requiring more effort from the learner. Over that short period of time, the student has likely forgotten some of the material. This creates what Robert Bjork calls “desirable difficulty,” which benefits learning. When retrieval is too easy, or too soon, it “undermines the positive effects of testing” (Roediger & Karpicke 2010, p. 37). What we can learn from this research is that there is indeed power in both spacing learning episodes across time and ensuring that first acts of retrieval are of “desirable difficulty.” If we hope our students retain information from our courses over time, we should encourage them to engage in acts of retrieval throughout the semester rather than removing certain concepts from quizzes and exams once we believe they have been mastered, thus integrating spacing into our students’ learning.

Interleaving In the previous section, we described the benefits of spacing acts of retrieval across time. In addition, retrieval can be spaced based on content. Known as interleaving, Dunlosky et al. (2013, p. 6) define this technique as “implementing a schedule of practice that mixes different kinds of problems, or a schedule of study that mixes different kinds of material, within a single study session.” Several researchers have now studied whether this learning technique assists with inductive learning – that is, the act of learning new concepts or categories by studying examples. Kornell and Bjork (2008) investigated whether interleaving paintings by different artists during a study period would help students on inferential questions after a short delay. In other words, would studying all of one artist’s paintings and then moving to a new artist (massed study), or would mixing up paintings by different artists (interleaved study) better help students identify paintings they had not seen during the study period? Kornell and Bjork (2008) found that students who had experienced an interleaved study session were better able to properly identify the artists associated with new paintings during the 212

The powerful role of testing

test. That is, they were better able to transfer what they had learned during the study session to a novel question. Kang and Pashler (2012) conducted a similar study and were further able to distinguish that the enhancement in performance was in fact due to the interleaving of the content rather than the natural temporal spacing involved in interleaving material – if you are interleaving paintings, then you are naturally creating space between the artists. They also found a significant benefit of simultaneously showing students two paintings by different artists. This last result leads nicely into our next question. Why might interleaving have such positive benefits? Students actually do not sense the benefit of mixing the content they are studying. Instead, they believe that massing their studying will lead to better results (Birnbaum et al. 2013; Kornell & Bjork 2008), which makes the most logical sense. However, Birnbaum et al. (2013) confirmed a hypothesis posed by both Kornell and Bjork (2008) and Kang and Pashler (2012), which proposes that interleaving creates circumstances for students to better distinguish the differences between the artists. Simultaneously showing two paintings by different artists would allow students to see the similarities and differences up front. Having an opportunity to discriminate between artists during the study phase (or induction) then allows the students to more accurately retrieve and apply this knowledge during a test. Knowing, however, that we do not typically sense the benefits of interleaving content during learning means that instructors have a unique opportunity to not only build this technique into their instruction but also to educate students about this seemingly paradoxical learning strategy. As Birnbaum et al. (2013, pp. 401–402) write: “a bit of practical advice to learners and educators seems warranted: If your intuition tells you to block, you should probably interleave.”

Feedback As researchers began to identify the benefits of retrieval for learning, they also became interested in how providing feedback may impact successful learning. Engaging in self-testing or taking a test in class inevitably leads to some incorrect retrieval (i.e., sometimes we are wrong!). Roediger and Butler (2011) summarize much of the research on providing feedback after testing. In short, providing feedback after both unsuccessful and successful retrieval attempts strengthens the benefits of retrieval. When we provide feedback after an unsuccessful retrieval attempt, the student has the opportunity to correct that piece of knowledge and to build their metacognition about what they know and what they don’t know. A similar benefit exists for providing feedback after a successful retrieval attempt – it confirms for the student that they have successfully stored that information in their memory, and it provides an opportunity for spacing out learning episodes. Providing feedback after retrieval attempts is particularly important when the test has exposed students to incorrect information (Roediger & Butler 2011). For example, on a multiple-choice test, students do have access to the correct answer, but they are also exposed to multiple incorrect answers, which might negatively impact the encoding of correct information. But when we provide feedback, we give students the opportunity to correct any misinformation. In fact, providing feedback after a multiple-choice test increases long-term retention and reduces the negative effects of being exposed to (or selecting) incorrect information (Butler & Roediger 2008). The next question to consider is when to provide feedback. Feedback can either be delivered immediately after a response or after a delay. For example, maybe you are presenting multiplechoice questions in a PowerPoint presentation and asking students to respond with clickers. You can either present the correct answer after the presentation of each question or you can present all of the correct answers at the end. We might think that immediate feedback would be most effective, but Butler et al. (2007) find that presenting feedback after a delay increases students’ long-term retention over and above immediate feedback. No matter the timing of feedback, 213

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin

however, the key is ensuring that students engage in true processing of the feedback – not just their incorrect responses but also the information they got correct. We can also think about the type of feedback we are providing. In the preceding scenario, if you are providing feedback through a PowerPoint presentation, you can either simply show the correct answer or you can also explain why the answer is correct. Butler et al. (2013) cite several studies that found that providing elaborative feedback, which includes explanatory information, does not really help students over and above correct-answer feedback. In a series of experiments, Butler et al. (2013) found that correct-answer or explanation feedback provided similar benefits to students when they were asked to answer the same questions after a delay. However, when new questions were asked, students who had previously received explanation feedback performed at higher levels. This indicates that when we provide our students with explanations as to why an answer is or is not correct, they will better understand the concepts and be able to transfer that knowledge to new contexts and questions. Overall, we must remember that retrieval practice is more powerful when it is accompanied by feedback. When we encourage students to practice retrieval in the classroom, we can work to provide a slight delay before delivering the feedback and explain why certain answers are correct. In the classroom setting, it is easier to ensure that students are really engaging with the feedback, which Butler et al. (2007) believe is critical for learning and will promote the metacognitive benefits of retrieval. In summary, engaging students in just one act of retrieval practice has the potential to double their ability to retain that knowledge (Roediger & Butler 2011; Schell & Butler 2018). However, if you structure your retrieval activities according to these five best practices – repeated retrieval, variation, spacing, interleaving, and feedback – you will be drawing on some of the most established principles in the science of learning to create a student-centered classroom.

Concluding remarks HE instructors who wish to lead SCL in their classrooms have a number of options available to them. Drawing on the science of learning is a compelling option because it allows instructors the flexibility to teach their content according to their preferred methods while incorporating principles based on how human beings learn most effectively. In this chapter we offered retrieval-enhanced learning and retrieval practice as a promising baseline for shaping studentcentered learning and teaching in HE. We described five firmly established benefits of retrieval to document the numerous reasons instructors should consider incorporating the practice in their teaching. And we have outlined when and how to use retrieval practice to optimize SCL. We strongly support HE instructors in their quests to continue improving their teaching by trying prescribed student-centered pedagogies. However, we argue that the evidence is clear that using the principle of retrieval-enhanced learning to guide pedagogy in HE is one of the easiest and most productive ways instructors can deliver student-centered instruction. We hope that through more uptake of the science of learning in HE classrooms, instructors will leverage the power of testing to cause, rather than simply measure learning. Instructors do not need to radically overhaul their teaching, transform their courses, or entertain students by using progressive pedagogies in order to drive deep learning. Understanding that retrieval is backed by extensive, empirical research in the cognitive and learning sciences, and constructing courses around those concepts allows instructors to balance the many competing demands of academic life. Because retrieval as a mechanism for causing learning is so underutilized by teachers and students, we believe that HE instructors who incorporate retrieval following the best practices outlined in

214

The powerful role of testing

this chapter can provide transformative, long-lasting experiences for the students – experiences that bring students back to their initial conceptual framework of learning as infants – one of discovery, pleasure and self-direction.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Dr. Andy Butler for shaping their views on retrieval practice, specifically related to two perspectives we formed based on his scholarship. The first is that if instructors grasp established principles from the science of learning, they can improve student learning in ways that do not require radical transformation of classroom teaching. Second, the application of retrieval may be simplified by separating it into a discussion of retrieval activities and retrieval structure. We also acknowledge Dr. Pooja Agarwal, Dr. Jeffrey Karpicke, and Dr. Shana Carpenter for influencing our understanding of retrieval. Finally, we acknowledge Dr. Eric Mazur for his mentorship and the development of Peer Instruction.

References Agarwal P.K., D’Antonio L., Roediger H.L., McDermott K.B. & McDaniel M.A. (2014) Classroom-based programs of retrieval practice reduce middle school and high school students’ test anxiety. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3, 131–139. American College Health Association (2018) American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Undergraduate Student Executive Summary Fall 2018. American College Health Association, Silver Spring, MD. Binkley M., Erstad O., Herman J., Raizen S., Ripley M., Miller-Ricci M. & Rumble M. (2012) Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. (Griffin P., McGaw B. & Care E., eds.), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 17–66. Birnbaum M.S., Kornell N., Bjork E.L. & Bjork R.A. (2013) Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition 41, 392–402. Brown P.C., Roediger H.L., III & McDaniel M.A. (2014) Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning (1st ed.). Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Butler A.C. (2010) Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36, 1118–1133. Butler A.C., Black-Maier A.C., Raley N.D. & Marsh E.J. (2017) Retrieving and applying knowledge to different examples promotes transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 23, 433–446. Butler A.C., Godbole N. & Marsh E.J. (2013) Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 105, 290–298. Butler A.C., Karpicke J.D. & Roediger H.L. (2007) The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 13, 273–281. Butler A.C. & Roediger H.L. (2008) Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition 36, 604–616. Carpenter S.K. (2012) Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(5), 279–283. Carpenter S.K. & Pashler H. (2007) Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 474–478. Carpenter S.K., Rahman S. & Perkins K. (2018) The effects of prequestions on classroom learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 24, 34–42. Carrier L.M. (2003) College students’ choices of study strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills 96, 54–56. Cassady J.C. & Johnson R.E. (2002) Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, 270–295. Cepeda N.J., Pashler H., Vul E., Wixted J.T. & Rohrer D. (2006) Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 132, 354–380. Chan J.C.K., Meissner C.A. & Davis S.D. (2018) Retrieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 144, 1111–1146.

215

Julie Schell and Rachel Martin Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Marsh E.J., Nathan M.J. & Willingham D.T. (2013) Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14, 4–58. Fitch M.L., Drucker A.J. & Norton J.A., Jr. (1951) Frequent testing as a motivating factor in large lecture classes. Journal of Educational Psychology 42, 1–20. Glass A.L. (2009) The effect of distributed questioning with varied examples on exam performance on inference questions. Educational Psychology 29, 831–848. Hinze S.R. & Rapp D.N. (2014) Retrieval (sometimes) enhances learning: Performance P\pressure reduces the benefits of retrieval practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28, 597–606. Kang S.H.K. & Pashler H. (2012) Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology 26, 97–103. Karpicke J.D. (2009) Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138, 469–486. Karpicke J.D. (2012) Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, 157–163. Karpicke J.D. (2016) A powerful way to improve learning and memory: Practicing retrieval enhances longterm, meaningful learning. Psychological Science Agenda, Science Brief. Retrieved from https://www.apa. org/science/about/psa/2016/06/learning-memory on 07.04.2020. Karpicke J.D., Butler A.C. & RoedigerH.L., III (2009) Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory 17, 471–479. Karpicke J.D. & Roediger H.L., III (2007) Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 151–162. Karpicke J.D. & Roediger H.L., III (2008) The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 319, 966–968. Kornell N. & Bjork R.A. (2008) Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science 19, 585–592. Liu S.-N.C. & Beaujean A.A. (2017) The effectiveness of team-based learning on academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 3, 1–14. Lyle K.B. & Crawford N.A. (2011) Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology 38, 94–97. Mazur E. (1997) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McDaniel M.A., Roediger H.L. & McDermott K.B. (2007) Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 200–206. McDermott K.B., Agarwal P.K., D’Antonio L., Roediger H.L. & McDaniel M.A. (2014) Both multiplechoice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 20(1), 3–21. Mistler B.J., Reetz D.R., Krylowicz B. & Barr V. (2012) The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors Annual Survey. The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors. Retrieved from http://files.cmcglobal.com/Monograph_2012_AUCCCD_Public.pdf on 24 March 2019. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. (2018) How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council. (1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Roediger H.L., III & Butler A.C. (2011) The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 20–27. Roediger H.L., III & Karpicke J.D. (2006a) The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, 181–210. Roediger H.L., III & Karpicke J.D. (2006b) Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves longterm retention. Psychological Science 17, 249–255. Roediger H.L., III & Karpicke J.D. (2010) Intricacies of spaced retrieval: A resolution. In Successful Remembering and Successful Forgetting: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert A. Bjork. (Benjamin A.S., ed.), Psychology Press, New York, pp. 23–47. Roediger H.L., III, Putnam A.L. & Smith M.A. (2011) Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Volume 55. Elsevier, pp. 1–36. Schell J.A. & Butler A.C. (2018) Insights from the science of learning can inform evidence-based implementation of peer instruction. Frontiers in Education 3, 1–13.

216

The powerful role of testing Schell J.A. & Mazur E. (2015) Flipping the chemistry classroom with peer instruction. In Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends (1st ed., García-Martínez J. & Serrano-Torregrosa E., eds.), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, pp. 319–344. Schell J.A. & Porter J.R. (2018) Applying the science of learning to classroom teaching: The critical importance of aligning learning with testing. Journal of Food Science Education 17, 36–41. Soderstrom N.C. & Bjork R.A. (2014) Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language 73, 99–115. Yan V., Khanh-Phuong T. & Bjork R. (2014) Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: Do they vary with mindset? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3, 140–152. Yang C., Chew S.-J., Sun B. & Shanks D.R. (2018) The forward effects of testing transfer to different domains of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. Yang C., Potts R. & Shanks D.R. (2017) The forward testing effect on self-regulated study time allocation and metamemory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 23, 263–277.

217

PART III

Student-centered classroom practices

13 EMERGING TRENDS TO FOSTER STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING IN THE DISCIPLINES Science, engineering, computing and medicine Yunjeong Chang, Janette R. Hill and Michael Hannafin

Introduction Increasing interest in student-centered learning (SCL) has become evident across educational levels (e.g., K-12, higher education (HE), and professional education). SCL, an environment in which the locus of control for the learning experience is with the learner (Hannafin & Hannafin 2010), helps to create a context in which the learner has opportunities to create a deeper understanding based on individual needs and interests. K-12 teachers as well as postsecondary instructors have implemented SCL principles into varied learning contexts, including co-designing with learners, creating engaging activities with a real-world focus, and providing opportunities for collaboration and reflection (see Table 13.1 for a brief overview; see Hannafin & Hannafin 2010 for a more in-depth discussion). Early discussions of SCL primarily focused on traditional K-12 educational contexts. Meanwhile, the contexts in which SCL is discussed and applied have grown exponentially in the last decade, ranging from HE to professional learning. There are many instances in which traditional pedagogies and approaches are implemented within the alignment of definitions and key characteristics of SCL (Hannafin et al. 1997). That said, varying aspects of SCL have been explored including the instructor and learner as well as objectives, activities and feedback (see, for example, Missingham & Matthews 2014; Vihavainen et al. 2011). In accordance with to national education standards (Common Core, assessment pressure versus teaching and learning in SCL), measures for success in SCL have also been extensively defined by emerging academic communities (APA 1997; Spector et al. 2016). The evolution of various research methodologies (i.e., mixed-methods approach, design-based research approach) have allowed scholars to measure the application of SCL’s effectiveness in various contexts (Baeten et al. 2010). In addition, student-centered approaches have expanded from a focus on effect on learning performance to recognizing the potential of SCL to meet varied sociocultural (e.g., gender, race, personality), and global educational needs (e.g., prior education experiences in home countries) (Frambaugh et al. 2014). Some researchers have historically questioned the validity and expedience of SCL practices, focusing their critique on insufficient empirical support to document effectiveness (Clark 2009; 221

Yunjeong Chang et al. Table 13.1 Key principles of student-centered learning Principle

Description

Key References

Locus of control with/ From goals to activities, resources to products. Range from all learner-driven to negotiated in collaboration with instructor/teacher. with learners Based on current needs of learners as well as Contextualized and prior knowledge and experience. relevant Individually and with others. Enables individual Collaborative and sense-making and more extensive levels of interactive understanding. With people (e.g., peers, instructor/teacher) and Active engagement things (e.g., resources, ideas). Scaffolding and support provided to enrich the experience. Revised and re-experienced through various Reflective and iterations because understanding takes time. reflexive*

Hardman & Edwards (1989) Hannafin and Hannafin (2010) Hill et al. (2007) Hannafin and Land (2000) Papert (1993)

*Reflexive: reflecting in community.

Kirschner et al. 2006; Mayer 2009). Seeking to explore this critique, we conducted a review of recent articles (2012–2016) focused on SCL and closely related areas (e.g., learner-centered instruction, constructivism, open-ended learning environments). We chose four prominent journals for the review: British Journal of Educational Technology, Computers & Education, Educational Technology Research & Development and Instructional Science. These journals were purposefully selected based on the results of reviews by previous researchers (e.g., Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; West & Rich 2012; West & Borup 2014), who analyzed journals’ relative rigor, impact and prestige using criteria such as citation statistics and acceptance rates. We used the following as keywords to guide the article search completed in each journal: student-centered learning, learner-centered learning, open-ended learning environment, constructivist, socioconstructivist, minimally guided instruction, project-based learning, problem-based learning, case-based learning and inquiry-based learning. From the broader search, we narrowed to selected articles focusing on SCL approaches and descriptions, critiques or reviews of SCL in HE settings, resulting in 54 journal articles for further analysis. An in-depth analysis of the 54 articles revealed interesting overall trends. First, substantially more empirical (n = 51) than theoretical studies (n = 3) were published between 2012 and 2016. The empirical studies focused on interventions, designing SCL by applying and testing varied instructional strategies (i.e., problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based learning, peer-tutoring). Further, the purposes and the findings of the empirical papers emphasized how to enhance the effectiveness of learning strategies by detailing learning processes and effective teaching via SCL approaches. Finally, the education context of the studies proved of interest. In 42 of the 54 articles, the primary context of the studies was within post-secondary settings, involving undergraduates, graduates, instructional designers, pre-service or in-service teachers, or post-secondary instructors. In the following sections, we will highlight cases of emerging SCL in HE and discuss challenges associated with SCL across the disciplines including science, engineering, computing, and medical education. We will introduce how SCL has been adapted to achieve the disciplinary goals and what challenges have been found and accommodated to foster SCL in each discipline. We will then conclude this chapter with implications for theory, future research, and practice. 222

Emerging trends

Emerging trends: examples from the disciplines Science education More student-centered and less didactical instruction has general agreement in the literature as a way to improve undergraduate education building a science workforce and promoting the involvement of under-represented groups in science (NASEM 2017; Olson & Riordan 2012). Science education policy advocates, peer interactions (hereinafter referred to as group work) in college courses (AAAS 2011; Couch et al. 2015; Handelsman et al. 2004; National Research Council 2015) provides opportunities for students to practice higher-order skills such as scientific reasoning, critical thinking, communication and problem-solving. These skills have been shown to result in greater gains in achievement within large science classrooms (Armstrong et al. 2007; Batz et al. 2015; Freeman et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2000; Preszler 2009). They also align with some of the key principles associated with SCL: “collaborative and interactive” and “contextualized and relevant.” Given some of the key SCL principles – collaborative, interactive and active engagement – more studies are needed to effectively enact group work within SCL contexts. Among large enrollment science college courses, for example, social interactions are indicated to encourage students within groups to contribute to support and assist each other while providing scaffolding and supervising groups (Haak et al. 2011). For example, peer-led Process Oriented Guided Inquiry (POGIL) is a student-centered instructional strategy with the objectives of promoting both content knowledge acquisition and scientific argumentation skill development (Farrell et al. 1999). As a teaching practice combining collaborative learning and inquiry for a large class, POGIL has been used to enhance student collaboration and interaction within science inquiry in the large class. Involving 7,826 undergraduate students in 21 studies, Walker and Warfa (2017) conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of POGIL in science courses and found increased learning outcomes and student retention in the course. In large chemistry lecture sessions, students who attended group learning sessions achieved higher average test scores than those who did not participate in group learning (Lewis & Lewis 2005). Lewis and Lewis (2008) also investigated the effectiveness and equity associated with POGIL pedagogy in a large chemistry class. Compared to traditional lecture-based pedagogy, POGIL implemented pedagogy significantly improved overall academic performance of students and interaction between students; however, the achievement gaps between higher and lower achieving students remained elusive. A more recent study provides another example. Using design-based research in a largeenrollment introductory biology course, Chang and her colleagues employed a mixed-methods study design involving 245 undergraduate non-science majors (Chang & Brickman 2018). The results revealed that both higher- and lower-scoring students increased their individual test scores with the help of scaffolding group-based inquiries. However, the benefits were co-mediated by group performance and individual perceptions of collaboration. Both higher and lower scorers improved individual test scores when in groups with lower levels of assignment completion and performance than those in groups with higher levels. Contradictory results were found between students’ perceptions of the collaborative learning and actual learning performance by Chang and colleagues (Chang & Brickman 2018). Positive interdependence and promotive interaction (i.e., interactive behaviors that enhances each other’s learning) were consistently associated with improved learning for only higher scoring students. In addition, results demonstrated that while social loafing (i.e., free-riding, sucker effect) did not negatively affect overall group performance, it did influence the individual’s perceptions on group work involvement and individual performance within groups. Both higher and lower 223

Yunjeong Chang et al.

scoring students reported social loafing issues and expressed negative perceptions on the necessity or effectiveness of collaborative learning for individual learning. If SCL-focused group work is going to be used effectively in large class contexts, more research is needed to further explore how to apply SCL principles effectively in group settings, particularly in large lecture sessions.

Engineering education Shared and scaffolded knowledge construction (Vygotsky 1978) is a hallmark of SCL, as it allows individual sense-making as well as more extensive levels of understanding while exchanging ideas with peers. In alignment with industry expectations for professionalism, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) established standards focusing on critical thinking, communication and demonstrating other professional skills. To achieve the ABET standards, engineering schools (i.e., Arizona State University, Cornell University, Oxford University, University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech) require taking courses to acquire learning experiences from liberal arts traditions, addressing ethics, professionalization and broader societal contexts. Non-technical courses aim to provide a gateway for engineering experiences that influence incoming students’ sense of belonging in engineering by involving students in collaborative learning with authentic cases (Chen 2013). Such engineering courses were redesigned to emphasize student-centered strategies (e.g., contextualized, collaboration, active engagement) that enhance students’ critical thinking, effective communication and collaboration. Missingham and Matthews (2014) explored group work to provide an authentic learning context in a first-year mechanical engineering course in Australia. Case studies were used to facilitate both individual and team-level learning, thereby supporting critical analysis and reasoning. Discussions supported reflective thinking while students synthesized and evaluated solutions for real-world problems. Students were encouraged to suggest modifications to the course, empowering them as learners in a negotiated context (Hill et al. 2007). Students also engaged in peer instruction to class members, during which they assumed additional responsibilities for sharing content and perspectives. Results from the study which included various assessments and reflections by students, tutors and instructors indicated that the approach was generally successful. The peer collaborative learning experiences provided students with an authentic learning context and enhanced the students’ sense of ownership in learning. While noting challenges in implementation in a traditional university setting (i.e., the influence of individually different communication skills or self-regulated learning skills), the researchers encouraged further exploration and refinement of the approach to facilitate authentic SCL, incorporating more principles associated with SCL (see Table 13.1). Chang and Foley (2018) provide another example of research to explore various factors that inform undergraduate engineering students’ motivation to learn in diverse groups. The study investigated 380 first-year students that enrolled in a mandatory introductory engineering course at a large research-intensive university in the US. This non-technical introductory course was required for graduation by all undergraduate engineers. The course was structured in two parts with a large lecture and smaller face-to-face discussion sections. The latter were designed with a series of individual and group-based activities that included hands-on activities and project-based learning to engage students in the course. The students typically worked through this process in 10–15 minutes. Chang and Foley (2018) used discussion section observations as the primary means of data collection. Undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) observed the discussion sections and facilitated group work as needed while a teaching fellow was present. The semi-structured protocol focused on examining student behaviors and responses to assignments in order to understand the 224

Emerging trends

first-year students’ individual and group engagement in course activities. Observation prompts included questions on individual student’s engagement during both individual activities (e.g., a student’s participation level in the class-wide discussion and group discussion) and group engagement (e.g., group interaction patterns, equitable participation of each group member in the activity, gender and diversity composition of group members), as well as suggestions based on the observation of the day (e.g., how to improve student engagement in today’s class). After identifying common themes and issues, the UTAs proposed strategies for promoting students’ course engagement. Applying thematic analysis, Chang and Foley (2018) reported that both the content of and insufficient support during project-based group work demotivated and disengaged students’ learning. Although extensively designed with project-based learning as the foundation, data indicated that activities lacked authentic contexts, feedback and real-time support for group work. The UTAs also observed that some students lacked motivation to complete established group projects that lacked authentic contexts and topics. The findings from Chang and Foley (2018) indicated a need to make the project-based group work more related to the students’ lived experience and relevant to individually different engineering majors. A major challenge identified in the data was that the course was designed with project-based learning formats and asked students to present individual or group activities without providing sufficient support to complete group work. The time spent during discussion sections was often underutilized by the first-year students; the UTAs routinely noted that the less structured group work made many students disengaged during the course. Formative feedback and group-project scaffolding were rarely provided while dysfunctional group dynamics were ignored without providing students with autonomy to create or change group members. The researchers suggested the re-design of the course to emphasize students’ autonomy by offering students options to choose their own topics for the projects or group members with whom they will work. Additionally, the researchers also indicated that making the topic relevant to the students is critical as well as providing timely and appropriate feedback for effective group work.

Computing education The availability of computing courses to educate a scientifically literate populace in computational thinking and problem-solving skills is steadily increasing (von Hellens et al. 2011). Because programming skills require learning-by-doing strategies and collaborative working skills, computing fields have largely adopted active learning strategies. Pair-programming strategies, for example, have been used to increase student engagement in learning to program (Salleh et al. 2011). Pair-programming strategies involve SCL principles including active engagement, interactive learning experiences, and reflection experiences. Similar to the authentic programming environments where professional programmers collaboratively produce a final outcome, students perform programming in pairs. Two students work in tandem at one computer while completing programming assignments. Peers scaffold each other by assigning and switching roles as the driver, who controls the mouse and keyboard, while the navigator makes suggestions, points out errors, and asks questions. By scaffolding, revising, and asking questions to the partner, students are able to reflect individuals’ and peers’ programming performance. The instructors, on the other hand, provide guidelines to complete assignments and ensure rotating roles every 20 minutes to prevent social loafing issues during collaborative learning. Researchers indicate that pair-programing enhances students’ confidence and performance in programming and increases the quality of the programming outcome (e.g., Simon & Hanks 2008; Williams et al. 2002). Pair-programming experiences also provide students with opportunities to 225

Yunjeong Chang et al.

prepare for future work experiences by emulating future real-world working environments for programmers, which require intensive collaborative programming. To enhance the SCL experience, focusing on real-world programming problems as well as opportunities to provide more just-in-time scaffold could improve the learning experience. For example, computing fields have strived to increase the number of teaching assistants to provide sufficient and appropriate support. Attempts have also been made to train peer learners and teaching assistants to scaffold undergraduate students’ learning. The apprenticeship model has been adapted to enable novice students to learn programming from advanced or expert learners (teaching assistants) who have already mastered the parts of programming the novices are about to learn. By applying an apprenticeship model, the dropout rates of students in computer science courses were decreased (Bareiss & Radley 2010; Vihavainen et al. 2011).

Problem-based learning in medical education Medical educators have also embraced SCL principles through problem-based learning (PBL). In a traditional PBL approach (Barrows 1996), medical students are presented a case and then work together, with little or no faculty guidance, to propose solutions. While in traditional PBL students are fully driving the learning process – a key principle of SCL – adaptations to PBL have introduced another SCL principle: scaffolding for student support. Rather than providing a clinical problem and leaving students on their own to find the answers, many medical educators have moved toward a more supported model of PBL, including various resource scaffolds ranging from people to places to traditional texts online (Hannafin & Hill 2008) as well as specific tools to provide support (Tawfik & Kolodner 2016). Several questions have arisen from a shift to faculty-supported PBL. For example, Frambaugh et al. (2014) explored the influence of cultural backgrounds on students’ participation in smallgroup PBL contexts. They conducted a comparative case study in three medical schools around the globe, in East Asia, the Middle East, and Western Europe. Results reported that cultural factors may have some impact on students’ willingness to communicate openly in the small groups, including not offering their opinions or asking questions. The researchers concluded that SCL approaches may work cross-culturally but could result in different outcomes. More research is needed to fully explore strategies for enhancing the small group learning experience for all students. Further exploration is also needed to better understand how to scaffold the PBL process in a cross-cultural context. Wang et al. (2016) explored techniques to provide scaffolding for students in PBL contexts. Wang et al. explored the impact of integrating coaching psychology techniques into PBL interactions at a Chinese medical school. Data was gathered over a four-month period using observations and interviews. Results indicated that coaching psychology techniques were beneficial for supporting the PBL process. The researchers proposed a model based on the data which they indicated needs further research to fully explore the complex outcomes of medical school (e.g., dispositions, reasoning and problem-solving skills, and empathy that the proposed model may support). Doing this research, particularly mixed methods (Wang et al. 2016), across cultural contexts may also provide additional insights into the value of the scaffolding the model may provide. Medical educators may benefit from looking at studies in other disciplines to inform PBL practices. In a recent study, Haruehansawasin and Kiattikomol (2018) explored scaffolding strategies in PBL contexts for low-achieving students in vocational education. Results indicate that specific types of scaffolding (e.g., collaborative approaches, worksheets) had an impact on

226

Emerging trends

performance as measured by test scores. While the majority of medical students may not be considered “low-achieving” in the overall academic context, they may be “low-achieving” in PBL settings where they are less familiar with learning strategies and techniques. More research is needed to see if the strategies used in this context would be applicable and useful for medical students.

Continuing challenges As SCL has become a more widely accepted pedagogical approach for learning, there has been growth in both advocacy and concern. One challenge has been the inconsistent definitions and interpretations in research and practice. The alignment of learners’ needs, course content based on the learning goals, instructional beliefs and corresponding instructional strategies is critical to implement SCL but remains inconclusive. While seemingly widely accepted and adapted in classrooms across contexts, empirical studies regarding the effects of SCL have been scarce. SCL has considerable promise in contemporary college-level education, including science and engineering disciplines. Providing undergraduate students with more opportunities to interact with students rather than solely with the instructor and to build autonomous learning abilities and skills have been reported to promote student learning achievement in promoting higher-order thinking (National Research Council 2015). To substantially improve students’ science learning (e.g., scientific reasoning, problem-solving, critical thinking), numerous calls have suggested to embed student-centered, active learning strategies (i.e., project-based, casebased or problem-based learning) in science and engineering lectures (Allen & Tanner 2005; Handelsman et al. 2004; National Research Council 2015). Yet in reality, science introductory courses are often offered in an industrial size classroom and fail to teach fundamental scientific concepts (Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove & Kalinowski 2011; McConnell et al. 2006). Teaching in a large classroom setting results in lack of instructors’ cultivation of active constructive learning (Andrews et al. 2011), limited opportunities to provide just-in-time support (Chang & Hannafin 2015), lack of student participation in lectures, closed-end rather than open-end questions, limited students’ prior knowledge and failure to challenge misconceptions. Incorporating project-based learning represents a promising student-centered method to engage students throughout the learning process in HE settings. As Helle et al. (2006) framed, project-based learning involves the following learning process: problem-solving process, production of concrete artifacts, learner control of learning process, contextualization of learning by providing authentic learning contexts, multiple forms of learning (e.g., visual, verbal, abstract, concrete), and adoption of motivational orientations of representation. While project-based learning has been implemented extensively in colleges, evidence suggests it often fails to fully engage learners (Woods 2010) due to students’ diverse prior knowledge level on the subject and motivation, and unsuccessful collaboration due to social loafing issues (Gülbahar & Tinmaz 2006; Lee & Tsai 2004). Students need to do more than simply complete a project; they should be posing questions, making predictions, designing investigations, collecting and analyzing data, using technology, making products and sharing ideas (Ayas & Zeniuk 2001; Hannafin & Land 1997) during project-based learning. Providing such opportunities should help students to fully engage in the group work process while strengthening contextualized academic skills and knowledge (Bruce-Davis & Chancey 2012). In addition, contextual differences (e.g., institutional, departmental), pedagogical differences, and student perceptions that are misaligned with SCL strategies principles (e.g., SCL means I can do whatever I want as a learner) have been reported as possible factors inhibiting the

227

Yunjeong Chang et al.

expected results of SCL to promote student learning. Woodbury and Gess-Newsome (2002), for example, addressed the lack of consideration of cultural context of the learning environments and the misguidance and misunderstanding on the roles of teachers and students in SCL environments as potential factors affecting the adoption of SCL. Faculty’s perceived norms toward student-centered teaching, class size, layout of the classroom and the levels of student readiness on SCL has also influenced SCL adoption (Henderson & Dancy 2007; Hora & Anderson 2012). Based on the common challenges described earlier, we discuss implications for future research and practice of SCL in science, engineering, computing, and medical education.

Implications The move toward SCL has ebbed and flowed since the turn of the 20th century. The ideas of educational theorists such as Dewey (1938), Montessori (1912), Piaget (1985) and Vygotsky (1978) were early precursors to what became key principles of and strategies for SCL. While there is evidence that more educators may be seeking ways to move away from the dominate teacher-directed pedagogical model (e.g., Freire 2018; Geven & Attard 2012), challenges remain from research and practice perspectives.

Implications for future research Conducting SCL research that can provide stronger and more persuasive evidence across diverse educational disciplines will broaden understandings of the opportunities and challenges of a SCL approach. Each discipline has its own inherited and evolved instructional approach based on a particular theoretical foundation. Engineering education has applied a project-based learning approach to educate future engineers who could apply acquired knowledge into collaborative design and development of scientific solutions that can satisfy societal needs (Mills & Treagust 2003). Computing education has adapted collaborative learning (e.g., pair-programming) approach to provide authentic learning experiences (Salleh, Mendes & Grundy 2011). Medical education employed problem-based learning approach to focus on developing knowledge and skills that require medical doctors to examine and diagnose patients within apprenticeship (Barrows 1996). Most disciplines and even classrooms are unique, providing an environment that is ripe with potential for research related to SCL. To suggest, apply, and validate an appropriate instructional strategy, understandings of the unique needs and goals of the disciplinary contexts are important. In an applied setting, a design-based research approach allows the researcher(s) to situate the research within the context by using domain-specific theoretical guidelines (Cobb et al. 2003; McKenney & Reeves 2018). Rather than exploring controlled or laboratory simulated learning environments, conducting research in authentic contexts provides an extension of understanding of the context and enables the researcher(s) to propose and validate the effectiveness of an instructional approach. Further, by tracking its effectiveness longitudinally through multiple iterations, research-proven findings will be strengthened, thus providing insights into how to further strengthen the effectiveness of SCL. In addition, to examine the effectiveness of a student-centered approach within contextually varied theoretical approaches, multiple variables need to measure appropriate methodologies and methods. Self-report, for example, has been utilized extensively to identify individual needs and to document the changes in students’ performance for a short period of time. However, used in isolation, the accuracy of self-report measures has been questioned; further, the relationships

228

Emerging trends

between self-reports with participation and performance has proven inconclusive. Comparing 408 undergraduate students’ self-reported, self-regulated learning strategies and their actions in reality, Foerst and her colleagues found discrepancies between self-regulated learning (SRL) knowledge and action (Foerst et al. 2017). Multiple research methods and measures (i.e., focus group interviews, peer evaluations or direct observations of actual practices) enable researchers to corroborate self-report-based measures and calibrate the influence of the instruction on both students and instructors (Veenman 2011). Measuring the interaction between and among students and instructors can also strengthen the evidence. Mixed-method strategies have been suggested to promote in-depth understanding of the phenomena by utilizing multiple measures and methodologies (Creswell 2014). Finally, scholars have started exploring other possible theoretical foundations that may be useful for SCL approaches. Tangney (2014) completed a study with university faculty in art and design, seeking to clarify their understanding of SCL, and how to apply it in their education contexts. Results from Tangney’s study indicate a broader and more humanistic conception of SCL, encompassing personal growth for learners. Tangney’s results also indicate an inclusion of consciousness raising in the understanding of the goals of SCL. Further exploration of humanism as a theoretical lens for SCL is needed to fully understand the implications and potential applications in varied learning environments (e.g., higher education, corporate settings). Tangney’s (2014) results also addressed implications for the use of social justice or critical pedagogy theories (Freire 2018) as a foundation for SCL. For example, consciousness raising and resistance to the “norm” is a long-standing goal of critical pedagogy (Kirylo 2013). Further, critical pedagogy seeks to overcome oppressive structures typically found in traditional learning environments (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell 2008; Hooks 1994; McLaren & Kincheloe 2007). A core tenet of SCL is to change traditional structures and empower students, making critical pedagogy a potential lens to extend the work. By exploring other theoretical foundations such as humanism and critical pedagogy, SCL may expand its applications within and across contexts.

Implications for practice In practice, as with any pedagogical strategy, how to assess the impact of SCL on student learning remains elusive. Traditional measures of learning such as tests and exams limit our understanding of the impact that SCL has on student learning. We need to continue to develop alternative ways of assessment (e.g., projects, rubrics) so as to garner a richer understanding of the impact of SCL strategies and techniques on student learning. Expanding the research and providing more examples of application-in-practice of SCL approaches will certainly enhance our understanding of and ability to use SCL strategies. That said, how these efforts might influence practitioners to explore SCL approaches is not as clear. The impact of authentic context on student learning also needs to be further examined. In SCL, we assume that authentic learning environment would encourage learners to explore a resource with all the complexity and uncertainty of the real world. The learners would have a role in “selecting which information is relevant, and finding a solution which suits their needs” (Herrington & Oliver 1995, p.  257). Yet, the depth of application or real-world context has remained in question, as the extent of real-world contexts, and ways those contexts are defined for each individual, were not clearly described (Barab et al. 2000). Finally, SCL practices have found success in several international contexts, but more research needs to be conducted to generalize its effects. Brough (2012) explored the implementation of

229

Yunjeong Chang et al.

SCL principles into a primary school context in Australia. Findings suggested successful implementation when projects were contextually relevant. Conner (2013) also explored the implementation of an SCL approach in a primary school in New Zealand. Results revealed that the SCL approach to be relevant and engaging. Teachers also found that by incrementally involving students in the process that they were more comfortable adapting to a SCL approach. While the studies from Australia and New Zealand reported successful implementation of SCL approaches, Jordan et al.’s (2014) exploration of SCL approaches in Iraq were somewhat mixed. While the teachers expressed an interest in adopting SCL practices, as in Polly and Hannafin’s (2011) study with teachers, the shift in conceptualization of roles and responsibilities was difficult for some participants. As recognized by Shipton (2011), shifts in conceptualizations in teaching and learning are important to the success of SCL approaches. More research is needed to develop successful strategies to implement SCL in various cultural contexts.

Conclusion The literature reviewed in this chapter indicates that interest in SCL has grown significantly in HE settings across disciplines, yet how best to expand knowledge and application of SCL approaches and strategies in practice remains an elusive goal. One possible solution may be to target practitioners who epistemologically sit in the “middle,” neither teacher centered nor open-ended (Hannafin et al. 2011; Song et al. 2007), but rather practitioners (e.g., instructors, instructional designers) who are interested in exploring new strategies for learning. These practitioners may be willing to try some of the well-honed SCL approaches with their students. They may even be willing to expand or extend the strategies to better fit their context. By approaching the middle, rather than “preaching to the choir” or “converting the unbelievers,” more SCL approaches may get into various learning contexts.

References Allen D. & Tanner K. (2005) Infusing active learning into the large enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education 4, 262–268. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011) Vision and Change: A Call to Action Final Report. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association (1997, November) Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Redesign and Reform. ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/ governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf on 19 April 2019. Andrews T.M., Leonard M.J., Colgrove C.A. & Kalinowski S.T. (2011) Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education 10(4), 394–405. Armstrong N., Chang S.M. & Brickman M. (2007) Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes. CBE: Life Sciences Education 6(2), 163–171. Ayas K. & Zeniuk N. (2001) Project-based learning: Building communities of reflective practitioners. Management Learning 32(1), 61–76. Baeten M., Kyndt E., Struyven K. & Dochy F. (2010) Using student-centered learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review 5(3), 243–260. Barab S.A., Squire K.D. & Dueber W. (2000) A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Training and Development 48(2), 37–62. Bareiss R. & Radley M. (2010) Coaching via cognitive apprenticeship. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, March 10–13, 2010, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Barrows H.S. (1996) Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching & Learning 68, 3–12.

230

Emerging trends Batz Z., Olsen B.J., Dumont J., Dastoor F. & Smith M.K. (2015) Helping struggling students in introductory biology: A peer-tutoring approach that improves performance, perception, and retention. CBELife Sciences Education 14(2), ar16. Brough C.J. (2012) Implementing democratic principles and practices of student-centered curriculum integration in primary schools. The Curriculum Journal 23(3), 345–369. Bruce-Davis M.N. & Chancey J.M. (2012) Connecting students to the real world: Developing gifted behaviors through service learning. Psychology in the Schools 49(7), 716–723. Chang Y. & Brickman P. (2018) When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students. CBE: Life Sciences Education 17(3), ar52. Chang Y. & Foley R. (2018, June 24–27) Motivational factors of undergraduate engineering students in introductory non-technical courses. In ASEE 2018: Proceedings American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. Chang Y. & Hannafin M.J. (2015) The uses (and misuses) of collaborative distance education technologies. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 16(2), 77–92. Chen X. (2013) STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and Out of STEM Fields: Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014–001. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Clark R.E. (2009) How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? (Tobias S. & Duffy T.M., eds.), Taylor & Francis, New York, pp. 158–183. Cobb P., Confrey J., Lehrer R. & Schauble L. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32(1), 9–13. Conner L.N. (2013) Meeting the needs of diverse learners in New Zealand. Preventing School Failure 57(3), 157–161. Couch B.A., Brown T.L., Schelpat T.J., Graham M.J. & Knight J.K. (2015) Scientific teaching: Defining a taxonomy of observable practices. CBE: Life Sciences Education 14(1), 9. Creswell J.W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Dewey J. (1938) Education and Experience. McMillan, New York. Duncan-Andrade J.M.R. & Morrell E. (2008) The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools. Peter Lang, New York. Farrell J.J., Moog R.S. & Spencer J.N. (1999) A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education 76(4), 570. Foerst N.M., Klug J., Jöstl G., Spiel C. & Schober B. (2017) Knowledge vs. action: Discrepancies in university students’ knowledge about and self-reported use of self-regulated learning strategies. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1288. Frambaugh J.M., Driessen E.W., Beh P. & van der Vleuten C.P.M. (2014) Quiet or questioning? Students’ discussion behaviors in student-centered education across cultures. Studies in Higher Education 39(6), 1001–1021. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. & Wenderoth M.P. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(23), 8410–8415. Freire P. (2018) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (50th anniversary ed.). Continuum International Publishing, New York. Geven K. & Attard A. (2012) Time for student-centred learning? In European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms. (Curaj A., Scott P., Vlasceanu L. & Wilson L., eds.), Springer, London, pp. 153–172. Gülbahar Y. & Tinmaz H. (2006) Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(3), 309–327. Haak D.C., HilleRisLambers J., Pitre E. & Freeman S. (2011) Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332(6034), 1213–1216. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., DeHaan R. & Wood W.B. (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670), 521–522. Hannafin M.J. & Hannafin K.M. (2010) Cognition and student-centered, web-based learning: Issues and implications for research and theory. In Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age. (Spector J., Ifenthaler D., Isaias P., Kinshuk & Sampson D., eds.), Springer Science Business Media, New York, pp. 11–23. Hannafin M.J., Hannafin K.M., Land S.M. & Oliver K. (1997) Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 45(3), 101–117.

231

Yunjeong Chang et al. Hannafin M.J. & Hill J.R. (2008) Resource-based learning. In Handbook of Research in Educational Technology (3rd ed.). (Spector M., Merrill D., van Merrienboer J. & Driscoll M., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp. 525–536. Hannafin M.J., Hill J.R. & Glazer E. (2011) Designing grounded learning environments: The value of multiple perspectives in design practice. In Critical Issues in Instructional Technology. (Anglin G., ed.), Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO, pp. 179–189. Hannafin M.J. & Land S.M. (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced studentcentered learning environments. Instructional Science 25(3), 167–202. Hannafin M.J. & Land S.M. (2000) Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: Issues and practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 12(1), 3–30. Hardman D. & Edwards L. (1989) Lost in hyperspace: Cognitive mapping and navigation in a hypertext environment. In Hypertext: Theory into Practice. (McAleese R., ed.), Intellect, Oxford, UK, pp. 105–125. Haruehansawasin S. & Kiattikomol P. (2018) Scaffolding in problem-based learning for low-achieving learners. The Journal of Educational Research 111(3), 363–370. Helle L., Tynjälä P. & Olkinuora E. (2006) Project-based learning in post-secondary education: Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education 51(2), 287–314. Henderson C. & Dancy M.H. (2007) Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research 3(2), 020102. Herrington J. & Oliver R. (1995) Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia: Learning with technology. Proceedings of ASCILITE 95 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 253–262. Hill J.R., Domizi D.P., Kim M.C., Kim H. & Hannafin M.J. (2007) Teaching and learning in negotiated and informal environments. In Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed.). (Moore M.G., ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah & N.J., pp. 271–284. Hooks B. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge, New York. Hora M.T. & Anderson C. (2012) Perceived norms for interactive teaching and their relationship to instructional decision-making: A mixed methods study. Higher Education 64(4), 573–592. Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T. & Smith K.A. (2000) Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change 32(1), 28–37. Jordan L., Bovill C., Othman S.M., Saleh A.M., Shabila N.P. & Watters N. (2014) Is student-centred learning a Western concept? Lessons from an academic development programme to support learner-centred learning in Iraq. Teaching in Higher Education 19(1), 13–25. Kirschner P.A., Sweller J. & Clark R.E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75–86. Kirylo J.D. (ed.) (2013) A Critical Pedagogy of Resistance: 34 Pedagogues We Need to Know. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Lee C.I. & Tsai F.Y. (2004) Internet project-based learning environment: The effects of thinking styles on learning transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20(1), 31–39. Lewis S.E. & Lewis J.E. (2005) Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education 82(1), 135. Lewis S.E. & Lewis J.E. (2008) Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: An HLM investigation of Peer-Led Guided Inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(7), 794–811. Mayer R.E. (2009) Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure. (Tobias S. & Duffy T.M., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 184–200. McConnell D.A., Steer D.N., Owens K.D., Knott J.R., Van Horn S., Borowski W., Dick J., Foos A., Malone M., McGrew H. & Greer L. (2006) Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education 54(1), 61–68. McKenney S. & Reeves T.C. (2018) Conducting Educational Design Research (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York. McLaren P. & Kincheloe J.L. (eds.) (2007) Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now? Peter Lang, New York. Mills J.E. & Treagust D.F. (2003) Engineering education: Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 3(2), 2–16.

232

Emerging trends Missingham D. & Matthews R. (2014) A democratic and student-centered approach to facilitating teamwork learning among first year engineering students: A learning and teaching case study. European Journal of Engineering Education 39(4), 412–423. Montessori M. (1912) The Montessori Method. Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (NASEM) (2017) Barriers and Opportunities For 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council (2015) Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Olson S. & Riordan D.G. (2012) Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President, US. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541511 on 24 October 2019. Papert S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. BasicBooks, New York. Piaget J. (1985) The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Polly D. & Hannafin M.J. (2011) Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. The Journal of Educational Research 104, 120–130. Preszler R.W. (2009) Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning. CBE: Life Sciences Education 8(3), 182–192. Ritzhaupt A.D., Sessums C.D. & Johnson M.C. (2012) Where should educational technologists publish their research? An examination of peer-reviewed journals within the field of educational technology and factors influencing publication choice. Educational Technology 52(6), 47–56. Salleh N., Mendes E. & Grundy J. (2011) Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37(4), 509–525. Shipton B. (2011) Expanding police educators’ understanding of teaching: Are they as learner-centred as they think? Journal of Learning Design 4(2), 1–19. Simon B. & Hanks B. (2008) First-year students’ impressions of pair programming in CS1. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing 7(4, 5), 1–5, 28. Song L., Hannafin M.J. & Hill J.R. (2007) Reconciling beliefs and practices in teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 55(1), 27–50. Spector J.M., Ifenthaler D., Samspon D., Yang L., Mukama E., Warusavitarana A., Lokuge Dona K., Eichhorn K., Fluck A., Huang R., Bridges S., Lu J., Ren Y., Gui X., Deneen C.C., San Diego J. & Gibson D.C. (2016) Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. Educational Technology & Society 19(3), 58–71. Tangney S. (2014) Student-centred learning: A humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher Education 19(3), 266–275. Tawfik A.A. & Kolodner J.L. (2016) Systematizing scaffolding for problem-based learning: A view from case-based reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 10(1). Veenman M.V. (2011) Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning 6(2), 205–211. Vihavainen A., Paksula M. & Luukkainen M. (2011, March 9–12) Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners. ACM SIGCSE 2011: ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Dallas, TX, pp. 93–98. Von Hellens L.A., Nielsen S. & Beekhuyzen J. (2011) Women working in the IT industry: Challenges for the new millennium. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) 1(11). Vygotsky L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambride, MA. Walker L. & Warfa A.R.M. (2017) Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) marginally effects student achievement measures but substantially increases the odds of passing a course. PloS One 12(10), e0186203. Wang Q., Li H., Pang W., Liang S. & Su Y. (2016) Developing an integrated framework of problem-based learning and coaching psychology for medical education: A participatory research. BMC Medical Education 16(2). West R.E. & Borup J. (2014) An analysis of a decade of research in 10 instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(4), 545–556.

233

Yunjeong Chang et al. West R.E. & Rich P.J. (2012) Rigor, impact and prestige: A proposed framework for evaluating scholarly publications. Innovative Higher Education 37(5), 359–371. Williams L., Wiebe E., Yang K., Ferzli M. & Miller C. (2002) In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12(3), 197–212. Woodbury S. & Gess-Newsome J. (2002) Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy 16(5), 763–782. Woods D. (2010, July 4) Problem-Based Learning, Especially in the Context of Large Classes. Retrieved from http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/pbl/pbl.htm on 24 October 2019.

234

14 STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING THROUGH THE LENS OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING Lessons from university and K-12 classrooms Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

Introduction As students move along their education path through elementary, secondary and tertiary schools, the perspectives of their teachers, instructors and professors on teaching and learning tend to change. Traditionally, primary level teachers see their role as teachers of children, while secondary teachers are more likely to identify with the content they teach. Finally, at the tertiary or university level, professors usher their students into disciplinary fields. The result across the P-16 landscape is that the instructional focus is often transformed from “teaching learning” to “teaching content” (Dempewolf 2015). In higher education, much of this could be due to the split responsibilities of faculty members between research and teaching (Mitten & Ross 2018). In fact, the greater the emphasis on the role of researcher in colleges and universities, the less likely students are to consider their professors “good teachers” (Palali et al. 2018). Many faculty members in higher education, however, have justifiable concerns as they have not, necessarily, been taught to teach and therefore feel, rightfully, underprepared (Mitten & Ross 2018). As in primary and secondary classrooms, the diversity of students is growing, class sizes are expanding, and instructors report that “generational differences [technology changes], and student disinterest or misconceptions were significant factors challenging the effectiveness of their instruction” (Mitten & Ross 2018, p. 1355). The field of teacher education holds lessons on how to transform the higher education classroom into one that is more student centered and supportive. Student-centered learning (SCL) is an imperative for the field of teacher education. We teach our students (future teachers) to enact the principles of SCL. Furthermore, teacher educators feel the need to “walk the talk” and model practices that foster equity and engagement, which is at the heart of SCL. In this chapter, we present two case studies, in higher education and secondary education, that ask the question: what lessons can we learn from teacher educators and high school teachers that open possibilities for accessible, student-centered learning in higher education? To this end, the case studies presented in this chapter examine practices from both the first author’s 235

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

university classroom and three exemplary pre-service teachers’ (called “interns”) high school classes. Our analysis reveals themes and practices in teacher education and high school teaching that suggests answers to our guiding question. We conclude with lessons for creating SCL opportunities more broadly in higher education.

Universal Design for Learning and student-centered learning These case studies present qualitative data that highlights access and equity for all learners, which is at the heart of SCL. SCL emerges from ways of teaching that put students in control of their own learning (Nave 2015) beginning by developing relationships one student at a time. This relationship building demonstrates to each student that they are respected and cared for, and importantly, the teacher learns the students’ interests and goals. Using this knowledge, the teacher engages the students in co-creating a learning environment that fits who they are and where they are. The teacher then frames an instructional context in ways that support individual students’ agency in pursuing their learning. The development of these relationships and SCL opportunities open access for individuals who might otherwise have been excluded due to lack of motivation, interest, or skill. Access to learning is only the first step toward equity. Access is incomplete without engagement in the learning context and process. Merely opening the door to learning is not enough; we must construct learning contexts where deep and whole-hearted engagement occurs. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) gives us the tools to examine learning contexts and build opportunities for engagement. The dual lens of SCL and UDL, utilized in this chapter, complements each other well and give teachers the ability to consider both each student and all students. Universal Design (UD) is a framework originally developed in the field of public planning. The Center for Universal Design puts forth seven principles, which are equitable use, flexible in use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use (Center for Universal Design 2008). Examples of UD in our built environment include curb cuts and automatic doors. The Center for Applied and Specialized Technology (CAST) was the first to transfer the UD principles to learning environments with the goal of fostering inclusive practice in K-12 education. CAST created the notion of UDL, which emphasizes activating and supporting neural networks to recognize, strategically use, and emotionally react to information (Meyer & Rose 2005) for the purpose of learning. CAST also highlighted the need for multiple and flexible methods of presentation, engagement, expression, and apprenticeship. Finally, UDL has been introduced to higher education faculty (Langley-Turnbaugh et al. 2013) with the goal of improving outcomes for students with disabilities in colleges and universities. In this chapter, we apply the UDL framework that suggests deep engagement occurs through the activation of the affective, strategic, and recognition networks in the brain and through multiple and flexible opportunities to learn. Using data that represents the first author’s teaching methods, her interns’ practice, and their students’ engagement, we present descriptions of tools and strategies that can be applied to both the university and K-12 teaching so that these classrooms are truly student centered.

Case study context The University of Southern Maine (USM) began as a teacher education college more than 125 years ago and remains committed to this goal through nationally accredited educator preparation programs. We focus on the development of teachers for diverse public schools. While a rural, predominantly white state, Maine’s urban centers in its central and southern region are 236

Universal design for learning

home to an increasingly diverse population. Demographic changes in the state are primarily due to an influx of people from around the world seeking new homes and from 2002 to 2012 “the white youth population decreased 8.6% while the Black/African youth population (largely immigrant/refugees) increased 157.6%” (Hudson Report 2013, pp. 16–17). The faculty members of the School of Education and Human Development at USM have long been focused on preparing teachers through the lens of UDL. We have engaged in examination of our own courses and pedagogy for ways that promote access, engagement and equity (Bernacchio et al. December 2006–January 2007). We have reached outside the boundaries of the School of Education to bring UDL to the broader university community as a mechanism to support students with disabilities through majors in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) into careers. Finally, in this context of changing demographics and expanding faculty knowledge, we enacted an equity framework that puts UDL and culturally responsive teaching practices at the forefront of our work. Embedded in this context, the first author teaches a two-semester assessment and planning course to students (both graduate and undergraduate) who are in their year-long internship at either the elementary (grades K-8) or the secondary (grades 7–12) level. These interns simultaneously take pedagogy classes while in school-based internships from September to May. The settings where the interns work are Portland Public School classrooms which serve a diverse array of students from a variety of cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and ability backgrounds in Maine’s largest city.

Participants and methodology Two case studies explore the connections between SCL and UDL. The first case study is in the first author’s university classroom, and the second is in the context of three interns (all female, graduate students) out of 17 who were students in the first author’s assessment and planning classes during the 2017–18 academic year. The three highlighted students were chosen because of their exemplary practice in their placements. Our goal is to illustrate the dimensions and practices that showcase SCL and UDL and the high level of proficiency these three women demonstrated as they sought teacher certification in grades 7–12.

Case study participants Jacque is a white woman in her twenties who grew up in the southwestern United States went to college in the Midwest, and came to Maine for graduate school. Previously, she guided youth on programs abroad and worked supporting students with disabilities at a charter school. She has a deep connection to the natural world and pursued certification to become a science teacher. Jacque interned in a chemistry classroom and her spring lead teaching unit covered 11 class periods, lasting about four and half weeks. She created an instructional unit in which Students are asked to explore paper and paper making, use the production process to build on understanding of physical and chemical changes, and consider the overall environmental impact of the production and use of a material from raw material to waste. ( Jacque’s Unit Overview) Jenn, a white woman in her thirties, also came to the program after years of experience in the labor force. Originally trained as a social worker, Jenn also had experience working with young 237

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

people with disabilities, families, and as a trainer of adults. She has traveled extensively and was pursuing certification to become a social studies teacher. Jenn interned at the same high school as Jacque and taught at an 11th grade level United States history. Jenn and her students made explicit connections between the economics of the Great Depression and the experience of the people in Millinocket, Maine, when the paper mill closed and a huge segment of the town’s population lost their jobs. Her unit was designed to last 5 weeks, or 14 class sessions, and “the content of the course focuses on the causation of Great Depression and the effect of government intervention.” Finally, Sarai is a South Sudanese woman (in her late twenties) who spent her early years in Egypt. She emigrated with her mother and siblings to the US, lived in California, and moved to Maine when she was 12. She attended high school in Lewiston, Maine. As an undergraduate, attended UMass Boston and the University of Arizona, later returning to Maine where she worked with children with autism at a multi-cultural daycare, among other education-related roles. She pursued her certification as an English Language Arts teacher. For her spring internship, Sarai was placed in a high school in Portland’s downtown district that draws a diverse array of students from across a variety of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. The class on which she focused her instruction on was English 12, which included both juniors and seniors. The unit she designed was mapped out over 4 weeks, or 20 75-minute blocks, and focused “on the theme of systematic racism and gender-based violence enforced in Othello.” (Sarai’s Unit Overview) The first author of this chapter, Jean, is a white woman in her mid-fifties and a tenured full professor at USM where she has taught for 15 years. Prior to getting her doctorate, she was a special education teacher in Maine. Her background includes teaching and research on support for youth with disabilities as they transition from high school to college life, dual (general and special education) teacher certification programs, and applications of Universal Design in K-12 and higher education.

Methodology Data for these case studies was drawn from two sources. The first being the syllabus, lecture notes, and PowerPoint presentations and assignments for the assessment and planning courses taught in fall 2017 and spring 2018. The second source of data included each intern’s assignments, lesson plans, teaching philosophies, and observation notes taken by university supervisors as part of their internship. The data represent the full year’s course sequence and internship experiences. Using summary statistics (frequency counts and percentages) and the constant-comparative method of analysis described by Glaser (as cited by Bogdan & Biklen 2007, p. 66), we conducted a combination of independent and joint tasks. The first author began by independently reading and coding the data for recurrent ideas and principles of SCL and UDL. Themes were developed through analytic memos, matrices and diagrams, which we shared as analysis progressed. Finally, member checks were carried out to ensure that interns’ pedagogical intentions and experiences were authentically represented.

Case study 1: SCL and UDL in the university classroom Our major finding in Case Study 1 is that university students benefited from being at the center of the learning experience in a classroom with a facilitative culture, where tools and strategies designed for SCL and UDL are used, and they learn to teach using SCL and UDL methods through applied or authentic experiences. In this first case study, we describe the student-centered teaching techniques that opened access to learning opportunities. The subsequent section outlines a 238

Universal design for learning

collection of SCL and UDL practices that put the university students at the center of the teaching/ learning nexus. We explain how these student-centered practices build on UDL principles of activating the neural networks, multiplicity and flexibility. Finally, we suggest that successful application of these principles moves the student-centered classroom beyond mere access to active engagement.

Becoming a student of one’s students Student-centeredness requires that the instructor focuses first on his or her students and then considers how they will engage in the content of the teaching/learning experience. The notion of a generic university student must be actively worked against in the design of a studentcentered classroom. In fact, it is precisely the collection of individuals in the class who inform teaching in ways that foster learning. The tools described in this section provided Jean with background information on how she can best activate the recognition, affective and strategic networks to facilitate students’ engagement. Furthermore, these tools became the mechanisms that students would implement in their internship placements. Jean modeled the practice of becoming a student of her students (Ayers 2004) so that her students could do the same. In this section, the specific tools Jean used to get to know her students as people and learners include (1) a “Four Corners Activity” to identify group work and learning preferences; (2) a socio-gram to uncover student-to-student relationships; and (3) the use of a multiple intelligence survey to gather information on learning styles.

Four Corners Activity The Four Corners Activity1 is a learning tool that asks students to reflect and sort themselves into one corner of the room identified with an element of interest to the teacher. In the planning and assessment class, Jean used this activity to better understand students’ learning and group work preferences. Once their preferences were understood, this information could be used for pairings and groupings to maximize productivity and develop scaffolds for individuals’ learning. In Jean’s class, students sorted themselves into learners who focused on structure, meaning, action or caring. Interns who identified as “structure” people easily recognize the structure of their discipline, feel most emotionally secure when the instructor organizes their learning environments clearly, and often use structures themselves strategically to learn new material. They might, however, need support in environments that appear chaotic or when feeling overwhelmed by large tasks. Interns who see themselves as “meaning” people feel more emotionally engaged when they understand the purpose behind what is assigned. Their strategic networks can be activated by pointing out the relevance of tools, strategies, content and concepts. Their recognition networks are activated when learning goals are explicit. They might, however, check out in class or disengage when they do not see the relevance of something or how different concepts relate to each other. Interns who sorted themselves into the “action” corner are those who learn by doing. Their affective networks fire with excitement when they jump into a challenging task and figure it out as they go along. Their strategic networks rely heavily on trial and error. These students may need to be supported to reflect on what they have done and to learn group strategies so as to not feel frustrated by those who need more preparatory time before acting. Finally, interns in the “caring” corner are those whose affective networks drive their learning. They easily recognize how other people are feeling, respond with care, and work well in groups. 239

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

They may be able to strategize about using their emotions to learn effectively. They often need supports when they or others are faced with discomfort and might need help to persist through emotionally challenging situations. The interns in the assessment and planning class included representatives of all four groups. Of the 17 individuals in the class, the majority (41%) were in the “meaning” corner. Almost a third (29%) of the interns identified as “structure” people. Only three (18%) students identified themselves as eager to jump into the “action,” and two (12%) were in the “caring” category.

Socio-gram development After the first class session, Jean asked the students to write down the names of classmates with whom they might work best. Engaging in multiple group activities primed the students for answering this question. Students turned in their responses before leaving class and Jean compiled the data into a socio-gram. A socio-gram is a visual depiction of social relationships (Tubaro et al. 2016). The information is used to generate classroom groupings, deeper understanding of classroom dynamics, or to identify interpersonal issues that might exist for individuals or groups. Figure 14.1 shows the class socio-gram. In Figure 14.1, the numbers represent student IDs. Black circles are female students and grey circles are male students. The lines with two arrows indicate that the students chose each other,

Would work well with: 1-S

12-M

5-S

13-M 14-S 6-M

9-S

4-M

10-M 11-C

16-M

17-M

3-C

15-A

7-M 8-A Figure 14.1 Socio-gram 2017–2018

240

2-A

Universal design for learning

while the single arrow lines indicate one-directional choices. Finally, the letters stand for the four corners in the activity: M for meaning, A for action, S for structure, and C for caring. Jean shared the visual representation with her interns and summarized what she felt the socio-gram revealed about the class. First, we could not draw conclusions related to the clusters and gender. This indicated that one could group students freely without attention to gender per se. Given the fact that the data was gathered in the first week of class, it is not surprising that the majority of students (n = 8) were not chosen by others; they were only just beginning to get to know each other. Nevertheless, three pairs of students did choose each other, which indicated that some were already developing relationships. The Four Corners data revealed that 41% of people chose to work with those in their same category and 59% chose to work across category. This suggested that, as a group, these individuals were interested in combining skills and preference that might complement each other. Understanding the social dynamics of the classroom community is critical for attending to students’ affective needs.

Multiple intelligence profiles The final tool to get to know one’s students that Jean introduced were instruments to capture students’ Multiple Intelligence (MI) profiles, as defined by Howard Gardener (1983; Gardener & Hatch 1989). An understanding of multiple intelligences encourages teachers to engage students, present content, and provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning through multiple mechanisms. Jean’s data from the MI instrument revealed the following patterns: the greatest number of students (n = 4) found that their highest scores were in the naturalistic category with three MI categories (mathematical/logical, interpersonal, and linguistic) tied for second (n = 3). Knowing what certification these students were pursuing, Jean saw that students’ preferred learning styles closely aligned with their chosen content, as one might expect. In terms of the neural networks, this information suggests that recognition networks would be most easily activated when examples and scenarios align content and their learning style preferences. This data also suggests that the class would benefit from a wide variety of strategies for learning and teaching, as their preferred styles were diverse. Finally, their affective networks are well suited to working together.

Multiplicity and flexibility in the classroom context The design of the classroom context is critical in facilitating SCL in a UDL way. One of the most important principles of a UDL classroom is to design it for maximum accessibility and engagement from the beginning rather than retrofitting, which can be incomplete, stigmatizing and inadequate (Rose et al. 2002). By doing so, the inclusiveness of the classroom allows the instructor to attend to the needs of each student as if every individual is at the center of the learning environment. The two key UDL principles at the heart of this are multiplicity and flexibility. Multiplicity refers to many ways to achieve common outcomes. Flexibility refers to the many ways something can be used and easily adapted across users (Rose et al. 2002). This section describes two facets of the university classroom to illustrate the themes of multiplicity and flexibility: multiple instructional tools and strategies, and the flexibility inherent in applied or authentic learning.

241

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

Multiple instructional tools and strategies Jean’s assessment and planning class emphasized active engagement, synthesis of information and collaboration. Having learned about the diversity of learning styles in the classroom, Jean knew that she needed to design activities so that everyone would find ways to access the learning opportunities. These tools and strategies included activities to do immediately upon entering the classroom (“Do Nows,” “Grapples,” “Entry Tickets”), which could serve activation, review or assessment purposes. The class used many group configurations, all of which included public share-outs so that the whole class could see the construction of others’ knowledge. Some of these group strategies were think pair-share strategically grouping students who share commonalities, or grouping students whose diverse skills or interests were complementary. Most of the group work followed procedural instructions, or protocols, that guided conversations and focused the interns’ thinking. Jean also incorporated as many modalities for learning, sharing and processing as possible, knowing that the students each had their own preferences and learning styles. The class often drew or diagrammed ideas on large sheets of paper, had silent discussions called “chalk talks,” and shared exemplars of what they were expected to accomplish. Finally, Jean checked for understanding and progress through frequent in-class assessment methods such as “Exit Tickets,” written reflections and online surveys.2

Flexibility inherent in an applied or authentic learning opportunity SCL itself was one of the centerpieces for the course and the second author’s book, Student-Centered Learning: Nine Classrooms in Action (2015) was assigned as a shared text. The book was selected for several reasons. First, it provides a comprehensive treatment of SCL: social-emotional learning (building relationships, establishing classroom community), student agency (student voice, dynamic responsibility) and pedagogical context (instructional practice, authenticity). Second, the chapters range from kindergarten, to high school. Third, all the teachers are working in Maine, which is where most of Jean’s students would likely be teaching. Introducing the book, Jean modeled discussion facilitation practices that she wanted students to display when engaged with the book, which were referred to as protocols. Teachers have long used protocols for the purpose of professional development to structure group discussions leading to deeper thinking and novel solutions to pernicious problems (Bloom & Stein 2004; Nehringa et al. 2010). Carefully structured discussions are said to promote equity, alleviate pressures that can arise from power differentials and facilitate participation of all (Brookfield & Preskill 2005). Protocols are tools that provide steps and time constraints to meet these goals (Sussman December 2017–January 2018). Unfortunately, research shows that rich, reciprocal discussions are rare in American K-12 classrooms and that the majority of teachers favor the back and forth format between teacher and students in which teachers ask questions, students respond, and the teacher evaluates the content and accuracy of the responses (Walsh & Sattes 2015). Meanwhile, the skills of speaking and listening, providing critique, and engaging in reasoned judgment have found their way into the Common Core standards, across disciplines, that now guide the American curriculum (Walsh & Sattes 2015). In this context more and more teachers at the K-12 and higher education level are using discussion protocols to build listening and empathy in a pluralistic society (Sussman December 2017–January 2018) and model democratic practices in order to promote democratic principles in society at large (Brookfield & Preskill 2005). 242

Universal design for learning Table 14.1 Outline of chapters in Nave (2015) Student-Centered Learning: Nine Classrooms in Action Chapter

Grade Level

Title

One Kindergarten Preparing for a Lifetime of Learning Summary: Suzan provides activities that many of her low-income students have not experienced. Two Fourth Building Relationships with Whole Heart Teaching Summary: Mary’s focus on social-emotional learning AND academics defines her whole-heart teaching. Three

4–5 multi-age

A Journey of Transformation: Redesigning the Classroom for Students Summary: Shelly organizes instruction to nurture each student’s sense of agency for their own learning. Four Fifth Modeling a Passion for Learning Summary: Susan’s own passion for her own learning inspires her students to want to learn as well. Five 6–7 looping Real World Tasks for an Authentic Audience Summary: Karen’s Expeditionary Learning projects powerfully support her students’ confidence-building. Six Seventh Transparency, Efficiency, and Acceleration Summary: Cynthia’s individualization supports students learning at their own comfortable pace. Seven 8th Special Ed Charting the Course to Proficiency-Based Learning Summary: Shannon’s deep commitment to every student’s learning empowers her students to succeed. Eight HS English People First, Things Second Summary: Alana works to make sure each student knows that she’s there to support their success. Nine 10th English Creating Meaning Summary: Christiane uses reading, writing and speaking to support her students’ quest for meaning.

To engage with Nave’s text, the class followed this protocol: Open discussion: What is particularly meaningful to us as a group? What do we hope to learn? • • • •

Build on each other Ask clarifying questions Ask probing questions Stay close to the text

Nave’s text proved to be a highly flexible tool. Jean assigned each chapter to pairs of students for them to become experts and teach their classmates the principles, themes, and practices embedded in the assigned chapter. Assignment of each chapter to students was based on their internship placements. For example, students in middle grades led sessions on chapters relating to middle grade practice and Jean matched secondary-level interns by content area. Specific details of the assignment were outlined in the syllabus as depicted in Table 14.2. Flexibility can be seen in the fact that, even though the class had this set of common expectations, they were free to choose any discussion protocol and facilitate the conversation in class as they wanted. Feedback was given to each pair of students following their discussion leadership, which focused on SCL practice. For example, feedback given to Jacque focused on the inclusion of all in the discussion and the use of the text to support the discussion: I like how you were explicit as to why you chose the activities that you did – to “honor everyone’s voice.” .  .  . I like how you prompted those outside the circle to 243

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave Table 14.2 Assignment example Assignment Each week we will have a text-based discussion from one of the chapters in Bill Nave’s Student-Centered Learning: Nine Classrooms in Action. Jean will model a discussion protocol the first week of class. In the following weeks, we have assigned students in pairs to lead discussions for the rest of the semester (see the schedule in the syllabus). Your leadership should include: • • • •

Advanced reading with annotation and selection of key passages; Lesson must incorporate the use of one formal discussion protocol provided; Facilitation of the discussion in class; One paragraph reflection on the strengths and areas of improvement you identify in implementation of your discussion lesson submitted to your section instructor before next class meeting; • Your section instructor will provide written formative feedback after implementation and reflection are completed.

participate. . . . I like how you encouraged [one particularly quiet student] to speak up – it is so good to hear her voice! . . . Good reminder for everyone to stay close to the text – this worked well with the second group. Feedback was also given to encourage the interns to transfer SCL from the university classroom to K-12 settings. Following her discussion leadership, Sarai was encouraged to take a more confident teacher stance. Jean told Sarai that when she “called the class to attention – and they didn’t immediately switch their attention – use a teacher voice even with your peers [smile].” Jean learned that her students flourished in student-centered classrooms and were eager to learn how to create SCL contexts for their students. Their individual learning was facilitated by the UDL features of the university classroom. In this context, they transformed from students at the center of the university classroom into teachers who design and deliver SCL in their own classrooms.

Case study 2: SCL and UDL in high school classrooms In the spring semester of the course, the major assignment for the interns was to develop an instructional unit and to take full teaching responsibility in their internship. In this section, we cite examples from the three interns’ instructional plans and observations of their teaching to illustrate how they too became students of their students in order to activate neural networks and used multiplicity and flexibility to enhance their student-centered teaching.

Students of their students and analyzing learning contexts For their unit, the interns were asked to create a class profile, through which they collected data about their internship class and used the tools that Jean had modeled earlier in the year (e.g., a socio-gram, survey or questionnaire, and a learning inventory such as an MI tool or Four Corners Activity as described earlier). Interns were also asked to conduct UDL Curriculum and Setting Barrier Analyses (designed by Jean). The barrier analyses identified demands (what students are asked to do) and how these demands might become barriers for individual students. The interns then named supports or scaffolds to mitigate or remove the barriers. This section

244

Universal design for learning

will describe the supports and scaffolds the interns put in place to engage the students’ brain networks in positive ways.

Affective networks All three interns recognized the importance of reaching students’ affective network. Jacque included a questionnaire exploring her students’ sense of self-efficacy in chemistry in order to understand how their affective networks might positively (confidence in tackling chemistry) or negatively (limited confidence in chemistry) impact their learning. Similarly, Sarai gathered information on her students’ relationship with poetry and wrote, “A number of students expressed discomfort with poetry in the class profile survey. . . . This led me to appropriate pop music that they’re already familiar with to increase participation and comprehension.” In doing so, Sarai understood that students’ affective networks might deactivate due to limited motivation. Jenn asked students about students’ “love of learning . . . [as well as] fears/concerns/ anxieties,” again learning about what might positively or negatively trigger their affective networks. All interns used what they learned to make their teaching accessible to as many students as possible.

Strategic networks Teaching students to use and strengthen their strategic networks was important to these interns. In Jenn’s curriculum barrier analysis, she adopted strategies used by the teacher of students who were English Language Learners (ELL) in her own classroom to support the students’ strategic networks. By doing so, she mitigated barriers for at least one specific student who often “misunderstood directions or key concepts” by “coordinat[ing] with the ELL teacher to mirror structure of support around comprehension for in class assignments. Provide more opportunities for processing in class: Think Pair Share, Four Walls, NoteCatcher-Cornell Method.” For another student who “often procrastinates or ignores assignments that are primarily writing,” Jenn wrote in her curriculum barrier analysis that she would work with this student to “create checklists/benchmarks to reward writing/structure [and use] strategic grouping with peers that could support him.” In doing so, she scaffolded his strategic network through one-to-one work.

Recognition networks For all three interns, teaching in urban high schools, accessibility of the content for ELLs was paramount and they knew that different prior learning and life experiences meant that their students’ recognition networks varied widely. Jenn knew that United States history was going to present challenges for many of her students, some of whom “had one year of education before coming to the U.S.” Similarly, Jacque knew that “to meet the broader needs of my diverse student body I knew I needed to create ways that my students from all cultures could access the chemistry concepts. The way that I planned for this was by starting with a case study on paper – which all students/people have experience with.” Both Jenn and Jacque recognized that use of students’ lives shaped their prior knowledge and academic skills. They then activated students’ recognition networks by providing common experiences and access to content that might otherwise have been much too abstract. In summary, we can see these interns using a range of data that captures both achievement and affective constructs in service to accessibility. Their commitment to students’ needs pointed

245

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

them in the direction of specific supports, scaffolds and reaching out to other education personnel with individual students in mind. Moreover, they often found that supports for some of their students served a greater need in the class – the “universal” element of UDL. Jenn noted, The truly fabulous moment of this activity [use of a peer review outline that she created] was that, because it mirrored the support in the ELL classroom, the stars of the day were the students in the ELL classes. . . . In writing, it is rare that these students have the opportunity to be the standouts. These interns demonstrated that their knowledge of students and the teaching context – in equal measure – became the sign post that guides accessibility from the beginning.

Multiplicity and flexibility in the classroom context The way these interns wove multiplicity and flexibility into their teaching can be seen in three primary ways. First, they enacted multiple teaching roles. Second, they used many tools and strategies that supported their students. Third, they took advantage of the flexibility inherent in applied or authentic learning opportunities to individualize students’ educational experiences.

Multiple roles One of the most frequently demonstrated roles that these three interns played was that of guide or facilitator. Jenn described herself as both a teacher and a coach and said, “I was available to help students, coach them to stay on task but mostly to empower their own self-guided experience. Jacque explicitly told her students, “My role is to guide you, not necessarily to answer questions.” In keeping both with the work of scientists and her stance as a teacher, she wanted students to engage in inquiry to develop their understanding of phenomena that they could not directly observe in a high school chemistry classroom. To accomplish this, her lessons often began with a demonstration, led by her, assisted by the students, and observed by all who contributed statements and questions about what they saw. Jacque would then take on the role of the expert and present technical explanations of what they had observed and the notational tools used by chemists to communicate what they had seen (e.g., the law of conservation of mass and the balancing of chemical reaction equations). Having activated her students’ recognition networks, and giving them tools to use their strategic networks, Jacque directed her students to work in pairs, practice balancing equations, and explain the process that the symbols represented. As they worked, she circulated asking probing questions, pointing students to resources, and challenging them to talk through their processes and interpretations. Sarai was a role model for her students. When introducing poetry, she shared her own with the class. She spoke Arabic with her native Arabic speaking students and shared some of the details of her own immigration story so that her students could see that they shared commonalities. As the primary caregiver of a younger brother, Sarai was also keenly aware of the adolescent mind and used her skills to act as a caring, authority figure. She very smoothly and gently refocused wandering attention and pointed out desirable behaviors more frequently than undesirable ones. Her students knew she was in charge but also that she cared about their learning and well-being. Finally, Jenn acknowledged that teaching does not end at the classroom door. She said, “[I] also played the role as advocate in our [Response to Intervention] meetings, where I presented

246

Universal design for learning

on student issues and brought data on [Habits of Work and Learning] grades, absences/tardies and anecdotal observation to Team 11.” In doing so, she participated on a professional team as the one of the teachers who knew her students well and could speak to their performances and needs.

Multiple tools and strategies In addition to the multiple roles they played, the interns used a wide range of teaching strategies to elicit the greatest amount of engagement from their students and to support any and all who need it. In all three classrooms, these interns were observed to display and talk through learning targets with their students. They also had activities for students to engage in as soon as they entered the classroom. Called “Do Nows” or “Grapples,” these were methods to activate prior knowledge, give students a glimpse of what they would be doing that day, or generalize skills and habits they had shown with other material. Activities included in written lesson plans included “gallery walks” of images, texts and diagrams on a given topic for students to explore and reflect on in terms of what they know, what they wonder, and what they hoped to learn or the use of “mystery texts” to read and use to make predictions. In their lesson plans, the interns created flexible, frequently reconfigured groups so that students could complement each other with their individual skill levels. Group activities always included a way to “report out” what each team of students accomplished. Many times, the students were given roles in their groups to facilitate the participation of everyone. All three interns also used a range of discussion protocols, which are mechanisms to guide discussions to promote full and thoughtful participation by all students. Jacque and Jenn used both protocols available on the web site The Right Question: A Catalyst for Microdemocracy.3 One example of this is called Question Formulation Techniques. Another resource used by the interns was Global Thinking Routines from Harvard’s Project Zero4 including “Step In, Step Out, Step Back” and “The 3Ys Routine.” Flexible grouping is both supportive and expansive: students work with and support each others’ learning while simultaneously generating more ideas and critical thinking than one person could accomplish on his or her own. Another key element of flexible groups is that students aren’t pigeonholed into a level or class configuration that might be stigmatizing. When flexible groups are used, all students know that they each contribute and the group they work with is likely to change with different curriculum circumstances. Finally, discussion protocols lend an egalitarian structure to flexibility, giving everyone time to participate, various roles, and time to process information. Applied or authentic learning experiences in the interns’ classrooms also exemplified flexibility through student choice and adaptations made for individuals in projects required by all. As a science teacher, Jacque is committed to helping her students do the work of scientists so that they can “think, speak and write like scientists.” Her goal is not simply to encourage students to pursue science in their lives but to develop skills and understandings for the purpose of advocacy. She sees “science literacy as a tool for the empowerment” so that students can understand natural and man-made phenomena around them, analyze their associated risks and benefits, and participate in solutions to problems in their communities and the world. She wants her students to “venture into the community . . . [with] the lens of a scientist.” To accomplish these goals, she structures her teaching around “what questions my students have about their local environment.” She sees this approach “as a way to contextualize science learning, increase interactions with the community and to promote equity.”

247

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

Flexibility in authenticity Sarai also incorporated authentic learning experiences into her lead teaching unit by tackling essential questions that are at the heart of students’ lives and contemporary society. She framed her unit around the following questions: “What is the relationship between race and racism? Why is race important to us? How would you imagine a world without race? How can race be deconstructed?” She enhanced the authenticity of her teaching and the relevance of Shakespeare’s Othello by helping students to examine issues of race and gender in the play and then demonstrate their understanding through contemporary media. She had her students, “Write a slam poem from the perspective of one of the characters in the play and contribute to the #MeToo movement via Twitter.” Jenn’s students wrote essays that grew out of their exploration of the structure of the United States’ government and the Great Depression. Students used their newly acquired background knowledge to write and present a policy statement that addressed the essential question, “What role should the United States’ government play in our economy?” In this summative assessment, Jenn articulated clear expectations for all in a product descriptor and rubric related to thesis statements, evidentiary support, connections and application of history to present-day events, as well as style and flow considerations. Even with rigorous expectations, flexibility was a key feature of the assignment. First, students were able to choose their response to the prompt question, their thesis, and the evidence they used to defend their position. Second, individual students were provided with supports they needed to be successful, including pre-teaching key vocabulary; readings, sources, and other texts that varied by reading level; adequate time and opportunity to prepare for the writing of the essay; access to word banks; and editorial assistance within the school.

Moving beyond access through active engagement The hard work these interns undertook to create learning contexts that were accessible and student-centered resulted in high levels of engagement. In fact, the engagement of the high school students can be thought of as a measure of the interns’ understanding and implementation of SCL and UDL. To confirm high school student engagement, two sources of data were used: (a) learning targets in their lead teaching lesson plans and (b) observation notes of the interns’ teaching taken by their university supervisor. Analysis of the learning targets in their sample lesson plans during lead teaching showed that only 33% of the verbs used were at the lower half of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Furst 1981) while 66% were at the higher end of the taxonomy. With no examples at the “Remember” (lowest) level learning target, we can see that none of these interns focused on having their students memorizing facts and figures, or being able to regurgitate pieces of information. Rather, their teaching and activities focused on understanding, analyzing and being able to apply knowledge in novel or creative situations (See Table 14.3). Through observations of the interns’ teaching, we can see evidence of high levels of student engagement. The quotations are taken directly from feedback forms created during an observation and discussed with the interns in the post-observation conference. Supervisors noted structures the interns put in place, which fostered engagement. Comments include praise for pacing and instructional arrangements. One supervisor noted that Jenn had “every second accounted for” and that “clarity reigns supreme” in the classroom. Awareness of the whole class and behaviors that support everyone’s engagement were also observed. In an observation of Jenn, her supervisor noted, “For a talkative class, they reined it in! You had great 248

Universal design for learning Table 14.3 Levels of cognition as epitomized by Bloom’s taxonomy embedded in learning targets Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy Frequency Examples of Learning Target Verbs Remember Understand Apply

0 5 2

Analyze Evaluate

3 5

Create

6

Identify, describe, explain “Use my expertise,” “communicate scientific or technical information and/or ideas in multiple formats” Examine, analyze, correlate “Draw evidence from the text to support,” “defend a position,” “use writing to integrate,” “support a claim,” prove “Propose a solution,” produce, “develop a perspective,” “create and defend a thesis,” “create a compelling infographic”

command of their attention.” Similarly, Sarai showed a great deal of what in the profession is called “with-it-ness” (Eriksson, Boistrup & Thornberg 2018), or an ability to be aware of what every student is doing in the classroom and reach out to them individually. In an observation of Sarai, the supervisor wrote, “I am noticing a bit of chatting happening among the girls near me. Sarai turns to the girls and calls on one of them.” Later in the same lesson, the volume of the talk in the classroom gave Sarai a cue that it was time to move along. She says, “It sounds like we are ready.” And then gives the group another reminder of all that they need to be thinking of, specifically: “challenge yourself to use academic language, collect your thoughts.” It is clear that these interns have created, as one supervisor noted, “multiple opportunities to master content – several activities.” In Jacque’s classroom, she created “various roles for kids during demonstration.” Jenn’s supervisor saw that “everyone has a role and something to offer this class.” Looking into these interns’ classrooms, we can see that all students are being considered and that activities are designed to keep everyone engaged. During a review session, Jenn’s “cold calls included most of the class. . . . Reviewing brought students up to speed.” In another class session, Jenn designed a “speed dating” type of activity for pairs of students to explain key concepts to each other. Her supervisor noted that the “speed dating activities are so inclusive and stakes are higher because they all have to produce/deliver” and that “each student is benefitting from the knowledge of others.” Common across all interns was attention to whole class engagement. Examples include the interns calling on students who have not yet spoken waiting until most hands are up before calling on a student in the back of the room, and keeping track of student responses so that all participate. It is hoped that with deep engagement comes deep thinking and the importance of staying with students even when they are not sure of an answer. Jenn’s supervisor noted that she encouraged the kids by saying, “let’s take this idea and build on it,” so that different students could add to the discussion. The supervisor also praised Jenn for the way that she “Stuck with students who had no answer.” Similarly, Sarai was praised for the “way [she] coaxes answers and draws out their thinking.” When explaining challenging concepts, Jacque “asked for more than one student to reiterate information in their own words.” Even during group activities, individual engagement and accountability were prominent. Individual understanding and progress were monitored through the “report outs” and the final products. The interns collected ongoing formative assessment data for the adaptation of teaching and learning experiences on a daily basis through exit tickets, quizzes, short answer and selected response tests, and graded discussions. Individual accountability was also supported through the use of tools for students to support their understanding of concepts and discussions. 249

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

Graphic organizers were a prominent mechanism used in these three classes, and Jenn notes that the graphic organizers “provided consistency between our strategies to support ELL students and offered stronger clarity for all on how to develop their skill in essay writing.” Furthermore, individual learning styles were supported by encouraging students to process through the use of varying modalities. They were frequently asked to “Write, draw, [or] diagram your ideas.” It is important to note that teacher-led presentations or lectures have a role in a student-centered classroom as well. To foster SCL in the context of lectures, these interns used frequent checks for students’ understanding through cold calls, engaging in close reading of common texts, and stopping to talk with students during video. Jenn said, In stopping the film, I reduced [the] tendency to zone out and helped with processing of language and concepts. . . . In using film, I think it is important to give students something to do to keep their attention. I instructed them to keep the chart going in their notebooks and the synthesis of information was impressive.

Implications for higher education instruction UDL is not new to higher education (Burgstahler 2013), but the relationship of UDL and SCL has yet to be fully explored in this context. What we learned from these case studies is that by looking at SCL through a UDL lens, the instructor gets to know his or her students in ways that are helpful in designing learning opportunities that will activate students’ neural networks. We also saw the importance of multiplicity when applied to the roles an instructor plays and tools and strategies they use. Finally, the inherent flexibility of applied or authentic learning opens pathways for engagement and individualization. While the field of teacher education is rich with strategies, tools and examples from practice on how one can design learning opportunities that are student centered and use the principles of UDL, other fields within higher education are not so lucky. Most university-level instructors and professors have not been taught to teach (Brownell & Tanner 2012), so while they are experts in their fields, they often rely on classroom methods that focus on dissemination (Johnson & Dasgupta 2017). Having explored the relationship between UDL and SCL, we have a few recommendations for keeping our university students at the center of teaching and learning. •

•

•

Know your students as well as you know your subject matter. Use methods of inquiry (interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and established learning-style and preference tools) to understand who your students are as individuals and learners. Doing so will allow you to create learning opportunities where students can meet the content from whatever point they enter your classroom. Analyze your teaching methods and settings with access and engagement in mind. Before you begin a new semester, analyze the information you intend to cover in your syllabus, tasks you expect your students to carry out, and the arrangement of your physical classroom. As you consider these dimensions of the educational environment, consider typical stumbling blocks for students you have seen in the past and use the data you have gathered to identify potential barriers. Once identified, consider instructional arrangements or support that might mitigate these barriers. How many ways can you come up with (multiplicity)? Consider using a variety of ways to present information (visual and auditory such as notes or a PowerPoint and lecture, digital media, or demonstrations by experts in the field), for students to process information (graphic 250

Universal design for learning

•

organizers for note-taking or discussion preparation, small group or pair work, reflective writing), and products through which they can show their learning (papers, presentations, group projects, photo essay with explanatory text, etc.). Consider points of flexibility in your curriculum. Beginning with your desired learning outcomes, consider building in multiple pathways students can take to meet those goals. Are there different ways students can show their competencies? What degree of choice do they have in course assignments? Where can applied or authentic (real world) demonstrations of learning be built in to your class?

These suggestions are challenging and add levels of complexity to an already daunting task: teaching. Nevertheless, they can be accomplished and produce positive outcomes including but not limited to deeper understanding, students’ appreciation for faculty who support their learning and development, and concrete demonstrations of competencies. In order to ensure these outcomes, we have the following recommendations. •

•

•

First, clearly define the learning targets you want the students to achieve by the end of the class (Bowen 2017). Doing this will provide a road map for you and the students, your course will maintain the rigor you expect, and you will have a clearer picture of what they have achieved at the end of the semester. Second, share with students your intentions to get to know them and to shape the learning environment for their benefit. Not every adaptation will suit every person, but when they feel that you understand their needs and are giving the class a variety of ways to learn and express themselves, they will find what matches their learning style, appreciate your efforts, and take a greater stake in their own learning. Third, check for understanding daily and throughout the semester. Examples of how this can be done include stopping at key points during a lecture or presentation to ask targeted questions, giving students time to process with peers and report their understanding, and using exit tickets at the end of class on which students briefly write down major lessons learned from the session.

Making modifications to one’s teaching practice can be overwhelming and one might wonder where to turn for help. The university’s office of support for students with disabilities or the office of support for students who are speakers of other languages often have a wealth of information, strategies, and may even do training for faculty who want to be more inclusive in their teaching. University offices that support technology-enhanced learning also have knowledge in the area of accessibility and can help faculty develop both high and low-tech solutions. Schools or departments of education can be a resource and may even be engaged in university-wide centers for the improvement of teaching. Finally, identifying faculty peers who teach in ways different than you do, who are known for highly engaging classrooms, or use a variety of interpersonal structures in their class sessions can be mentors and colleagues on a learning journey. Consider developing a special interest group (Gaff & Simpson 1994) that explores innovative teaching methods, tries them out in classes, observes each other, and gives supportive and critical feedback. Doing so in a generous and collegial way can be mutually beneficial and build relationships in higher education institutions, which are often known for operating in disciplinary silos or as loosely coupled networks of faculty (Keeling et al. 2007). The ultimate goal is enhanced learning for students, and this is most often accomplished through enhanced teaching. The true challenge for an instructor who is searching for ways to be more student-centered is one of balancing the demands of the whole with the needs of 251

Jean Whitney and Bill Nave

individuals. UDL gives us guiding principles with which to open access to all while keeping each student at the teaching and learning nexus.

Notes 1 The Four Corners Activity: www.theteachertoolkit.com/index.php/search/results/search&keywords= four+corners/, retrieved December 7, 2018. 2 The following is a list of links for strategies and tools mentioned previously: https://teachlikeachampion. com/blog/now-primer/https://eleducation.org/resources/building-a-culture-of-grappling www.brown. edu/sheridan/teaching-learning-resources/teaching-resources/course-design/classroom-assessment/ entrance-and-exit https://nsrfharmony.org/protocols/ 3 The Right Question: A Catalyst for Microdemocracy: http://rightquestion.org/microdemocracy/, retrieved December 7, 2018]. 4 Global Thinking Routines, Harvard Project Zero: www.pz.harvard.edu/resources/global-thinking, retrieved December 7, 2018].

References Ayers W. (2004) Teaching Toward Freedom: Moral Commitment and Ethical Action in the Classroom. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Bernacchio C., Ross F., Washburn K.R., Whitney J.C. & Wood D.R. (2006, December–2007, January) Faculty collaboration to improve equity, access, and inclusion in higher education. Equity and Excellence in Education 40(1), 56–66. Bloom G. & Stein R. (2004) Building communities of practice. Leadership 34(1), 20–22. Bogdan R. & Biklen S.K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Boston, MA. Bowen R.S. (2017) Understanding by Design: Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Nashville, Tennessee. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-design/ on 12 December 2018. Brookfield S.D. & Preskill S. (2005) Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Brownell S.E. & Tanner K.D. (2012) Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and . . . tensions with professional identity? CBE: Life Science Education 11, 339–346. Burgstahler S. (2013) Preface. In Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices. (Burgstahler S., ed.), DO-IT, University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHEpromisingpractices/preface.html on 7 December 2018. Center for Universal Design (2008) Universal Design Principles. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ design/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm on 7 December 2018. Dempewolf K.M. (2015) How to move from teaching content to teaching learning. In Service. Retrieved from http://inservice.ascd.org/how-to-move-from-teaching-content-to-teaching-learning/ on 10 March 2019. Eriksson E., Boistrup L.B. & Thornberg R. (2018) A qualitative study of primary teachers’ classroom feedback rationales. Educational Research 60(2), 189–205. Furst E.J. (1981) Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and educational issues. Review of Educational Research 51, 441–453. Gaff J.G. & Simpson R.D. (1994) Faculty development in the United States. Innovation in Higher Education 18, 167–176. Gardener H. (1983) Habits of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, New York. Gardener H. & Hatch T. (1989) Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher 18(8), 4–10. Hudson Report (2013) Breaking Down the Barriers for Immigrant Youth: A Report on the Barriers Facing Immigrant Youth in Greater Portland and Recommendations on How to Help This Generation Survive and Thrive in Maine. Hudson Foundation, Portland, ME. Johnson H.D. & Dasgupta N. (2017) Traditional vs. non-traditional teaching: Perspectives of students in introductory statistics classes. Journal of Educational Statistics 13, 1–14. Keeling R.P., Underhile R. & Wall A.F. (2007) Horizontal and vertical structures: The dynamics of organization in higher education. Liberal Education 93(4). Retrieved from www.aacu.org/publications-

252

Universal design for learning research/periodicals/horizontal-and-vertical-structures-dynamics-organization-higher on 7 December 2018. Langley-Turnbaugh S.J., Blair M. & Whitney J. (2013) Increasing accessibility of college STEM courses through faculty development in UDL. In Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices. (Burgstahler S., ed.), DO-IT, University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHEpromising-practices/college_stem.html on 7 December 2018. Meyer A. & Rose D.H. (2005) The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In The Universally Designed Classroom: Accessible Curriculum and Digital Technologies. (Rose D.H., Meyer A. & Hitchcock C., eds.), Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 13–35. Mitten C. & Ross D. (2018) Sustaining a commitment to teaching in a research-intensive university: What we learn from award-winning faculty. Studies in Higher Education 43, 1348–1361. Nave B. (ed.) (2015) Student-Centered Learning: Nine Classrooms in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Nehringa J., Laboy W.T. & Catarius L. (2010) Connecting reflective practice, dialogic protocols, and professional learning. Professional Development in Education 36, 399–420. Palali A., van Elk R., Bolhaar J. & Rud I. (2018) Are good researchers also good teachers? The relationship between research quality and teaching quality. Economics of Education Review 64, 40–49. Rose D., Meyer A., Strangman N. & Rappolt G. (2002) Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Sussman D. (2017, December–2018, January) From partisanship to pluralism: Teaching students how to listen to each other. Kappan 99(4), 50–53. Tubaro P., Ryan L. & D’Angleo A. (2016) The visual sociogram in qualitative and mixed-methods research. Sociological Research Online 21(2), 1–18. Walsh J.A. & Sattes B.D. (2015) Questioning for Classroom Discussion: Purposeful Speaking, Engaged Listening, Deep Thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.

253

15 DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION AS A STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING APPROACH IN TEACHER EDUCATION Esther Gheyssens, Júlia Griful-Freixenet and Katrien Struyven

Introduction Traditionally, student-centered learning (SCL) has been associated with early childhood settings. Nevertheless, there is a growing awareness that SCL principles and practices are equally important in higher education (HE), and particularly in teacher education. SCL describes a learning process which provides students with an empowering role in their own education (Jonassen 2000). Student-centered teachers tend to establish positive personal interrelationships, address students’ preferences and individual learning needs, and promote selfregulated learning (McCombs & Lauer 1997). In line with constructivist views, SCL practices perceive learning as a reflective and interactive process in which the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator and activator (Biggs 1999; Entwistle et al. 2000; Hattie 2009; Kember 1997). Currently, a variety of approaches fit beneath the umbrella of SCL, including differentiated instruction (DI), case-based learning, learning by design and problem-based learning. Student-centered approaches focus on meaning making, inquiry and authentic activity (Garrett 2008), where the class acts as “a learning community that constructs shared understanding” (Brophy 1999, p. 49). Research has found that if an instructor adopts a more student-centered approach to teaching, the students will be more likely to adopt a more engaged approach to learning that seeks deeper meanings and understandings of what they are studying (Entwistle & Peterson 2004; Trigwell et al. 1999). Similarly, pre-service teachers are too often trained by means of conventional instructional lectures during the teaching programs in HE. Subsequently, in their future classrooms, they fail to implement SCL approaches since they tend to teach in the form they were taught – a wellknown phenomenon called “teach as you preach” (Johnson & Seagull 1968). Furthermore, preservice teachers carry out conceptions and beliefs about the nature of knowledge and teaching formed through many years of exposure to educational practices (Cheng et al. 2009). Research has found that it is extremely difficult to change pre-service teachers’ beliefs unless they are substantially challenged during the teaching program (Pajares 1992). Changes in pre-service teachers’ approaches to teaching are dependent on variables such as performance, academic selfesteem and perceived workload (Struyven et al. 2010), but also on the vision and content of the 254

Differentiated instruction

teaching program and, importantly, the teaching approaches of the teacher educators (Sharma et al. 2008). Two important issues may explain the arduous implementation of SCL in teacher education. First, teacher educators face multiple and challenging demands in their workplace (teaching courses, working with school-based teachers, preparing future teachers to teach the new curriculum standards, conducting and publishing research, etc.; Cochran-Smith 2003). In fact, supporting tools and infrastructure to implement SCL practices in a systematic manner are usually rare in teacher education institutions. Second, there is great need for a clear conceptualization of SCL practices. Many concepts and models have been associated with SCL, such as flexible learning (Taylor 2000), self-directed learning, student-based learning and so forth. The current ambiguity and variability in the literature regarding the exact nature of SCL has led to multiple meanings and contradictory messages being sent to pre-service as to what SCL exactly entails. In addition, in practice SCL is also described by a range of terms, and this has led to confusion surrounding its implementation. In order to address these shortcomings, experts recommend recognizing the socio-constructivist foundations and assumptions of SCL and the implementation of coherent approaches and methods appropriate to their specific learning goals and setting (Hannafin & Land 1997). One approach that has found success in K-12 schools, and more recently in HE, is DI (Tomlinson 1999, 2017). In fact, DI is an SCL approach for effective teaching based on the socio-constructivist paradigm and involves providing different avenues to learning to meet the learning needs of all students in the classroom. However, for teachers to implement DI in their classrooms, they need to graduate from pre-service training being well-equipped with the required knowledge and skills grounded in evidence-based research and universal applicability (O’Toole & Burke 2013; Sharma et al. 2006). One might expect there to be a substantial knowledge base related to SCL pedagogical approaches such as DI in teacher education; however, research has shown that teacher education worldwide offers limited preparation for implementing SCL approaches such as DI. The “do as I say, not as I do” teacher preparation predominates (Wideen et al. 1998), and consequently novice teachers lack a sufficient level of competences to function in the complex educational reality (Valcke et al. 2012). This chapter will address implications related to the implementation of SCL in HE, specifically the promotion of DI and the importance of examining (pre-service) teachers’ philosophy and practices regarding students, learning and teaching. More concretely, this chapter aims to give an overview of the concept of DI and explore the effectiveness of DI in teacher education programs. Subsequently two empirical studies are described on how (pre-service) teachers currently adopt DI. Based on these studies, conclusions and implications of DI for the teacher education field are presented. Finally, we suggest some ways as to how pre-service teachers can be trained to become effective SCL teachers.

Differentiated instruction as a SCL approach Differentiated instruction is an SCL teaching approach coined by Carol Ann Tomlinson (1997); it can be defined as a proactive and planned approach of handling students’ differences in learning. It encourages teachers to differentiate lessons by adjusting any or all three of the components of the curriculum (i.e., content, process and product) according to students’ interests, learning profiles and readiness. Currently, DI is considered both a philosophy and a practice of teaching (Tomlinson 2017). The practice of teaching refers to the proactive adjustments of the curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and students’ products based on the 255

Esther Gheyssens et al.

students’ readiness, personal interests or learning profile. In this way, every student is provided with maximal learning opportunities (Tomlinson et al. 2003). Instead of doing different adjustments for each student, DI encourages teachers to design whole class instruction that is flexible and that offers multiple options of taking information and expressing what students learn. Other flexible principles of DI are ongoing assessment, adaptations and grouping strategies (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) (Tomlinson 2001). In order to effectively apply these DI teaching practices, the educational beliefs of the teacher have proven to be crucial. Therefore, experts suggest understanding DI not only as a set of practices but also as a pedagogical philosophy that recognizes inherent learning differences and potential among all students in the classroom (Latz & Adams 2011; Tomlinson 2005). Several empirical studies have confirmed the positive impact of DI on students’ academic achievement and attitudes about learning in both primary and secondary education settings (Beecher & Sweeny 2008; Gualbertus & Made 2013; Reis et al. 2011; Valiandes 2015). Similarly, research on DI conducted in HE classrooms has provided evidence that students better meet the course learning goals when the instructors differentiate their instruction (Beloshitskii & Dushkin 2005; Chamberlin & Powers 2010; Santangelo & Tomlinson 2009). Although there is an increased number of studies on DI, the majority consists of small- to medium-scale research in which teachers implement “good teaching practices” aligned with DI elements. Consequently, it is difficult to compare the findings of empirical studies and draw overall conclusions. In addition, it seems that empirical validation of the DI model as a whole is still unsettled. Until recently, no validated model and instrument existed that measures teachers’ perceptions and associated practices regarding DI, which includes perceptions on, as well as frequencies of, activities of DI at the class level of an individual teacher. For this reason, Coubergs et al. (2017) introduced the DI-Quest, a 31-item instrument intended to measure teachers’ philosophy and practices of DI. The studies in this chapter are based on this validated instrument, which enables scientific research on DI to be carried out across schools, so that researchers, teachers and pre-service teachers can explore, evaluate and compare their philosophy and teaching practices on DI.

The DI-Quest model The empirically validated DI-Quest model (Coubergs et al. 2017) pinpoints five factors that explain differences between (pre-service) teachers in the adoption of (different forms of) DI. The DI-Quest model encapsulates two factors related to the teachers’ philosophy (growth mindset and ethical compass) and two associated with teaching practices (flexible grouping and output = input), which inform the last factor of adapting teaching methods to students’ interest, readiness and learning profile (see Figure 15.1).

Factor 1: growth mindset The general belief of teachers with a “growth” mindset is that “every student can grow.” Dweck (2006) states that teachers with a growth mindset assume that success is related to the effort that has been made. Teachers have the task of providing challenging and meaningful goals and believe that their teaching has an influence on the learning of the students. This is in contrast to a “fixed mindset” about students. Teachers with a fixed mindset assume that success is related to intelligence and technology, and that the genetic environment and/or the backgrounds of students are decisive. These teachers assume that their teaching practice cannot change much that is measured to assess the results of pupils (Hattie 2009; Tomlinson et al. 2003). 256

Differentiated instruction

DI-QUEST model DI AS ADAPTING TEACHING

DI AS A PHILOSOPHY growth mindset ethical compass DI CLASSROOM PRACTICES flexible grouping

to students’ interest, readiness and learning profiles

output= input

to gain maximal learning for each student in the classroom Figure 15.1 DI-Quest model Source: Adapted from Coubergs et al. 2017.

Factor 2: ethical compass Acting ethically is an important parameter when implementing DI. For the professional compass of the teacher, the students are the magnetic north. If the teacher focuses on the students, DI arises, in that the teacher is able to motivate the students to show the best of themselves and to let them grow. The other directions (textbooks, curriculum, expectations of the school leader, management and other external directions) are orienting and should be applied as a mean of facilitating the learning of the students. This requires that the teacher deals autonomously with the curriculum, that the teacher notices which objectives can be combined and which exercises are either superfluous, need more attention or can be postponed. With the students as the main focus, the teachers decide what the basis is that everyone should master and what the extended learning material is. Based on these insights, the teacher can make considered choices that are tailored to the students and respond to specific educational needs. This is opposed to an approach where the teachers focus on other directions, due to stress or (time) pressure, and continue the teaching with the aim of finishing the curriculum no matter what, even if students are no longer involved in the learning process.

Factor 3: adopt flexible grouping strategies DI takes place within the classroom, where the class group is the social unit in which different learning paths are made possible through flexible grouping strategies. There are several ways to realize this: individually, in pairs, or in a heterogeneous or homogeneous groups. Ideally the teachers adopt these grouping strategies flexibly in order to reach the maximum number of students. Some groups are provided with extra help and supporting materials so that students can rely on this support. Other groups are determined by the participation and freedom of 257

Esther Gheyssens et al.

choice that is offered to the students. In short, flexible grouping implies cooperative learning and positive group dynamics, both heterogeneous and homogeneous groups and the variation between these (Crouch & Mazur 2001; Tomlinson et al. 2003; Whitburn 2001).

Factor 4: output = input Tomlinson (2001) states that in the classroom where DI is central, the teacher does not perceive the evaluation as the endpoint of a learning process, but rather it is a continuous monitoring of what the students learn (e.g., do they understand the assignment?), what do they (still) have difficulties with (e.g., what help can the teacher offer?), how do the students think about their learning and so forth. This continuous process varies from exercise to exercise, from lesson to lesson and from task to task. Output = input stands for this importance of continuously adopting the output of students as a piece of information about student learning. On the one hand, this is important input for the students themselves in terms of learning so that the students can understand their learning processes better. But this information is also important information for the teacher in terms of teaching so they can adjust their curricula according to the needs of the students (Hattie 2009).

Factor 5: adapting teaching to interests, readiness and learning profiles The first four factors contribute to the fundamental goal of DI (factor 5), which consists of maximal learning for each student and providing all students with a maximum number of learning opportunities (Tomlinson 2001). Tomlinson (2001) describes DI as the way in which teachers adapts their teaching in function of the content (what is learned), the process (how it is learned) and the product (how is learning evaluated) with regard to the learning status, interests and learning profiles of pupils. For example, differentiation based on interest mainly influences the learning motivation of students; differentiation based on readiness focuses on increased learning gains for each student; and differentiation based on the learning profile often leads to increased learning efficiency (Tomlinson & McTighe 2006). Definitions of differences in interests, readiness and learning profile are explained as follows: The “why” of learning – differences in interests: Individuals differ in the degree to which they are interested in certain subjects. Responding to students’ interests motivates positive learning behavior, such as the willingness to take up a challenge and the persistence or the extent to which students maintain their commitment (Vansteenkiste et al. 2007). Understanding what intrigues students and responding to these differences during their learning process may help to develop students’ motivation, joy and perseverance in learning (Tomlinson 2001; Vansteenkiste et al. 2007). The teacher can do this, for example, by offering choices to students, making choices in terms of content, approaching the environment of the students, and integrating the assignments with elements from students’ fields of interest. The “what” of learning – differences in readiness: The differences in readiness are expressed on (meta)cognitive, (social) affective and (psycho)motoric levels. Differences on a metacognitive level are differences that have to do with various learning processes that can be activated in students and are affected by, for example, prior knowledge. Examples of dealing with these differences are often resources for students who need them, such as stepby-step plans, providing easy and difficult exercises, support from a peer, help cards with additional information and so on. However, students also differ from each other on a 258

Differentiated instruction

(socially) affective level. This can be concretized in various ways such as getting to know your students, arranging consultation hours for students with questions, and stimulating independent learning tailored to the individual level of the student. Finally, students can also differ on a (psycho)motoric level. Obviously, these differences play an important role in physical education classes. In addition, the (fine) motor skills and development of students in writing, (mathematical) drawing, lab tests, set-ups and the tools that they need to perform these tasks play a role. For example, auxiliary materials can help with considering these differences. The “how” of learning – differences in learning profile: In addition to differences in interest and readiness, students differ also in their learning profiles, or in short, the way in which they learn. Differentiating at the level of learning profiles encompasses, on the one hand, the provision of a variation in learning activities; on the other hand, it takes into account differences in learning profiles so that they perform certain tasks in a (more) efficient way. The teacher can consider these differences by varying sources and materials, providing different types of sub-tasks in an assignment, working with roles within a group assignment and applying different learning styles. To summarize, the DI-Quest model distinguishes five factors. The main factor is adaptive teaching according to students’ interest, learning profile and readiness, which is predicted by teachers’ philosophies (i.e., growth mindset and ethical compass) and their practices (i.e., flexible grouping and output = input) (Coubergs et al. 2017). Differentiated instruction occurs ideally when teachers have all these factors in mind.

In-service and pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI To investigate the diversity of (pre-service) teachers’ thinking and practices regarding differentiated instruction, cluster analysIs was applied to group teachers according to their answers on the five factors of the DI-Quest model. This method allows combining all possible pairs of clusters and considers at the same time the sum of the squared distance within each cluster (Field 2009). This way we consider the results of each factor of the DI-Quest for each respondent. To determine the number of profiles of teachers, a hierarchical cluster analysis was done, and statistical and theoretical criteria were applied (Hair et al. 1998). Following a k-means procedure, cluster analysis was conducted to create the profiles. Teacher profiles were created for 1,302 teachers across 63 primary and 31 secondary schools in the Dutch part of Belgium (Flanders). In this study, the cluster analysis revealed three groups of teachers, who differ significantly in the extent to which they adapt their teaching to students’ academic differences (Gheyssens, Coubergs, Griful-Freixenet, Engels & Struyven, under review). A second study was conducted that searched for evidence on the extent to which pre-service teachers are adopting DI during their field experiences (see Figure 15.2). Here, the DI-Quest was slightly adapted for pre-service teachers (e.g., referring to teaching practices in internships). In total, 1,237 students enrolled in 16 Flemish teacher education programs (eight primary and eight lower-secondary) participated in this study. Again, results show three profiles of pre-service teachers’ who differ significantly in the extent to which they adapt their teaching to students’ academic differences (see Figure 15.3).

Study 1: in-service teachers’ profiles on DI In this study, similar patterns were found in primary and secondary education (Figure 15.2). The three teachers’ profiles show that the determining factors for adapting teaching to students’ 259

Esther Gheyssens et al. Profile 2

Profile 1

Profile 3

PRIMARY EDUCATION 7

6

5

4

3

2

1 GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

OUTPUT = INPUT

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

SECONDARY EDUCATION 7

6

5

4

3

2

1 GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

Figure 15.2 Profile patterns in primary and secondary education

260

OUTPUT = INPUT

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

Differentiated instruction

Profile 1

Profile 2

Profile 3

TEACHER EDUCATION – PRIMARY EDUCATION 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

OUTPUT = INPUT

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

TEACHER EDUCATION – SECONDARY EDUCATION 7

6

5

4

3

2

1 GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

OUTPUT = INPUT

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

Figure 15.3 Profile patterns of pre-service teachers in primary and secondary education

261

Esther Gheyssens et al.

interests, readiness and learning profiles relate to teachers’ philosophies. The first profile shows that teachers who report a higher growth mindset, whose ethical compass primarily is aimed at students and who report using DI practices often (i.e., flexible grouping and output = input), tend to adapt their teaching more toward their students’ readiness, learning profiles and interests. On the contrary, the other profiles show that the more fixed the mindset (i.e., profile 3), or the more teachers are concerned with meeting primarily the standards and curriculum (i.e., profile 2), the less they adapt their teaching to students’ differences in interests, readiness and learning profiles. Profiles 2 and 3 score similarly on the DI practices and the adapting teaching factors, however, opposite scores were found within the philosophy factors. Profiles 2 and 3 have a lower score on the adapting teaching factor compared to Profile 1, which may be due to one factor within the philosophy. In summary, the profiles show that the philosophy of the teachers is a determining aspect of DI. If either one of the philosophy factors (ethical compass and growth mindset) is limited, DI will not be implemented to its fullest extent. These teachers are less adaptive in their teaching approach.

Study 2: pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI The same analyses were done with pre-service teachers. Results found similar patterns to the in-service teachers. Three profiles of pre-service teachers who differ significantly in the extent to which they adapt their teaching to students’ academic differences (see Figure 15.3). Profile 1 shows overall high scores on each factor of the DI model. These pre-service teachers tend to adapt their teaching to students’ interest, readiness and learning profiles to the fullest. Regarding Profile 2, differences exist between primary and secondary education. Pre-service teachers in primary education score low on ethical compass and significantly higher on the other four factors. On the contrary, pre-service teachers of secondary education score lower on the growth mindset and higher on the ethical compass factor. In other words, when the growth mindset or ethical compass have a lower score, then pre-service teachers tend to adapt their teaching to student differences to a lesser extent. Primary education pre-service teachers score moderately higher only in the ethical compass factor, whereas secondary education pre-service teachers score higher in growth mindset and flexible grouping.

Comparison of the studies Although the DI-Quest model is exactly the same, the two discussed studies in this chapter have one big contextual difference: the first study is conducted with in-service teachers at schools, whereas the second study is conducted with pre-service teachers in teacher education programs. Moreover, within each study a distinction is made between primary and secondary education. The comparison between the studies in schools and teacher education programs reveals that in-service teachers may differentiate their instruction significantly more than pre-service teachers during their field experiences (see Figure 15.4). However, the majority of pre-service teachers tend to have a higher growth mindset than teachers in schools. This perceivable decrease can be explained by the optimistic biases and beliefs about good teaching that pre-service teachers hold before entering the teaching profession. Swennen et al. (2004) notice that students who start teacher education programs often have an idealized image about what teaching is. This phenomenon can explain the higher scores on the growth mindset. However, once they enter the teacher profession, this image becomes more realistic, which can explain the lower score on 262

In-service teachers (schools)

263

2

3

4

5

6

2

GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

OUTPUT = INPUT

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

Profile 1

ETHICAL COMPASS

OUTPUT = INPUT

2

Profile 2

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

Overview of in-service and pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI

GROWTH MINDSET

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

4

3

5

6

5

6

Figure 15.4

Pre-service teachers (teacher education programs)

Primary education

GROWTH MINDSET

GROWTH MINDSET

ETHICAL COMPASS

ETHICAL COMPASS

Profile 3

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

FLEXIBLE GROUPING

OUTPUT = INPUT

OUTPUT = INPUT

Secondary education

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

ADAPTIVE TEACHING

Differentiated instruction

Esther Gheyssens et al.

the growth mindset of in-service teachers. According to Swennen et al. (2004), a key quality of pre-service teachers is the motivation to be willing to learn how to teach and to teach hereby. In contrast, the ethical compass factor appears significantly lower in all three profiles of pre-service teachers. This can be explained by the fact that this factor may not be suitable to the current teacher education context. The ethical compass factor focuses on sources of information and pressures from outside the classroom (textbooks, time pressure), and pre-service teachers usually do not have to cope with this pressure during their field experiences.

Discussion and conclusions Overall, results from these studies show three clear patterns of teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to DI. Profile 1, which is similar for both in-service teachers and pre-service teachers, tends to have an overall high score on both the philosophy and practice factors of DI. Although profiles 2 and 3 differ for in-service teachers and pre-service teachers, the conclusions are similar. We see that if a group of teachers scores low on either the growth mindset (i.e., demonstrate a fixed mindset), and/or have their ethical compass oriented to (time pressure from) formal standards and requirements, this group of teachers also scores lower on adapting teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles. As such, the results of both studies demonstrate the importance of teachers’ pre-service philosophy in the research on DI practices. The DI-Quest model shows that differentiated instruction comprises multiple factors, which consists of both teaching practices (i.e., output = input and flexible grouping) and teaching philosophies (i.e., growth mindset and ethical compass). The different profiles that are found in both studies illustrate that all of these factors are necessary for (pre-service) teachers to adapt their teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles in their daily classroom or field experiences during teacher education. Importantly, the created profiles demonstrate that (pre-service) teachers who implement DI often score high on all factors. It can be inferred that teachers demonstrate different types of behavior based on different combinations of the various factors of the DI-Quest model. This demonstrates that the concept of DI is not a dichotomy but rather a continuum with a complex and flexible nature and that, ultimately, it is the philosophy of teachers that plays a key role in their differentiated practices in the classroom. The importance of these positive philosophies of teachers can also be found in studies toward SCL. Teachers’ beliefs are important in teachers’ decisions and practices (Bandura 1986). For SCL, it is essential to establish positive personal interrelationships, address students’ preferences and individual learning needs, and promote self-regulated learning (McCombs & Lauer 1997). In other words, a positive philosophy toward SCL is convenient to establish these things. However, some studies report that while teachers advocate beliefs in favor of SCL, they exhibit in their actual classroom practices with (in large part) teacher-centered characteristics (Kaymakamoglu 2018; Sak Erden & Morrison 2015). Congruence between beliefs and practices still remains an interesting topic to research. Summarizing, within our studies toward DI, some differentiated practices, such as flexible grouping are well-implemented in most classrooms, although the philosophy of the teacher is less DI-minded. Within studies toward SCL we read that the mindset of teachers is often already oriented to SCL, but the practice on the other hand remain a difficulty; the so-called theorypractice nexus. This shows how fragile and yet how complex the relations are between teachers’ philosophies and practices of SCL and DI. Both studies, however, suggest that teachers’ habits of mind and habits of teaching need to be aligned in order to implement a student-centered practice such as DI to a (self-reported) higher extent. 264

Differentiated instruction

Implications for teacher education and future research Nowadays, one of the principal aims of teacher education programs is to prepare future teachers with the required teaching knowledge and skills grounded in evidence-based research so that they can effectively apply SCL teaching approaches in their future classrooms. SCL teaching produces students who are more engaged and responsible for their own learning process (Wilson 2004). One SCL approach that has been found successful, also in HE, is DI (Tomlinson 2017). DI involves providing different avenues to learning to meet the learning needs of all students in the classroom. The results of these studies on how in-service and pre-service teachers are currently adopting DI in their field experiences can inspire teacher educators to reflect on their current practices and reorient their teaching competences in order to maximize student teachers’ learning in SCL- and DI-rich learning-teaching environments within the teacher education program. First, it is important that teacher educators focus on developing both the philosophy and practice of DI among pre-service teachers. Importantly, the DI-Quest model needs to be perceived and implemented as a whole rather than in separate pieces. Teacher education programs need to help develop stronger and stable pre-service teachers’ philosophies and praxis on DI. For this reason, providing field experiences in real settings for functioning in diverse contexts is crucial. However, first it is important to recognize the existing lack of connection between courses and field experiences. This gap is also known as the Achilles’ heel of teacher education (Darling-Hammond 2009) and could potentially be overcome by deliberately connecting how and what pre-service teachers are being taught during the courses and the real field experiences (Zeichner 2010). Second, it is crucial that teacher educators are aware of their own position as “role models” for their student teachers. Research has found that the content and the pedagogy of their courses has a direct impact on their students’ learning and, importantly on the development of their future teaching approaches and practices (Sharma et al. 2008). If we aim to develop a sufficient level of SCL competences to function in the complex education reality, then the “do as I say, not as I do” teacher preparation needs to perish. Learning communities inside teacher education programs can be helpful to revise and reflect on the current teaching methods and practices of teacher educators and strengthen the collaboration between them (Lieberman 2000). Finally, providing all HE instructors with effective professional development on SCL is crucial to increase the extent to which they adopt student-centered teaching practices (Biggs 2001; Ebert-May et al. 2015). Higher education institutions could consider using the DI-QUEST (Differentiated Instruction Questionnaire) as an inspirational tool for determining the needs of the faculty members.1 Then, various types of professional development, resources and supports may be designed and implemented (using the information of the DI-QUEST and other sources) in order to increase the faculty knowledge in both the philosophy and teaching practices of DI.

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the POTENTIAL research and valorization project (www.potentialproject.be). Those interested can request the full text of the first study described in this chapter with the authors.

Note 1 The DI-Quest is available on request for those who are interested.

265

Esther Gheyssens et al.

References Bandura A. (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3), 359–373. Beecher M. & Sweeny S.M. (2008) Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics 19(3), 502–530. Beloshitskii A.V. & Dushkin A.V. (2005) An experiment in differentiated instruction in a higher technical educational institution. Russian Education & Society 47(9), 54–61. Biggs J.B. (1999) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development 18(1), 57–75. Biggs J.B. (2001) The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education 42, 221–238. Brophy J. (1999) Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist 34(2), 75–85. Chamberlin M. & Powers R. (2010) The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA 29(3), 113–139. Cheng M.M., Chan K.W., Tang S.Y. & Cheng A.Y. (2009) Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(2), 319–327. Cochran-Smith M. (2003) Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education 19(1), 5–28. Coubergs C., Struyven K., Vanthournout G. & Engels N. (2017) Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation 53, 41–54. Crouch C.H. & Mazur E. (2001) Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69(9), 970–977. Darling-Hammond L. (2009, February) Teacher Education and the American Future. Charles W: Hunt Lecture. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago. Dweck C.S. (2006) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House, New York. Ebert-May D., Derting T.L., Henkel T.P., Middlemis Maher J., Momsen J.L., Arnold B. & Passmore H.A. (2015) Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development. CBE: Life Sciences Education 14(2), 22. Entwistle N.J. & Peterson E.R. (2004) Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research 41(6), 407–428. Entwistle N.J., Skinner D., Entwistle D. & Orr S. (2000) Conceptions and beliefs about “good teaching”: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research & Development 19(1), 5–26. Field A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using Spss and Sex and Drugs and Rock “n” Roll. Sage, London. Garrett T. (2008) Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study of three elementary teachers. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 34–47. Gheyssens E., Coubergs C., Griful-Freixenet J., Engels N. & Struyven K. (under review) Differentiated Instruction: The Diversity of Teachers’ Philosophy and Practice to Adapt Teaching to Students’ Interests, Readiness and Learning Profiles. Gualbertus E. & Made R. (2013) The effect of differentiated instruction and achievement motivation on students’ writing competency. Journal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 1. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. & Black W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. Hannafin M.J. & Land S.M. (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced studentcentered learning environments. Instructional Science 25(3), 167–202. Hattie J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London, England. Johnson J.L. & Seagull A.A. (1968) “. . . But do as I preach”: Form and function in the affective training of teachers. The Phi Delta Kappan 50(3), 166–170. Jonassen D. (2000) Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. (Jonassen D.H. & Land S.M., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 89–121. Kember D. (1997) A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275.

266

Differentiated instruction Latz A.O. & Adams C.M. (2011) Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed: Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 34(5), 773–789. Lieberman A. (2000) Networks as learning communities: Shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3), 221–227. McCombs B.L. & Lauer P.A. (1997) Development and validation of the learner-centered battery: Selfassessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development. The Professional Educator 20(1), 1–21. O’Toole C. & Burke N. (2013) Ready, willing and able? Attitudes and concerns in relation to inclusion amongst a cohort of Irish pre-service teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28(3), 239–253. Pajares M.F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3), 307–332. Reis S.M., McCoach D.B., Little C.A., Muller L.M. & Kaniskan R.B. (2011) The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal 48(2), 462–501. Sak R., Erden F.T. & Morrison G.S. (2016) Child-centred education: Preschool teachers’ beliefs and selfreported practices. Early Child Development and Care 186(8), 1185–1202. Santangelo T. & Tomlinson C.A. (2009) The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20(3), 307–323. Sharma U., Forlin C. & Loreman T. (2008) Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society 23(7), 773–785. Sharma U., Forlin C., Loreman T. & Earle C. (2006) Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of novice pre-service teachers. International Journal of Special Education 21(2), 80–93. Struyven K., Dochy F. & Janssens S. (2010) “Teach as you preach”: The effects of student-centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education 33(1), 43–64. Swennen J.M.H., Jörg T. & Korthagen F. (2004) Studying student teachers’ concerns, combining image based and more traditional research techniques. European Journal of Teacher Education 27(3), 265–283. Taylor P.G. (2000) Changing expectations: Preparing students for flexible learning. International Journal for Academic Development 5(2), 107–115. Tomlinson C.A. (1997) Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted 20(2), 155–174. Tomlinson C.A. (1999) Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership 57, 12–17. Tomlinson C.A. (2001) How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Tomlinson C.A. (2005) Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory into Practice 44(3), 262–269. Tomlinson C.A. (2017) How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Tomlinson C.A., Brighton C., Hertberg H., Callahan C.M., Moon T.R., Brimijoin K. & Reynolds T. (2003) Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27(2–3), 119–145. Tomlinson C.A. & McTighe J. (2006) Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. ASCD, Alexandria. Trigwell K., Prosser M. & Waterhouse F. (1999) Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education 37(1), 57–70. Valcke M., Rots I. & Struyven K. (2012) Als het krijtstof neerdaalt . . . een bijdrage aan de beleidsevaluatie van de lerarenopleidingen in Vlaanderen [When the Chalk Dust Settles . . . a Contribution to the Policy Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs in Flanders]. Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, Brussels. Valiandes S. (2015) Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation 45, 17–26. Vansteenkiste M., Sierens E., Soenens B. & Lens W. (2007) Willen, moeten en structuur in de klas: Over het stimuleren van een optimaal leerproces. Begeleid zelfstandig leren 16(2), 37–58.

267

Esther Gheyssens et al. Whitburn J. (2001) Effective classroom organisation in primary schools: Mathematics. Oxford Review of Education 27(3), 411–428. Wideen M., Mayer-Smith J. & Moon B. (1998) A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research 68(2), 130–178. Wilson M.E. (2004) Teaching, learning, and millennial students. New Directions for Student Services 106, 59–71. Zeichner K. (2010) Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in collegeand university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 61(1–2), 89–99.

268

16 PERSON-CENTERED THEORY AND PRACTICE Small versus large student-centered courses Renate Motschnig and Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White

Introduction Student-centered education has often been used in ways distinguishing a set of practices or theory from traditional practices that are teacher- or curriculum-centered, sometimes colloquially referred to as “sit and get.” Cornelius-White and Harbaugh (2010) trace the various terms used to define learner centered, a common synonym to student centered, versus traditional approaches. They emphasize the learner-centered model of McCombs and colleagues (e.g., McCombs & Whisler 1997; McCombs & Miller 2007; McCombs 2013) and the person-centered model of Rogers and colleagues (e.g., Aspy 1972; Aspy & Roebuck 1977; Rogers 1951, 1961, 1983) as foundational paradigms. In higher education, the term student centered has become ubiquitous, referring to attempts by institutions to craft experiences that honor the voices and needs of students as explicit priorities as part of their missions along with furthering the study of the arts and sciences and public welfare (European Higher Education Area 2009). Faculty attempt to apply this mission and models and the practices associated with them, such as those proposed by Rogers and colleagues and McCombs and colleagues. More recently, Hoidn (2017) proposed a situative educational model based on constructivist foundations, numerous case studies, and empirical education research. It aims to support educational stakeholders and instructors in designing and implementing effective student-centered learning environments in the realm of higher education. In order to motivate one focal aspect explored in this chapter, note that one-third of university students now enroll in an online course, and most have at some time had an online class. Moreover, about three-fourths of classes at universities are now blended (Kelly 2017), combining face-to-face classes with computer-supported tools and online learning sequences. In order to reflect this situation, we selected our two cases on the basis of illustrating and studying student-centeredness on the one hand and the inclusion of appropriate educational technologies in student-centered classrooms on the other hand. For reasons of wanting to share our experience of blended, student-centered learning (SCL) in small as well as large classes, we chose to present two case studies and subsequently reflect on their similarities and differences. In Table 16.1, various features are listed that provide criteria for distinguishing teachercentered and student-centered approaches to education. The student-centered mode is going

269

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White Table 16.1 Traditional versus student-centered learning Feature

Traditional teacher-centered teaching Student-centered learning and teaching

Learning targets Instructor defined Transfer direction Instructor to learner Transfer mode Lecture

Instructor’s role

Expert

Tasks Assessment

Constructed Exam

Participative, cooperative Cooperative, interactive, multi- perspective, flexible Offering exchange, sharing of resources, elaboration of themes, interaction, forum, moderation, presentations Facilitator, coach, mentor, mediator, resourceful person Authentic, real problems, situative Multifaceted, taking into account various contributions; including self-assessment and/or peer assessment, often done online

Source: revised and extended after Motschnig & Pitner 2016.

to be illustrated in the case studies presented later, along with showing how technology can support and enhance that mode by increasing the share of students’ active participation. Note that, in practice, a classroom is hardly ever totally teacher centered or student centered. Rather, the two extremes should be considered as a continuum such that each instance of a course will be situated somewhere between the two ends. Table 16.1 can be used to help locate course practices on the continuum spanned by the two columns and inspire one to try moving between them according to the aspired learning outcomes and one’s personal capacities. This chapter first offers an introduction to foundational theories and their research basis. It then provides two case examples of how student-centered classrooms looked in recent practice to encourage further attempts to improve practices, research and maturation of student-centered education in the university setting.

Student-centered learning as person-centered theory in practice For Carl Rogers, a key characteristic of SCL is that it be significant or experiential (Motschnig & Cornelius-White 2012). By significant learning Rogers (1961) means learning which is more than an accumulation of facts. It is learning which makes a difference – in the individual’s behavior, in the course of action he chooses in the future, in his attitudes and in his personality. It is a pervasive learning which is not just an accretion of knowledge, but which interpenetrates with every portion of his experience. (p. 280) For example, a toddler who touches a hot stove learns the meaning of hot in an involved, whole-person way that won’t be forgotten soon and would guide the toddler’s behavior in similar situations. Rogers (1983, p.  20) identified key features that are involved in such significant or experiential learning, including personal involvement, self-initiation, pervasiveness, learner self-assessment, and inherent meaning. He also asserted that it is the process of learning how to

270

Person-centered theory and practice

learn that ought to be a goal for education, not learning for specific content per se (CorneliusWhite & Motschnig 2012). Intriguingly, according to Rogers (1983), the initiation of such learning rests not upon the teaching skills of the leader, not upon scholarly knowledge of the field, not upon curricular planning, not upon use of audiovisual aids, not upon the programmed learning used, not upon lectures and presentations, not upon an abundance of books, though each of these might at one time or another be utilized as an important resource. No, the facilitation of significant learning rests upon certain attitudinal qualities that exist in the personal relationship between the facilitator and the learner. (p. 121) For significant learning to happen, Rogers postulated that in each person there rests a directional, forward-moving force referred to as actualizing tendency. Students “who are in real contact with life problems wish to learn, want to grow, seek to find out, hope to master, desire to create” (Rogers 1961, p. 289). Hundreds of studies in psychotherapy and classrooms have identified and tested the basic elements of the facilitative relationship (Cornelius-White 2002, 2007). The core task of the instructor, or facilitator of learning, is to provide the attitudinal conditions of realness, respect, and empathic understanding and thereby to create a constructive climate in the classroom in which significant learning can happen (Rogers 1983). Realness refers to the facilitator’s self-awareness, authenticity, and sincere interest in and openness to the learners as persons. Respect, or unconditional positive regard, in person-centered education refers to the facilitator holding high expectations in broad terms but a patient, benign neutrality in terms of accepting each successive step in the learning process. Teacher empathy is the hands-on attention to the specifics of what students are interested in and struggling with, both in classroom content and as whole persons (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh 2010). Motschnig and colleagues have been conducting studies on Person-Centered technologyenhanced Learning (PCeL), a particular manifestation of SCL, since the early days of blended and online learning 20 years ago (Motschnig-Pitrik 2013). They have found that technology enhanced learning with shared, transparent goals, open yet respectful face-to-face and online communication, working in small teams, presentations with feedback, provision of (primarily web-based) resources from both students and facilitator, and a combination of (online) self, peer, and facilitator evaluation results in long-lasting effects. These extend to learners’ interpersonal relationships; learning at knowledge, skill and attitude levels; increased student motivation; feeling of community; and increased team orientation and related competencies. But how does technology fit in with student-centered or person-centered pedagogy? In PCeL, learning technology has a supportive and sometimes even enabling function based on functionalities opened up by technology (Harbaugh & Cornelius-White 2013). Some examples are as follows: • • •

Due to online materials, lectures can be kept to a minimum, detailing the most complex issues and motivating students to learn from online materials in ways that suit them best. Multiple, independent perspectives on some problem, theme or situation can be collected online. Then students are confronted with them in the follow-up session. Team project documents can be uploaded easily, inspected, and even peer evaluated, allowing students to take on different functions (roles) and practice giving and receiving of feedback.

271

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

In PCeL, a distinctive feature of technology use is that online elements always support the fulfillment of some task that is relevant for students. In this sense, technology supports the course process and is never employed as a “task per se.” Jumping off from Rogers’s person-centered facilitative relationship and concept of the whole person, McCombs and colleagues developed the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Learner-Centered Principles beginning in 1990 and since then tested and revised their model (McCombs 2013). The Learner-Centered Principles explicate a broader variety of aspects than Rogers’s student-centered approach. They include four (overlapping) areas: cognitive and metacognitive, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and individual differences (APA Work Group 1997), which form the basis of the Learner-Centered Model. The model highlights the active, relational, constructivist aspects of learning and learners. In essence, both the original student-centered perspective as explicated and illustrated delicately and impressively in Rogers (1983) and the more recent learner-centered models share a triple focus: • • •

The individual learner (here used as a generalization of pupil, student, apprentice); The interpersonal relationship between the learner and the teacher/instructor/facilitator; The learning process.

APA’s Learner-Centered Principles may be found at www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learnercentered.pdf, which will be a larger focus of application in the second case study.

Case 1: seminar on communication and teamwork The case presentation is organized to include a rationale for the course’s inclusion and its general goals, a description of the course, a content analysis of the significant learnings and final surveys on facilitative characteristics and sense of community.

Course selection and focus This course was selected because, in the authors’ view, it illustrates that SCL can be achieved in an academic environment with all its requirements like mandatory enrollment, specified learning outcomes, and grading. “Communication and Teamwork” (Com-T) is a lab course with 20 participants (in the winter term 2016/2017) held in seven blocks, each lasting 3.5 hours. It is mandatory in the bachelor teacher-training curriculum for teachers of computer science who enroll into this course during their third year. It is the most intensively student-centered experience of the participants’ program. In order to illuminate the student-centered nature of the course, the case-study will focus on the following aspects: • • • • • •

Granting students as much freedom to learn as possible while keeping an eye on the aspired learning outcomes; The facilitative atmosphere and how it is established, perceived by students, and maintained; Indications of the students’ significant, whole-person learning; The multi-perspective grading procedure including students’ online self-evaluation and ePortfolios; The students’ characterization of the course and aspects of their feeling of community; Effects of the course (e.g., interest even outside of the class, 12 bachelor or master candidates, low drop-out rate). 272

Person-centered theory and practice

Course description Course goals: Consistent with the objective to facilitate whole person learning, the facilitator formulated initial goals at the level of knowledge, skills and attitudes as seen in the following. These were complemented by the students’ goals elicited during the first workshop, comprising items such as speaking spontaneously in front of a group, being better understood by others or being able to express oneself clearly. Special emphasis was put on including students’ experience in real-life situations and thus addressing relevant issues that teacher trainees are likely to encounter: •

• •

•

General goals: Participants acquire personal experience, skills, and background knowledge in situations of professional and everyday communication (such as listening, articulating, speaking in a group, conflict resolution, decision-making). Participants build a learning community around these concerns. Level of knowledge and intellect: Students acquire knowledge about the basics of the person-centered approach, significant learning, the group process in teams. Level of skills and capabilities: Students gain active listening, dialoguing, and feedback skills in face-to-face as well as online settings. They improve their abilities in spontaneous communication, communication in difficult situations, and decision-making in teams. Level of attitudes and awareness: Students gain self- and other-awareness while expressing their own feelings, meanings, and intentions and perceiving those of others. They experience active listening and develop their own attitude toward it. Students become more sensitive to experiences and loosen preconceived, rigidly held constructs and stereotyped behavior. Students move toward acceptance and better understanding of themselves and others. They become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses when working in a team. (Motschnig & Nykl 2014)

Course design: Consistent with an experiential learning style, the person-centered approach and APA’s Learner-Centered Principles, the strategy in the course design was to let students experience a rich selection of didactical scenarios under the premise of unfolding a facilitative, safe climate in the class. At least two reasons speak for a variety of didactic elements. First, the course tends to be perceived as exciting because students can experience different impulses for learning, especially important for course units lasting for a period such as 3.5 hours. Second, in particular teacher trainees get inspired in how to work with a group of learners, engage them, and create an atmosphere for sustainable, significant learning. Structure: While there are some fixed elements that are part of each class on communication and teamwork such as elaborating expectations and fears, the active listening exercise, attitudes and techniques in active listening, encounter, dialogue versus discussion, elaborating themes in small groups and the open case setting (Motschnig & Ryback 2016), particular themes and activities come up only through the flow of the course. For example, the course instance (winter term 2016/2017) studied in this class included themes like: • • • • •

How teachers communicate whom we like/dislike; How flexible, real and empathic can I be as a teacher; Dialogue on the feasibility of inclusive education; Attitudes toward conflict and person-centered conflict resolution; Impulses for the ePortfolio as a result of the flow, questions and activities of each unit. 273

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

Interplay of face-to-face and online activities: The face-to-face sessions started with everyone in a circle. We began by discussing the reaction sheets posted online as a reflection from the last block. The idea of reaction sheets goes back to Carl Rogers, where students can express themselves individually and personally regarding the course. They can tell of the way it is or is not meeting their needs, they can express their feelings regarding the instructor, or can tell of the personal difficulties they are having in relation to the course. (1961, p. 20) As the sheets could be read by all participants and the facilitator who briefly addressed them in the beginning of each unit, she and the whole group could be regularly influenced by them. In this way, students co-shaped the course. The next step was to sketch a tentative agenda for the unit on the whiteboard. This agenda served as a kind of master plan that the group could follow, adapt or leave according to the present flow of needs, wants and meaning. Care was taken to mix short theory inputs with reflection, exercises, and an open case (Motschnig et al. 2014; Motschnig & Ryback 2016) invitation in small groups. As an example of co-shaping, a highly engaged participant reflected: I felt it’s a bit of a shame that sometimes a few students did not participate in the discussions. Unfortunately, it’s difficult for the teacher to motivate all pupils to engage actively. A challenging question will be, how I will act upon this problem when having my own classes. This reaction, when addressed by the facilitator, ignited an intriguing dialogue about engagement is class and brought up several perspectives of considering this phenomenon. Even some students who tended to be quiet spoke up. So, besides bringing up phenomena or questions from class to ensure “continuity” from meeting to meeting, an advantage of reaction sheets is the fact that they let quiet, introverted students have their voice and become more present to the group. While the vast majority of reactions were positive – the students appreciated and enjoyed the constructive climate and rich, respectful, open sharing in class – some students had the courage to use the reaction sheets to voice issues they did not like. For example, one student shared his reluctance about sitting in a circle while being presented a theory input. He remarked: “The circle can be very effective for sharing . . ., however, during the theory presentation I felt exhausted and at the wrong place in the circle. In this case I would have preferred to sit in a row.” This illustrates the open atmosphere and options for learning, including the facilitator. Grading: The course was evaluated by taking into account as many facets as feasible: students’ active participation in face-to-face and online meetings, their self-evaluation, and the ePortfolio that left students lots of freedom on what learning endeavors to include. The only requirements were a (loose) connection to person-centered communication and an expected approximate amount of time to spend with the ePortfolio of 50 hours. Finally, the grade proposed by the facilitator was compared with the one that students assigned themselves in their self-evaluation. In the case that the grade assigned by the facilitator differed by more than one with the student’s self-assigned grade, the student would be invited for an

274

Person-centered theory and practice

interview. However, this case did not happen which we see as a sign of honesty, realness and understanding. In a nutshell, most students had never written an ePortfolio before and thus needed some guidance on how to fill it. Thus, the facilitator published a few ideas (e.g., themes for reflection, links to articles, exercises, quotations) on the course’s eLearning space after each course unit. Toward the end of the term, students’ initial unease about writing the ePortfolio seemed to turn into constructive energy about having freedom to pursue what they were interested in. Some examples of content in the ePortfolio included reflections on Rogers’ articles and books, summaries of self-organized open-case sessions; videos with examples of the students’ active listening; interviews and analysis of efforts to listen to a partner or parent, including that other person’s reactions to the attempts.

Content analysis of students’ self-evaluation for significant learning At the end of the course, students had the opportunity to submit online self-evaluations. These would be read by the facilitator and used as an orientation for grading and as a contribution to online participation. Eighteen of 20 students turned in their self-evaluations. Students could choose to write whatever was on their minds or respond to (some of) the following questions: • • • • •

What did I contribute to the course? What and in which ways did I learn? Were there significant experiences, which were particularly relevant to me or to the group? If yes, how would I describe them? How intensively did I elaborate my topic/project? What is the most important learning I take with me?

The students’ self-evaluations were then read by one of the authors and all examples of significant experiences (there were 11 statements by 10 students) and most important, meaningful learnings and take-aways (15 statements by 15 students) were selected. These were then open coded by the other author to provide three underlying themes and selected quotes to exemplify potential learning outcomes or perceptions. In identifying themes, frequency of statements was taken into account. Unique experience: Several participants discussed how the course was “different” from other courses, how it influenced them to see their future as an educator “as never before” and were “acquiring new perspectives” and how the “themes occupied my thoughts so much” and “my thinking at the meta-level was so strong that I perceived it almost distracting.” One student captured the experience in two short sentences: “I took with me the theory inputs and reflected my private communication. I learned a lot about myself.” Value of active listening: Participants commented frequently on being grateful for their skill development and other results of active listening exercises, such as “It’s amazing how active listening brought about a perfect conversation, although I ‘just’ contributed with my attitude and not much verbally,” and how computer science can be “collegial and team-oriented.” Or as concerns “conflict, it is always most important to feel yourself into the other person and understand him/her. This is my core insight.” Open course climate: The “flexibility” of the teacher, the “diversified course design,” and the fact that “the participation of students tended to be particularly high” contributed to perceptions such as “it was extremely freeing to share my problems with other persons and to hear their

275

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

perspectives and suggestions.” Likewise, the “open and honest atmosphere” and the “openness and trust” as well as the open case invitation format provided relevant, personal and professional learning for several participants. All three underlying themes connect directly to the theory of SCL (Rogers 1983): openness or realness of the facilitator is necessary to co-create an honest, open atmosphere in which real issues can be shared. Equally important is the experience of being listened to in a nonjudgmental way, allowing participants to learn from different perspectives and get to know oneself better. A unique course experience unfolded that differs from most traditional academic courses that emphasize the intellectual, technical or methodological skills at the cost of learners’ subjectivity and developing personhood.

Final survey: students’ perceptions of characteristic features The course was evaluated using the Encounter-Experiential Questionnaire developed by Motschnig and Nykl in 2012, assessing the perception of the person-centered core attitudes and students’ own perceived growth and movement. Altogether 17 students participated in the survey. Figure 16.1 conveys students’ perceptions of feeling accepted, Figure 16.2 of being empathically understood, and Figure 16.3 of perceiving realness and openness. Figure 16.4 depicts in how far students liked or disliked their personal movement. These figures convey both a clear presence of the person-centered atmosphere as well as accompanying personal assessment of growth by the vast majority of participants.

Feeling accepted in group

No. of items

20

15 15 10 5

2 0

0

0

0 not at all

rather no

not sure

rather yes

yes

Figure 16.1 Did you feel accepted in the group or workshop? (N = 20; n = 17)

No. of items

Feeling empathically understood in group 10

7 0

1

8

1

0 not at all

rather no

not sure

rather yes

yes

Figure 16.2 Did you feel empathically understood in the group or workshop? (N = 20; n = 17)

276

Person-centered theory and practice

Perceiving realness and openess in group No. of items

15

13

10 4

5 0

0

0

0 not at all

rather no

not sure

rather yes

yes

Figure 16.3 Did you feel there was appropriate realness and openness in the group or workshop? (N = 20; n = 17)

Liking one's movement

No. of itmes

12

10

10 8 5

6 4

2

2

0

0

0 dislike

rather dislike

feel neutral about it

rather like

like

Figure 16.4 In general, do you like or dislike your personal movement? (N = 20; n = 17)

Characteristic attributes: As part of the survey, students were asked to share three to five adjectives that describe the group or workshop from their perspective. The attributes mentioned were: • • • • • • •

Open: 12 mentions Pleasant (or nice, funny, friendly): 12 mentions Interesting: 5 mentions Respectful (or caring, tolerant): 4 mentions Empathic: 3 mentions Inspiring (or stimulating, motivated): 3 mentions Further attributes associated with the course were personal, thankful, communicational, smooth, great, relaxed, easygoing and diverse in characters.

Final survey: perceived feeling of community The authors evaluated the course with the Community Questionnaire (Barrett-Lennard 2005), an assessment that asks participants to rate the degree of change the group (community) 277

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

underwent along 14 features on a 10-point scale, ranging from −4 (severe deterioration) to +4 (extreme advancement) on aspects of “Feeling of Community.” Figure 16.5 shows the mean scores of participants’ estimated changes along each of the 14 features that characterize the development of the feeling of community. The results indicate a moderate to strong positive change in all 14 features of their perceived community within the group during the course. These results corroborate Rogers’s (1951, 1961, 1983) theory insofar as individual students’ reported perception of acceptance, realness and understanding in the course group goes hand in hand with students’ perception of improved qualities of interpersonal relationships, such as mutual respect and trust, attentive listening to each other, and feeling connected. Interestingly, the relatively highest value for “climate of respect and trust” on the community level goes hand in hand with the relatively best evaluation of “Did you feel accepted in the group or workshop?” on the individual level of the Encounter-Experiential Questionnaire. The fact that the increase along the feature “shared initiative/leadership and responsibility” was ranked lowest (slightly below 2.0) of all features can be explained easily. Only within that overall frame could students gauge parts of the course, most prominently during phases of encounter or through communicating their reactions by posting reaction sheets. Thus, in a nutshell, the relative minimum at perceiving shared leadership accurately matches reality: leadership/ facilitation was to a large extent the facilitator’s responsibility! This theme leads over to the next case, a large course facilitated in a way to be as student-centered as possible while, as will be argued, needing still more leadership/guidance and structure than a small course.

Case 2: large course on project management Like the first case, this second case is organized to include a rationale for the course’s inclusion and its general goals, a description of the course, a content analysis of the significant learnings and final surveys on facilitative characteristics and sense of community.

Course selection and focus This course on “project management” was designed on the basis of granting students the maximum possible freedom while respecting the specified learning outcomes on the level of knowledge and skills (Motschnig-Pitrik & Standl 2013). Essentially, the large course with about 150 students was targeted at guiding students toward the capability of managing projects skillfully. This resulted in the challenging question: how can a student-centered mindset be transformed into a course design in which 150 students would reach the course goals situated at the knowledge, skills and attitudes level? How could the contact, communication, realness, respect and understanding be maximized with so many students and formal requirements on outcomes and grading? After previously dealing with the large group as a whole, an important decision was to split the cohort into three mixed lecture-lab classes and to associate each group/class with one facilitator, similar to the practice of using graduate assistants or peer leaders. A group of 50, organized into small teams of three to five people, would be easier to overlook and to converse with. Moreover, theory and practice could be intertwined more flexibly than separating theory from practice, as done so often in teacher-centered course designs. In this case study of a 50-student group of “project management,” we put the focus on investigating how the first author put the 14 learner-centered psychological principles (see

278

279

Figure 16.5

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Results from the Community Questionnaire (Barrett-Lennard 2005) (N = 20; n = 18)

Climate of respect/caring/trust

Attentive listening to others

Tolerance for ambiguity and conflict

Sharing and surviving personal problems and crises

Sharing of common purposes

Experiencing being heard

Expressing and tolerating sharp differences

Shared initiative/leadership and responsibility

Communicating owned feelings and meanings

Experience of connectedness and community

Having the ability/power to achieve common goals

Having direct concern for the group process

The group is perceived as a whole rather than the sum of its parts

Discovery and use of member resources

Community Questionaire (Barrett-Lennard, 2005)

Person-centered theory and practice

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

Figure 16.1) into practice. First, we sketch the student-centered course design that unfolded incrementally through several years of • • • • • •

Reflection on students’ reaction sheets and listening to their voiced expectations; Input from the engaged tutor who was supported by a usable eLearning platform; Engaging in a high degree of interaction during the course; Deciding on the absence of a final exam; Providing transparent, multifaceted assessment and prompt feedback; Assuring the ubiquitous, real-life subject matter of managing a project.

Second, we give excerpts from students’ online reaction sheets. The quotes were selected to provide glimpses on how – if at all – students perceived the realization of the 14 principles. Finally, as a kind of proof of concept, we mention the results of the anonymous course evaluation. Learners naturally want to learn, interact, grow personally and solve real, authentic problems when offered a resourceful environment and guidance where needed (Rogers 1983). This is the core of what we wanted to provide. For example, the students themselves wished to learn to plan a project or estimate its risk and effort to actually accomplish something exciting and connected to their job lives (Motschnig 2015). We are aware that this intrinsic motivation played a significant role in the students’ positive attitude toward the course. So one element to help is in the design of curriculum that is of clear relevance to students. Nevertheless, the task to facilitate the course for about 150 students came with a number of challenges that are discussed in this case study.

Course description The course was compulsory for computer science and business informatics bachelor students. They were supposed to attend it during their third semester. Whereas in accordance with the teaching policies of the University of Vienna the course goals needed to be defined in advance, in the first unit students were also asked about what and how they’d like to learn in the course. Students responses were then matched with the predefined goals in order to agree on a gross agenda for the course. In the curriculum, the following subject-specific and transversal or generic goals were specified.

Course goals Subject-specific goals and aspired learning outcomes required that after completing the course, students: • •

•

Know the basic concepts of classical and agile methods of project management and are able to select and tailor an appropriate method based on a given situation; Can specify a project proposal and project charter (including project plans, stakeholder and risk analyses, etc.) for a small project in a team. They are able to present the elaborated documents and strategies in an understandable way; Know the differences between classical and agile methods.

Generic goals and aspired learning outcomes were such that after completing the course, students were expected to:

280

Person-centered theory and practice

• • •

Be able to reflect on principles of interpersonal communication in teams and groups by connecting them to their (inter)personal experience in their team; Can reflect on the team process and their contribution in their team and course-community, including an estimation of their contribution; Have actively gathered experience in giving constructive feedback and receiving feedback. They have sharpened their perception regarding interpersonal dynamics in teams.

Course structure: Each of the three groups was organized to have seven face-to-face units/ sessions following a mixed lecture-lab style. Each session lasted 3.25 hours, including a short break. It took place every second week, giving students sufficient time to work on their projects between the sessions. Even though formal attendance was not obligatory, active participation face-to-face and online via reaction sheets was honored in the grading. Also, instant feedback (Hattie 2008) to students’ presentations and reaction sheets was provided during the sessions such that most participants chose to attend regularly. All course materials, assignments, reaction sheets and students’ project milestone documents were shared via a usable eLearning platform. Course design: The guiding principle enacted throughout the course was the following: the instructor felt she wanted to help students acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to manage real projects rather than instructing and assessing them from an expert position on retrieving or applying given information (Motschnig-Pitrik 2005, 2013; Rogers 1961). This called for a lively, enticing course in which students would be guided to learn some essentials and apply them creatively and collaboratively, taking with the experience of having designed and managed (an approximation of) a real project. Different from most other comparable academic courses, our course had: • • • •

Free, yet instructor-supported, team formation based on students’ interests in project themes; Sufficient time for interaction in class; Submitted project milestones could be inspected by all course participants such that they could learn from more than their own, self-composed project; Online reaction sheets (Motschnig-Pitrik 2014) after each course unit, in which students can express themselves individually and personally regarding the course. They can tell of the way it is or is not meeting their needs, they can express their feelings regarding the instructor, or can tell of the personal difficulties they are having in relation to the course. (Motschnig-Pitrik 2014, p. 20)

• •

No traditional exams but a probing and reflective oral team colloquium at the end; A multifaceted grading scheme (Standl et al. 2012).

Interplay of face-to-face and online activities: A typical unit had the following flexible structure. It involved a discussion of students’ online reaction sheets, followed by up to three student presentations. Student-teams of three to five people presented the results of their milestones to get immediate feedback from peers and the instructor. All feedback could be used to improve the milestone and thus the final online submission of the project. After the presentations, general feedback to frequently encountered problems and particularly well-done subtasks was provided. Subsequently, the upcoming project milestone was explained and students were invited to ask questions such that all should have a clear understanding of the steps ahead. A short break

281

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

followed. The subsequent theory-focused part was an interactive presentation on project management methods, processes and techniques, with an emphasis on those that were relevant for the upcoming milestone. These presentations were enriched with interactive elements, such as asking questions, voting, break-out groups or classroom discussion. Factual details were left for individual look-up at the eLearning platform, helping to reduce the lecturing part and shifting the focus to interaction instead. At the end of each unit, students could consult the instructor with individual questions. Other components were a tutorial for a planning tool, an interactive guest lecture from a practicing project manager, incentives for finding focal themes, and spontaneous class discourses. All in all, an open feedback culture developed. Feedback and grading: Students were informed about the mode of assessment in the first unit. Moreover, assessment criteria were transparently displayed on the eLearning platform. Giving early feedback to students was one of the instructor’s priorities. For example, she reviewed and assessed the documents that student teams delivered after finishing a project milestone usually within 2 days such that students got (almost) immediate feedback. Besides the team project in three milestones, there was a focal theme on any issue related to project management to be elaborated by students on an individual basis. In sum, the following items were used to assess students with a maximum of 100 possible points to receive: •

• •

A team project with three to five students per team, following three specified milestones of an information technology project that student teams could choose freely, based on their interest. Each milestone provided up to 20 points per team, with the team presentation up to 10 points; A focal theme elaboration (connecting to any aspect of project management) providing up to 15 points per student; Reaction sheets to be submitted after each face-to-face unit. Students could collect up to 15 points from submitting reaction postings (containing question, ideas, reflections, feedback, etc.).

The class concluded with a final team review colloquium with the instructor. These meetings included a retrospective reflection on the team project in the first part and a reflection on the strength and weaknesses of the collaboration in the team as perceived by the students in the second part. These reviews discussed solution paths and connections between theory and practice. They often included the question of how the students would assess themselves or whether they considered a grade suggested by the instructor as accurately mirroring their achievement.

Study on putting Learner-Centered Principles into practice Our goal is to illustrate how each of the 14 Learner-Centered Principles (APA 1997) was perceived by students. To do so, one of the authors had a student assistant read and analyze students’ reaction sheets, and select and categorize statements if they fell into one of these LearnerCentered Principles. Thereafter one of the authors selected particularly evocative statements to translate them from German (where applicable) and include them into this case study. This author also looked for statements that would contradict any of the principles, however no such statement could be detected, despite students’ occasional openly voiced criticism. The latter concerned, for example, some slides being overloaded with content, or students’ wanting more examples. For instance, one student shared: “I’d suggest [to] show some example how it [the milestone document] should look like, not just explaining.” This gave the instructor the chance to encourage students to be creative and not mold their solutions after examples that 282

Person-centered theory and practice

never could capture all aspects relevant to a particular student or project. Nevertheless, they could look into the peers’ developing milestones to learn from more than just their own project. Interestingly, students tended to prefer the practical parts of the units, sharing, for example: “The only thing I’d like to change . . . is that I’d prefer to spend more time with practical issues instead of the theory.” And in fact, experimenting with cutting down the time for theory input and working on examples in class was met with much positive feedback. This may illustrate the open and flexible nature of the course and the mutual learning of students and the instructor who was surprised about students’ not complaining about being expected to do tasks for which they needed to look up theory provided on the eLearning platform. Based on the selection procedure described earlier, we provide illustrative excerpts from the students’ reaction sheets indicating that the principles actually reached the students and were considered worth mentioning in the reaction sheets.

Cognitive and metacognitive factors The six cognitive and metacognitive factors influenced the course design insofar as students were given choices wherever this was appropriate to fulfill the preconceived course goals and, at the same time, allowed students to bring in their interests, such as specific project themes or topics to choose for their focal theme. Moreover, the interactive style of the course, the reaction sheets, and the final colloquium actively helped to construct meaning from information as well as experience. The students’ presentations and immediate feedback not only trained students’ interpersonal skills, but they also provided opportunities of creating meaningful representations of knowledge fed by several life examples and social constructions. The multifaceted grading schema aimed to extend the repertoire of thinking, learning and reasoning strategies. The following excerpts from students’ reaction sheets1 (Motschnig-Pitrik 2014) illustrate the students’ perception of the cognitive principles: A student wrote: One thing that I remember particularly well is risk management. This may be due to the fact that the class was invited to elaborate on the theme. The short brainstorming in small groups challenged everybody to contribute something. Such brainstorming should be done more often, because I feel that not only I but also my colleagues become more actively involved. In his final feedback, a student shared: Regarding the instructor’s feedback I’d like to mention that I was very pleased that we students were given it openly and transparently. This way, we knew after each milestone what went well and what could be improved. This made it possible that my team revised their submission at the end. This, as well, is a felicitous idea, because a project – as we experienced it as a team – is a dynamic enterprise that is susceptible to change at any instant. We used the option to improve our project at the end with pleasure and this way we could get the best out of the project.

Motivational and affective factors During design, care was taken to allow students to delve more deeply into the subject matter in an area that would catch most of their interest. Practically, care was taken to explain the 283

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

relevance and ubiquitous presence of project management. The following student reactions illustrate how students perceived the motivational and affective aspects of the course: We were presented some interesting ideas on how to go about it and I am happy to conclude that this can be a task that can unleash our full creativity, as we can, for instance, compose a tutorial on how to use certain software that we found useful during the course. Furthermore, there is an interesting possibility of interviewing a project manager. I am still not quite certain if I am going to turn in this paper, since I already reached a positive grade and the end of the semester can be used to improve the grades at some other courses or even try to get them out of the red area (failure). Nevertheless, I think that the first days of Christmas holidays might be a good moment to finish the paper and earn some extra credits for the project management grade. I appreciated it very much, whenever documents from existing projects were shown and discussed, or when issues from real projects were addressed. This helped to build a realistic connection to the subject matter and it was impressive to see how extensive the planning of a real project can be. An intriguing “add-on” to the whole course was the visit of a project manager who knew and shared the reality of the field. What I liked in particular was that he explained how one can become a project lead, what this occupation meant for him, and what he thought about the role and work of project managers in general.

Developmental and social factors Developmental and social factors were particularly important as they form the basis for social learning that plays a crucial role in project management. In this regard, active listening, feedback and the phases of team/group development were addressed both in theory and at a practical level via exercises and dialogue in class. Moreover, the instructor aimed for maximum transparency, openness, respect, and understanding throughout the course. This was perceived by the students who appreciated the constructive work climate in the course: I consider the idea to create a project with almost full freedom very much nourishing our creativity. What I most enjoyed in the course was the teamwork involved, due to the great chemistry in my team and the way everyone did their share. Additionally, my fellow classmates’ presentations and ideas were great to hear and see. This [the fact that projects fail most often due to people issues] quite clearly emphasizes the huge importance of an open communication between team members in which opinions, ideas, and input is valued and considered. I find it enriching that we all give each other feedback, that we can present our projects and also peer-review them. . . . Moreover, the feedback of the instructor is clear and distinct.

Individual difference factors Finally, we addressed individual difference factors including appropriate assessment procedures in offering a variety of ways to contribute to the class and making transparent how they would

284

Person-centered theory and practice

contribute to learning and inform grading. Such factors concerned the team project, where team members were free to divide the work according to individual strengths and weaknesses, however with the need to fulfill the tasks that came with each milestone. These tasks were versatile such that they could choose in which subject matter they wanted to deepen their knowledge and tended to address different skills. For example, students should formulate project goals, identify risks, use a tool for project planning, estimate project costs and design a project flyer for marketing. They also were free to choose whether they wanted to submit projects in German (the official course language) or in English (preferred for some immigrants and for practice in international settings most students would work). The following student reactions reflect how the individual difference aspects were realized: Other teams also had some ambitious ideas and I am keen to see how they will develop by the end of our class in January. Interestingly enough, we all have very different approaches, so we had a chance to hear about different funding or sales models. I found the examples of focal themes – e.g. a report on collaboration tools, a reflection on the cooperation in intercultural teams – helpful to facilitate my own process of finding a suitable topic. Thereby the theme of collaborating in an intercultural team appears to be very interesting and a potential candidate since in our four-man project team already three different nations are represented. One student described her process throughout the project: Maybe the team project needs to be introduced better. From milestone two and three onwards one is already “on track” and has clear goals, but in milestone one, students may feel a bit left alone.

Final course evaluation results In the final, anonymous course evaluation that is done for each course, students graded the course 1.5 on a 5-point scale, corresponding to the middle between very good and good. Course features that tended to be graded close to 2 concerned primarily content and theory issues. Features that were evaluated close to 1 reflected the interactive, motivational, and didactic aspects of the course – those in which a student-centered course typically would differ from a traditional one. This seems to be consistent with the reaction sheets that had included some criticism of theory parts and the wish for still more guidance regarding the tasks. The consistency between the non-anonymous reaction sheets and the anonymous course evaluation can be seen as an indicator of genuineness, realness and transparency in the course, a primary characteristic of a student-centered atmosphere. In the authors’ view, this case study – with all the constraints of studying one single case only – illustrates the challenges, feasibility, and added value of conducting a large course in a student-centered way. Of course, a few premises need to be fulfilled to embark on this exciting enterprise. For example, the course topic needs to be perceived as relevant by the instructor and this relevance has to be communicated to the students such that they truly perceive it. Most prominently, the instructor’s person-centered attitudes need to reach the students, in turn allowing them to learn significantly at various levels and to develop personally as well as socially. Last but not least, a sufficient degree of freedom in the curriculum is required to give space for creativity and intensive interaction with students.

285

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White

Comparison and discussion of case study results The two case studies illustrated that the key goal of student-centered classrooms, namely significant learning (Rogers 1961, 1983), can be achieved in small as well as large classes, involving technologically up-to-date contexts. While it is the same underlying attitude of realness, acceptance and endeavor to understand students empathically and comprehensibly that matter, the amount of planning, consistency and useful structure differ. While small courses benefit from a high level of flexibility, large courses benefit from a transparent structure and course organization to effectively meet their goals – often a combination of subject-specific, small-group formation and various other features. While at first sight it might seem that computers and technology would stand in the way of humanistic-oriented pedagogies, we illustrated that a careful, sensitive inclusion of technology can serve as an ally in promoting student-centeredness. As seen from both case studies, appropriate and appropriately dosed use of technology can support the intensity of student-centeredness (Bauer et al. 2006; Motschnig-Pitrik 2005). This happens for example through facilitating communication and contact between units/sessions (as is the case with forums and online reaction sheets) and students’ diverse, self-paced, and self-directed contributions to the class, typical for all kinds of project-based learning. According to Rogers’s theorizing, sufficiently high levels of perceived realness, acceptance and empathic understanding yield significant learning. Indeed, in their self-evaluations students tend to report various aspects of learning that they had perceived as significant, such as having learned a lot about themselves; feeling freed by sharing their issues with other persons and hearing their perspectives; being amazed by how active listening can bring about a perfect conversation, although “just” contributing with their attitude. Thus, we offer that the student-centered approach is particularly appropriate if significant learning is the primary goal of education. But what about other goals? What if the subject-specific goals – as is the case in the second case study and in most academic courses – are more important than learning that makes a difference to the whole person? A large meta-analysis (Cornelius-White 2007) showed that SCL results in the same or slightly better outcomes in cognitive, subject-specific spheres while being clearly superior in affective and interpersonal learning when compared with teacher-centered modes. The important contribution of APA’s (1997) Learner-Centered Principles lies in explicating cognitive and metacognitive factors of learning and integrating them with the social-affective-relational focus of student-centered learning and teaching. This broader, more differentiated explication of features in the Learner-Centered Principles makes them better tractable in educational research. This is why we chose them to guide our second case study. This choice, however, does not mean that Rogers’ core attitudes would be less relevant in courses with subject-specific learning goals. It just means that there is a larger variety of influential features that are worth considering and implementing. For example, the fact that, in the final anonymous course evaluation, a student stated that the teamwork and constructive feedback went exceptionally well and the instructor was optimally prepared, relaxed, professional and motivating, addresses a broader scope than (inter)personal attitudes. Nonetheless, the latter still shows as a prominent share in the student’s satisfaction with the course. Under the circumstances described earlier, it is intriguing to observe that even though most students coming from a traditional mode of education want more guidance and examples to hold on to, a single course has the potential to win most students’ hearts to beat in the direction of

286

Person-centered theory and practice

creativity, freedom, open sharing and constructive interaction for solving real challenges rather than rote learning of facts and working on construed exercises. Given that the instructors share the same priorities as their goals in education, this is most motivating for pursuing the studentcentered mode, thereby staying an active, lifelong learner and facilitator of students’ and one’s own significant learning.

Conclusion and outlook This chapter aimed to provide foundational premises of SCL, specifically using the research and theory of classical person-centered education (e.g., Rogers) and the learner-centered model (e.g., McCombs) and their research bases. Besides the defining characteristic of SCL in the tradition of the Person-Centered Approach (Rogers 1961), namely the perceived communication of realness, acceptance and empathic understanding, special attention was devoted to embracing educational technologies, which has been referred to as PCeL (Person-Centered technology-enhanced Learning) (Motschnig & Standl 2013). This seems justified since threefourths of university classes now include blended components (e.g., Kelly 2017; MotschnigPitrik & Cornelius-White 2012; Motschnig-Pitrik & Standl 2013). This contribution aimed to provide insight on how students see and describe their (for the vast majority, their first) student-centered course along with their major take-aways. Two case studies with both a smaller and larger number of students showed some of the challenges, processes and experiences of student-centered learning in these contexts, emphasizing the learners’ perceptions. These are seen as a crucial stepping stone in preparing students for life, lifelong learning, change and work in the multicultural knowledge society and economy of this century, a goal we share with Hoidn (2017) and like-minded colleagues. Our own learning while facilitating several courses similar to those studied in this chapter can be put as follows: despite, or better in tune with, technological advances, if significant learning – learning that makes a difference to the learners’ personality – is the goal, it is irrevocably the learning atmosphere constituted by the interpersonal relationship between all involved that has primary influence. Further research will address long-term effects of student-centered courses on students’ professional and personal life. Such studies are intended to shed light on what are the features, conditions and elements that students reflect as being most influential on their further careers. Another line of research will investigate under what conditions game-enhanced learning, challenge-based learning and audience-response systems promote students’ motivation, engagement and outcome in large, student-centered classrooms.

Note 1 Students were asked for permission to quote from their reaction sheets in an anonymous way in the context of research. With very few exceptions for English reaction sheets, most reactions were posted in German and translated by the first author.

References APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997) Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf on 30 November 2019. Aspy D.N. (1972) Toward a Technology for Humanizing Education. Research Press Company, Champaign, IL.

287

Renate Motschnig and J. H. D. Cornelius-White Aspy D.N. & Roebuck F.N. (1977) Kids Don’t Learn from People They Don’t Like. Human Development Press, Amherst, MA. Barrett-Lennard G.T. (2005) Relationship at the Centre: Healing in a Troubled World. Whurr Publishers, Philadelphia, PA. Bauer C., Derntl M., Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Tausch R. (2006) Promotive activities in face-to-face and technology-enhanced learning environments. The Person-Centered Journal 13(1/2), 12–37. Cornelius-White J.H.D. (2002) The phoenix of empirically supported therapy relationships: The overlooked person-centered basis. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 39, 219–222. Cornelius-White J.H.D. (2007) Teachers who care are more effective: A meta-analysis of learner-centered relationships. Review of Educational Research 77(1), 1–31. Cornelius-White J.H.D. & Harbaugh A.P. (2010) Learner-Centered Instruction: Building Relationships for Student Success. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cornelius-White J.H.D. & Motschnig R. (2012) Person-centered learning. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. (Seel N.M., ed.), Springer, New York, pp. 2596–2599. European Higher Education Area (2009) Student-Centered Learning and the Teaching Mission of Higher Education. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/pid34932/student-centred-learning-2009-2012.html on 7 December 2018. Harbaugh A. & Cornelius-White J.H.D. (2013) Ubiquitous educational computing and learner-centered instruction: A likely pair. In Interdisciplinary Applications of the Person-Centered Approach. (CorneliusWhite J.H.D., Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Lux M., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 133–138. Hattie J. (2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London. Hoidn S. (2017) Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Kelly R. (2017) Teaching with technology survey. Campus Technology 30(7), 25–37. McCombs B.L. (2013) The learner-centered model: Implications for research approaches. In Interdisciplinary Handbook of the Person-Centered Approach: Research and Theory. (Cornelius-White J.H.D., MotschnigPitrik R. & Lux M., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 335–352. McCombs B.L. & Miller L. (2007) Learner-Centered Classroom Practices and Assessments: Maximizing Student Motivation, Learning, and Achievement. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. McCombs B.L. & Whisler J.S. (1997) The Learner-Centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Motschnig-Pitrik R. (2005) Person-centered e-learning in action: Can technology help to manifest personcentered values in academic environments? Journal of Humanistic Psychology 45, 503–530. Motschnig-Pitrik R. (2013) Characteristics and effects of person-centered technology enhanced learning. In Interdisciplinary Applications of the Person-Centered Approach. (Cornelius-White J.H.D., MotschnigPitrik R. & Lux M., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 125–131. Motschnig-Pitrik R. (2014) Reaction sheets pattern, in practical design patterns for teaching and learning with technology. In Practical Design Patterns for Teaching and Learning with Technology. (Mor Y., Mellar H., Warburton S. & Winters N., eds.), Sense Publisher, Rotterdam, pp. 73–82. Motschnig-Pitrik R. (2015) Developing personal flexibility as a key to agile management practice. In Systemic Flexibility and Business Agility. (Chroust G. & Sushil, eds.), Springer, India, pp. 131–141. Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Cornelius-White J.H.D. (2012) Experiential/significant learning (C. Rogers). In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. (Seel N.M., ed.). Springer, New York, pp. 1219–1223. Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Nykl L. (2014) Person-Centred Communication: Theory, Skills, and Practice. Open University Press, McGraw Hill, UK. Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Pitner T. (2016, May 2–4) Putting learners’ experience at the center of technologyenhanced learning, or how students can learn more while enjoying their classes. Proceedings of DiVAI 2016, Distance Learning in Applied Informatics. (Turčáni M. et al., eds.), Wolters Kluwer, Sturovo, SK, pp. 13–32. Motschnig-Pitrik R., Pitner T., Tomaschek N., Hammer E., Bohm K., Skrabalek J., . . . Cornelius-White J.H.D. (The iCom Team) (2014) Constructive Communication in International Teams: An Experienced Based Guide. Waxman, New York. Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Ryback D. (2016) Transforming Communication in Leadership and Teamwork PersonCentered Innovations. Springer, Basel, Switzerland. Motschnig-Pitrik R. & Standl B. (2013) Person-centered technology enhanced learning: Dimensions of added value. Computers in Human Behavior 29(2), 401–409.

288

Person-centered theory and practice Rogers C.R. (1951) Client-Centered Therapy. Constable, London, UK. Rogers C.R. (1961) On Becoming a Person: A Psychotherapists View of Psychotherapy. Constable, London. Rogers C.R. (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Merrill, Columbus, OH. Standl B., Motschnig R. & Haselberger D. (2012) Case study on person-centered assessment in computer science and its support by the VLE Moodle. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012. (Amiel T. & Wilson B., eds.), AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp. 2343–2351.

289

17 STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING Investigating the impact of community-based transformational learning experiences on university students Christian Winterbottom, Dan F. Richard and Jody Nicholson

Introduction Nearly two decades ago in the US, the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) set forth a path of accountability for educators in all levels of education. For early childhood teachers, the term school readiness meant having the children reading and writing before they were developmentally ready to, and for elementary, middle and high school children it meant years of testing and creating a generation of students that wanted information for tests rather than knowledge (Lake & Winterbottom 2010). Moreover, this legislation has also led to higher education learning institutions working with a generation of students who want to know the information immediately rather than enjoy the learning process. In this chapter, the authors posit that faculty in higher education can integrate community-based transformational learning opportunities which, when focused on student learning, can have positive effects on the students.

Student-centered learning Although there has been growing evidence spanning since the eighties and nineties that studentcentered learning activities promote the development of higher-order skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving (e.g., Alper et al. 1996; Barab & Landa 1997; Gallagher & Stepien 1996; Savery & Duffy 1995), there have been notoriously difficult challenges associated with supporting student-centered learning (SCL). For example, the content and activities used to promote SCL often do not provide enough structure to adequately guide students toward successful completion of classroom activities, thus increasing student disorientation and frustration (Brush 1998). Furthermore, in order for students to actively participate in their own learning, they must be able to successfully self-monitor their learning and engagement, and possess other self-awareness skills that are not necessarily intrinsic in every individual (Hannafin & Land 1997; Palincsar & Brown 1984). At the university, the successful implementation of SCL requires augmentations made to the teaching and learning environment that educators and those that develop the curriculum must integrate into existing curricula (Hannafin & Land 1997; Hawley & Duffy 1997). These include problem contexts, evaluation mechanisms, and tools or scaffolds to support both student 290

Student-centered learning

learning and teacher management (Hannafin et al. 1999; Brush & Saye 1999). We believe when faculty integrate community-based learning (CBL) into their courses, it enables the students to learn the content from a different pedagogical perspective, and more importantly, from a student-centered perspective. While SCL activities provide opportunities for addressing different types of learning goals, successfully implementing this type of methodology requires skills and resources that are very different from those required by more traditional, teacher-centered classroom activities. There are innumerable theoretical frameworks that have addressed SCL, and specifically focus on pedagogical styles such as self-regulated learning, the nurturing of higher-level learning abilities, collaborative learning, intrinsic motivation and metacognitive skills, surface learning strategies and intrinsic goals, as well as deeper learning strategies (e.g., Biggs 1993; Laurillard 2005). Moreover, previous studies (Muianga et al. 2018) have also defined SCL as activities including active learning experiences, self-paced and cooperative learning styles, and being responsive to individual needs and the stimulation of learning potential. The importance of giving students responsibility for their own learning and for engaging them in pedagogical practices associated with a university classroom is also highlighted in this work as fundamental for student learning. We believe that one of the best frameworks for implementing a student-centered pedagogy is through community-based learning. The following section will examine community-based learning and the transformational factors that make it crucial at the university we work at.

Community-based transformational learning The foundations of community-based learning experiences (including service-learning as well as community-engagement thinking and educational practice) extend well beyond the beginning of the 20th century (Speck & Hopp 2004). The term service-learning was first created in the 1970s (Sigmon 1979) and was understood as a learning experience in which members of academia and the community receive mutual benefit. The concept that community service and volunteering in and of itself could be a learning experience dominated the early conceptions of service-learning. Curricular-based service-learning often is contrasted with extracurricular or co-curricular service and engagement experiences, which might not connect with course content or student-learning objectives. In this manner, models of service-learning and community engagement have been varied, each emphasizing different components of community engagement connected to student learning. The concept of community-based transformational learning (CBTL) broadens the reach of each of these approaches. The nuanced components of CBTL can help those researching and applying this approach breakdown learn how to design a successful experience, or how to tease apart why a community experience was unsuccessful in leading to desired student outcomes. In CBTL, transformational experiences occur in authentic community-based settings. The challenges and disruptions faced by students are authentic to the community within which they are situated, and the reflection occurs either with others in the community or with community as the context for those reflections. In this chapter, we present three different kinds of CBL experiences and approaches; however, each experience presents a potential transformational learning component, connecting to the work of influential theorists in this field. Thus, the majority of the examples provided in this chapter relate to course-based experiences. This is not to imply that other forms of community-based and service-learning experiences cannot be transformational. Instead, we would argue that community-based experiences are transformational when they incorporate transformational elements as outlined by transformational learning theory. 291

Christian Winterbottom et al.

Mezirow (2000) focused on experiential learning in adults, where new perspectives are gained from practical experience and reflective practice. Kiely (2005) built on Mezirow’s work to describe the transformational components of international service-learning within the context of global citizenship. Freire had a distinctive community-engaged, contextual, and emancipatory perspective to this type of experiential learning, whereas Boyd and Myers (1988) recognized the importance of integration on new perspectives into one’s personal and professional identity. Kiely (2005) identified transformational dimensions of service-learning, which could be considered the foundation for CBTL. His model emphasized the importance of reflection to process the experience of difference, disruption, and challenge that is part of CBL environments, especially in the context of international engagement. In contrast to Kiely’s international focus, Freire (1970, 2000) proposed an emancipatory approach to community engagement and transformational learning within the local community. His approach addressed the social structures that maintain and reinforce oppression that perpetuate challenges of the poor. For Freire, the goal of CBL is to disrupt the notions, understandings, and biases that exist because of these oppressive structures and to provide a challenging and awakening experience that leads students to social action. Boyd and Myers (1988) focus their transformative pedagogy on framing personal competency, emotional learning, and professional identity. In their theory, students transform through stages, with increasing awareness, personal reflection, and integration at each stage of professional and personal development.

Methodology In this chapter, we explore how three different courses engaged the students in different types of CBTL. The first example examines the effectiveness of a CBTL activity on improving students’ community-service attitudes, while also examining whether course enrollment influenced students’ community-service attitudes. The second example explores the impact of a communitybased simulation experience for students taking an introductory social science college course. For example, college students were presented with struggles and ongoing challenges each day for 1 week that would normally be experienced by ex-offenders. The third example investigates how faculty from two institutions in two countries look at the transformational potential for short-term experiences, designed to be mutually beneficial to collaborative institutions as a result of providing students with novel and challenging learning experiences within a foreign community.

Participants All of the students who participated in the following three examples were undergraduate students. The students participating in the psychology courses were mostly majors from that program, and the students in the study abroad course were education majors.

Data collection Data was collected through numerous methods of inquiry. During the community-based activity and community service attitudes example, for four semesters two introductory psychology courses, Social Psychology and Lifespan Developmental Psychology, offered a CBTL component as part of their coursework. Students completed a community service attitudes scale at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. In the following two examples, 292

Student-centered learning

a qualitative methodology was introduced. After the experiences, the faculty interviewed the participants, focusing on what the students faced and what was the transformational impact on the students. The following section will describe the three experiences presented by the authors. Each experience will be presented by (1) what the students experienced, (2) challenges and (3) discussion.

Description of course experiences Example one: community-based activity and community service attitudes Service-learning was utilized in introductory psychology courses (i.e., social and developmental psychology) to allow students to interact with populations with which they have had little direct contact to apply course topics learned within the semester. Courses in developmental psychology that have utilized service learning have established positive outcomes such as deeper understanding of course content and higher exam scores but also gains in personal growth and a greater understanding of populations different from the students (Bringle et al. 2016; Lundy 2007; Wilsey et al. 2013). Direct contact with community members has been recommended to illustrate complex and pivotal concepts presented in social psychology texts, such as social injustice, prejudice and bias (Bringle et al. 2016; Keen & Hall 2009). These types of service learning experiences in psychology have been linked to increased learning outcomes, higher grades and course satisfaction, self-efficacy related to social and civic responsibility and academic self-efficacy, and civic concern (Bringle et al. 2016; Novak et al. 2007; Warren 2012). Students were required to participate in a course assignment involving applying course content to an experience outside of the traditional classroom. Students taking the Lifespan Development course completed play dates at a residential treatment facility for children with extreme behavior and emotional disorders or worked with clients at a day training program for adults with severe developmental disabilities. Both experiences (the community vs. movie experience) would help students identify how the clients served by these programs were not displaying typical physical, cognitive, and emotional development for their chronological age. In Social Psychology, students volunteered in the kitchen at a homeless shelter, helped on a build for Habitat for Humanity, or volunteered with an organization whose mission addressed community beautification. The goal of collaborating with these organizations was to provide students an opportunity to get exposure to key topics discussed in the course (i.e., altruism, prejudice and social dilemmas). A comparison was made between students who completed the movie vs. the community experience and between students in the Social Psychology vs. Developmental Psychology courses. The first research question examined whether the community experience was more effective in improving students’ community-service attitudes (as measured by the Brief Community Service Attitudes Scale; Nicholson et al. 2016). The second research question examined if some course topics may be better suited for community-based experiences. Evidence suggested that gaining community experience and course type (i.e., Social Psychology vs. Lifespan Development) had an influence on community-service attitudes, though not always in a positive manner. Participating in the CBTL activity was linked to some community-service attitudes, such as students’ perceived norms of engaging in community service, the costs they would incur, such as their time, and their intentions for engaging in community work in the future (see Nicholson et al. 2016 for further description of types of attitudes assessed). Specifically, those who 293

Christian Winterbottom et al.

completed the CBTL activity experienced little to no change in their perception of communityservice norms and costs at the end of the semester, while students who watched the movie demonstrated a decline in these attitudes. Engaging with the community may reinforce attitudes, but without this community experience students’ attitudes may diminish over time. Further, students who completed the CBTL activity reported greater intentions to engage with the community in the future than those who completed the non-CBTL activity (i.e., the movie). This may suggest that direct experience with the community is crucial for whether students have intentions to engage with the community in the future. The social psychology course demonstrated greater success in improving some communityservice attitudes as compared to the developmental psychology course. Specifically, students in social psychology demonstrated a gain in their belief that there are important benefits from engaging with the community and that there is a serious need for community engagement in our society. Some courses, like social psychology, may have better effects due to course topics related to social justice being very applicable to community-based experiences (Wang & Rodgers 2006). Furthermore, as opposed to focusing in-depth on one topic in the social psychology course, allowing students to apply the experience more broadly to course material could lead to surface-level understanding, reinforced stereotypes, and/or minimization of the impact of certain issues (McCluskey-Fawcett & Green 1992). Faculty may want to consider creating experiences that tie directly to specific course topics instead of more broadly. One encouraging aspect of the significant change demonstrated in social psychology is that this is the larger course of the two introductory-level psychology courses (115 students vs. 50 students). The high number of students was initially thought of as a challenge that could result in poor student reflection, but the direct relevance of the CBTL experiences to social psychology may counteract this challenge and demonstrates that short-term community experiences can be impactful in larger courses.

Example two: simulated experiences leading to improved community engagement Is revenge sweet? Student-centered approaches, when integrated with experiential and community-based learning, can sometimes do more harm than good. Meisel (2008) expressed concerns over the negative impact that experiential education in community-based settings can have on not only the community members but also the students. When students experience difference between themselves and others for the first time, the experience might not provide much community impact and might lead to reinforced stereotypes of the “other” (Dunlap et al. 2007). This is especially a concern when the amount of difference between the student and the community population are dramatic. The course titled Is Revenge Sweet? was designed to provide positive experiential and student-centered experiences for college students to better understand and appreciate the challenges faced by ex-offenders during their transition from jail to the community. Aftercare programs (programs that support those released from prison/jail) focus on immediate needs of the returning citizen, such as food support, housing and employment. Many exoffenders must report their past crimes on employment forms, making employment additionally difficult. Lack of employment is a major risk for ex-offenders, as well as social isolation and ostracism (Shivy et al. 2007). Many citizens, as well as many college students, are unaware of the challenges faced by these ex-offenders. Often, citizens continue to hold lasting resentment toward ex-offenders after these post-incarceration individuals have served time in jail and are seeking community re-engagement. 294

Student-centered learning

The course provides an organized set of experiential learning activities mixed with simulations designed to help students connect with the emotional challenges faced by ex-offenders. Students learning about the life struggles of ex-offenders may rely on stereotypes of “convicts” during interactions with individuals who have had a very different life than the typical college student. To facilitate the student learning experience, students complete a weeklong simulation called A Week in the Life of a Returning Citizen. During the simulation, instead of attending their regularly scheduled class, students are assigned one of four scenarios that will guide their experiences for the week. Each scenario contains a story about an ex-offender, the case upon which their weeklong simulation is based. Students are to take the perspective of this recently released ex-offender. The introduction to one of the scenarios is as follows: You have lived a life of conflict for many years. As a teenager, you lived with your mother and four sisters in low-income housing in Duval County. You were involved in a number of petty crimes before your imprisonment. At the age of 17, you were arrested for assault. Your younger sister was being harassed by one of her “boyfriends,” a 20-year-old man who lived in the same apartment complex. You and some friends planned to “teach him a lesson.” You and your friends beat the man with chains and sticks, leaving him seriously injured. You were arrested and served 20 months in prison.

JEROME TERRY:

For each scenario, students must respond to daily challenges through reflection assignments. These challenges are emailed out daily at the beginning of the day. Students must respond to the challenge and reflect on their reactions to the challenge. For example, on the third day of the week, students assigned to Jerome experienced the following: You are walking back to your residence when you run into a familiar face. On the sidewalk, walking directly toward you, is the person you beat up (the reason you went to prison). He recognizes you, calls your name, and says “hey, come here.” Your probation prevents you from being around this individual.

CALAMITY 1:

In their reflection assignments, students must make decisions on how to address these challenges as they arise. In addition to these daily challenges, students are required to choose an ongoing challenge for the entire week, a challenge that would be typical for a returning citizen: (1) go without a cellphone for 1 week; (2) eat for 1 week only food that can be found in a convenience store; (3) go for 1 week wearing only two changes of clothing. Students also must track their spending and have a budget of $50 for the entire week. Students are allowed to cheat on these requirements but must reflect on why these challenges were so difficult for them to achieve. At the end of the week, half of the students enrolled in the class are assigned at random to the “rearrest” category. These students receive an email indicating that a warrant has been issued for their arrest and that they are to report to their parole officer immediately. Students spend the next class period debriefing on how they dealt with the challenges they faced within the previous week. Some students “cheated” on their challenges, especially the ones related to food. Students must describe why they were not able to maintain these challenges, and we discuss how ex-offenders would likely experience many of the challenges that the students simulated over the past week, and more. These reflection exercises help students make sense out of their individual experiences responding to various challenges. During the following week of class, students visit an ex-offender transition program in the community to see the way community organizations are responding to the needs of exoffenders. Students become familiar with services such as transportation, hygiene and clothing, 295

Christian Winterbottom et al.

a food pantry and work training programs. Students are able to hear from previous ex-offenders who have made a successful transition to community life. The Week in the Life simulation helps students to better understand the challenges and the value of the resources provided by the transition center. In the following 8 weeks of the semester, students meet in groups on campus to plan an outreach project for the transition center. Outreach projects include videos that can be used by the center, informational presentations that can be deployed in the lobby waiting area, or clothing drives to secure jeans or workbooks for ex-offenders. The students deliver the products of the outreach projects at the end of the semester and engage in group dialogue about the learning experience with the transition center staff. Students are not inclined to spend time with ex-offenders to understand their perspective, and this lack of experience provides an opportunity for students to rely on limited information as well as stereotypes of ex-offenders to interpret their experiences in the community. The lack of sustained direct contact with those being served could pose a challenge for student learning outcomes (Brown 2011). Student perspectives are supported by the simulation as well as interactions with the transition center staff. The simulations were crafted in collaboration with community partners and ex-offenders who were willing to share their stories to help others.

Student reflections on ex-offender simulations The following section will examine the methodology, and the discussion/results from the data analysis. Student reflections from two semesters of the Is Revenge Sweet? class was subjected to a theoretical (i.e., top-down) theme analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006) for perspectives related to CBTL (Kiely 2005). Transformational elements considered in the analysis included disorienting events and the process of revising prior beliefs (Mezirow 2000). Participants were 17 students (76% female) enrolled in an honors general education course. Students were majority white and traditional-aged college students. The majority of the students were in their first year of college, however a small number of students were in their second year of college. Students completed reflection assignments each day of the Week in the Life simulation. The data comes from the final day of reflection. Students were asked about their experiences during the week, what experiences were most challenging, which were most supportive of their learning, and what new perspectives they gained from the experience.

Cognitive and emotional empathy with ex-offenders Students were able to connect emotionally as well as cognitively with ex-offenders through the Week in the Life simulation (Vescio et al. 2003). The intensity of the simulated experience allowed students to engage in perspective taking as they dealt with the different challenges throughout the week. One student noted: I could understand the regret my persona may have had and the anger that my victim may have had. By trying to understand them and put myself in their shoes, I got a better feel for what it may be like to be an ex-offender or the victim of one. Students were able to experience in small amounts the feelings of helplessness and isolation ex-offenders experience as they attempt to find jobs with limited training and resources. One student noted:

296

Student-centered learning

The most surprising part of this assignment for me, was getting a job that I couldn’t have unless I paid a substantial amount of money for shoes. It kind of goes along with the saying “you have to have money to make money.” It made me feel helpless in that I was trying to find a job in order to make money, and I had to have money already in order to do that. It makes me wonder how ex-offenders are able to make it work at all, unless they have a lot of family/friend support. The emotional connection with the challenges of ex-offenders can result from what Kiely (2005) describes as “sharing stories” (p. 8), a way of emotionally connecting with community members. Another student expressed their awareness of the cognitive skill of perspective taking that emerged as the students participated in the simulation: This class has helped me because it has made me more aware of just how much the events in our lives may shape us. Most offenders are victims themselves, victims of circumstance, and this victimization has led them to harm others or break the law. From this I will take away that everyone has a lot going on in their life and so a bad action or rude comment made by someone is not who they are, I could just be interacting with them on a bad day. This student was engaged in reconceptualization (Kiely 2005; Mezirow 2000), an important process in transformational learning. Students reconsider assumptions they had about a subject and broaden their understanding to incorporate new perspectives. Another student similarly explains: I no longer automatically assume that a person who is exhibiting negative behaviors is mean or lazy; I now attempt to understand where that person is coming from. This enables me to resolve problems rather than compound on them with by returning others’ negative behaviors in response. I have learned that when you consider multiple perspectives, addressing conflict with others is a much easier task. This knowledge will certainly help me as I pursue a career and face the daily task of working with others. Students were able to reframe their negative experiences with others and approach them with a new context of empathy. Like what is expressed by this student, research demonstrates an association between emotional empathy and forgiveness of others (Macaskill et al. 2002). Mezirow (2000) describes the reframing process as the transformation stage, where students become “critically reflective of their assumptions and aware of their context” (p. 19). The important role of both the cognitive and emotional elements of the simulation experience provided a context for students to evaluate their personal commitment to addressing the needs of those in our communities that experience a life different from our own.

Personalization and commitment Cognitive and emotional perspective taking (i.e., empathy) through a simulation experience supported student learning in relation to individuals who were extremely different from the students. Reflection experiences allowed students to capitalize on their new perspectives and translate these perspectives into new commitments for future action. One student identified the

297

Christian Winterbottom et al.

limitations of their previous perspectives and planning for a different set of actions toward others in the future, noting: Taking this class has taught me to realize that everyone has their own story. What I mean by this is that I have no idea what someone has gone through, unless I take the time to get to know him or her. I should not simply judge someone just based on their looks or the initial personality. . . . Hopefully in the future I will not be so quick to judge and will try to relate with people better . . . being able to see where they are coming from. This student identifies a revised action, a change in future behavior as a result of the simulation experience. Kiely (2005) describes this way of problem-solving as “processing” (p. 13), where problems and solutions are explored. The student recognized a problem she had in relating to others. She then explored options for future behavior and found a new solution for dealing with the problem. The forming of new patterns of behavior relate to the concept of new “habits of mind” (Kegan 1994; Mezirow 2000, p. 17). These habits of mind allow students to change and commit to new patterns of action.

Discussion Community-based experiences can provide unique and individualized experiences for students, as students realize their own prejudices, biases, and assumptions and how those biases do not conform to the lived experience of others. If the level of disruption between student expectations and prior knowledge is so dramatic that it overwhelms the student and causes less reflection, then the learning experience becomes less effective. In the case of helping college students understand and appreciate the challenges faced by individuals who are very different than them, ex-offenders, the Is Revenge Sweet? project, and especially the Week in the Life simulation, provided avenues for students to explore the experiences of different others in a safe environment so that their future direct experience with ex-offenders produced optimum challenge and opportunities for productive reflection. Scaffolding the learning experience as well as reflection activities can be important for student learning. In the Week in the Life simulation, care was given to both cognitive and emotional scaffolding to support transformational learning and personal development among students who are attempting to identify and understand those who are different, leading to revised action toward different others in the future.

Example 3: the transformational nature of discomfort The transformational nature of international travel is possible due to the experience of being in an unfamiliar environment and working through discomfort with this experience. In combination with successful instruction and reflection, an international experience shifts a student’s educational equilibrium, with transformative learning occurring through the ensuing change of action(s) taken by the student (Mezirow 2003). In this way, where students are taken out of their comfort zone in a study abroad experience, it could lead to the uncomfortable situation described further by Mezirow (1991), in which he suggests that through reflection, active learning and placing themselves in uncomfortable situations, students are able to develop their understanding of the world and of themselves. This shift of understanding facilitates a potential change to their perspectives and frames of reference. Mezirow (1991) sees the goal of transformative learning as helping students move from an awareness of their experiences to an awareness 298

Student-centered learning

of the environment of their experiences (i.e., how are they reflecting on the process). In this manner, the learner’s experience is the starting point and the subject matter for transformative learning (Mezirow 1995). Applying Mezirow’s theoretical propositions in the context of study abroad experiences, Taylor (1998) suggests that transformative learning can be achieved through a perspective transformation. He suggests that when students experience a perspective transformation, their new meaning structures become more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective and integrative of experience. Fostering transformative learning is a practice of education that is “predicated on the idea that students are seriously challenged to assess their value system and worldview and are subsequently changed by the experience” (Quinnan 1997, p.  42). Assisting students in this perspective transformation obviously is easier across a longer period of time, but it is feasible in shorter experiences with appropriate preparation, design and reflection. Shorter study abroad experiences that are not able to document student-growth may be a result of ill-defined intercultural goals (Ritz 2011; Tarrant et al. 2014). Merely visiting a different country is not enough to provide real impact; although there are transformational properties associated with leaving the comfort of one’s own country and traveling to another, this could also be true of a vacation, without any educational goals or outcomes attached to the process (Bell et al. 2014; Jackson 2015). Furthermore, students may not demonstrate transformation if they are not adequately prepared for the experience prior to arrival and if the experience lacks guided reflection (Jackson 2015). Using the transformative learning theory Mezirow posited (1991, 1995, 2003), students in a 6-week study abroad exchange course which included 2 weeks abroad were interviewed using a semi-structured methodology (Miles & Huberman 1994). From their first experience of meeting with the professor, engaging in course conversations prior to travel, buying plane tickets, preparing to change money, learning from and giving to a different culture, experiencing a foreign culture for 14 days, and reciprocating this experience with foreign students back in America, the students had the chance to challenge and assess their worldview, and how this impacted their future.

Course description and learning design In this example, faculty from two institutions in two countries worked and planned together to create a study abroad for their students. The goal was for cohorts of students from the US and the UK to travel to each other’s countries and learn about education and culture. The objectives of the study abroad were for the students to be integrated in another country for a short period, while at the same time teaching and learning in different settings and in different environments. To achieve this goal, students in the College of Education enrolled in a 6-week summer course during which time they were given the opportunity to participate in a study abroad experience that would let them observe, teach and travel around the UK in tandem with students from the University of Chester. For the students to attend the schools they had to undergo background checks in the UK, which involved fingerprinting as well as supplying FBI background checks from the US. Their first 2 weeks of instruction in the course were in the classroom to prepare them for the experience abroad professionally and personally. Their second 2 weeks were spent abroad, and in the final 2 weeks of the course the students reciprocated the learning experience and hosted University of Chester students at their university. The students were placed in two different types of schools in the UK – a nursery school and a primary school – with the curricula of both schools focusing on play-based learning, which is very different from the typical educational 299

Christian Winterbottom et al.

experiences for youth in the US. These schools were specifically chosen because of the differences and challenges that would confront the teacher candidates. Having to be creative and think outside of their comfort zone was important to give the students a transformational experience, whereas if the schools had been pedagogically similar to those in the US, the only difference would have been location and culture. The vision and mission for the teacher candidates in the US public schools is to ensure every student is inspired and prepared for success in college or a career and life; to provide educational excellence in every school, in every classroom, for every student, every day. However, for the students to experience transformational experiences, it was necessary to place them in different settings that would see learning and teaching differently. Therefore, they were placed in settings where the school vision was different from a public school setting in America. For example, students attended a Forest School in the UK where the main goal was not cognitive gain but for “students to feel happy and secure” to elicit optimal student gain. The headteacher described their learning environment in the following way: We are set in lovely open, green space where our children have lots of room to run, climb, roll and enjoy being outdoors and getting muddy! We keep chickens and rabbits and our children feed and take care of the animals, collect and cook with our eggs. We offer small group Forest School sessions to all of our Adventurers but our Forest School ethos is cultivated with all our children as we plant and grow fruit, vegetables and herbs. We love messy play because of its many benefits and believe that it is really important that all children are given lots of opportunities to express themselves through creative activities and experiences. We have an atelierista who works with all of our children using different materials on child led project work. (Personal communication, 2018) The goal of the course was for the students (over a 6-week period) to be given opportunities to have firsthand experience of early childhood settings in another country that would enable them to understand the philosophy and principles underpinning the practices in these settings. Students would be able to network and collaborate with students from another country and be able to work together to compare and contrast the early childhood provisions in different countries. The collaboration typically followed a process of traveling to schools in the UK, and observing classrooms and teaching. It was expected through the study abroad that University of North Florida teacher candidates would: • • •

Make a serious effort to adapt to an academic setting significantly different from their own and successfully complete relevant course work. Identify, articulate, and reflect on their own values and beliefs, describing these in the context of their own cultural backgrounds. Better understand the society in which they are studying, including: • •

• •

Basic knowledge of political, historical, cultural and social issues at their study abroad sites; Basic knowledge of the English educational system and the role of early childhood in the educational experience of English youth.

Demonstrate the ability to interact constructively with people of different cultures. Gain an understanding of some concepts for analyzing cultural patterns and understand that these methods can be applied in other cultural settings. 300

Student-centered learning

•

Engage in ongoing professional development opportunities that strengthen their own linguistic, cultural and pedagogical competence and promote reflection on practice.

To address and assess these specific outcomes, the teacher candidates participated in coursework with their peers from the University of Chester. These experiences were tailored to allow the teacher candidates to integrate praxis from the theoretical frameworks they were studying in their courses. Assignments were rigorously planned and implanted throughout the course. For example, the students would teach in the school settings they were in and in their final class in Chester presented on the differences between teaching in the UK in comparison to the US, while also examining the cultural differences across educational settings.

Qualitative themes and integration with theoretical foundation Using the theoretical foundations of Mezirow to analyze the data, the following themes emerged: (1) immersion into the culture, (2) cultural differences, (3) future perspectives and (4) pedagogical practices. These themes are consistent with what Mezirow described when students participate in CBTL learning opportunities. The students in this study were taken out of their comfort zone, leading them to experience uncomfortable situations (Mezirow 1991). This in turn has led the students to develop an understanding of the world and themselves. IMMERSION IN CULTURE

In the interview, when asked about traveling to another country independently of their parents, the students at first stated, “Yes. That was terrifying.” However, when the conversation started to move away from the initial shock of being in a foreign land, Heidi stated that I felt very immersed. I took so much away from that. Learned about the educational practices over there and got to compare the way that they do things to the way we do things in the U.S., which was really cool to see the similarities and differences. Mezirow (1991) sees the goal of transformative learning as helping students move from an awareness of their experiences to an awareness of the environment of their experiences (for example, how they reflect on the process). The learner’s experience is the starting point and the subject matter for transformative learning (Mezirow 1995). The learner’s experiences and immersing themselves into the environment that they were in was important to understanding the culture. For example, Charlotte stated: I have an itch to see as many different places as I can and gain cultural experience but I really wanted to compare the education systems over there and just see what the United States are like and be able to compare it to the UK and see if I can take any strategies away, which I think that I did . . . so really to grow educationally and culturally. One of the most poignant points made by the students during the interview was how much they had grown as a result of living and working with people from a different country. Marjorie made the point that “I think that they’ve made me more culturally aware and sensitive, not that I wasn’t before, but I think that it’s really opened my eyes to how I grew up in a very small town.” This comment reiterates the work of Bell et al. (2014) and Jackson (2015), who 301

Christian Winterbottom et al.

are critical of study abroad programs that are just vacation trips without proper preparation and guided reflection. During the study abroad experience, the students had the opportunity of living in the community in which they would be working. The faculty considered this to be the best way to immerse the students in the community and culture; for example, the students went food shopping, visited book stores and restaurants and traveled on public transportation. All of these experiences seem small, however for students who are not used to the culture, they are potentially transformational by facilitating reflection and awareness of the cultural differences between the two countries. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

A key component of transformational learning is the ability of the participants to be able to reflect and critically examine the experience that is happening to them. Taylor (1998) suggests that when students experience a perspective transformation, their new meaning structures become more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective and integrative of experience. For example, Janet indicated that I think that it’s important for people [to experience another culture], so long as they have the means to do so; I think it’s important to go out and see the way that other people live. Because, um, gosh, I mean so many reasons, like I just feel like it op – it just really, um, opens your eyes to how, like everybody is different but everybody is also the same. The same appreciation of cultural differences was also mentioned by Angela, who stated: I mean just because we met so many different people than a different culture than we lived, than we are in. That kind of helps me see how maybe people like in our schools are slightly different but they are, like the different things that they’re coming from. And that kind of brings up the school and social lives as well, that everyone comes from a different situation. They learn differently, they see things differently. This critical thinking and reflecting on these experiences reflects the work of Mezirow (1991). However, the participants not only thought about the culture, but they also discussed how the experiences would affect them in the future, and as teachers how their pedagogical practices would change. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES IN PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES

The participants agreed that they “compared and contrasted the different teaching styles and, kind of just everything that we saw, from the cultural aspect to the educational aspect of everything.” This was important because as Pedersen (2010) argued, many study abroad programs do not focus on student holistic outcomes, and variables such as identity, meaning and purpose in life are often ignored. During these experiences in the northwest of England, the students reflected on how they could take what they had learned and how it could be implemented many years from now. Charlotte made the point that there was so much learning going on through play, which I loved. I’m a huge supporter of. . . . And so it was really cool to see how effective that could be because I feel like a 302

Student-centered learning

lot of schools here just don’t really put as much emphasis on that, um so it was so cool. That’s where I got, they had these play lesson plans, and the kids were learning, and it was really cool. I think the biggest thing was that teaching can be taught in so, like just can be done in so many different ways, and that’s okay. And I think that’s what our county needs to realize that. Quinnan (1997) argued that fostering transformative learning has to challenge students to assess their value system and worldview. Moreover, once these assumptions and worldviews have been challenged, they are then changed by the experience. This argument from Quinnan was affirmed by not only the reflections of Charlotte but also Helena, who stated: So I don’t know, I think that, I think studying abroad makes you more, I recommended it to anyone I can. It makes you more aware, more well-rounded, makes you more prepared to go out and interact with all sorts of people in your life professionally and personally.

Concluding thoughts The three examples that we provided in this chapter highlight a small percentage of the work that occurs at the university where we teach. We chose these three examples because they were reflective of the work that is occurring at the University of North Florida. Each of the three examples of CBTL encompassing SCL was successful in that the students reacted positively and the faculty continue to teach these courses. However, reflecting on the experiences, there are important elements to further examine.

Example one The main take away from this first experience is that the social psychology course had greater gains than the developmental course. Reflecting back on the two different courses, it is the belief of the authors that the reason behind this is because of the way the assignments were structured. For example, in the social psychology course the examples of what the students could do were very specific, and gave the students a scaffold to work from, whereas in the developmental course the examples were more general, giving them an experience that could relate to a lot of things in the course, and it was not as effective. The second reflection on this example is that the authors were able to help the students have a transformational experiential learning experience while maintaining their community service attitudes. However, those who just watched a movie on the topic or did not participate with a community collaborator saw a decline of certain attitudes regarding the community. The question we have to ask is, “are we doing this work to necessarily help the students gain in all what the faculty desires of the students, or is it good enough to help them maintain?” Moreover, with students this age, it would be developmentally appropriate for them to focus on their schoolwork and not do as much community work. Furthermore, we can give them experiences that help fight against this instinct of really honing experiences that only focus on their career.

Example two When we want the students to be transformed, the level of disruption needs to be at the right amount so that there is opportunity for learning but not disengagement from learning. We 303

Christian Winterbottom et al.

looked at how different the experiences would be for the college students as well as the community partners they would be interacting with. The techniques that could be implemented when students are about to face a serious amount of disruption is implementing a smaller simulation first, so that the students can start to understand what the differences might be, and it is in a safe environment and in a classroom/campus setting. In turn, this helps prepare themselves for the more disruptive experiences later in the semester.

Example three The biggest outcome we believe when working with student-centered projects within a CBTL course is that experiential education needs to be aligned well with the course content. Furthermore, it should be developmentally appropriate, rather than looking at cognitively high experiences, when it is sometimes difficult for the students to connect the work. In this instance, we suggest that faculty tailor the experiences more toward connecting the work that occurs within the classroom to the CBTL outside of the class.

Final reflection and advice Take a step back and examine the experiences over the years/semesters. Look at the experiences of the students, and scaffold the experiences to fit not only the students, but also what faculty want to do with their courses; decide where the scaffolding appears, but scaffold on multiple dimensions. For example, emotionally (are the students ready for this experience), have alignment with course content, specific experiences, and examine the work in a holistic experience.

References Alper L., Fendel D., Fraser S. & Resek D. (1996) Problem-based mathematics: Not just for the collegebound. Educational Leadership 53(8), 18–21. Barab S. & Landa A. (1997) Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educational Leadership 54(6), 52–55. Bell H., Gibson H., Tarrant M., Perry L. & Stoner L. (2014) Transformational learning through study abroad: US students’ reflections on learning about sustainability in the South Pacific. Leisure Studies 35(4), 389–405. Biggs J. (1993) What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63(1), 3–19. Boyd R.D. & Myers J.G. (1988) Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education 7(4), 261–284. Braun V. & Clarke V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. Bringle R.G., Ruiz A.I., Brown M.A. & Reeb R.N. (2016) Enhancing the psychology curriculum through service learning. Psychology Learning and Teaching 15(3), 294–309. Brown M.A. (2011) Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41, 850–871. Brush T. (1998) Embedding cooperative learning into the design of Integrated Learning Systems: Rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development 46(3), 5–18. Brush T. & Saye J. (1999) Instructional tools for student problem-solving: The decision point project. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX. Dunlap M., Scoggin J., Green P. & Davi A. (2007) White students’ experiences of privilege and socioeconomic disparities: Toward a theoretical model. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 13(2), 19–30.

304

Student-centered learning Freire P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, NY, USA. Freire P. (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, NY, USA. Gallagher S.A. & Stepien W.J. (1996) Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 19(3), 257–275. Hannafin M. & Land S. (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science 25, 167–202. Hannafin M., Land S. & Oliver K. (1999) Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In Instructional Design Theories and Models. Volume 2. (Reigeluth C., ed.), Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ, pp. 91–114. Hawley C. & Duffy T. (1997) Design model for learner-centered, computer-based simulations. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 423 838. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ BF02319856 on 20 October 2019. Jackson J. (2015) Becoming interculturally competent: Theory to practice in international education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48, 91–107. Keen C. & Hall K. (2009) Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes of coCurricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education 80(1), 59–79. Kegan R. (1994) In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modem Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Kiely R. (2005) A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12(1), 5–22. Lake V.E. & Winterbottom C. (2010) Expanding the classroom curriculum: Integrating academic and service-learning standards to improve students’ academic knowledge and increase their social competency. In Handbook of Curriculum Development. (Kattington L.K., ed.), Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 279–302. Laurillard D. (2005) Styles and approaches in problem-solving. In The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. (Marton F., Hounsell D. & Entwistle N., eds.), University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Edinburgh, pp. 126–144. Lundy B.L. (2007) Service learning in life-span developmental psychology: Higher exam scores and increased empathy. Teaching of Psychology 34(1), 23–27. Macaskill A., Maltby J. & Day L. (2002) Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology 142(5), 663–665. McCluskey-Fawcett K. & Green P. (1992) Using community service to teach developmental psychology. Teaching Psychology 19(3), 150–152. Meisel J.S. (2008) The ethics of observing: Confronting the harm of experiential learning. Teaching Sociology 36(3), 196–210. Mezirow J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mezirow J. (1995) Transformation theory of adult learning. In In Defense of the Lifeworld. (Welton M.R., ed.), Suny, New York, pp. 39–70. Mezirow J. (2000) Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. (Mezirow J. & Associates, eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3–34). Mezirow J. (2003) Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education 1(1), 58–63. Miles M.B. & Huberman A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Muianga X., Klomsri T., Tedre M. & Mutimucuio I. (2018) From teacher-oriented to student-centred learning: Developing an ICT-supported learning approach at the Eduardo Mondlane University, Moambique. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 17(2), 46–54. Nicholson J., Truelove H.B., Barton J.M. & Moulder R.G. (2016) Measuring college students’ community service attitudes validly and efficiently: Development of a short version of the community service attitudes scale. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education 8(4), 18–28. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). Novak J.M., Markey V. & Allen M. (2007) Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports 24(2), 149–157. Palincsar A. & Brown A. (1984) Reciprocal teaching and comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction 1(2), 117–175. Pedersen P. (2010) Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34, 70–80.

305

Christian Winterbottom et al. Quinnan T. (1997) Adult Students “At-Risk”: Culture Bias in Higher Education. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT. Ritz A. (2011) The educational value of short-term study abroad programs as course components. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 11(2), 164–178. Savery J.R. & Duffy T.M. (1995) Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology 35(5), 31–38. Shivy V.A., Wu J.J., Moon A.E., Mann S.C., Holland J.G. & Eacho C. (2007) Ex-offenders reentering the workforce. Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(4), 466–473. Sigmon R.L. (1979) Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist: National Center for Service-Learning, ACTION 8(1), 9–11. Speck B.W. & Hoppe S.L. (eds.) (2004) Service-Learning: History, Theory, and Issues. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT. Tarrant M., Rubin D. & Stoner L. (2014) The added value of study abroad: Fostering a global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education 18(2), 141–161. Taylor E. (1998) The Theory and Practice of Transformative Learning: A Critical Review. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education, Columbo. Vescio T.K., Sechrist G.B. & Paolucci M.P. (2003) Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology 33(4), 455–472. Wang Y. & Rodgers R. (2006) Impact of service-learning and social justice education on college students’ cognitive development. NASPA Journal 43(2), 316–337. Warren J.L. (2012) Does service-learning increase student learning? A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 56–61. Wilsey S.A., Arnold N.Y., Criado M.M. & Mykita A. (2013) Experiential teaching in an adult development course: Promoting an understanding of intergenerational interactions. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 41(2), 82–88.

306

18 USING ROLE-PLAY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSES AT A JAPANESE WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY Chie Sugino

Introduction Expanding open admission to universities has substantially altered student profiles in Japan. This has resulted in a shift to a student-centered learning (SCL) paradigm with active learning representing this new trend. The Central Council for Education (CCE), an advisory body to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), addressed active learning as a means to improve graduates’ attributes (gakushi-ryoku), meeting the needs of both society and business circles (CCE 2012). Since then, active learning has become a driving force behind educational reform in Japanese universities. The 2012 CCE report advocates the transformation from teacher-centered and knowledge-input style classes to active learning, whereby students proactively identify issues and work on how to resolve them. This movement reflects “the shift from an Instruction to a Learning Paradigm” (Barr & Tagg 1995, p.  15). This new paradigm aims to change the learning philosophy from simply remembering knowledge to constructing knowledge while accommodating the social needs of various skills, which is difficult to achieve in a lecture-based class (Nakai 2015). This policy direction continues in another CCE interim report (CCE 2018) on the future vision of higher education. It reiterates the need for a learner-centered vision. Simply put, active learning is “anything that ‘involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing’” (Bonwell & Eison 1991, p. 2). It “means getting involved with the information presented – really thinking about it (analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating) rather than just passively receiving it and memorizing it” (King 1993, p. 31). Along the same lines, the CCE (2012, p. 37) report defines active learning as a general term for teaching and learning methodology that involves learners’ active participation into learning, which is different from one-way lecture-style instruction. It intends to cultivate versatile ability, including cognitive, ethical, and social ability, knowledge, and experience. It includes heuristic instruction, problem-based learning, experiential learning, and inquiry-based learning. Group discussions, debates, and group work in class are also effective methods for active learning. 307

Chie Sugino

Mizokami (2018) emphasizes the “externalization of cognitive processes” to distinguish active learning from simply performing activities in class and defines active learning as “all kinds of learning beyond the mere one-way transmission of knowledge in lecture-style classes (i.e., passive learning). It requires engagement in activities (writing, discussion, and presentation) and externalizing cognitive processes in the activities” (p. 79). This is the often-cited definition of active learning in the Japanese educational context. This chapter discusses student role-play as an SCL approach in introductory international studies courses at a small Japanese women’s university and explores its impact on students’ attitudes toward learning. First, current developments at Japanese universities – increasing open admission and diversified student profiles – are discussed. Then, I will review two major issues in university classrooms – students’ passive attitudes and classroom sleeping (inemuri). In the following section, I will present students’ perceptions of the classroom role-play I introduced as SCL, focusing on their engagement and learning using thematic analysis (TA). The chapter concludes by outlining implications of student-centered instructional practice for modern-day higher education in Japan.

Challenges facing Japanese universities today University enrollment rates in Japan hovered around 20% from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Although the number of high school students began to decline in 1990, reflecting a falling birthrate, the enrollment rates continued to increase and reached around 50% in 2009. Today, anyone can be admitted to a university unless they wish to enter a top-level university. When enrollment rates were low, students used to compete for admission by scoring higher on exams. However, as universities have started to compete with each other to secure a quota from Japan’s shrinking population of 18-year-olds, their “function of selecting candidates has rapidly been lost,” except for top-level universities (Igami 2014, p. 55), and open admission without screening by academic ability has expanded (Sasaki 2017). Consequently, an increasing number of students “are poorly prepared for higher education” (Mori 2002, p. 38). A student survey (Yamada 2009) reports that students at less selective universities have lower expectation for academics and study less outside of class than those at more selective universities. These students usually seek education for immediate “usefulness” in society rather than academic life. This is a serious challenge faced by many universities as they have started to accept diverse students with different perspectives toward university education (Hamanaka 2013). The MEXT (2017) survey indicates that 66% of universities have increased the number of classes that employ active learning in the undergraduate curriculum in 2015. A nationwide student survey conducted in 2016 by Benesse, an educational service company in Japan, also shows a similar tendency. The percentages of students who experienced active learning classes through group work (71.4%), presentations (67.0%), and discussions (65.7%) in 2016 increased about 20 points from the first survey conducted in 2008 (Benesse 2017). While active learning has gained popularity in Japanese universities, passive and sleeping students remain major challenges in the higher education classroom.

Students tend to remain passive in class Despite increasing active learning classes, the nationwide student survey reveals that the number of students who prefer uninteresting classes with easy credits (versus interesting ones involving hard work) rose from 48.9% in 2008 to 61.4% in 2016. Moreover, 80% of students prefer 308

Using role-play in political science

a lecture to a seminar that requires active involvement. Thus, the expanded number of active learning classes has not necessarily positively affected students’ attitudes toward learning. In another survey conducted at Kobe University (Chikada & Sugino 2015), most of the respondents thought that students’ passive attitudes could be due to the increase in less motivated students entering universities. Furthermore, about half of the respondents believed that active learning classes do not change students’ attitudes toward learning in a positive manner. Moreover, 70% considered that traditional lecture classes were important. While over 90% recognized the significance of active learning, close to 40% were negative about joining active learning classes because they felt difficulties in terms of interpersonal communication, shyness, reluctance, and burdensome activities. Since classroom activities place pressure on students to participate, they need not decide whether they should be involved, which ironically leads them to developing a passive attitude toward learning (Chikada & Sugino 2015; Matsushita 2018). Such an attitude makes instructors skeptical and frustrated about the student-centered approach, and some claim that students do not participate actively, that classroom activities do not lead to learning, and that active learning is not suitable for Japanese students (Nakai 2015).

Sleeping (inemuri) in class Another challenge in today’s university classrooms is inemuri. A greater amount of inemuri occurs in large lecture classes as compared to smaller seminars. Some students put their heads down on the desk and sleep, and others rest their cheek on their hand and fall asleep. Students chat on campus about sleeping through most of a lecture due to boredom and do not seem to feel guilty about it. A study by Kunikata and Inoue (2012) found that close to 90% of students in their survey “dozed habitually more than twice a week during lessons” (p. 67), and that students who lack interest state that they cannot help but sleep in class and tend to be absent or late for class. Another researcher suggests that when students are interested in a topic, and instructors move on quickly to new topics, write on the blackboard and assign homework, they feel less sleepy (Kubota 2005). Although sleeping is often discussed in the context of classroom incivility in Western literature (Bjorklund & Rehling 2009; Knepp 2012), Steger observes inemuri in Japan “as a ‘subordinate involvement’” (Goffman 1963, cited in Steger 2006, p. 198) and asserts that it “has become openly acknowledged as part of classroom teaching” (p. 212).

Role-play as a countermeasure against students’ passivity and inemuri When students do not study outside of class and spend the class sleeping, providing them with learning opportunities starts with keeping them awake in class. In an attempt to develop interest among my students, I introduced role-plays that are rarely used at the university as compared to other SCL methods, such as presentations and group works. The topics of my classes (e.g., development assistance, global cooperation and multicultural societies) and my professional background in the foreign service led me to attach practical value to role-play.

Role-play as a SCL tool in political science courses In the realm of political science, role-play creates a fun and accessible atmosphere in a seemingly serious, boring class (Shaw 2004); keeps students awake and focused on an activity where they actively gather, connect and analyze information (King 1993); and cultivates an appreciation of 309

Chie Sugino

different viewpoints in order for the students to become good global citizens (Lamy 2007). Since such a rather “unusual” experience leaves a strong impression, students may remember it for a long time (Newmann & Twigg 2000; Shaw 2004). Most role-plays are employed in advanced classes to adapt theories to real-life contexts (Crossley-Frolick 2010; Galatas 2006). However, some introductory political science courses have also started to introduce role-play in order to present course materials in a manner different from lecturing, and thus stimulate students’ interests in international affairs (Archer & Miller 2011; Newmann & Twigg 2000; Shaw 2004).

Factors that encourage student participation in role-plays Successful role-plays are “often contingent upon the full involvement of all participants” (Moizer et al. 2009, p.  214). Student in-class participation is positively influenced by various factors: a smaller class size (Rocca 2010; Weaver & Qi 2005); student confidence (Fassinger 1995; Rocca 2010; Weaver & Qi 2005); student preparation (Weaver & Qi 2005); supportive class dynamics (Fassinger 2000); and an instructor’s good rapport with students (Benson et al. 2005; Weaver & Qi 2005). In addition, to increase participation, it is essential that students find the activities “meaningful to them” (Herrmann 2013, p. 184). With regard to gender, research shows that females participate less actively in co-educational classrooms (Kinzie et al. 2007). They “respond to the emotional climate of a class more than do males, and most importantly, females’ participation is related to their confidence” (Fassinger 1995, p.  94). On the other hand, students at women’s universities tend to “engage more frequently in effective educational practices” than women at co-educational universities (Kinzie et al. 2007, p. 159). In this study, I aimed at gaining insights into how students in a women’s university perceive role-playing classes because “students’ perceptions of and experiences within the social organization of the classroom play a crucial role in shaping their participation in class” (Weaver & Qi 2005, p.  571). The following section explores students’ learning experiences with classroom role-play focusing on persisting classroom challenges in Japan, that is students’ passive attitudes and inemuri. The research questions are as follows: 1 2

Does role-playing keep students awake? If so, what are the contributing elements based on students’ accounts? How do students perceive classroom role-play with regard to their engagement and learning?

The insights gained from this research can be useful to empower students in the SCL paradigm in Japan.

Methods Previous research on students’ perceptions about role-plays in political science classes used surveys with a 5-point scale rating (Galatas 2006; Shellman & Turan 2006; Silvia 2012) and some conducted pre- and post-surveys (Giovanello et al. 2013). I employed a qualitative methodology using thematic analysis (TA) of students’ comments to gain a broad understanding of how students’ perceptions of role-play affected their attitudes toward active participation and learning. TA is a useful “method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set” (Braun & Clarke 2012, p.  57). It helps to develop

310

Using role-play in political science

“data-based claims” (Braun & Clarke 2012, p.  70) and “allows the researcher to see and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences” (p. 57). Thus, TA provides a practical lens to probe overall patterns of students’ perceptions about their role-play experiences.

Setting and participants The participants included 69 female undergraduate students from two of my courses who agreed to participate in the study when the semester ended. Table 18.1 shows the students’ backgrounds. The subject matter of Course A was international cooperation, which covered development assistance that Japan provides for developing countries and volunteer activities overseas by various civic organizations. This course was not open to first-year students. Course B discussed multicultural societies, immigration, and intercultural communication (i.e., global education). This course was larger than Course A and was open to first-year students, who accounted for 60% of the class. The university is located in suburban Tokyo with 2,000 students enrolled and students’ average academic achievement rated at low to medium. According to a pre-course survey, students in Course A were interested in the subject matter and ready to engage with the activities. With regard to Course B, close to 100 students attended the first class; however, after I told them that the class valued participation, that students would work in randomly mixed groups to experience multiculturalism and that they were required to submit reflections after each class, about half of them – mostly first-year students – withdrew from the class. This seems to reflect their preference for passive and easy courses and their unwillingness to interact with senior students. As a result, relatively motivated students remained in class and thus, in the study.

Table 18.1 Background of participants by major and year Year

Major

Number of Participants

Course A: International Cooperation (Spring 2018) Fourth year Third year Second year Total

International Studies International Studies English Communication International Studies

3 9 2 5 19

Course B: Global Education (Fall 2018) Fourth year Third year

Second year First year

International Studies Tourism International Studies Tourism English Communication International Studies Human Culture Tourism Architecture and Interior Design

2 2 6 (6) 2 1 (1) 5 (1) 20 10 2 50 (number of students who also took Course A)

Total

311

Chie Sugino

Standard procedure of a role-play Courses A and B contained five and four role-play classes, respectively, from a total of 15 classes. The topics are presented in Table 18.2. These nine classes were different from usual group discussions in that students communicated the opinions of the role they played. A typical classroom role-play in my class contains (1) an introductory mini-lecture and briefing on the situation and a discussion topic; (2) student preparation that includes grouping and casting; (3) role-play in groups; (4) class discussion as debriefing; and (5) individual reflection of the activity. The seventh class of Course B featured a role-play on a multicultural society based on Fujiwara (2008). I first briefed the students on the background, a controversial issue for discussion, and on the five characters represented in the role-play. After that, students formed randomly mixed groups of five so that the class had multiple groups with the same representation. Then I assigned them roles by handing out role cards which contained background information on the role and its basic stance. Students were given some time to understand their roles and develop their strategies (see Table 18.3). Once the students were ready, the groups started with their role-playing discussion, trying to overcome different positions and reach consensus. Some groups came up with creative solutions while others got stuck. Then the entire class compared the varieties of findings and conclusions in a debriefing session that I facilitated. Finally, students wrote reflections about how they felt during the role-play, gave their opinion on the activity/experience and submitted their statements in the subsequent class. Each student was then provided with short written feedback on their reflections.

Data collection I collected data from students’ written submissions (reflections and term reports), pre- and postsemester surveys conducted voluntarily and on an anonymous basis, classroom observations and interviews (see Table 18.4). All of the data were obtained in Japanese and I translated them into English for this study. The students submitted their reflections after each role-playing activity. I used their writings about their thoughts and feelings (e.g., what they learned, how they liked/did not like the activity, and what they felt during it). Regarding the term report for Course A, I collected their

Table 18.2 Topics of role-play Course A (International Cooperation) 1 Understanding impacts of assistance from recipients’ perspectives* (Class 6) 2 Grasping needs of those who receive assistance* (Class 7) 3 Evaluating NGOs’ development projects* (Class 8) 4 Simulating humanitarian assistance in post-conflict situation (Class 9) 5 Preparing to receive international volunteers* (Class 10) Course B (Global Education) 1 Settling a cultural conflict originating from different norms** (Class 5) 2 Securing education for immigrants’ children** (Class 6) 3 Deciding whether to support immigrants’ communities ** (Class 7) 4 Knowing foreign residents in Japan and their difficulties in daily lives (Class 9) * Based on Tanaka (2006). ** Based on Fujiwara (2008).

312

Using role-play in political science Table 18.3 Procedure of a typical classroom role-play from the seventh class of Course B The overall time allotted for the role-play was 90 minutes, which was divided as follows: 1 Introduction and briefing (10–15 minutes) The setting of the role-play and the topic of the discussion are presented: Country A has increasing immigrants from country B, who started to settle in a town that has become an ethnic community for B. It was pushing A residents out of B town, where B culture and value with some sexism influence dominated. A people saw B’s value to be problematic. 2 Casting and preparation (20–30 minutes) Role 1: Official of A (who stands neutral and serves as a leader) Role 2: Majority Citizen in A (whose role explanation is provided later) Role 3: Immigrant from B (who asks A to improve the ethnic community for B) Role 4: Expert on Human Rights (who supports minority right but against sexual discrimination) Role 5: Immigrant from Country C (who emphasizes the importance of multicultural community) Ad Role 2: You are representing a view of majority citizens in country A which is against increasing immigrants from country B and public expenditure to improve a B town with a large ethnic community of B people who tended to discriminate women. You wish to take the town back for A citizens who used to live there before B immigrants came to A. Depending on the difficulty, students with the same role gather and consult prior to the role-play. 3 Student role-play (10–30 minutes) Each group discusses the same topic. In this role-play, students discuss and prioritize actions for the A government out of the given policy options. The instructor walks around the table and provides assistance, if necessary. 4 Debriefing and discussion (20–30 minutes) The instructor facilitates while the groups share and compare the conclusions with the entire class and associate the results with real issues (e.g., challenges in ethnic towns in Japan). 5 Individual reflection (10 minutes or as homework, depending on the remaining time) Students write their reflections about the role-play and their own opinions about the topic, touching upon the advantages and disadvantages of the ethnic community.

Table 18.4 Summary of data resources Resources

Information Source

Data

Collected a week after each class that used Identifiable Reflections on role-play. Used for student evaluation role-play Mostly multiple-choice questions and some Pre- and post- semester Anonymous written comments on students’ perceptions surveys about the class, learning and role-play. Considering the smaller sample size, Course A surveys were excluded. Students’ comments were taken from the part of Identifiable Term reports the report where they stated their changes in Used for student evaluation attitudes (Course A) and where they stated their overall impression about the class (Course B). Video-recordings to confirm the instructor’s Classroom observations Identifiable observations about student participation. Used for student evaluation Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews with Identifiable Interviews with three students from Course A (3J, 4B, and 4J); Not used for student students 15 to 30 minutes for each; conducted when the evaluation semester ended.

313

Chie Sugino

statements on the changes in their attitudes and opinions about the class after the semester. For Course B, I collected their wrap-up comments on the class. I included their written comments in response to questions in the class surveys (e.g., please provide the reason(s) for your answer). The pre-semester surveys were conducted to understand students’ tendencies and expectations of the class, and the post-semester surveys were conducted to receive honest feedback for improving the class. The pre- and post-semester surveys were customized to accommodate my needs based on student profiles and class experiences. Thus questions for Courses A and B were different, and each provided information about different aspects of the students. However, due to the smaller sample, some of the Course A survey questions ended up with all the students selecting the same choices, and I decided to exclude them from this study. I used these written comments as a main unit of analysis because these materials provided the students’ natural and spontaneous views. Student interviews were intended to supplement these writings in a more focused manner; however, only a few students were available in the short period before the summer break. Classroom observations were used to confirm my impressions on inemuri and participation.

Analysis I followed the TA procedure (Braun & Clarke 2006, 2012) to analyze the data. The analysis is both inductive in that it was “driven by what is in the data” (Braun & Clarke 2012, p. 58) and deductive in that “the researcher brings to the data a series of concepts, ideas, or topics that they use to code and interpret the data” (p. 58). Once I collected the writings of all the students, I screened out comments that did not refer to inemuri, participation, or learning. However, I tried not to narrow down too much at this point. If a comment was made on any of the aforementioned aspects, I left it in the data set, which was typed in an Excel sheet. I used numbers to indicate students’ years and a random alphabet to replace students’ names (e.g., 1A for the first-year student A) so that I could identify them, or simply a random number for an anonymous record. After screening the data set, I reviewed it with my research questions in mind. Then I allocated codes and categorized the data. I refined the codes to accommodate the intent of the data. Most of the comments contained several codes. For codes that appeared frequently, I added columns in the sheet, allocated each code, and marked the student row that referred to it. I combined these codes by student to avoid counting two similar remarks by one student as two entries. Once I obtained these codes, I looked for themes that could bind some of these codes in a significant manner in response to my research questions. After I repeated this process several times, I developed four themes that were “distinctive” enough and could “stand alone” (Braun & Clarke 2012, p. 65).

Results In this section, I present students’ perceptions about inemuri and engagement and learning. I had the overall impression that the students of Courses A and B were actively involved with roleplays and helped each other. Course B in particular saw a good rapport develop between firstyear students and seniors as the class continued. The overall findings confirmed my observations.

Inemuri Course B pre-semester surveys showed that close to 90% of the students had slept during the class (see Table 18.5). While the majority of habitual and occasional sleepers reported that their

314

Using role-play in political science Table 18.5 Students’ experiences of inemuri (1) Have you slept during the class? ( n = 48)  

No. of Students (%)

Often Sometimes Never

14 (29.2%) 28 (58.3%) 6 (12.5%)

(2) Reasons for inemuri Students who Sleep

Reasons by Code

No. of Students

Often

Depends on physical condition Not interested Instructor keeps lecturing After lunch Depends on physical condition Not interested Instructor keeps lecturing After lunch Other Depends on physical condition Not interested Instructor keeps lecturing After lunch Other

3 4 6 1 5 6 9 7 1 8 10 15 8 1

Sometimes

Total

inemuri was due to the class or instructor that bored them, class schedule (e.g., after lunch) mattered less for the habitual sleepers. Physical conditions that students raised mainly included lack of sleep and effect of medication. Contrary to this pre-survey, no student was observed sleeping through any of the role-playing activities. However, a few students seemed to doze on and off during lectures; they were regular sleepers in other classes of mine too. Students’ reflections conveyed their frank reactions to the class. They usually wrote down what was most impressive and what they thought they had learned in class. Thus, it was rare to find comments on either being asleep or awake. Instead, I found some references to sleeping in Course B in the post-semester surveys (see Table 18.6), although it did not ask about inemuri. The two major reasons for inemuri in Table 18.5, “not interested” and “instructor keeps lecturing,” also appeared in their comments. Students considered listening to the lecture as inactive and passive, which made them sleepy. In contrast, doing something made them actively involved with the class and enjoyable activities kept them awake. In addition, a student commented on other students’ active participation as a reason for not sleeping in class, which was a category that did not appear in Table 18.5. Since this is related to classroom dynamics, I included it in the table and will present it in the subsequent section.

315

Chie Sugino Table 18.6 Reasons why students did not sleep during role-play Themes

Codes

No. of Students

Interest in class Activity

My interest got me involved with class. Doing something in a group did not make me sleepy. Fun and enjoyable activities kept me awake. Motivated students in my group helped retain my motivation.

2 8 2 1

Influence from others

Despite the fact that many students experienced sleeping in class, their comments suggested that they understood that it was undesirable and they appreciated the classes where they did not fall asleep. Student 2D “worried about becoming sleepy” in class, and Student 3J, who often dozed off during lectures, said that she considered it was good that she did not fall asleep. They wished that they could be awake, but lack of interest and monotonous lectures made them sleep.

Engagement and learning The results of TA reflected students’ overall positive perceptions of role-play. Table 18.7 shows frequented codes that were categorized into four themes.

Theme 1: sense of accomplishment The codes that appeared most often formed a theme that related to students’ sense of accomplishment. Students “realized improvement of abilities to take action and express opinions after joining role-plays” (Student 1A). This tendency was confirmed in the Course B post-semester surveys (see Table 18.8), where 40% of the students felt that it was easier to express their opinions and 32% of them were able to tell their role’s opinion after role-playing activities. Student 4B said that she used to be the one who remained silent in her senior seminar because other members were outspoken and it was difficult for her to interrupt people. After a series of roleplays in Course A, however, she felt less uneasy and contributed in her seminar as well, which she recognized as a benefit for the class. Student 1B enjoyed thinking about her role’s position and Student 2A found alternative ways to approach the issue, which were better than her best idea, by participating in roleplays. Different roles showed diverse viewpoints to students from which they deepened their understanding of issues that they had not previously considered. They “learned the importance of respecting others through role-playing activities” (Student 3F). Some students noticed that experiencing role-plays could be useful for job-hunting, as some companies evaluate students based on group work activities.

Theme 2: classroom dynamics Both Course A and Course B encouraged interaction among students from different years and departments. At first, students were reluctant to share their opinions with “senior students” (Student 1L) and “students they had not spoken to before” (Student 3B). At the same time, first-year students wished to “speak out more” (Students 1M, 1Q, and 1S) and “offer different viewpoints” (Student 1C). When I noticed such sentiments in their weekly reflections, I told the class that some first-year students felt intimidated by senior students, but they were trying to get involved. 316

Using role-play in political science Table 18.7 Students’ perceptions of role-play (RP) Themes

Codes

Sense of accomplishment

I experienced personal growth. RPs provided different perspectives. RP classes were enjoyable. RPs deepened my understanding. I learned to respect others. RP experiences will be useful in job-hunting. I was helped by other students. I want to participate more actively next time. It was difficult to communicate with the students whom I had not spoken to before. I made efforts to create a friendly atmosphere. Interacting with students from different years was a rare and good opportunity. I want to participate like the seniors in my group. I gradually got used to the RPs. I did not like group activities at first. This was my first RP class. The gap between the role and me made it difficult to participate. I left the handling of discussion to the leader.

Classroom dynamics

Changing impressions

Difficulties originating from the roles

No. of Students* 51 25 24 13 11 9 7 16 14 13

(30, 7, 9, 5) (19, 3, 2, 1) (14, 4, 5, 1) (8, 2, 2, 1) (3, 5, 1, 2) (6, 0, 3, 0) (2, 0, 2, 3) (13, 2, 1, 0) (14, 0, 0, 0) (7, 3, 2, 1)

12 8

(6, 1, 5, 0) (3, 2, 2, 1)

4 21 21 20 7

(4, 0, 0, 0) (17, 2, 1, 1) (16, 3, 1, 1) (13, 3, 4, 0) (6, 0, 0, 1)

5

(5, 0, 0, 0)

* Numbers in parentheses are breakdowns of students by first, second, third and fourth year, respectively.

Table 18.8 Students’ sense of growth After taking this class, to what extent can you express your opinion in your group? (n = 50) Choices

No. of Students (%)

I was able to express my opinion prior to this class. I am still poor at expressing my opinion. I come to feel that it is easy to express my opinion. I can express my role’s opinion (not my personal one). I feel awkward in a group with senior students. Others (please describe): I can express my opinion better than before. I can express my opinion if I am addressed directly.

5 (10.0%) 5 (10.0%) 20 (40.0%) 16 (32.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (4.0%) 1 (2.0%)

Then leaders in each group consciously started to “create an affable atmosphere by reacting to each speaker and giving each member chances to speak” (Students 2D and 3E) and to “sit closer so that all the members could hear those who talk in a low voice” (Student 3C). Influenced by these initiatives, first-year students also “nodded to the speaker” (Student 1Y), “gave reactions” (Students 1I and 1P), and “asked another member for her opinion” (Student 1B). Student 3A observed that “it was not the existence of the senior students, but the atmosphere in the group that decides first-years’ participation.” The friendly atmosphere that each group created was well received and first-year students were “encouraged to offer their opinions” 317

Chie Sugino

(Students 1N, 1Q, 1T, and 1Y) and they “helped leaders summarize opinions” (Student 3C). As they got accustomed to this class style, they found that “grouping with students from different years serves as an excellent opportunity to interact with seniors whom they did not usually mix with” (Student 1H). Classroom dynamics can either motivate or demotivate students. In Course B, students who took on a leadership role early on set a model that welcomed participation. Their positive attitudes toward participation were confirmed in the Course B post-semester surveys (see Table 18.9), which indicated that most of the students were more motivated to learn in role-play classes as compared to lectures.

Theme 3: changing impressions Although most students were interested in group work to some extent, some students were “worried whether they could contribute to the discussion” (Student 3G) and were “perplexed at the role-playing class that they had not experienced before” (Student 1L). Other students considered the class “different from their usual ones” (Students 1N, 2A, and 3E) and had high expectations. For most of the students, it was their first experience of role-play in class and they expressed inaptitude in “telling their thoughts” (Students 1K, 2A, and 2F), “joining discussions” (Students 1F and 1O) and “communicating with others” (Students 1H and 1R). However, as they continued to participate in role-plays, they started to have more positive reflections. Student 1H was not good at offering opinions, but she was able to express her thoughts in this class and enjoyed communicating with others. Student 1S had a similar experience. She was gradually able to give her opinions as she answered questions from senior students and considered others’ statements. As the class continued the activities, students got accustomed to it, which changed their impressions and behaviors.

Theme 4: difficulties originating from the roles Using role-play caused difficulties for some students, particularly younger ones. When students hesitated to share their views with others due to lack of confidence in their opinions, playing a role may have reduced their anxiety. However, students sometimes experienced difficulties in “settling the gap between the role’s position and themselves” (Students 1D, 1J, 1Q, 1V, and 4E) and “expressing the role’s opinion contrary to their own” (Students 1F and 1G). The larger the gap, the more imagination required. When they had a mediator role in the group, some firstyear students tended to leave the discussion to the leader (Students 1A, 1R, and 1a). Table 18.9 Role-plays’ impact on students’ motivation How did RP and discussion classes impact your motivation for learning in comparison with lecture classes? (n = 50) Choices

No. of Students (%)

More motivated Less motivated No change Do not know No answer

43 (86.0%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (6.0%) 2 (4.0%) 1 (2.0%)

318

Using role-play in political science

Discussion The first half of this section discusses the findings from the perspectives gained in the literature and the latter half touches upon limitations and implications for future study.

Summary of the findings I have explored students’ attitudes to inemuri and perceptions about role-play by examining their reflections and reactions to surveys that I administered in the two courses under study. Students’ inemuri is often observed in Japanese classrooms. This study confirmed the findings of previous research, which indicated a lack of interest as well as monotonous lectures as reasons for inemuri (e.g., Kubota 2005; Kunikata & Inoue 2012). Such sentiment signifies inemuri as a “subordinate involvement” of the students (Stager 2006, p.  211). They come to class because attendance matters but remain passive, which induces inemuri. In the situation that close to 90% of students experience inemuri, keeping students awake is a necessary condition for student-centered approach. In addition, I have presented that active students kept others awake and motivated, and that students themselves wished that they could be awake during the class if they could. Thematic analysis on students’ perceptions about engagement and learning indicated that they enjoyed role-playing activities (Shaw 2004), which kept them focused and encouraged them to participate (King 1993). Assuming a role made students think and speak from a different position and provided them with a broader perspective which eventually cultivated respect for others. Role-play provided students with “global perspectives” by acting for and listening to “a diversity of voices” (Lamy 2007, p. 113). Although many students had apprehensions about voicing their opinions, the nature of the activity in which all students had the opportunity to speak in the group gradually improved their ability to communicate. The students realizing their personal growth and finding value in the activities promoted their engagement (Herrmann 2013). Students’ responsibilities as a leader or for the assigned role created “positive emotional climates” (Fassinger 1995, p. 93), which welcomed each contribution and helped others to speak up. They felt awkward at first, but then perceived it as a favorable opportunity to mix with students from different years. Repeating the similar procedure reduced their participation anxieties and provided them with confidence and a sense of growth, which motivated them to participate even more (Fassinger 2000; Rocca 2010; Weaver & Qi 2005). With regard to the class size and engagement, contrary to the literature (Rocca 2010; Weaver & Qi 2005), both classes had active participation irrespective of the class size. This may be because working in a group with only a few students provided an intimate environment similar to that in a small class. This study showed the potential of role-play as a SCL tool for both introductory level students and students without prior experiences in a participatory class.

Pedagogical implications and limitations Although active learning has been attracting attention in Japan, many practitioners are frustrated by students’ passive attitudes which undermine the SCL opportunities that active learning intends to provide. As students in my classes were perplexed by role-play at first, introducing student-centered instruction only once or twice is not enough to influence their mindsets and behaviors. Those who have not experienced a participatory approach need time to decide on how they should get involved with it. However, it is promising that many students in this study developed positive attitudes in the short period of a semester. 319

Chie Sugino

Moreover, it may be quite time consuming and impractical to prepare role-play for each class and spend an entire period on it. If it is the case, instructors can allocate a short time for a simple role-playing exercise. Political science instructors often open the class with current affairs, which usually have several stakeholders involved. After providing some background information, instructors can allow students to think about the news (e.g., why it happened and how it would develop) from different stakeholders’ viewpoints and stimulate their imagination. Discussion in a small group can foster an intimate class atmosphere and promote student interaction. It can relax students who do not want to speak in front of an entire class and who come from a culture where instructors have strong authority over students. Furthermore, assuming roles different from themselves may be more comfortable for those who are not confident and who are sensitive about peers’ reactions. Even incorrect answers will provide learning opportunities in an enjoyable manner. What is important is to provide students with the opportunity to think by themselves and express their ideas. Starting the class with a short exercise like this will attract students’ attention and prepare them for the lecture that follows. Based on the results of this study, one may wonder whether the students who became eager to participate in this class could maintain the same attitude in other classes. That is, is the experience of Student 4B, who became active in her seminar after joining role-play, an exceptional case or commonly shared among others? Analyzing future classroom behavior of students participating in role-play will provide deeper insights into what encourages student participation and motivates them to learn. Furthermore, the research design of this study aimed at examining students’ various perceptions horizontally and collectively. It did not explore the relationships among these factors (e.g., which elements had more critical relevance to their engagement and learning and how each element interacted in determining their engagement) or infrequent but significant comments (e.g., how role-play impacted their retention). Therefore, a different approach may be necessary to further investigate the specific aspects of their engagement and SCL. The overall positive perceptions of role-play may be the result of students enjoying their roleplay (Shellman & Turan 2006) and also because this study was conducted at a women’s university (Kinzie et al. 2007). Due to the lack of comparative data, this study cannot confirm that close interaction and mutual help among students from different years, which contributed to the friendly atmosphere, were typical of a women’s university. If Japanese female students tend to be more active in a single-sex environment, a participatory approach may have high potential in women’s universities to promote their involvement in class. Further research needs to verify the impacts of SCL classes on female students in co-educational institutions in Japan.

Conclusions Increased university enrollment has diversified the characteristics of students that universities accept which has brought about “the shift from an Instruction to a Learning Paradigm” (Barr & Tagg 1995, p. 15) in Japan. This transformation is symbolized in MEXT’s active learning policy (CCE 2012), which has driven universities and instructors to use active learning as an instructional technique and to make it a selling point to receive government subsidies and appeal to business circles. However, contrary to the increase in the number of active learning classes available, students remain passive, prefer easy-credit courses (Benesse 2017; Chikada & Sugino 2015; Nakai 2015), and often sleep during class (Kubota 2005; Kunikata & Inoue 2012; Steger 2006). Thus, student engagement is vital to secure SCL opportunities. To address these challenges, I introduced classroom role-play, which, I have argued, kept students awake and promoted their active involvement with the class. While a lengthy and 320

Using role-play in political science

monotonous lecture in the afternoon on a topic that students were less interested in tempted them to sleep, a class with “game-like” and “enjoyable” activities attracted their attention. Motivated students influenced others to participate. The role-playing experiences provided them with different viewpoints and confidence in expressing their ideas. Senior students, sensing junior students’ discomfort, made efforts to create a friendly atmosphere and led group discussions. Junior students appreciated the positive atmosphere and wanted to participate like their leaders. Those who were newly exposed to role-play preferred a participatory class once they realized the improvement of their communication skills and its value in their learning. As Japanese universities accept an increasing number of diverse students, there is a pressing need to cater to various learning styles and to guarantee a high quality of learning. Although role-play has received relatively scant attention as a student-centered instructional practice in higher education in Japan, this study shows its practicalities in university classrooms. In Japan, harmony and conformity are considered as important social norms and are brought to classes consciously or unconsciously (Tsuneyoshi 1992). Some students found it more difficult to present counterarguments than to show consent, even after participating in role-plays several times. Thus, it is essential for instructors to be patient and continue to provide SCL opportunities. The sense of growth affects students’ attitudes positively, but it takes a considerable amount of time for them to realize it. This study showed that low to medium academic achievers, who may tend to sleep in class, could be active participants when they found the activities in class to be enjoyable and meaningful to them. Even if they are not interested in the subject matter at first, a different approach to learning may draw their attention. Students who appreciate the value of a student-centered approach might participate in the class on their own will. The findings of this study have positive implications for empowering diverse students to be motivated learners. Considering that women’s universities still account for 10% of all universities in Japan (Ando 2017), it is worth understanding female students’ behaviors in single-sex institutions. Japan is experiencing unprecedented changes to a multicultural society as it expands its foreign workforce, driven by a shortage of labor due to declining birthrates and an aging population; it is urgent that universities foster students’ abilities to respect diversity and to communicate with those who have different positions and backgrounds. The students in this study expressed that role-play provided them with broader perspectives and that they became considerate of others. Therefore, role-play in political science classrooms has great potential to raise responsible citizens.

References Ando Y. (2017) Nihon ni okeru joshi daigaku 70 nen no hensen [Seventy years’ perspectives of women’s universities and colleges in Japan]. Mukogawa joshi daigaku kyouiku kenkyuujo kenkyuu repoto [Research Report of Mukogawa Women’s University Institute for Education] 47, 1–31. Archer C.C. & Miller M.K. (2011) Prioritizing active learning: An exploration of gateway courses in political science. Political Science & Politics 44(2), 429–434. Barr R.B. & Tagg J. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27(6), 12–26. BENESSE (2017) Dai san kai daigakusei no gakushu seikatsu jittai chousa [The Third Survey Report on University Students’ Attitudes Toward Study and Life]. Retrieved from http://berd.benesse.jp/up_images/ research/000_daigakusei_all.pdf on 15 July 2019. Benson T.A., Cohen A.L. & Buskist W. (2005) Rapport: Its relation to student attitudes and behaviors toward teachers and classes. Teaching of Psychology 32(4), 237–239. Bjorklund W.L. & Rehling D.L. (2009) Student perceptions of classroom incivility. College Teaching 58(1), 15–18.

321

Chie Sugino Bonwell C.C. & Eison J.A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC. Braun V. & Clarke V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. Braun V. & Clarke V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Research Designs. Volume 2. (Cooper H., ed.), APA Books, Washington, DC, pp. 57–71. Central Council for Education [CCE] (2012) Aratana mirai wo kizuku tame no daigaku kyouiku no shitsuteki tenkan ni mukete [Towards a Qualitative Transformation of University Education for Building a New Future]. Retrieved from the MEXT website www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/toushin/132 5047.htm on 15 July 2019. Central Council for Education [CCE] (2018) Kongo no koutoukyouiku no shouraizou no teiji ni muketa chuukan matome [Interim Report Toward Presentation of Future Images of Higher Education]. Retrieved from the MEXT website www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/houkoku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2018/07/03/1406578_01.pdf on 15 July 2019. Chikada M. & Sugino T. (2015) Active learning gata jugyou ni taisuru daigakusei no ninshiki [Students’ perceptions of active learning in undergraduate education]. Daigaku Kyouiku Kenkyuu [Research in University Education] 23, 1–17. Crossley-Frolick K.A. (2010) Beyond model UN: Simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals. International Studies Perspectives 11(2), 184–201. Fassinger P.A. (1995) Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education 66(1), 82–96. Fassinger P.A. (2000) How classes influence students’ participation in college classrooms. The Journal of Classroom Interaction 35(2), 38–47. Fujiwara T. (2008) Simulation kyouzai “hyoutan-jima mondai” [A Material for Classroom Simulations: “Challenges in a Multicultural Island”]. Akashi Shoten, Tokyo. Galatas S.E. (2006) A simulation of the Council of the European Union: Assessment of the impact on student learning. Political Science & Politics 39(1), 147–151. Giovanello S.P., Kirk J.A. & Kromer M.K. (2013) Student perceptions of a role-playing simulation in an introductory international relations course. Journal of Political Science Education 9(2), 197–208. Hamanaka Y. (2013) Tayouka suru gakusei to daigaku kyouiku [Diverse students and university education]. In Taishuuka suru daigaku [Popularizing Universities]. (Hamanaka J., ed.), Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, pp. 47–74. Herrmann K.J. (2013) The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(3), 175–187. Igami K. (2014) Reform of university education for non-elite university students. Japan Labor Review 11(2), 53–68. King A. (1993) From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41(1), 30–35. Kinzie J., Thomas A.D., Palmer M.M., Umbach P.D. & Kuh G.D. (2007) Women students at coeducational and women’s colleges: How do their experiences compare? Journal of College Student Development 48(2), 145–165. Knepp K.A.F. (2012) Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education. Journal of Effective Teaching 12(1), 33–46. Kubota T. (2005) Kenjou seijin ga kanjiru hiruma no nemuke to sono taiou ni tsuite [Daytime sleepiness healthy adults feel and how to deal with it]. Journal of the Society of Biomechanisms Japan 29(4), 185–188. Kunikata K. & Inoue F. (2012) Daigakusei no jugyouchuu ni okeru inemuri no youin [Factors affecting dozing during class in university students]. Japanese Journal of School Health 54(1), 62–71. Lamy S.L. (2007) Challenging hegemonic paradigms and practices: Critical thinking and active learning strategies for international relations. Political Science & Politics 40(1), 112–116. Matsushita K. (2018) An invitation to deep active learning. In Deep Active Learning. (Matsushita K., ed.), Springer, Singapore, pp. 15–33. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT] (2017) Heisei 27 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyouiku naiyoutou no kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite. [On the Status of Educational Reform in Universities in the Fiscal Year 2015]. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/1398426. htm on 15 July 2019. Mizokami S. (2018) Deep active learning from the perspective of active learning theory. In Deep Active Learning. (Matsushita K., ed.), Springer, Singapore, pp. 79–91.

322

Using role-play in political science Moizer J., Lean J., Towler M. & Abbey C. (2009) Simulations and games overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education 10(3), 207–224. Mori R. (2002) Entrance examinations and remedial education in Japanese higher education. Higher Education 43(1), 27–42. Nakai T. (2015) Active Learning. Tamagawa University Press, Tokyo. Newmann W.W. & Twigg J.L. (2000) Active engagement of the intro IR student: A simulation approach. Political Science & Politics 33(4), 835–842. Rocca K.A. (2010) Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education 59(2), 185–213. Sasaki T. (2017) Shiritsu daigaku ippan nyuushi keitai no sengoshi: nyuushi no tayouka to shousuu kamoku nyuushi no tenkai no kiseki [A review of entrance examination system in Japanese private university after the Second World War]. Nenpou koukyou seisakugaku [Annals, Public Policy Studies] 11, 19–54. Shaw C.M. (2004) Using role-play scenarios in the IR classroom: An examination of exercises on peacekeeping operations and foreign policy decision making. International Studies Perspectives 5(1), 1–22. Shellman S.M. & Turan K. (2006) Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education 2(1), 19–32. Silvia C. (2012) The impact of simulations on higher-level learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(2), 397–422. Steger B. (2006) Sleeping through class to success: Japanese notions of time and diligence. Time & Society 15(2–3), 197–214. Tanaka H. (2006) “Enjo” suru mae ni kangae you [Let’s Think, before You “Help”]. Development Education Association & Resource Center, Tokyo. Tsuneyoshi R. (1992) Ningen keisei no nichibei hikaku [A US-Japan Comparison of Human Development]. Chuoukouron Shinsha, Tokyo. Yamada H. (2009) Border-free daigaku ni okeru gakusei chousa no igi to kadai [The significance and the problems of student surveys at “boarder-free” universities]. Hiroshima daigaku daigakuin kyouikugaku kenkyuuka kiyou [Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University] 58, 27–35. Weaver R.R. & Qi J. (2005) Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education 76(5), 570–601.

323

PART IV

Student-centered spaces and educational technologies

19 ACTIVE LEARNING ANYWHERE A principled-based approach to designing learning spaces Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

Introduction University students have been learning in traditional classrooms for years; however, the built environment could do much more to support and enhance modern approaches to teaching. Our current understanding that students need to be actively engaged in the classroom to create opportunities for meaningful, deep learning has led to the concept of active learning classrooms (ALCs), designed from the ground up to support active learning. The term ALC draws from the SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs) (Beichner et al. 2007) and TEAL (Technology-Enhanced Active Learning) projects (Dori & Belcher 2005). Although ALCs are found at over 300 post-secondary institutions across the world (Beichner 2011), for most post-secondary institutions ALCs remain the exception, as generally students spend only a small fraction of their time in such spaces. The improvement of campus learning spaces has become a primary strategic goal for many universities across North America; however, older universities are often constrained by having to redesign existing buildings and accommodate the growing reality of large class sizes, particularly at larger universities. Adding ALCs to a campus inventory is an important step but cannot be the only action taken if there is to be a significant impact on the learning experience of all students. The thesis of this chapter is that with proper planning, many of the key features that make ALCs successful can be integrated into all campus teaching spaces.

Why active learning? University students typically spend 15 hours per week in a classroom, not including labs and extra tutorials. The typical university course is often described as a lecture that students attend. Instructors give lectures, students take notes and study them to ensure they know all the material. These linguistic constructs describe the underlying approach to teaching and learning in many university classrooms. The lecture halls, auditoriums, and theaters cast students in passive roles, reinforcing a mode of learning based on transmission of knowledge from the expert. This is, quite literally, the opposite of what educational research has demonstrated is important for student learning. More than 100 years ago, John Dewey pointed to the importance of ensuring that students are active in the learning process, stating that if “[we] . . . give the pupils something to do, not 327

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results” (J. Dewey 1916, p. 160). Among the earliest researchers on active learning, Dewey proposed that for students to learn, schools need to be re-oriented to focus on keeping students active, promoting discovery, and interacting with the curriculum. Considered a radical during his time, many of Dewey’s ideas are still radical today when compared to the reality of many university classrooms. His interest in experiential education laid the groundwork for further research on active learning (E. Dewey & J. Dewey 1915; J. Dewey 1902, 1938). The early part of the 20th century also saw an increase in attention to the laboratory components of science and engineering courses. The origin of the “three hour lecture to two hour laboratory” can be traced back to Robert Millikan (the physicist who discovered the charge of an electron) in 1906 – suggesting that students need hands-on learning experience with difficult concepts (Beichner 2014). Corey (1934) found that lecturing was less effective than independent study of text when students were later asked to recall information, a finding that has been replicated (Green 2005; Maddox & Hoole 1975). References to active learning became more prevalent in the 1960s: Learners are not sponges soaking up the words of wisdom poured over them by their teachers. Nor are they blank paper on which [the teacher] can write his profoundest thoughts. The more involved the student becomes, the more likely he is to learn. (Goetz 1960, p. 9) Early principles of active learning contrasted it with passive learning – where students were reading or watching instead of doing. Polya (1963) suggests the key to active learning is that the student must discover the information for themselves – that they must “act.” More modern conceptions of active learning were proposed by Chickering and Gamson (1987) as part of the seven principles of good practice. Their famous quote, “learning is not a spectator sport” (p. 4), summarizes their concept of active learning. They also connect active learning to specific types of higher-order tasks performed by students who must talk and write about their learning, relate it to past experiences and connect it with their current lives. Bonwell and Eison (1991) defined active learning as learning where students are more involved than just listening. Students are engaged in activities (reflecting, discussing, writing) that emphasize higher-order thinking (application, analysis, evaluation). Barkley (2009) describes active learning as when “the mind is actively engaged. Its defining characteristic is that students are dynamic participants in their learning and that they are reflecting on and monitoring both the processes and the results of their learning” (p. 17). However, it is important to note that a lecture is not always just a lecture. Much of what is often described as successful lecturing is in fact lecturing with interspersed active learning components. Ruhl, Hughes and Schloss (1987) demonstrated that simply pausing for a few minutes multiple times in a lecture can allow students to learn significantly more (often referred to as a 10–2 strategy – 10 minutes of lectures paired with 2 minutes of questions). Rather than being concerned with the (in)effectiveness of lecturing, it may be more productive to examine literature where active learning is compared with passive learning. In the last 20 years, a few key large-scale analyses and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize the benefits of active learning. The first is from Hake (1998), who examined over 6,000 students in both traditional and active learning sections of high school and college physics classrooms. Using the Force Concept Inventory, an instrument that measures conceptual knowledge of physics (Hestenes et al. 1992), he examined the normalized pre- and post-course gain scores. The average gain of students in courses with significant active learning components was 328

Active learning anywhere

2 standard deviations higher than those in traditional courses. Eric Mazur’s studies of his courses at Harvard looked at the impact of his shift from lecturing to peer instruction. Mazur found that gains in physics knowledge (as measured by pre-post tests using the Force Concept Inventory) doubled with the shift to peer instruction (Crouch & Mazur 2001). Freeman et al. (2014) performed a meta-analysis of 225 studies in STEM education, comparing failure rates in traditional courses and those with active learning. Their results indicated that students in courses with active learning performed approximately 6% better than those in traditional courses, and that students in traditional courses had failure rates 12% higher than those with active learning components. These results held across all STEM disciplines in the study as well as in courses of various sizes. Active learning has been demonstrated to promote higher-level learning (Richmond et al. 2015; Richmond & Hagan 2011), critical thinking (Muehlenkamp et al. 2015) and enjoyment and engagement (Albanese & Mitchell 1993). There is even evidence that using active learning techniques can benefit assessments that are not designed to align with active learning. Yoder and Hochevar (2005) found that using active learning techniques improved performance on multiple-choice final assessments when compared with traditional lectures. As Jensen (2000, p. 37) said, “Active learning is for educators who understand the science behind the learning.” Studies examining the success of active learning tend to focus on either the ineffectiveness of lecturing as an instructional method or comparisons of passive vs. active methods, demonstrating that active methods result in improved learning. Prince (2004) summarized two major challenges when exploring the impact of lecturing on student learning. The first is problem definition. Isolating an instructional method for study is extremely difficult, and comparing results in the literature is complex. Attempting to isolate instructional method as the sole cause of improvements to learning outside of a lab context often leads to an oversimplification of the complexity of the learning process. The second issue is how to measure if learning is “successful” in determining what improvements could be considered significant in the short or long term. There is a time and place for a lecture strategy, just as there is a time and place for active learning (Reeves 2006). In most universities, lecturing is a strategy that is universally applied when not universally needed. For learning to be successful, a continuum of strategies is required. The question for design of learning spaces is how do those spaces support or interfere with teaching and learning? The choice of strategies happens within a context; strategies used in large class teaching are often very different from strategies used in small seminars (McKeachie 1986), and lecture halls make group discussions difficult. The teaching context and environment will have an influence on the choices instructors make.

Choice architecture Thaler and Sunstein (2003) are credited with proposing the concept of libertarian paternalism as trying “to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves” (Thaler & Sunstein 2009, p. 5). The application of this concept to design is called choice architecture. The authors propose that it is possible to design opportunities that suggest or nudge individuals to make qualitatively better choices. They describe this choice as a “nudge,” defined as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (p. 6). Choice architecture related to health and wellness suggest that putting heathy options (i.e., fruit vs. unhealthy snacks) in grocery stores in easy-to-reach and highly visible locations will result in increased uptake. Studies have demonstrated that healthy food is chosen more often if located next to cash registers (Kroese et al. 2016). Hargreaves (2013) proposes nudging teacher 329

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

development to promote a culture of change. He takes the concept of the “nudge” further, to include activities such as professional learning communities. He suggests using them to create opportunities for arranged collegiality (designed, informal opportunities to connect around ideas) to promote collaboration among staff.

Choice architecture learning spaces The concept of space shaping behavior has been clearly understood by architects in many contexts yet only recently applied to the design of learning spaces. Intentionally designing a learning space to include affordances that “nudge” toward active and collaborative learning strategies can enhance the teaching and learning within them (Brown & Lippincott 2003; Jamieson et al. 2000; JISC 2006; Long & Holeton 2009; Oblinger 2006; Temple 2007). These choice affordances can manifest themselves in the physical classroom in multiple ways: • •

Tiered classrooms with large front-of-room spaces suggest specific behavior – one of lecturing by the instructor and listening by the student. Flat classrooms with round tables and no front of room suggest that students are expected to talk and work with each other – and that listening to the instructor is not the only role that the students should play.

Indeed, these choice affordances may be even more powerful than initially thought. Orr (1993) suggests that the learning environment has a hidden curriculum that guides teaching and learning using the physical learning environment. Research has demonstrated the impact of diverse design features of learning spaces on student cognition, performance and learning. Areas include: • • • •

Acoustics and lighting (Baek & Min 2015; 2012; Dunn et al. 1985; Keis et al. 2014; Motamedzadeh et al. 2017; Smolders et al. 2012; Vandewalle et al. 2006); Air quality, temperature, ventilation (EPA 2003; Fisher 2001; New York Commission on Ventilation & Winslow 1931; Wargocki et al. 2005); Furniture (Cornell 2002; O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi and Peterson, VS Furniture & Bruce Mau Design 2010); Information technologies (Dori & Belcher 2005).

Active learning classrooms Active learning classrooms (ALCs) are classrooms designed with nudges toward active and collaborative learning. They emerged from the rethinking of the physics teaching model in the early to mid-1990s. At that time, the physics teaching model was changing from a lecture-based curriculum to a more studio-learning active approach. Part of that change required a rethinking of the layout, furniture and technologies within a traditional classroom to include information technologies, whiteboards and movable furniture to enable student practice within the classroom. Classrooms were outfitted with computers and furniture to support collaboration, and the front of the room became less important in favor of space for student work (Wilson 1994; Wilson & Jennings 2000). Bob Beichner at North Carolina State University created the first SCALE-UP classrooms (originally the acronym stood for Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Physics, which was later changed to Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies). These rooms were among the first to

330

Active learning anywhere

Figure 19.1 McGill University early ALC

be designed to uniquely support studio physics teaching. They included round tables of nine students, space for the instructor in the middle of the room, and projection surfaces surrounding the classroom (Beichner 2014; Beichner et al. 1999, 2007). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) began developing their own active learning classrooms in 2000 as Technology Enabled Active Learning Spaces (TEAL). TEAL was designed to support the freshman physics program by redesigning classrooms to support curriculum redesign that integrated traditional lectures and laboratory activities using collaborative learning. Other universities, such as the University of Minnesota, began to design and build ALCs in 2007,1 and McGill University developed its own ALCs starting in 2009 (Teaching and Learning Services (TLS) 2009; Whiteside et al. 2010). As of 2019, the SCALE-UP website identified over 250 ALCs in the US with hundreds more across the world (Park & Choi 2014).2 McGill University also developed a website to track recent renovations on campus.3 Soon after their initial development, research began to be published on the effectiveness of ALCs in supporting student learning. Two categories of evaluation studies are particularly relevant: (1) the impact on students (outcomes and engagement) and (2) the impact on instructors (pedagogy and practice).

Impact on student outcomes and engagement Much of the literature on the impact of ALCs focuses on student outcomes. Talbert and MorAvi (2018) categorize the literature on student outcomes in two areas: quantitative (course grades, assignment grades and concept inventories) and “21st-century skills” (information management, communication skills and social responsibility/impact). There is also complementary literature on the impact on student engagement. Early studies on student outcomes found that students in SCALE-UP classrooms had improved conceptual understanding of the discipline, higher class attendance, and reduced failure rates for women and minorities (Beichner et al.

331

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

1999, 2007). Later studies on the TEAL classrooms at MIT replicated these findings, with students outperforming peers in traditional lecture classes in conceptual understanding (Dori & Belcher 2005). Studies in the University of Minnesota’s ALCs also yielded similar results. At Minnesota, ACT scores were used as a predictor of student success and results showed that students in ALCs outperformed expectations with all other variables held constant (Brooks 2011; Whiteside et al. 2010). This study was replicated a number of years later in different courses with the same results – students in ALCs had significantly higher grades than those in traditional spaces (Brooks & Solheim 2014; Gordy et al. 2018; Hao et al. 2018; Martin-Dunlop et al. 2018). Other studies have looked at student improvement on concept inventories, the most common being the Force Concept Inventory used to evaluate knowledge of physics, a core finding in Beichner et al.’s (2007) original study on SCALE-UP classrooms. Many other studies have examined increased student engagement and how ALCs can have a positive impact compared to traditional classrooms (Baepler & Walker 2014; Beichner et al. 2007; Chiu & Cheng 2017; Dori & Belcher 2005; Gierdowski 2013; Park & Choi 2014; Rands & Gansemer-Topf 2017; Salter et al. 2013; Scott-Webber et al. 2013; Taylor 2009). Other studies have reported increases in collaboration, interaction and creativity (Chiu & Cheng 2017; Gordy et al. 2018; Nissim et al. 2016).

Impact on instructors There is far less literature on the impact of teaching in ALCs on instructors than on students. Findings suggest that instructors in ALCs tend to lecture less, spend less time at the podium, and more time interacting with students (Brooks 2012). Other studies have reported increased motivation in instructors teaching in ALCs, especially regarding affordances such as greater access to students and increased movement throughout the classroom (Ge et al. 2015). Research not specifically in ALCs report that decreasing student density and enabling chairs to rotate or move enabled instructors to move around the room more easily and have more interactions and discussions with students (Henshaw et al. 2011; Rands & Gansemer-Topf 2017). There is, however, a very important limitation that must be addressed when examining the literature on ALCs: it is more important how ALCs are used than if they are used. Active learning strategies can improve learning outcomes in traditional classroom environments. Mazur (2009) reported triple the learning gains using interactive learning (as opposed to lecturing) in traditional classrooms. Others also reported similar improvements using interactive learning in large lecture classes (Deslauriers et al. 2011; Lyon & Lagowski 2008). In addition, there is a great deal of criticism aimed at studies that attempt to determine the impact of space “alone” (Bligh & Pearshouse 2011; Gierdowski 2013; Temple 2008). Placing a course in an ALC does not guarantee student success, but it does create the conditions for good teaching and learning to happen. And while there is evidence that space shapes instructor and student behaviors (Brooks 2012), there must be a readiness and willingness on the part of both instructors (to adapt their pedagogy) and students (to take responsibility for their learning) for ALCs to have an impact.

Case presentation: how learning spaces can support active learning Before 2005, McGill University followed a decentralized model of classroom refurbishment. Central funds were distributed to faculties to manage classrooms within “their” buildings. This model presented a number of issues.

332

Active learning anywhere

1

2 3 4

5 6

Some faculties took funds assigned for classroom refurbishment and redistributed them toward other needs, resulting over time in some buildings having good-quality classrooms with others falling into disrepair. There was little to no transparency in the allocation of resources. In addition, faculties with the loudest voices would often receive more funding, regardless of needs. Faculties were making classroom furniture and equipment purchases that were not taking advantage of centralized purchasing power. Classroom designs were based on local disciplinary experiences, usually simply replicating past designs. Even in buildings that housed courses from multiple faculties, only the building “owner” was part of the design process. Since many classrooms were locally managed and owned, the registrar had difficulty in managing classroom needs across campus. Student classroom experiences were inconsistent. Some rooms were well designed and maintained; others were not. Even if individual instructors tended to teach in their home buildings, students were often scheduled in classrooms all over campus.

In 2005, the provost of McGill University addressed these issues by gathering all funding provided to faculties into one fund and created the Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group (TLSWG) to steward it. The mandate was to establish teaching and learning space principles and standards, identify teaching and learning space needs, set priorities and recommend funding for improvements to teaching and learning spaces at McGill. The group had members from all stakeholders at the university – including academics teaching in classrooms, IT/AV professionals, the registrar, those responsible for the physical plant, architects, students and others. The provost requested that the campus teaching and learning unit (Teaching and Learning Services) chair the group. In the provost’s vision, pedagogy should drive design, technology and infrastructure decisions, not the other way around. In the beginning, although the teaching and learning unit had little experience with learning spaces, it was charged with guiding a group of diverse academic and non-academic stakeholders. The first task undertaken was to create an evidence-based framework to guide classroom designs to guide decision-making. As McGill had participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE; McCormick et al. 2013) survey for a number of years and this framework was in alignment with the University’s strategic goals, NSSE was used as a base for developing a set of principles for the design of teaching and learning spaces. An internal working document was created in 2005; it was revised to align with the 2013 version of NSSE (McCormick et al. 2013) and then published in 2016 (Finkelstein et al. 2016). These principles focused on connecting the NSSE themes connected to success at university to the design of learning spaces: Academic challenge: Focused on higher-order thinking and reflection; Learning with peers: Collaborative learning with diverse others; Experiences with faculty: Effective teaching practices and interaction with faculty; Campus environment: A high-quality, supportive environment; High-impact practices: Practices that expand beyond the conventional university curriculum including field experiences, internships and study abroad programs. Each of these themes was mapped onto teaching and learning spaces across multiple categories of affordances (layout, furniture, technologies, acoustics, lighting/color).

333

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

Academic challenge For example, in the area of academic challenge, one consideration is the workspace available to students (layout). Many classrooms provide student work surfaces that are extremely small, preventing them from using a laptop during class (furniture). In addition to limiting the use of laptops for note-taking (which presents an even greater problem for students requiring laptops as part of a disabilities accommodation), students cannot engage in any activity in class that requires them, either individually or with their peers, to interact with a simulation, a spreadsheet, or access the internet for further information. Providing larger work surfaces, often accomplished by using tables and chairs instead of small one-arm tablet chairs enables students to better engage with content and to increase the level of academic challenge. Technologies that allow students to experience course content in multiple modalities using modern audio-visual systems can also support students’ engagement with content, providing them with a potentially improved learning experience. Modern audio-visual systems also allow for the display of multiple types of content simultaneously – an instructor could show a computer simulation on one screen and use a document camera to draw out a process on another. Classroom acoustics (including sound absorption and reflection) and lighting (highlighting important areas of the room) are also critical elements to support engagement with content. Students who cannot hear instructors will not engage. Ensuring that desired sounds can be amplified and ambient noise removed is critical to support student understanding. Lighting patterns can support different classroom activities (such as lighting a writable wall when explaining a problem or darkening a room to play a video) that can be critical to the learning process.

Learning with peers Learning spaces should support learning with peers by enabling students to collaborate with each other. Layouts should be designed to enable students to face one another, as appropriate. Classrooms should allow for greater circulation around the room – long rows of fixed layouts prevent students from engaging with one another. Furniture should be selected to support flexibility, such as movable tables and chairs. Students could face in one direction for a lecture, but then be able to change configuration to engage in small group activities or discussions. Technologies to support learning with peers should include writable walls to share non-digital materials as well as screens to share digital materials. Acoustic and lighting designs can support collaboration by lighting collaborative areas. Students who cannot be heard or hear each other cannot contribute to or interact with peers.

Experiences with faculty Learning spaces should promote interaction and collaboration between students and instructors. Layouts should ensure that instructors are within close proximity to students and can circulate throughout the classroom. Classroom furniture such as podiums do not have to be obstructions in the classroom and student chairs and writing surfaces can be flexible to enable different modes of teaching. Technologies can enable sharing of screens across the classroom. Classroom audiovisual automation can enable instructors to interact with students while controlling audiovisual equipment. Acoustic zones and microphones can ensure students and instructors can interact even in larger spaces. Lighting and color can be used to create different instructional zones within classroom spaces for different tasks.

334

Active learning anywhere

Campus environment and high impact practices These areas deal with campus-wide issues that go beyond individual classrooms. Classrooms alone cannot change the learning experience for students and must be supported by a university culture that promotes learning. McGill University defines itself as a research-intensive, studentcentered institution – students learn directly from leading researchers in their fields. Research and teaching are considered as inextricably linked, each informing the other. This culture is supported by the campus buildings and the distribution of the functions within them. At McGill, most classrooms are distributed across campus. Each building is connected to a discipline and contains both teaching and research; as a result, there are few teaching-only or research-only buildings on campus. The design of the campus supports its culture; students can often interact with professors in hallways outside their classrooms, next to their teaching labs and by their offices, promoting the interconnection between research and teaching.

Nudging for better teaching and learning The TLSWG has spent the last decade changing the teaching and learning environment at McGill University. It has been the primary driver of a systemic process to promote the re-envisioning of learning spaces through organizational change, managed by the teaching and learning unit (Teaching and Learning Services). While organizational and cultural change has been historically identified as a primary role of educational development, it has often been neglected in practice.

Small changes for a small nudge Among the first renovations approved by the TLSWG were small changes to classrooms that provided a nudge toward active and collaborative teaching. This was to create quick wins (Kotter

Figure 19.2 McGill University two rows one tier classroom

335

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

1996), which could be ignored by instructors who had no interest in active and collaborative teaching but would still offer affordances for those who were. Stewart N 2/2 is a 110-seat tiered room that was one of the first classrooms approved for renovation by the TLSWG in 2006. Two substantive changes were implemented in the design of this room: two rows of tables per tier and movable chairs. Combined, these subtle changes provide critical affordances as they allow students in the first row of the tier to turn around and collaborate with students in the second. Students can work in small groups on a table space, enabling them to do more diverse activities than a simple think-pair-share that might be the only possible option in a lecture hall with fixed theatre seating. In this case, the nudge toward active and collaborative learning with two rows on a tier and movable chairs was subtle and had weak force. The nudge could be ignored and conventional lecturing would still be fully supported. However, this nudge allows for instructors who wish to take advantage of the affordances to do so without alienating other instructors – providing an excellent opportunity to nudge change.

From nudge to push – rethinking the classroom After a series of small changes to classrooms, the TLSWG looked to move from a nudge to a push, exploring the question, “what would a classroom look like if you started from scratch and designed it specifically for active and collaborative learning?” The first ALC designed in 2008 at McGill modified the original SCALE-UP and University of Minnesota ALC design and had tables of nine students who could face each other while collaborating on digital or other work. Education 627, a room for 72 students, respects the design principles by providing adequate student space to work with large tables and screens and computers to share their work. Instructors have multiple means of representation of content with four screens around the room which can show images from two independent sources. Round tables and movable chairs, along with writable walls that surround the room, promote learning with peers. The layout of the room has open aisles, and a central podium to promote connections between students and instructors. The classroom is designed to explicitly support active learning and collaboration. Since 2008, newer iterations of ALCs have been designed at McGill, all with the same basic structure. The Cybermed ALCs are three identical 80-seat classrooms in a circular building; each has round tables with movable chairs, a centralized podium and writable surfaces surrounding the room. Of note is the less “technology heavy” nature of the room. There were no computers and monitors installed on the tables, freeing up space and reducing long-term operating costs. The most recent ALC created at McGill University is Arts 150, an 88-seat room. This classroom is similar to our previous ALCs, with round tables and movable chairs for students, along with multiple projection surfaces, whiteboards wrapping the room, and a centralized podium. Taking advantage of the room height, the projectors display on acoustic surfaces above the whiteboards, enabling both to be used at the same time. There are no screens on the tables, reducing the overall technology in the room. This is consistent with literature suggesting that ALCs with less technology tend to be as successful as those that are technology rich (2018; Soneral & Wyse 2017).

Supporting the nudge – scaling support for active learning with ALCs While beyond the scope of the paper here, we designed a comprehensive faculty development program to support instructors transitioning their courses from traditional spaces to ALCs. This

336

Active learning anywhere

Figure 19.3 McGill University ALCs

enabled hundreds of instructors to take advantage of the nudge in the ALCs provided by supporting them to integrate active and collaborative learning into their courses. However, a question remains: ALCs won’t be everywhere – how do we nudge everyone to move their practice? How can ALC features be brought to other teaching spaces to enable active learning anywhere? McGill University has been intentional in using our principles to inform all classroom design decisions. Feedback gathered on affordances in our active learning classrooms points to the key features that facilitate and support active learning, namely writable walls and movable furniture. McGill has intentionally integrated these affordances into designs of other learning spaces across campus and developed three new categories of rooms to support active learning: active learning teaching labs, active and collaborative lecture halls, and our new “minimum standard” for classrooms across campus.

Active learning teaching labs The first example of an active learning teaching lab is the primary teaching lab for undergraduate chemistry at McGill. Otto Maass 100 was renovated in 2012, and serves over 1,800 students each year. One of the primary goals within a teaching lab is to promote collaboration and interaction. In this facility, instead of a traditional chemistry wet lab design of long rows, McGill’s ALC experience inspired round tables and open circulation as primary features of the design. Two identical floors (connected by an internal staircase) have eight pods of six students each. The counter-height tables have adjacent interactive whiteboards. The open circulation between tables allows TAs to easily gather students to examine results of a group’s experiments, or work on an interactive whiteboard to demonstrate and discuss concepts. All the whiteboards are connected through the two-floor facility, enabling simultaneous demonstrations to all groups if desired. The redesign of this teaching lab facility to integrate features from ALCs supported the redesign of the lab curriculum, moving from cookbook lab activities to inquiry-based projects.

337

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

Figure 19.4 McGill University active learning lecture hall

The second example, Adams 211, redesigned in 2016, is a dual-purpose facility, an ALC as well as a dry lab for geology. Features from previous ALC designs were added, including round tables and movable chairs, writable surfaces, multiple projection screens for content and a centralized podium. Student tables are at counter height, allowing students to sit on movable stools or stands. In lab teaching, students often move from one station to another or change specimens for examination. Counter-height tables enable easy interaction with instructors and TAs, who can stand at the table and talk with student groups, as opposed to regular height tables that would require them to bend over or sit. (Note that there is one table that is itself height-adjustable to accommodate students with mobility issues.) Lab prep areas as well as equipment storage is embedded within the room allowing for seamless transition from a lab to a classroom. This hybrid space takes key features from ALCs and applies them to a dry lab teaching lab context.

Active and collaborative “lecture halls” (active learning hall) An opportunity arose in 2015 to rethink a lecture hall in the Faculty of Education to meet the expressed needs to have a space for presentations, active learning, and to support videoconferencing. McGill’s design team developed a hybrid learning space that drew on affordances from both the traditional lecture hall as well as previous ALCs. Like a traditional classroom, this space is directional, with a podium at the front of the classroom. There are multiple projectors and sources (computer, document camera, interactive screens) to show different content as well as the local and remote participants. The design drew on affordances from the ALCs by creating light-bulb-shaped tables on tiers, with whiteboards directly behind each table for collaboration. Although tiered, there is fluid circulation, and the instructor can easily converse with students on two tiers at a time, promoting interaction between instructors and students. Students are in small groups but face a front wall space so they can collaborate or engage with a presentation. The tables have microphones connected to the conferencing system, so that they can share and record their ideas. Rather than a compromise between a lecture hall and ALC, this room took 338

Active learning anywhere

Figure 19.5 McGill University active learning teaching labs

Figure 19.6 McGill University “standard” classroom

the best of each, enabling both presentation and collaboration to support different types of learning within the same learning space.

Redefining the “standard classroom” A concern with ALCs is that there are always limited numbers on any campus. However, by focusing on the affordances that ALCs provides, there are many opportunities to bring “ALC features” to every space on campus. McGill has been refining the “standard classroom” by 339

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer

integrating features from ALCs. Chancellor Day Hall 101 is a 70-seat classroom is an example of what McGill is promoting as a standard for teaching. This room has movable tables and chairs and includes patterned guides on the classroom floor and signage on the door to indicate standard lecture and collaborative layouts, reducing the cognitive load of shifting layouts. In addition, the room is wrapped with writable walls and includes multiple projectors for displaying content (either from the instructor at the podium or by wireless from any student in the room). By bringing ALC affordances to classrooms across the university, McGill hopes to “float all boats” and improve the quality of all classrooms.

Key takeaways There are three major takeaways applicable to any institution at any stage of their development of learning spaces.

Create a governance structure Perhaps the most important step in moving a learning space initiative forward is creating a governance structure that includes all stakeholders in the process. Providing agency to stakeholders promotes transparency and supports improving classroom learning spaces as an institutional priority. This has been documented as one of the key factors to McGill University’s success (Weston et al. 2017). The TLSWG created opportunities for dialogue between the operational (facilities, registrar, IT, etc.) and the academic (instructors, students, etc.) areas of the institution. The governance structure enabled the university to move individual stakeholder priorities from a “me” to a “we” frame of thinking, making what is best for the institution the top priority. It also helped disrupt the traditional association of space with a discipline, contributing to feelings of shared ownership.

Design based on principles and evidence As elaborated in Finkelstein et al. (2016), designing learning spaces based on principles enables evidence-based decisions on desired affordances. These NSSE-based principles enabled McGill to directly map classroom affordances back to key indicators of effective educational practice that support student success. Any institution undertaking a new approach to classroom design would benefit from examining its own context and determining what principles govern the teaching and learning vision, then look at how learning spaces can be designed to support them. These principles provide a shared language, articulating goals for both instructors and students who use learning spaces, as well as architects and project managers who design and build them.

Change the default nudge The last recommendation for any institution that is preparing to improve their learning spaces is to change the default nudge. Using choice architecture, designers should be thinking about how to enable active learning anywhere, not just within “active learning classrooms.” Design learning spaces to make all learning spaces nudge toward active learning. Address questions such as, “How can this room enable students to collaborate on work? How can this room enable instructors to interact with all students?” This allows immediate, actionable steps to be taken in any classroom design, be it a lecture hall, teaching laboratory or small seminar room. 340

Active learning anywhere

Conclusion Active learning is not a passing instructional fad. Rather, active learning is an instructional approach that when implemented successfully can result in improved learning experiences for students. Learning spaces should facilitate the use of active learning. However, many of the classrooms that currently exist at universities present significant barriers to implementing active learning approaches. By using design principles, affordances that support active learning can be selected and applied to multiple designs, from active learning classrooms to traditional lecture halls. Universities should consider their learning spaces on a continuum of supporting active learning, with the goal of ensuring that learning spaces should support active learning anywhere.

Acknowledgments Without the leadership of Anthony Masi, former provost of McGill University, and Cynthia Weston, founding director of Teaching and Learning Services, the approach of pedagogy driving the design of teaching and learning spaces would never have been realized. Other members of the McGill community, notably Teaching and Learning Services, Facilities and Design Services, IT Services and many dedicated faculty representatives have been and continue to be instrumental in continuing this vision.

Notes 1 See https://cei.umn.edu/teaching-active-learning-classroom-alc, retrieved October 20, 2019. 2 See http://scaleup.ncsu.edu, retrieved October 20, 2019. 3 See https://mcgill.ca/tls/spaces/classrooms, retrieved October 20, 2019.

References Albanese M.A. & Mitchell S. (1993) Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 68(1), 52–81. Baek H. & Min B.-K. (2015) Blue light aids in coping with the post-lunch dip: An EEG study. Ergonomics 58(5), 803–810. Baepler P. & Walker J.D. (2014) Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 137, 27–40. Barkley E.F. (2009) Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Barkmann C., Wessolowski N. & Schulte-Markwort M. (2012) Applicability and efficacy of variable light in schools. Physiology & Behavior 105(3), 621–627. Beichner R. (2011) SCALE-UP Site. Retrieved from http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/ on 20 August 2019. Beichner R. (2014) History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 137, 9–16. Beichner R., Bernold L., Burniston E., Dail P., Felder R., Gastineau J., . . . Risley J. (1999) Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of Physics 67(S1), S16–S24. Beichner R., Saul J.M., Abbott D.S., Morse J., Deardorff D., Allain R.J., . . . Risley J. (2007) Studentcentered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics 1(1), 2–39. Bligh B. & Pearshouse I. (2011) Doing learning space evaluations. In Post-Compulsory Education. (Boddington A. & Boys J., eds.), Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 3–18. Bonwell C.C. & Eison J.A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Retrieved from www. ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/Active_Learning_Creating_Excitement_in_the_Classroom.pdf on 20 August 2019.

341

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer Brooks D.C. (2011) Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 42(5), 719–726. Brooks D.C. (2012) Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces 1(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index. php/jls/article/view/285 on 20 August 2019. Brooks D.C. & Solheim C.A. (2014) Pedagogy matters, too: The impact of adapting teaching approaches to formal learning environments on student learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 137, 53–61. Brown M.B. & Lippincott J.K. (2003) Learning spaces: More than meets the eye. Educause Quarterly 26(1), 14–17. Chickering A.W. & Gamson Z.F. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39(7), 3–7. Chiu P.H.P. & Cheng S.H. (2017) Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development 36(2), 269–279. Corey S.M. (1934) Learning from lectures vs. learning from readings. Journal of Educational Psychology 25(6), 459–470. Cornell P. (2002) The impact of changes in teaching and learning on furniture and the learning environment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 92, 33–42. Crouch C.H. & Mazur E. (2001) Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69(9), 970–977. Deslauriers L., Schelew E. & Wieman C. (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science 332(6031), 862–864. Dewey E. & Dewey J. (1915) Schools of To-morrow. Retrieved from www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48906 on 20 August 2019. Dewey J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum. Retrieved from www.gutenberg.org/etext/29259 on 20 August 2019. Dewey J. (1916) Democracy and Education. Free Press, New York. Dewey J. (1938) Experience and Education. Collier Books, New York. Dori Y.J. & Belcher J. (2005) How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2), 243–279. Dunn R., Krimsky J.S., Murray J.B. & Quinn P.J. (1985) Light up their lives: A review of research on the effects of lighting on children’s achievement and behavior. The Reading Teacher 38(9), 863–869. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2003) Indoor Air Quality and Student Performance. (No. 55975658). Indoor Environments Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, DC, p. 8. Finkelstein A., Ferris J., Weston C. & Winer L. (2016) Research-informed principles for (re)designing teaching and learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces 5(1). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ jls/article/view/1213 on 20 August 2019. Fisher K. (2001) Building better outcomes: The impact of school infrastructure on student outcomes and behaviour. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Australia). Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. & Wenderoth M.P. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23), 8410–8415. Ge X., Yang Y.J., Liao L. & Wolfe E.G. (2015) Perceived affordances of a technology-enhanced active learning classroom in promoting collaborative problem solving. In E-Learning Systems, Environments and Approaches: Theory and Implementation. (Isaías P., Spector J.M., Ifenthaler D. & Sampson D.G., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 305–322. Gierdowski D. (2013) Studying learning spaces: A review of selected empirical studies. In Cases on Higher Education Spaces: Innovation, Collaboration, and Technology. (Carpenter R.G., ed.), IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 14–39. Goetz B.E. (1960) Ways of learning. Industrial Management Review (Pre-1986) 1(1), 9. Gordy X.Z., Zhang L., Sullivan A.L., Haynie L., Richards-Moore L. & Bailey J.H. (2018) A multidisciplinary empirical investigation of active learning classroom’s effects on student learning. Interdisciplinary Educational Psychology 2(1), 3. Green J. (2005) Replacing lectures in conventional university courses by text-based flexible learning can be a rewarding experience for the lecturer and students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 33(3), 205–207. Hake R.R. (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66, 64–74.

342

Active learning anywhere Hao Q., Barnes B., Wright E. & Kim E. (2018, February 21) Effects of active learning environments and instructional methods in computer science education. SIGCSE 2018, 934–939. Hargreaves A. (2013) Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. In Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century. (Zhu X. & Zeichner K., eds.), Springer, UK, pp. 217–236. Henshaw R.G., Edwards P.M. & Bagley E.J. (2011) Use of swivel desks and aisle space to promote interaction in mid-sized college classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces 1(1). Retrieved from http:// libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/277 on 20 August 2019. Hestenes D., Wells M. & Swackhamer G. (1992) Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30(3), 141–158. Jamieson P., Fisher K., Gilding T., Taylor P.G. & Trevitt A.C.F. (2000) Place and space in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research & Development 19(2), 221. Jensen E. (2000) Moving with the brain in mind. Educational Leadership 58(3), 34–37. JISC (2006) Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A Guide to 21st Century Learning Space Design. University of Bristol, JISC Development Group. Keis O., Helbig H., Streb J. & Hille K. (2014) Influence of blue-enriched classroom lighting on students’ cognitive performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 3(3), 86–92. Kotter J.P. (1996) Leading Change. Retrieved from https://proxy.library.mcgill.ca/login?url=http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=35052&scope=site on 20 August 2019. Kroese F.M., Marchiori D.R. & de Ridder D.T.D. (2016) Nudging healthy food choices: A field experiment at the train station. Journal of Public Health 38(2), e133–e137. Long P.D. & Holeton R. (2009) Signposts of the revolution? What we talk about when we talk about learning spaces. Educause Review 44(2), 36–49. Lyon D.C. & Lagowski J.J. (2008) Effectiveness of facilitating small-group learning in large lecture classes: A general chemistry case study. Journal of Chemical Education 85(11), 1571–1576. Maddox H. & Hoole E. (1975) Performance decrement in the lecture. Educational Review 28(1), 17–30. Martin-Dunlop C., Hohmann C., Akers M.A., Determan J., Lewter K. & Williams I. (2018) Evaluating the impact of a purposefully-designed active learning space on student outcomes and behaviours in an undergraduate architecture course. In Thirty Years of Learning Environments: Looking Back and Looking Forward. (Zandvliet D.B. & Fraser B., eds.), Brill, The Netherlands, pp. 72–101. Mazur E. (2009) Farewell, lecture? Science 323(5910), 50–51. McCormick A.C., Gonyea R.M. & Kinzie J. (2013) Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 45(3), 6–15. McKeachie W.J. (1986) Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature. Volume 86. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Motamedzadeh M., Golmohammadi R., Kazemi R. & Heidarimoghadam R. (2017) The effect of blueenriched white light on cognitive performances and sleepiness of night-shift workers: A field study. Physiology & Behavior 177, 208–214. Muehlenkamp J.J., Weiss N. & Hansen M. (2015) Problem-based learning for introductory psychology: Preliminary supporting evidence. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1(2), 125. New York Commission on Ventilation & Winslow C.-E.A. (1931) School Ventilation, Principles and Practices: Final Contribution of the New York Commission on Ventilation Whose Work Was Financed by the Milbank Memorial Fund 1913–1923, 1926–1929: Members of the Commission (1926–1929) C.-E.A. Winslow, Chairman, Rufus Cole, George T. Palmer, Dwight D. Kimball . . . [and Others]. Retrieved from http:// catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001284939 on 20 August 2019. Nicol A.A., Owens S.M., Le Coze S.S., MacIntyre A. & Eastwood C. (2018) Comparison of hightechnology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education 19(3), 253–265. Nissim Y., Weissblueth E., Scott-Webber L. & Amar S. (2016) The effect of a stimulating learning environment on pre-service teachers’ motivation and 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Learning 5(3), 29–39. Oblinger D.G. (ed.) (2006) Learning Spaces. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces on 20 August 2019. O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi & Peterson A.I., VS Furniture & Bruce Mau Design (2010) The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning. Abrams, New York. Orr D.W. (1993) Architecture as pedagogy. Conservation Biology 7(2), 226–228. Park E.L. & Choi B.K. (2014) Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education 68(5), 749–771. Polya G. (1963) On learning, teaching, and learning teaching. The American Mathematical Monthly 70(6), 605–619.

343

Adam Finkelstein and Laura Winer Prince M. (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3), 223–231. Rands M.L. & Gansemer-Topf A. (2017) “The room itself is active”: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces 6(1). Reeves T.C. (2006) How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher education. International Journal of Learning Technology 2(4), 294. Richmond A.S., Fleck B., Heath T., Broussard K.A. & Skarda B. (2015) Can inquiry-based instruction promote higher-level learning? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1(3), 208. Richmond A.S. & Hagan L.K. (2011) Promoting higher level thinking in psychology: Is active learning the answer? Teaching of Psychology 38(2), 102–105. Ruhl K.L., Hughes C.A. & Schloss P.J. (1987) Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education 10(1), 14–18. Salter D., Thomson D.L., Fox B. & Lam J. (2013) Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom. Higher Education Research & Development 32(5), 805–819. Scott-Webber L., Strickland A. & Kapitula L.R. (2013) Built environments impact behaviors: Results of an active learning post-occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education: Ann Arbor 42(1), 28–39. Smolders K.C.H.J., de Kort Y.A.W. & Cluitmans P.J.M. (2012) A higher illuminance induces alertness even during office hours: Findings on subjective measures, task performance and heart rate measures. Physiology & Behavior 107(1), 7–16. Soneral P.A.G. & Wyse S.A. (2017) A SCALE-UP mock-up: Comparison of student learning gains in high- and low-tech active-learning environments. CBE: Life Sciences Education 16(1), ar12. Talbert R. & Mor-Avi A. (2018) A Space for Learning: A Review of Research on Active Learning Spaces. SocArXiv Papers. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/vg2mx/ on 10 August 2019. Taylor S.S. (2009) Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innovative Higher Education 33(4), 217–228. Teaching and Learning Services (TLS) (2009) Active Learning Classrooms (ALC). Teaching and Learning Services (TLS), McGill University. Retrieved from https://mcgill.ca/tls/files/tls/report_on_active_ learning_classrooms_for_2010-11.pdf on 14 May 2019. Temple P. (2007) Learning spaces for the 21st century. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from www. heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/Learning_spaces_v3.pdf on 14 August 2019. Temple P. (2008) Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education 6(3), 229–241. Thaler R.H. & Sunstein C.R. (2003) Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review 93(2), 175–179. Thaler R.H. & Sunstein C.R. (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Vandewalle G., Balteau E., Phillips C., Degueldre C., Moreau V., Sterpenich V., . . . Maquet P. (2006) Daytime light exposure dynamically enhances brain responses. Current Biology 16(16), 1616–1621. Wargocki P., Wyon D.P., Matysiak B. & Irgens S. (2005) The effects of classroom air temperature and outdoor air supply rate on the performance of school work by children. Proceedings of Indoor Air 1, 368–372. Weston C., Ferris J. & Finkelstein A. (2017) Leading change: An organizational development role for educational developers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29(2), 270–280. Whiteside A., Brooks D.C. & Walker J. (2010) Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly 33(3), 11. Wilson J.M. (1994) The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher 32(9), 518–523. Wilson J.M. & Jennings W.C. (2000) Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. Proceedings of the IEEE 88(1), 72–80. Yoder J.D. & Hochevar C.M. (2005) Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology 32(2), 91–95.

344

20 STUDENT-CENTERED VIRTUAL DESIGN STUDIO ENVIRONMENTS Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

Introduction Student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) is rooted in a constructivist view of learning that places the learner at the center of the learning process (Hannafin & Land 1997). SCLT is a design framework used to support personal sense-making and reflects authentic problem- and project-based learning contexts (Land et al. 2012). SCLT means that students assume a share of responsibility for conducting inquiries, applying knowledge and making meaning of what they have learned (Hannafin et al. 2014). Designs for learning are typically open-ended, meaning that there is not one correct answer or way to solve a problem (Land & Oliver 2012). Studentcentered practices are flexible and responsive to students’ needs. SCLT can be associated with teaching approaches in which less time is spent on lectures and more time is spent on class activities that engage students (Hannafin & Land 1997; Land et al. 2012; McKeachie 1954). This approach can improve student satisfaction with the learning experience and deepen students’ understanding of how knowledge may be valued in their own lives (Nilson 2010; Weimer 2013). This chapter will focus on one specific form of SCLT in higher education (HE): virtual studio-based instruction. Technology advances have cultivated opportunities for new forms of engagement for all learning contexts. Due to this, there is an increasing need to understand how technology is impacting student and teacher dynamics in SCLT environments. In the arts, the use of virtual design studios (VDSs) as an alternative to traditional face-to-face design studio models has been growing, particularly due to the burgeoning availability of, and reliance on, computers and technology in education. A VDS is a format of teaching and learning in which students’ communication and collaboration typically occurs through the use of asynchronous digital tools (Rodriguez et al. 2018). Discussions about VDSs typically focus on technological issues (the hardware, the software, etc.); however, there is a need to understand the student and teacher dynamic and how the technology is impacting contextual issues in virtual studios. Two critical factors in the success of a student-centered VDS include (1) personalized learning experiences, which typically happen through the student’s interaction with a teacher and are mediated by technology; and (2) content delivered by the VDS, or as a combination of online and offline experiences. A student-centered VDS must facilitate the learning experiences based on individual student needs, interests, and motivations. 345

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

This chapter will discuss the studio pedagogy and historical development of virtual design studios as a student-centered learning (SCL) space in the arts and architecture domain – a domain in which VDSs are particularly prominent. After that, we present a case study that utilizes a VDS in an HE online class, along with its design and technology features. We summarize preliminary findings and conclude with strategies for supporting the student-centered, distributed critique process in a VDS.

Student-centered studio pedagogy Studio pedagogy focuses on engaging students through active and collaborative learning (Wanless 2016), which is a form of SCLT. Studio pedagogy, a key aspect of teaching and learning within the arts and design disciplines, is based on studio-based learning (SBL). SBL is an “inquiry, apprenticeship model that follows a person-centered approach to learning but allows a more pervasive person-centered approach” (Brocato 2009, p.  139). The studio pedagogy is guided by what learning scientists and cognitive science researchers have discovered about how people learn, how people make sense of new concepts, and how novices become experts. The current expansion of interest in the science of learning has motivated the exploration of conceptual interrelationships offered by training in the arts. Don Schön’s (1985) seminal work The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials provides an overview of design critiquing, describing a teacher’s actions during a desk critique, specifically utilizing the concept of “repertoire” (i.e., a collection of images, ideas, examples and actions).

Studio-based learning and teaching Studio pedagogy itself is not the same in all arts disciplines. Studio-based instruction has common practices across disciplines and includes surface structures, pedagogical activities and epistemological beliefs (Brandt et al. 2013). Studio-based instruction is “grounded in the systematic knowledge of the mutual relationship among design, the human environment, and social practice” (ibid., p.  346). Although design studios have common practices, there are distinct differences. For example, industrial design practices typically include a more reflective practice, which involves discussion in the design critique and results in subjective interpretation. In contrast, learners in human-computer interaction (HCI) apply a problem-solving practice that includes a logical, stepwise analysis of the design problem and empirical data of usability. In the visual arts, learners access deeper levels of cognitive and social skills through discovery (Hetland et al. 2007). Applying a studio-based approach is dependent on the way that design is leveraged within a particular discipline (Brandt et al. 2013). In many SBL environments, learning revolves around a unique design task. Schön (1985) believes that through reflection-in-action, “our knowing is in our action” (p. 49) and as a result, students are able to gain verifiable insight into their thought processes. In a typical studio environment, an instructor shares knowledge drawn from his or her repertoire. The instructor rarely only points out errors but rather describes examples or references to similar situations from personal design experiences and demonstrates how to solve a problem. This type of learnercentered feedback helps students understand their problems, eliminate errors from their proposed solutions, and eventually construct their own repertoire.

Design studios as student-centered learning spaces The history of the design studio as a learning space illustrates some important characteristics for virtual spaces. The design studio as a learning space is a unique SCL paradigm, but there 346

Student-centered virtual design studios

are a number of theoretical frameworks that inform and shape the design of studio approaches. Chinn et al. (2017) describe how “collaborative discourse” (Nathan & Sawyer 2014), “projectbased learning” (Krajcik & Shin 2014), “constructionism” (Halverson & Sheridan 2014), the “co-construction of meaning” (Miyake & Kirscher 2014) and the use of technology to support collaborative meaning-making (Stahl et al. 2006) reflect similar SCL foundations focused on student-developed artifacts. The design studio approach is based on the idea of working and learning in a shared space, one in which students tackle similar tasks either independently or in groups (Clinton & Rieber 2010). Current literature shows some consensus around key aspects of what happens in a studio, including “experimentation, collaboration, practicing of skills, a focus on artifacts, and dialog/critique” (Chinn et al. 2017, p.  129). The studio as a SCL space typically includes feedback from experts and peers, continuous refinement of work, and public critical feedback via formal critique sessions. Schön (1985) specifically examines architecture design studios, studios that serve as models for learning-by-doing and act as a representation of the reflection-in-action characteristic of the design studio for a wide variety of disciplines. Reflection-in-action is the process of reflecting on behavior as it happens; whereas, reflection-on-action refers to contemplation after the event, allowing the learner to review, analyze, and evaluate the situation. Hetland et al. (2013) provide four frameworks that encompass the unique characteristics of the studio-based environment: (1) the inclusion of demonstrations/lectures, (2) students at work, (3) critique and (4) exhibition. In this environment, design work happens iteratively (Halverson 2013) as students reflect on comments received during critiques and use the feedback to inform subsequent iterations of their work. This is a process that includes the “propose-critiqueiterate” cycle to foster student participation in the inquiry process and in proposing an initial solution to a design problem (Brocato 2009). Students display their work in a critique and then use the results of the critique to inform new and improved iterations for the exhibition. This framework is important to SBL and SCLT, as work developed by artists is never complete, but rather artists are continually working toward better iterations (ibid.). There are a number of SCLT characteristics that make up the studio as signature pedagogy, including learning by doing and acting it out, experiential learning, uncertainty, multiple perspectives, public display of artifacts/performances, social interaction, focus on process, and the material resources of the physical studio spaces themselves. These characteristics support the philosophy of the studio, a place for learning through problem-based learning and project work (Shreeve et al. 2010). Faculty-student interactions are an important component of the studio model. It is through this relationship that students learn to think and act as designers (Cennamo & Brandt 2012). There are commonalities across design disciplines, such as the ways in which instructors facilitate dialogue and model particular design practices in a studio. There are five key guidelines necessary to implement studio-based instruction (Cennamo & Brandt 2012, p.  855), and these are aligned with SCLT strategies: 1 2 3 4 5

Create assignments that require all students to design projects that are similar in terms of goals and context yet offer opportunities for variation in the products created; Provide opportunities for students to learn from one another through listening in; Include public critiques to provide opportunities for both students and instructors to model their design thinking; Conduct meta-discussions about key ideas in response to student work; Encourage iteration and provide students with opportunities to have their work reviewed while in progress. 347

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

Each guideline is important to the studio pedagogy, and it is evident that practices are unique, creating challenges for educators as they incorporate this method of teaching and learning into their discipline (Cennamo & Brandt 2012).

Critique and collaboration as cultural practices in student-centered design studios One cultural practice of the design studio is the critique, an analysis (or assessment) tool used to evolve and improve or make something (Scagnetti 2017). Critiques are discussions, usually led by instructors, that often include student feedback and a review of student artifacts to help a learner improve his or her work and understand how it is perceived by an audience (viewer). Critiques have become essential components of studio-based instruction for learners’ development as they become artists. Most collaboration in a studio environment occurs during the critique process, a time for reflection and dialogue that is “central to a studio class” (Hetland et al. 2007, p. 26). Collaboration is considered to be an active learning experience, a component that is particularly important in art studios, environments in which drawing, debate and analysis of design take place. This differs from lecture-style classrooms in which teachers impart information and students merely copy it down, passively accepting information rather than engaging in active discourse (Bender & Vredevoogd 2006; Hannafin & Land 1997). As literature shows, collaboration plays a pivotal role in learning, especially in a studio environment. Collaboration includes instructional methods in which students are encouraged (or required) to work together on one or multiple tasks (Vyas et al. 2013). Collaborative or interactive environments allow students to learn through discussions or activities that help to clarify ideas or to evaluate others’ ideas (Chi & Wylie 2014). This collaborative discourse improves the quality of the student experience, the depth of student thinking and the learning of a discipline itself. The nature of the communication and collaboration in a VDS can be as rich as face-to-face communication, but this is dependent upon the extent to which the users are willing to suspend disbelief and immerse themselves in the environment (Gaimster 2008). Critiques are conversations that occur not only between the instructors and students but also involve the student whose art is being critiqued and their peers, all of whom have different perspectives on the artwork. As feedback may vary, criteria set by the instructor is provided to students. These criteria will help students articulate their ideas and interpretations, and reasoning for judgments when judgments are given, ultimately guiding the conversation. Artists will often follow the discussion with their intent in making their works. The idea is to have students discuss the work and feel encouraged to go on and improve their work (Barrett 2000). In a structured, student-centered studio, communication is typically arranged and monitored to assist the collaborative process. Instructors can help students shape design thinking and judgment (Gray 2013). Instructors impact the production of innovative design projects and should, therefore, encourage a studio environment that involves creativity and enables knowledgesharing, solidifying the belief that frequent communication is key to promoting an engaging, collaborative environment (Sidawi 2012).

Virtual studio environments as online SCLT Design studios are a unique form of SCLT delivery. Therefore, an online studio needs to be structured differently than other online SCLT courses (Broadfoot & Bennett 2003). In order to understand VDS, it helps to have a sense of the history of this phenomenon. 348

Student-centered virtual design studios

History of virtual studio environments Design studio environments can occur virtually as well as face-to-face (Brown 1992). Although virtual studios resemble traditional studios, there are important differences to recognize as classes progress to this method of instruction (Broadfoot & Bennett 2003). Technology-mediated studio environments can be linked back to the late 1980s. In 1986, Murray Turoff, at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, launched the first entirely online undergraduate classroom, the Virtual Classroom Project. By the end of the 1990s, the first large-scale online course was developed in the UK (Hiltz & Wellman 1997). Both of these projects provided the foundation for the development of virtual classrooms. The term virtual design studio was coined by William J. Mitchell, Professor of Architecture and Media Art and Sciences at MIT (Wojtowicz 1995). The idea behind a VDS is to create a computer-supported environment for cooperative design, functioning to accomplish two primary tasks: sharing and communicating design information (Maher et al. 2006). In 1992, the first main asynchronous VDS, called Distanced Collaboration, was initiated by the University of British Columbia and Harvard University. The goal of the project, which involved global architecture schools in the US, UK, Singapore and Australia, was to allow students to collaborate and share design concepts and beliefs (Maher 1996). Furthermore, in 1999, the first and largest graphic VDS project, called OMNIUM1.0 – Small Red Car was developed by the University of New South Wales. This project, involving a custom-built network interface (Bennett & Dziekan 2005), is still conducting international projects to examine questions pertaining to design education and collaboration in online environments. Another more recent example is the Creative Waves online design project. This project, which began in 2005, involves art and design students, teachers, practitioners, and writers studying the challenges of collaborative studios through a “dialogical mode” of interaction (Bennett & Dziekan 2005). As the development of the VDS has become more prevalent, the concepts and technologies of collaborative studios are gradually being adopted and integrated into online design courses (Shao et al. 2009). While not widely explored in the research on VDS, the relationship between teacher-student and student-student is an important topic. Kvan’s (2001) work, which looks at the dynamic pedagogical aspects of relationships when comparing them to traditional design studios, specifically in the architectural discipline, shows that a teacher-student relationship does not change as a result of remote teaching. There can be, however, additional obligations for a teacher to fulfill, such as facilitating and managing discussion online. Kvan (2001) also points out that the development of peer learning and collaboration starts to take on a different form in an online environment. As peer learning requires the establishment of a group, the value of trust between individuals is an essential part of an effective VDS (Kvan 2001). Students want to establish connections with one another (Bender & Vredevoogd 2006). Therefore, the idea of social presence is important in online learning. When social presence is considered in an online environment, it helps to stimulate the experience, enhance learner-instructor interactions, and improve learners’ activities (Whiteside 2015). The social connections that students have can change their perceptions and motivation for a course, subsequently influencing the entire experience (Whiteside 2015). In a VDS, it is important to allow students an opportunity to connect and engage with others in order to develop relationships.

Distributed critique as a student-centered practice in virtual design studios To develop a student-centered collaborative environment in a design studio, a design studio culture involves a joint design endeavor of both a “product” and “process” (Vyas et al. 2013). 349

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

Many classroom-based SCLT collaborative practices support student-centered design work using real-time communications and modalities (mostly visual and speech). In order for learners to reflect on and improve their developed artifacts collaboratively, SCLT strategies should allow them to constructively critique and build on each other’s work (Vyas et al. 2013). In the studio model of SCLT, there are four stages in which critiques occur: preparation, work-inprogress, ideation and final work (Easterday et al. 2017). With virtual design studios, collaborations are often separated by time and space, creating a need for “distributed” critiques and collaborations. A distributed critique is defined as “a set of critique practices whereby geographically distributed creators engage in the critique of design artifacts and processes” (Easterday et al. 2017, p.  2). The remainder of this chapter discusses a case study of our research that explored strategies and technologies for supporting student-centered, distributed critiques in a VDS.

Case study: architecture of a student-centered virtual design studio This case study is part of a more extensive research study (Briskin 2018) that investigated the pedagogical beliefs and cultural practices for SBL when a creative design process takes place in an asynchronous environment. The case study reported in this chapter focuses on a descriptive analysis of one specific aspect of a VDS: providing critiques of peers’ artwork. This case study is based on one studio-based art class that was offered online during a semester-long (16 weeks) course from the Digital Multimedia Design (DMD) program at Penn State University. This course introduces students to the concepts, skills, language, and principles of practice in art and design, communication and information sciences. There were 27 students enrolled in this course, 10 of whom consented to be a part of the study. The findings from this case study can help designers recognize some of the factors that impact the implementation of student-centered programs and inform the design of HE courses that focus on student-centered practices.

Virtual design studio learning environment This learning environment comprises learners and instructors, where interactions are both formal and informal between all members of the studio community. The eLearning Management System (ELMS), a student-centered VDS, was developed for Penn State Studio Arts classes and was the VDS used for this study. The ELMS platform was developed specifically for the unique needs of arts and architecture students at Penn State University. ELMS is a powerful, flexible and free technology that supports online learning (Collins & Ollendyke 2015). This studio environment opens opportunities for learners to explore art production as a process of authentic production tasks (Halverson 2013). ELMS was developed through Drupal, an open-source educational technology platform used for building and sustaining innovative online courses. This system also uses MySQL, one of the most popular database systems used with PHP, a scripting language. The front-end of the system uses Polymer, a JavaScript library that helps create custom reusable HTML elements. Polymer is a framework developed by Google. Canvas, the university’s LMS, was used as support for things such as assignment details, calendars, grades and announcements. The virtual space is mobile friendly and visually allows students to see other students’ work with ease. The virtual space was developed with the four major hallmarks of studio learning (Hetland et al. 2013) in mind, allowing students to create works of art, post, collaboratively critique, and iterate toward a final solution (see Table 20.1). SCLT is typically composed of four main components: context, tools, resources and scaffolds, which will be impacted by the goals and contexts they are applied to (Land et al. 2012). 350

Student-centered virtual design studios Table 20.1 Description of four hallmarks of studio learning implemented in a VDS Four Hallmarks of Studio Learning

VDS Design Strategies

Demonstration-Lecture – This is “used to introduce ideas, assignments, and the particular Studio Habits of Mind that will be developed in the Students-atWork and Critique structures to follow” (Hetland et al. 2007).

• • • • • •

Students-at-Work – This is when “students are deeply involved with materials of assigned project-drawing, painting, sketching, centering pots, or forming objects out of clay; thinking seriously; and making artistic decisions as they work” (Hetland et al. 2007, p. 26).

• Provided dedicated time to focus on individual production of the artwork after lessons • Encouraged to post draft versions of the artwork

Critique – This is when “art-making is paused, so that students and teachers can reflect on the work and the process of creation” (Hetland et al. 2007, p. 27).

• Dynamic studio used to post artifact(s) • Scaffolds used to collaborate and discuss the artwork on the same design problem

Exhibition – This is “used to display student work publicly and is an ‘overarching’ structure into which the three basic structures: Demonstration-Lecture, Students-at-Work, and Critique are incorporated” (Hetland et al. 2007).

• Interactive display of artwork • Search and filter functionality • Ability to be reviewed anytime, anywhere

Course pages hosted content Videos used the following techniques: Screencast with PowerPoint slides Direct instruction on technique Design perspective with an overhead view Interviews with well-known artists

Supporting SCLT involves multiple tools, resources and scaffolds that work together to enable the desired learning ecosystem (Glowa & Goodell 2016; Hannafin & Land 1997). Table 20.2 describes how SCLT components were incorporated in this case study. These four areas are further described in detail in the next section.

Context The overall context required learners to produce artwork at several points in the semester that were to be shared with others online and iteratively refined based on peers’ and instructor’s feedback. It is important for students to share ideas and work to gain a deeper understanding of others’ perspective in an SCLT (Land et al. 2012). The VDS was designed for the users and the tasks which needed to be completed. Sharing of artifacts was supported by allowing students to select and share their works, aligning with studio learning practices (Hetland et al. 2013) and constructionist epistemology (Clinton & Rieber 2010). Creating an artifact for a real-world audience encourages an authentic, lasting value, one that extends beyond the teacher and the classroom (Lee & Hannafin 2016). As noted by Hetland et al. (2013), the exhibition of their artwork is an important step in SBL. The VDS was designed to support conversations and critique of posted artifacts. Critique supports learner understanding by providing important feedback and permitting a learner to reflect on and revise his or her work (Krajcik & Shin 2014). Critiques are not just a peripheral activity but an integral step in creating quality work (Ruff 2010). The goal is to teach students to think of critiquing as a part of the product itself rather than an unnecessary step in the creation of a product. 351

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land Table 20.2 Description of SCLT constructs in a VDS with supporting literature SCLT Components

VDS Case Study Strategies

Context provides students with the overall task or problem (Land et al. 2012).

• Students were asked to produce artwork at several points in the semester that were created, shared with others, and iteratively refined based on peers’ and instructor’s feedback. • Students were involved in a blend of individual and collaborative group work. • Students were provided with questions and tasks to stimulate learners’ thinking. • Students were provided with multiple forms of assessment, feedback, and demonstrations.

Tools “offer technology-based support for representing, organizing, and understanding” (Land et al. 2012, p. 15).

• Students created personalized profiles to display artifacts and consume information.

Resources are source information and content related to the area of study (Land et al. 2012).

• Students used a variety of resources like written lectures, videos (screencasts, how-to, interviews, etc.) and interactive activities in order to launch into the making of artifacts. • Students examined complex art problems to develop their own design to address the problems.

Scaffolds are designed to support and aid in students’ efforts to understand (Land et al. 2012).

• Students were provided with models of assignments. • Students were provided with rubrics to help determine the requirements of an assignment and assess their success in completing the activity. • Students were provided with critique methods (i.e., the critique sandwich) when review peers work.

Tools This learning environment enables all aspects of communication and collaboration between students and instructors. ELMS is a communication tool that opens up opportunities for learners to explore art production as a process of authentic production tasks (Halverson 2013). This virtual studio allows students to communicate, collaborate, post artwork and comment/critique, enabling essentially all the actions students would participate in through a face-to-face studio art class (Collins & Ollendyke 2015). The VDS discussed in this chapter can be used in face-to-face, blended approaches (i.e., both face-to-face and online components) as well as asynchronous approaches (100% online). Several tools were designed into the VDS to support personalized learning that can be engaged anytime, anywhere, as a result of student ownership (Glowa & Goodell 2016). One tool enabled students to create learner profiles that could be customized and personalized. To help improve visibility, student profiles were linked to artwork so one could search to view specific artists’ work. The goal was to encourage student participation, which is a key part of the exhibition stage of the critique process. The exhibition of artifacts in a virtual environment holds great importance as both a mechanism for learning representation (Halverson 2013) and a tool for enhancing the student thought process. Likewise, autonomy is an important aspect of a SCLT framework. Reeve and Jang (2006) defined autonomy support as “the interpersonal 352

Student-centered virtual design studios

behavior one person provides to involve and nurture another person’s internally locused, volitional intentions to act” (p. 210). Personalized learning is one that is responsive to the learner as he or she progresses in the course content. Students could select projects to be submitted as a draft or directly to the studio for review. This allowed students to post artwork and take control, essentially making the learners feel like they had a direct say in the learning process by identifying when projects were ready for review. One important aspect of critique is helping learners connect their work process with the final product through collaborative discourse. When an assignment was selected, ELMS displayed the number of comments right below the artwork (see Figure 20.1). Since responding to student artwork is an essential aspect of the critique, it is important to make sure comment tallies are apparent when selecting an image for review. This would identify the students who needed a critique. Once the artwork was selected, the VDS supported collaboration and the process of critique by displaying the artwork right next to its critique (see Figure 20.2). The main artifact area showcased the artist’s work and description. Critiques are displayed on the left, with the peer critique in white and the professor’s critique outlined in red. This layout allowed for a connection between the artifact and discourse.

Resources Resources were provided as part of the demonstration-lecture phase of the four studio hallmarks (Hetland et al. 2013). In ELMS, there are two virtual environments: course pages and the VDS. Course pages, which were separate from the VDS, displayed specific information about

Figure 20.1 Virtual Design Studio interface showing number of comments on artwork

353

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

Figure 20.2 Student artifacts and critiques were visible in the Virtual Design Studio interface

assignments and course content. As part of the studio process, it was important for students to learn new concepts and techniques and to have ways to actively pursue their own solutions (Hetland et al. 2013). Course pages (which host content) allowed students to read course lectures, watch videos (screencasts, how-to, interviews with well-known artists, etc.), and participate in interactive activities in order to launch into making artifacts. The intermixing of lectures with demonstrations contextualized instruction for learners (Hetland et al. 2007). Students were able to seamlessly toggle back and forth between the two environments by using the top navigation (see Figure 20.3). The course’s pages utilize the same interface as the VDS, but it is important to note that the VDS itself did not display the resources. This allowed for more innovation and creativity when presenting course content online.

Scaffolds To offer assistance on how to critique and complete assignments, the course pages provided students with examples of previous work (modeling) and guiding questions to critique peers. These scaffolds are important in SBL because many students, especially novices, come with limited background and experience in the art domain. Novices require an “explicit structure to make sense of content, make informed decisions, monitor their progress, and adapt to emergent challenges” (Lee & Hannafin 2016, p. 719). Scaffolding in a virtual environment assists students to participate meaningfully by supporting efforts to identify the important goal(s), monitoring

354

Student-centered virtual design studios

Figure 20.3 Navigation structure of the Virtual Design Studio

progress toward the goal(s), enhancing prior knowledge, developing concepts yet to be learned, and constructing and refining artifacts (Lee & Hannafin 2016; Hannafin et al. 2009). Scaffolds were provided within the VDS through specific guidelines for the evaluation of work and how to critique other students. Students were given directions for each assignment and were required to conduct a critique for each assignment. They were taught a process of “propose–critique–iterate.” This framework scaffolds the process of providing peers with feedback to help refine the artifact (Brocato 2009, p.  179) for final submission. When conducting the critique, students were scaffolded to use a critique method called the critique sandwich – students provided a compliment, followed by a possibly negatively comment, and ending with a positive statement. Critiques were provided as written comments and could be recorded for later use. The ability to record the critiques is a benefit as compared to a verbal format in a blended (or face-to-face) approach. This allowed students more time and space for reflection (Vyas et al. 2012). The downside to this approach is that it provided students with fewer opportunities for the informal, “spur-of-the-moment critique” (Hokanson 2012, p. 81).

Results and discussion of a student-centered VDS learning environment Our research employed a case-study methodology (Stake 1995) to investigate how the design of a VDS influences online, studio-based learning. For the case study research, we collected and analyzed data from four different sources in order to gain insights into the studio-based learning and critique process: (1) data/user analytics, (2) transcripts of discourse and student artifacts (artwork) posted on ELMS, (3) online interviews and (4) background information surveys (Briskin

355

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

2018). From our analyses, we first generated themes and patterns related to the usability of the VDS for supporting learners to engage in studio practices in ways that follow our designed intentions. When describing the following results, all student names are pseudonyms. Findings for this case study showed that participants were successful in completing critiques in a fully online VDS; however, the data also revealed that they rarely did more than what was required. Peers completed critiques, but their discussions focused primarily on tasks that were being graded by the instructor. Amy, one of the more active participants, explained her experience: I find that in the virtual environment people just respond to the assignment, like what they’re being graded on. And don’t necessarily do more than than .  .  . that and so the discussion piece kind of lacking. Because you’re not being graded on responding, you’re only being graded on leaving feedback for another classmate. The data presented in Table 20.3 show a pattern in how students participated in critiques. Trends in participation and replies were calculated over time and across two assignments in order to determine if time and practice resulted in more and longer critiques. Students were required to respond to their groups, which comprised three to four people including themselves. Participants met this expectation, where the average number of critiques per student was two for both assignments. Across both assignments, one student (out of ten consented) responded to his or her peer after a critique was provided, but the average number of replies was zero. Four out of the ten participants showed no change in the number of critiques they wrote to peers across the two assignments, meaning that these participants critiqued the same number of students across both assignments. Three out of the ten participants critiqued fewer people during the second assignment, while one did not complete the second assignment. Two out of the ten participants, however, showed an increase in participation, meaning they critiqued more of their peers during the second assignment. In terms of word count, eight of the ten participants increased the word count during the second assignment. The mean word count was 562. One student decreased the word count during the second assignment but also completed one fewer critique (see Figure 20.4). For example, Laura’s critique for assignment one was 103 words and her critique for assignment two was 564 words. When Mark was asked why he did not respond to his peers, he described how he felt distant from his peers: “I didn’t, I wasn’t compelled enough, to go back and check . . . it wasn’t really, uh, that social. . . . there wasn’t a lot of communication.” Data from the interviews revealed varied understanding between participants as to the purpose of a critique. For instance, Mark felt that students were not encouraged to communicate: “Yeah, uh, one of the reasons people weren’t more talkative, I kind of felt like we weren’t allowed to.” Amy explained that when her responses to a critique of others were met with silence, she began questioning the expected norms: Table 20.3 Participation averages  

Mean # of Critiques per student

Mean Word Count for each critique

Mean # of Replies

Assignment 1 N = 10 Assignment 2 N = 10

2

197

0

2

562

0

356

Student-centered virtual design studios

Figure 20.4 Word counts of critiques for assignment 1 and assignment 2

I mean if you’re having a discussion in person . . . you’re staring someone in the eye and you’re saying here’s what I think about your project and I think human nature would be to want to respond to that. And . . . and say things or . . . here’s why. . . . Initially, I would go back and . . . and sort of reply, but when that was met with silence, I just quit doing that. Because . . . I felt like . . . maybe I wasn’t supposed to. Mark, however, attributed the lack of response to his understanding of a critiquing. I almost felt like, if I started a conversation, underneath someone’s critique it would start . . . cluttering it . . . when we were asked to give critiques, a lot of times they would say “don’t give critiques on someone who already has some. We want to spread it out evenly.” Um, so, if you look up under someone’s picture, and it says, that project . . . uh . . . had five comments and you think “holy crap” they got five critiques. But, really, it’s one person is having a conversation with the community. As evidenced by the sample quote, Mark thought that the critique process started and stopped after giving a critique, and did not require further discussion, whereas Amy expected that a critique involved a back-and-forth conversation, which when it did not occur, she stopped replying.

Summary, conclusion and implications The VDS’s primary goal is to allow students to communicate and collaborate about their artifacts; the results showed that the dialogue between students was present but not a highly interactive process. This study points to design considerations needed to support collaborative discourse in a VDS using a SCLT perspective for future implementations. Although students were able to create, share, discuss and revise their artwork, some students reported wanting more conversations about their work, and others seemed to want to engage in conversation only as a means to meet course requirements. Our future research will investigate additional strategies for structuring conversations that can be faded over time, encouraging students to be more self-directed in the process of providing critiques instead of a focus on meeting assignment requirements. 357

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land

Online studios are used in the arts discipline to further the expansion of studio-based courses. Chinn et al. (2017) state that “researchers from various disciplines within the creative art and design fields (visual art, architecture, graphic design, industrial design) have posited key characteristics to assist in illuminating” (p. 130) the unique characteristics of SBL: (1) the inclusion of demonstrations/lectures, (2) students at work, (3) critique and (4) exhibition (Hetland et al. 2013). Like many other SCLT environments, this approach includes open-ended projects, rapid iterations, and frequent formal/informal critiques (Chinn et al. 2017). The introduction of new technologies has opened up new ways of working for students in an SCLT approach. The use of a VDS has enabled the development of virtual communities for students. The concepts discussed in this chapter are not limited to studio arts. These VDS contexts, tools, resources and scaffolding strategies can be applied to any domain that utilizes design projects or learning-by-design as a pedagogical approach (Kolodner 2002). Our tools and resources support students to communicate and connect across spaces while iteratively working on assignments. Many fields in HE that rely on the design, creation or capturing of artifacts can benefit from using a VDS system like the one reported in this case study. For example, a communication or business course could use a similar version of a VDS to ask students to post public speaking assignments and then to review peers’ digital recordings. Our case study analyses revealed that even with an online critique, some social structures and norms should be established to frame and ensure the critique's quality. The tools, context, resources and scaffolds are all important to provide guidelines for the creation of work and evaluation for peer critiques by other students. The goal is to design learning conditions that are studentcentered, inquiry-focused, and able to allow students to step into real-world experiences. This chapter provides a way of thinking about the studio that acknowledges these norms and practices while also showing how a VDS is a tool that spans disciplines and age groups. ELMS is just one VDS that allows students to collaborate and communicate anytime and anywhere. As we recognize the value of online courses, further exploration is needed on technologies that support students' virtual collaboration. The ultimate aim is to inspire more studiobased learning and pedagogy that utilizes VDS and that these environments will further foster student-centered methods for conducting distributed critiques.

References Barrett T. (2000) Studio critiques of student art: As they are, as they could be with mentoring. Theory into Practice 39(1), 29–35. Bender D.M. & Vredevoogd J.D. (2006) Using online education technologies to support studio instruction. Educational Technology & Society 9(4), 114–122. Bennett R. & Dziekan V. (2005) The omnium project: Forming online communities of students, educators and professionals to explore collaborative modes of creative interaction and practice. OMNIUM Paper. Retrieved from www.omniumworld.com/assets/downloads/papers/2005_etd_communities.pdf on 25 July 2019. Brandt C.B., Cennamo K., Douglas S., Vernon M., McGrath M. & Reimer Y. (2013) A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23(2), 329–348. Briskin J. (2018) Investigation of design studio culture in a virtual design studio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation from Penn State University. Broadfoot O. & Bennett R. (2003) Design studios: Online? Comparing traditional face-to-face design studio education with modern Internet-based design studios. Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference Proceedings. Wollongong: Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers, pp. 9–21. Brocato K. (2009) Studio based learning: Proposing, critiquing, iterating our way to person-centeredness for better classroom management. Theory into Practice 48(2), 138–146.

358

Student-centered virtual design studios Brown A.L. (1992) Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2), 141–178. Cennamo K. & Brandt C. (2012) The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development 60(5), 839–858. Chi M.T. & Wylie R. (2014) The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist 49(4), 219–243. Chinn G., Briskin J., Land S. & Priddy J. (2017) Studio approximations: Digital tools in service of signature pedagogies. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal 2(2), 128–138. Clinton G. & Rieber L.P. (2010) The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development 58(6), 755–780. Collins M. & Ollendyke B. (2015) ELMS Learning Network: An edTech Platform for Sustaining Innovation. White Paper. Penn State University. Retrieved from https://psu.app.box.com/sustaining-innovation on 25 July 2019. Easterday M.W., Lewis D.R. & Gerber E.M. (2017) Designing crowd critique systems for formative feedback. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 27(3), 623–663. Gaimster J. (2008) Reflections on interactions in virtual worlds and their implication for learning art and design. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 6(3), 187–199. Glowa L. & Goodell J. (2016) Student-centered learning: Functional requirements for integrated systems to optimize learning. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED567875.pdf on 07 April 2020. Gray C.M. (2013) Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 12(2), 195–209. Halverson E.R. (2013) Digital art-making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23(1), 121–162. Halverson E.R. & Sheridan K. (2014) Arts education and the learning sciences. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 626–648. Hannafin M.J., Hannafin K. & Gabbitas B. (2009) Re-examining cognition during student-centered, webbased learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 57, 767–785. Hannafin M.J., Hill J.R., Land S.M. & Lee E. (2014) Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. (Spector J.M., Merrill M.D., Elen J. & Bishop M.J., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 641–651. Hannafin M.J. & Land S.M. (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced studentcentered learning environments. Instructional Science 25(3), 167–202. Hetland L., Winner E., Veenema S. & Sheridan K.M. (2007) Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. Teachers College Press, New York. Hetland L., Winner E., Veenema S. & Sheridan K.M. (2013) Making the case for the arts. Studio Thinking 2: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 1–11. Hiltz S.R. & Wellman B. (1997) Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM 40(9), 44–49. Hokanson B. (2012) The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In The Next Generation of Distance Education. (Moller L. & Huett J.B., eds.), Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 71–83. Kolodner J.L. (2002) Learning by design™: Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies 9(3), 338–350. Krajcik J.S. & Shinn N. (2014) Project-based learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 275–297. Kvan T. (2001) The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction 10(3), 345–353. Land S.M., Hannafin M.J. & Oliver K. (2012) Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions and design. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. (Land S. & Jonassen D., eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 3–25. Land S.M. & Oliver K. (2012) Open learning environments. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. (Seel N., ed.), Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, p. 855. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6. Lee E. & Hannafin M.J. (2016) A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development 64(4), 707–734. Maher M.L. (1996) Technology potential and limitations in a Virtual Design Studio. Proc. 3rd ASCE Congress Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 8–14. Maher M.L., Simoff S.J. & Cicognani A. (2006) Understanding Virtual Design Studios. Springer, London.

359

Jessica Briskin and Susan M. Land McKeachie W.J. (1954) Student-centered versus instructor-centered instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 45(3), 143–150. Miyake N. & Kirscher P.A. (2014) The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 418–438. Nathan M.J. & Sawyer R.K. (2014) Foundations of learning sciences. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 21–43. Nilson L.B. (2010) Student-Centered versus Instructor-Centered Instruction. Wiley.com. Reeve J. & Jang H. (2006) What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1), 209–218. Rodriguez C., Hudson R. & Niblock C. (2018) Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(3), 337–353. Ruff J. (2010) Collaboration, critique and classroom culture. UnBoxed: J. Adult Learning Schools, 6. Retrieved from www.hightechhigh.org/unboxed/issue6/collaboration/ on 25 July 2019. Scagnetti G. (2017) A dialogical model for studio critiques in design education. The Design Journal 20(sup 1), S781–S791. Schön D. (1985) The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. RIBA, London. Shao Y.J., Daley L., Vaughan L. & Lin W.K. (2009) Toward a phenomenology for virtual design studio teaching. Proceedings of Quality Innovations for Teaching and Learning, 1–15. Shreeve A., Sims E. & Trowler P. (2010) “A kind of exchange”: Learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research & Development 29(2), 125–138. Sidawi B. (2012) The impact of social interaction and communications on innovation in the architectural design studio. Buildings 2(3), 203–217. Stahl G., Koschmann T. & Suthers D. (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (Sawyer R.K., ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 409–426. Stake R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Vyas D., van der Veer G. & Nijholt A. (2012) Creative practices in the design studio culture: Collaboration and communication. Cognition, Technology & Work 15(4), 415–443. Wanless L. (2016) A learning studio that inspires active pedagogy. Journal of Learning Spaces 5(2), 61–65. Weimer M. (2013) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA. Whiteside A.L. (2015) Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning 19(2), n2. Wojtowicz J. (1995) Virtual Design Studio. Volume 1. Hong Kong University Press.

360

21 THE VIRTUOUS CIRCLE OF LEARNING DESIGN AND LEARNING ANALYTICS TO DEVELOP STUDENT-CENTERED ONLINE EDUCATION Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

From distance learning to online education In the last 20 years there has been unprecedented change in higher education, in part driven by a fundamental shift in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL, Kirschner et al. 2008; Palvia et al. 2018; Sharples 2019). With the increased availability of technology, both in the hands of teachers and students, the boundaries between formal education and informal learning have been stretched and have become increasingly blurred (Ferguson et al. 2019). As also indicated in Part IV of this book, thanks to a range of TEL innovations, in terms of synchronous (e.g., online gaming, social media, web-videoconferencing) and asynchronous tools (e.g., chat, email, discussion forums) over the last 20 years, an unprecedented richness and diversity of technological affordances have become available for teachers to design, support, and evaluate student-centered learning (Belland et al. 2013; Kember & Ginns 2012; Rienties & Toetenel 2016; Struyven et al. 2011). Furthermore, another boundary that has become substantially blurred is that between distance learning, blended, and face-to-face provision by higher education institutions. While distance learning environments have been present for nearly 200 years (Madge et al. 2019), a tremendous surge of distance learning provision has emerged in the last 20 years across the globe (Tait 2018). In parallel, with the maturing of many distance learning provisions and blended learning provisions in “traditional” face-to-face universities, an increasing number of these traditional universities have stepped into the online market and have provided a range of blended and online educational products (Palvia et al. 2018; Shah 2018). A very good example of the increased blurring of boundaries between formal and informal learning as well as online versus face-to-face provision are the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs). With the conception of MOOCs, the growth of online education expanded worldwide. Recent research indicates that 11,000 MOOCs were available for 101 million learners in 2018 (Shah 2018). While many of the early MOOCs were available free of charge and open to all in 2012–2016, online learning has become a mainstream vehicle (Palvia et al. 2018). At the same time, providers of blended and online learning as well as the learners themselves 361

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

have become more diverse (Ferguson et al. 2019; Sie et al. 2018). Although initially instigated by higher education institutions (HEI), other organizations such as non-profit organizations, universities, related companies and venture capitalists increasingly provide online education, often for free or for a relatively low fee. While commercial companies, for instance, mainly attract professionals, who are typically interested in short courses to supplement their own professional development, the arrival of these wide-ranging organizations means that the demographics of learners taking part in online education have also broadened. As such, it is even more important to ensure that these widening demographics are considered in the Learning Design process.

What is Learning Design? Online learning has changed the way in which courses are produced (Belland et al. 2013; Conole 2013; Laurillard 2013). Whereas classroom-based courses are mainly designed by a single teacher or a small group of practitioners, online education is often produced by a larger group of various experts, from subject matter experts to media specialists (Olney et al. 2018). Classroom-based sessions are typically fairly flexible and dependent on the expertise of the teacher. In an online environment, the learning experience cannot be quickly adjusted or even “rescued” by an additional activity or intervention from the teacher, once the online curriculum is “in motion.” As highlighted by a range of studies (Herodotou et al. 2019; Wan et al. 2019; Wong & Li 2018), successful interventions in online learning environments are often difficult to implement, as issues are often identified far too late to warrant an intervention. As such, online teaching has become a “design science” (Laurillard 2013; Wang & Hannafin 2005) where the ultimate goal of improving teaching quality by supporting practitioners along the process of designing innovative and more effective learning situations (i.e., producing “Learning Designs”) (Hernández-Leo et al. 2018, p. 1). The definition of Learning Design has various meanings in these different settings (Bakharia et al. 2016; Conole 2013; Dalziel 2003; Mor et al. 2015). For instance, many training providers use the terms Learning Design and instructional design interchangeably (Conole 2013; Dalziel 2003). This can be related to the size of the organization, as in smaller settings, such as corporate environments, an instructional designer will also be responsible for pedagogy. Conole (2013, p. 121) described Learning Design as “a methodology for enabling teachers/designers to make more informed decisions in how they go about designing learning activities and interventions, which is pedagogically informed and makes effective use of appropriate resources and technologies.” Learning Design can be described as a process of creating a blueprint for a course, designed for the anticipated student population, consisting of pedagogic activities. Descriptions of these designs (e.g., blueprints, Learning Design visualizations) are used, as well as “pedagogical patterns, learning patterns and pattern language” (Lockyer et al. 2013, p.  1441). Learning Design enables educators to articulate how educational contexts, learning, and assessment activities are designed to promote effective learning interactions with an ultimate aim to facilitate learning (Bakharia et al. 2016). The Open University (OU), the largest provider of distance learning in Europe, has been an early developer and adopter of Learning Design (Conole et al. 2008). Perhaps more importantly, while many institutions have started to think about Learning Design, the OU is one of the few institutions that have implemented Learning Design on a large scale, with hundreds of modules being mapped and analyzed. As indicated by a review of ten years of Learning Design practices at the Open University UK (OU) by Rienties et al. (2017), the origin of Learning Design at the OU was an attempt to save costs by templating module materials. The OU Learning Design Initiative (OULDI) (Cross et al. 2012), in consultation with eight higher education institutions, 362

The virtuous circle of learning design

aimed to explore how to effectively build a framework to map and identify the diverse Learning Design activities. More recently, Learning Design data is also being used to help build a richer picture of the learning behavior of students (Mangaroska & Giannakos 2018; Nguyen et al. 2017). Although Learning Design is widely studied in blended and online education, the consistent application of it has been lacking, as often the original design of a course is very different to the final offering taken by learners (Toetenel 2018). In the rest of this section, we will describe how the OU has implemented and enhanced the OULDI approach in practice by explaining the four underpinning principles of its implementation of Learning Design. Based upon five years of experience of running dozens of OULDI workshops for 200+ modules, as well as many published research projects at the OU and abroad (Mittelmeier et al. 2018), we believe that Learning Design is most effective when designed in multidisciplinary collaborative teams, Learning Designs are effectively visualized, are student centered, and combined with Learning Analytics.

Multidisciplinary collaboration With the expansion of blended and online learning, the need to include staff from different teams within an institution becomes increasingly important, as well as ways of ensuring that staff collaborate effectively together (Herodotou et al. 2019; Stalmeijer et al. 2007). As such, this is one of the key principles for a collaborative Learning Design approach, as bringing academic staff together with experts from other units within the institution helps the module team to focus on areas of expertise outside their own discipline or expertise, and think about the module in a more holistic way (Rienties et al. 2016). For example, including members of the library and employability teams in the Learning Design process means that their specialist knowledge can inform skills development in the module material right from the initial design stage. This collaborative approach enables more innovative design decisions and has been found to be more effective when compared to teachers working as individuals (Kinshuk et al. 2016; Toetenel & Rienties 2016a).

Visualizations Designing learning materials in a multidisciplinary group is an abstract process, and as such it is difficult to ensure that all members of the design team have a common understanding. It is difficult to share ‘the idea in your head’ until it has been developed. Visualizations can be an excellent vehicle to communicate abstract ideas within a group of people, including staff (Agostinho 2011; Jivet et al. 2018; Schwendimann et al. 2017) and students (de Quincey et al. 2019; Hillaire et al. 2016). Visualizations of Learning Design can “support teaching staff in better understanding what is happening on their course” (García et al. 2012, p.  111). For example, Conole et al. (2008) argued that a shared vision for the learning to be created is an important element of Learning Design. Indeed, a large-scale implementation study of 148 Learning Designs at the OU by Toetenel and Rienties (2016b) found that the use of visualizations enabled educators to include a larger range of student-centered learning activities in their courses. Without being able to see the course design, teachers are more likely to use assimilative activities. By contrast, when they can see their course visualizations, they adjust their learning materials toward more active learning, such as enabling students to find information themselves (finding information) or share the information with their peers (communication) (Toetenel & Rienties 2016b). Therefore, visualizations can help to make design decisions apparent, providing benefits that are as similar as possible to immediate feedback (Mangaroska & Giannakos 2018; Olney et al. 2018). 363

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

Furthermore, a visualization can be reviewed once it has been drafted. Using visualizations allows you to “play back” and review decisions made (Agostinho 2011; Bakharia et al. 2016; Dalziel 2003; Toetenel & Rienties 2016b). This means that teachers can also review designs from successful modules, or modules which were particularly successful for a specific group of students. Such an approach allows teachers to learn from previous design iterations in order to make informed decisions and, ultimately, to tailor the learning material more to the needs of their students.

Student centered Learning Design is most effective when the approach is student centered. In effective Learning Design workshops, a diverse team of staff including subject matter experts as well learning and instructional designers will be asking questions such as: What will students do in this module? Will all students engage with the module in similar ways? How much will they be reading? What practical activities will they do? This is a change from traditional Learning Design (MacLean & Scott 2011), as subject matter experts expect learners to complete all learning activities and engage in all materials that is offered as part of the course. Furthermore, traditionally subject matter experts focus mainly on the disciplinary content rather than the learning experience (Norton et al. 2005; Rienties et al. 2013). In a student-centered Learning Design approach, the diverse needs of the learners are the starting point of the course design from which the learning activities are designed; the content is of secondary importance (Conole 2013; Hernández-Leo et al. 2018; Mittelmeier et al. 2018; Nguyen et al. 2017). In practice, this means that a highlevel, initial Learning Design is produced which is suitable for the anticipated learners who are expected to undertake the course. Table 21.1 illustrates the seven key Learning Design activities that teachers can choose from. These range from “traditional” learning activities like assimilate and assessment, to more student-centered approaches like finding and handling information, communication, productive, experiential and interactive. In 2015, the OU introduced a refined method for retrospectively analyzing and coding learning materials. This method relied on module authors to specify how much time students should spend on an activity, for instance “read the article and then spend 10 minutes on commenting on it and responding to your peers in the forum.” It also relied on “conventions” where, for instance, the word count for all reading material was calculated and then divided by the relevant reading speed to calculate the time students would be expected to spend on these learning materials. These conventions included a different assumed reading speed for different levels of student and also varied based upon the complexity of the material. For example, the convention for assessing a legal text would be different from a case study, even if both texts were included in the same module. The use of standard conventions for a diverse student population seems to contrast with a student-centered learning approach, but using a standardized way of categorizing learning means that modules can be compared like-for-like at an institutional level. This becomes even more important when considering this fine-grained analysis in combination with completion data as discussed later in this chapter. An example of a high-level initial Learning Design draft is shown in Figure 21.1. The planner was designed for an access course in arts and social sciences, which introduced learners to higher education. As such, these courses aim to be highly practical, with relatively limited reading and mainly formative assessment activities. At this initial design phase, educators considered the respective learning objectives that the course was targeting. Beyond the knowledge and understanding learning objectives, there was a specific focus on practical skills that might be useful to start a higher education journey, such as P1 developing a learning plan and P2 a reflective practice. 364

Read, watch, listen, think about, access, observe, review, study

Attending to information

Type of activity

Examples

Assimilative

 

365

List, analyze, collate, plot, find, discover, access, use, gather, order, classify, select, assess, manipulate

Searching for and processing information

Finding and Handling Information

Table 21.1 Learning design taxonomy

Discussing module related content with at least one other person Communicate, debate, discuss, argue, share, report, collaborate, present, describe, question

Communication  

Create, build, make, design, construct, contribute, complete, produce, write, draw, refine, compose, synthesise, remix

Actively constructing an artifact

Productive  

Practice, apply, mimic, experience, explore, investigate, perform, engage

Applying learning in a real-world setting

Experiential  

Explore, experiment, trial, improve, model, simulate

Applying learning in a simulated setting

Interactive/Adaptive

Write, present, report, demonstrate, critique

All forms of assessment

Assessment  

The virtuous circle of learning design

Figure 21.1 Learning objectives of Module A

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

366

The virtuous circle of learning design

Subsequently, the educators discussed how the Learning Design taxonomy could address the respective learning objectives and decided what the balance of activities should be for the module. As indicated in Figure 21.2, just over half of the activities, or 101+ hours of study, were focused on assimilative activities, such as reading, watching and listening; a further 42 hours were devoted to productive activities, such as doing, creating and making; and the remaining 40 hours were devoted for assessment. Only 1.7 hours were devoted to communication (studentto-student, teacher-to-student, student-to-teacher) activities in this access module, as practical experience indicates that many participants in access modules can find it overwhelming to have to work with others. Once a high-level design was agreed, the module team then produced the learning activities based upon the initial design, as illustrated in Figure 21.3. In this particular block of learning activities, learners were “expected to find their own voice” by critically working through a range of different written historical and contemporary texts and media-artifacts. In week 2, for example, students were expected to spend 3 hours reading through sections 1.1–1.4 about the use of language, and at the same time work through seven productive activities for 2 hours, such as interpreting and understanding a letter written in Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice, or working through a modern poem. By mapping these activities both on a macro and a fine-grained level, teachers can share their student-centered Learning Designs with their peers more effectively. Some may also share this directly with their students. Research from the OU (Toetenel & Rienties 2016b; Cross et al. 2012) showed that actual learning materials are often different from the balance of activities stated in the original design.

Figure 21.2 Aggregate activity planner Module A

Figure 21.3 Fine-grained activity planner Module A

367

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

For example, Olney et al. (2018) described how Learning Design visualizations were reviewed with several module teams in a pilot project on this innovative approach. These visualizations, which included the first 4 weeks of study, were mapped for a module that was already in progress. The actual activities were then reviewed against the anticipated activities established in the Learning Design workshop. The study found that the student-centered communication activities in the actual module were much lower than anticipated. The review also found that the workload on the course was significantly different than anticipated and, in some weeks, exceeded the guidance. A retrospective review of learning tasks is not only helpful in improving learning materials, but it can also help to provide context or explain findings in research projects. For instance, Toetenel (2018) coded the intended task design and the actual learning materials for an English language class using the fine-grained Learning Design coding methodology described earlier in this chapter. This enabled a comparison of the actual and final design, which subsequently helped to explain unexpected findings. The initial design for Toetenel’s (2018) study showed highly productive (33%) and communicative (25%) activities, in line with the sociocultural theories that informed the task design for the class, but the actual time that students spent on communicative activities was much lower. In other words, while the study’s aim was for students would spend the majority of their time producing materials (text, cartoons, posts on the social networking sites) and communicating about their work, the actual design conveyed a different balance of activities. Toetenel (2018) found that students focused more on “finding and handling information” tasks and “assessment” tasks than initially envisaged, and less time on communication and simulation activities. The time spent on productive tasks (i.e., students produce an artifact or a piece of written work) was higher than initially planned. These findings may have contributed to the unexpected finding that peer interaction on the social networking site was lower than initially anticipated. The findings in this section have substantial implications for teachers both in terms of task design and evaluation of their teaching materials. It is easy for even an experienced practitioner to stray away from their intended educational objectives when they start writing learning materials. The coding of learning materials following set conventions can be helpful in evaluating learning materials before they are released to students.

Learning design and learning analytics As indicated before, TEL developments have allowed researchers to capture the digital traces of student and teacher learning activities in learning management systems (LMS). These rich and fine-grained datasets of actual learner behaviors offer educators incredibly valuable insights into how students react to specific Learning Design activities. This unprecedented increase in education data has also given birth to the field of learning analytics. Learning analytics is defined as “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (Ferguson 2012). As highlighted by a recent systematic literature review by Mangaroska and Giannakos (2018) of 43 Learning Design and learning analytics studies, considerable literature has emerged around the conceptual development of linking Learning Design and learning analytics (Bakharia et al. 2016; Lockyer et al. 2013; Persico & Pozzi 2015). Perhaps more importantly, there is also an emerging body of empirical studies (e.g., Hernández-Leo et al. 2018; Nguyen et al. 2017; Rienties & Toetenel 2016; Toetenel & Rienties 2016b) showing how Learning Design and learning analytics are inherently intertwined.

368

The virtuous circle of learning design

Several OU studies were conducted linking activity type data with data from student behavior. For instance, Rienties and Toetenel (2016) compared Learning Design data for 151 modules (111,256 students) with student behavior, satisfaction and performance data using multiple regression models. The study found that students behaved in the LMS relatively congruent by completing activities at certain peak times. The study found a negative correlation between an over-reliance on assimilative activities and academic retention, where excessive or unequal workload per week exacerbated the issue. Furthermore, the study found that the primary predictor for academic retention was the time spent on communication activities in blended and online environments. At the same time, it is perhaps surprising that the amount of communication activities was typically rather limited in these 151 modules, with on average just 5% of all learning activities, and a substantial number of modules having no communication activities. Follow-up research by Nguyen et al. (2017) on longitudinal design decisions by OU design teams among 74 modules with 72,000 students indicated that 38 Learning Design activities per week significantly predicted 68% of LMS behavior per week. In plain English this means that nearly two-thirds of behavior of students on a week-by-week basis are determined by how teachers design these online courses. As the empirical research clearly suggests a link between Learning Design, learning behavior, and academic outcomes, surely a substantial part of the typical high drop-out rates in distance education should also be linked to how teachers design and improve their courses over time. The different use of learning materials can have significant impact on success. For example, Nguyen et al. (2018) found that students’ timing of engagement did not match the Learning Design. In fact, most of the “successful” students tended to work ahead of the course schedule, while those that failed the module increasingly spent their time catching up from previous weeks. This became more problematic later on in the module, where “failed students spent on average much higher proportion of their time on catching up activities compared to passed and excellent students” (Nguyen et al. 2018, p.  145). Interestingly, the proportion of activities in a module had a significant impact on whether students work ahead or not. In modules with a higher proportion of assimilative and assessment activities, successful students would spent more time studying in advance, which disadvantaged less successful students; “one hour increase in productive activities was associated with 7.25% increase in the time spent on catching up” (Nguyen et al. 2018, p. 146). Obviously one of the main challenges for learning analytics research is to deliver actionable feedback, which might be achieved by taking into account the context in which the learning data is situated (Joksimović et al. 2015; Rienties & Toetenel 2016). As alluded to earlier, by showing learning analytics data to teachers as well as Learning Design data, Herodotou et al. (2019) showed that teachers can actively intervene when behavior is not aligned with Learning Design or, where necessary, redesign the respective learning activities. In other words, there is an increasing interest in aligning learning analytics with Learning Design, as the former facilitates making tacit educational practice explicit, while the latter provides educators with pedagogical context for interpreting and translating learning analytic findings for direct intervention (Bakharia et al. 2016; Lockyer & Dawson 2011; Lockyer et al. 2013; Mor et al. 2015; Persico & Pozzi 2015).

Case study: hybrid design of MOOC content and formal accreditation The original MOOCs were driven by the open educational resources (OER) movement (Margaryan et al. 2015) and, as such, were available free of charge. However, a lot has changed in

369

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

the educational landscape since 2012, “the Year of the MOOC,” and many MOOCS now offer different participation levels, including pathways that are available for a charge (Blackmon 2018; Rizvi et al. 2019). Some courses approach this by making a subset of their materials available free of charge, whereas others offer all learning materials for free but charge when learners want to partake in the assessment elements. Some consider the early MOOCS more as a movement, led by prominent faculty members promoting their research field (Blackmon 2018; Kizilcec et al. 2017). These early MOOCs encouraged students to collaborate on projects, for instance, as a more creative experience than the majority of MOOCs provided now on platforms such as Coursera. These initial MOOCs are also referred to as the cMOOCs, as based upon a connectivist pedagogy, which are based upon the belief that learning is founded in social relationships, although the extent and nature of their participation can be freely decided by the participant (Kizilcec et al. 2017; McAuley et al. 2010). In contrast, the xMOOC is based upon a more traditional Learning Design as it uses video lectures, effectively converting traditional classroom lectures to a new medium. These video lectures are often supplemented by opportunities for peer review and group collaboration, quizzes, and automated feedback. Most MOOCs seem to be well packaged in terms of the use of media, navigation, and easy presentation of course materials (Margaryan et al. 2015). However, Margaryan et al. (2015) also found that MOOC design quality was low, and different learning needs were only considered in one of the 76 MOOCs evaluated. This is even more pertinent considering the diversity of learners that undertake MOOCs (Kizilcec et al. 2017; Rizvi et al. 2019). As a result of this diversity, Deng et al. (2019) found that learners displayed a variety of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivations for their participation. Indeed, analysis of MOOCs in Europe by Brasher et al. (2016, p.  166) suggested “combining instructional principles and guidelines of xMOOCs and cMOOCs.” However, both the lack of pedagogical diversifications and high workload have often failed to bring fundamental change to the educational landscape (Schulmeister 2014). Given these developments, we specifically selected a MOOC module called Module X that was both relatively student centered and could be combined with formal accreditation. Module X considered in this case study is an assessment vehicle to assess the learning completed in eight MOOCs in the Business and Fundamentals program available from FutureLearn, as indicated in Table 21.2. FutureLearn is owned by the OU and is the largest MOOC provider in Europe when the number of enrolled learners are considered (Rizvi et al. 2019; Shah 2018). It employs a social-constructivist pedagogical style, mainly visible in activities on its forum, which are Table 21.2 Structure of Module X Course

Study Time

Credits

Business Fundamentals MOOC: Effective Communication Business Fundamentals MOOC: Effective Networking Business Fundamentals MOOC: Customer Engagement Business Fundamentals MOOC: Project Management Business Fundamentals MOOC: Personal financial planning and budgeting Business Fundamentals MOOC: Managing the household balance sheet Business Fundamentals MOOC: Investment theory and practice Business Fundamentals MOOC: Financial services after the banking crisis Module X Business and Finance Fundamentals

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 96

30

370

The virtuous circle of learning design

designed so that learners are encouraged to ‘comment’ on the learning content. As such, FutureLearn promotes ‘learning through conversations’ (Chua et al. 2017; Ferguson & Clow 2015). The module requires 9–10 hours of study each week in addition to the 96 hours of study for the MOOCs. Module X followed a collaborative design approach, whereby a multi-disciplinary team spent a day in a Learning Design workshop. The team consisted of faculty members, specialists in the areas of digital literacy and employability, media designers and Learning Design facilitators. Activities during the day focused on exploring learner characteristics, based upon evidence drawn from the MOOC enrollments. Activities considering learning aims, support requirements, and place of the module within the qualification were also considered, working toward an overall outline for the module. The module focused on assessing the principles, concepts and terms central to business and personal finance. Students were asked to work through two case studies so that they could demonstrate analysis of problems in business and finance and suggest improvements for financial decision-making. As part of the module, more generic employability skills were also tested, such as utilizing digital tools and numerical skills, as well as setting personal goals in a professional and ethical manner. Module X included a range of media, including a podcast, which outlined the module rationale and the links between the material covered in the completed MOOCs and the assessment in this module. Module X included several forum activities that enabled students to construct and later in the module ‘test’ their analysis and recommendations, before submitting them in their assignment. Students were also asked to use existing free web tools to, for instance, manage simple project management tasks such as a Gantt chart and create a budget plan. The distribution of student activity across the seven categories and workload shown in Figure 21.4. The planner is based upon a detailed week-by-week overview of outline activities in each of the pedagogical categories using the Learning Design taxonomy used by the OU, as included in Table 21.1. For instance, the time reading the case studies is classified as assimilative, while the time spent on a peer discussion in the forums is labeled as communication. When students create a budget plan or a Gantt chart, this would be classified productive. Module X’ structure is different to the majority of FutureLearn courses mapped by the OU, which often have a balance of assimilative, communication, adaptive and assessment activities, which are in line with FutureLearn’s socio-constructivist approach (Chua et al. 2017; Ferguson & Clow 2015; Rizvi et al. 2019). These categories in the MOOCs are often based upon two types of assimilative activities (video, article), two types of assessment activities (test, quiz) and one communication activity (discussion). Whereas quizzes in MOOCs are available to all learners, the test is only available to learners who pay for their course (Rizvi et al. 2019). Only the learners who paid for the MOOCs are eligible for Module X, as they need to submit their 32.50

22%

20%

11.50

30.00

8.50

Experiential

5% Productive

Communication

Finding and handling information

42.00 26%

18% 7%

Assimilative

2.00

Figure 21.4 Activity planner Module X

371

1% Assessment

36.50

Interactive / Adaptive

Total hours

163.00

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties

certificates for the individual MOOCs as well as successful completion of Module X to ensure that they receive 30 credits.

Conclusion As highlighted in this chapter, an increasing number of institutions and academics are using principles of Learning Design to map blended and online learning practices, while at the same time using principles of learning analytics to link actual student behavior with the respective Learning Design. Student retention is vital to the continued success learning providers, as such understanding what factors play a role in success, such as workload and activity design, may play a role in motivating students to continue studying (Li et al. 2017; Rienties et al. 2016; Toetenel & Rienties 2016a). Learning Design continues to gather pace as it grows, and informs and is informed by new developments in educational practice (Mangaroska & Giannakos 2018). As indicated in this chapter, although approaches that employ a Learning Design approach enable teachers to design creative and student-centered online courses, in reality, many teachers only include limited student-centered activities and primarily focus on assimilative and assessment learning activities. A second important reflection from this chapter is that using a Learning Design taxonomy enhances the clarity of visualizations and enables teachers and management to compare courses which can provide insight into the student learning experience (Nguyen et al. 2017; Nguyen, Rienties, Toetenel et al. 2017). By linking the visualizations of Learning Design with learning analytics data, this approach allows researchers and practitioners to critically analyze and reflect on what learners are doing, giving a different and unique view from those that only measure students by their academic ability. When looking only at utilization data on the platform without these fine-grained Learning Design data, it is hard to develop an understanding of the pedagogical context that influences student activities, and how identifying patterns in students’ learning behaviors can be used to influence and contribute to more positive teaching and learning experiences (Bakharia 2014). Designers of learning need to leverage the use of Learning Design and data, to focus on developing students’ skills and natural predispositions by offering activities that are pedagogically sound and engaging. To accommodate an ever-greater diversity in the student population, Learning Design needs to be directed toward personalizing learners’ experiences and developing learning activities which accommodate learners’ strengths, interest and aspirations. This means that different pathways need to be designed for learners, and the risks relating to excessive workload and overreliance on assimilative and assessment activities should be mitigated. Also, educators need to rethink their role of simply being providers of knowledge to being designers and facilitators of personalized learning.

References Agostinho S. (2011) The use of a visual learning design representation to support the design process of teaching in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27(6). Bakharia A. (2014) Interactive Content Analysis: Evaluating Interactive Variants of Non-Negative Matrix Factorisation and Latent Dirichlet Allocation as Qualitative Content Analysis Aids. Queensland University of Technology. Bakharia A., Corrin L., de Barba P., Kennedy G., Gašević D., Mulder R., . . . Lockyer L. (2016) A conceptual framework linking learning design with learning analytics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Edinburgh. Belland B.R., Kim C.-M. & Hannafin M.J. (2013) A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist 48(4), 243–270.

372

The virtuous circle of learning design Blackmon S. (2018) MOOC makers: Professors’ experiences with developing and delivering MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 19(4). Brasher A., Weller M. & McAndrew P. (2016) How to design for persistence and retention in MOOCs? Paper presented at the EADTU, Rome, Italy. Chua S.M., Tagg C., Sharples M. & Rienties B. (2017) Discussion analytics: Identifying conversations and social learners in FutureLearn MOOCs. Paper presented at the FutureLearn data: What we currently have, what we are learning and how it is demonstrating learning in MOOCs. Workshop at the 7th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia. Conole G. (2013) Designing for Learning in an Open World. Springer, New York. Conole G., Brasher A., Cross S., Weller M., Clark P. & Culver J. (2008) Visualising learning design to foster and support good practice and creativity. Educational Media International 45(3), 177–194. Cross S., Galley R., Brasher A. & Weller M. (2012) Final Project Report of the OULDI-JISC Project: Challenge and Change in Curriculum Design Process, Communities, Visualisation and Practice. JISC, York. Dalziel J. (2003) Implementing learning design: The learning activity management system (LAMS). Paper presented at the Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. 7–10 December, Adelaide. Deng R., Benckendorff P. & Gannaway D. (2019) Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education 129, 48–60. de Quincey E., Briggs C., Kyriacou T. & Waller R. (2019) Student centred design of a learning analytics system. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Learning Analytics Knowledge, Arizona. Ferguson R. (2012) Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4(5), 304–317. Ferguson R. & Clow D. (2015) Examining engagement: Analysing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, Poughkeepsie, New York. Ferguson R., Coughlan T., Egelandsdal K., Gaved M., Herodotou C., Hillaire G., . . . Whitelock D. (2019) Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. The Open University, Milton Keynes. García R.M.C., Pardo A., Kloos C.D., Niemann K., Scheffel M. & Wolpers M. (2012) Peeking into the black box: Visualising learning activities. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4(1–2), 99–120. Hernández-Leo D., Asensio-Pérez J.I., Derntl M., Pozzi F., Chacón J., Prieto L.P. & Persico D. (2018) An integrated environment for learning design. Frontiers in ICT 5(9). Herodotou C., Hlosta M., Boroowa A., Rienties B., Zdrahal Z. & Mangafa C. (2019) Empowering online teachers through predictive learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology 50(6), 3064–3079. doi:10.1111/bjet.12853. Hillaire G., Rappolt-Schlichtmann G. & Ducharme K. (2016) Prototyping visual learning analytics guided by an educational theory informed goal. Journal of Learning Analytics 3(3), 115–142. Jivet I., Scheffel M., Specht M. & Drachsler H. (2018) License to evaluate: Preparing learning analytics dashboards for educational practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK’18), Sydney, Australia. Joksimović S., Gašević D., Loughin T.M., Kovanović V. & Hatala M. (2015) Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement. Computers & Education 87, 204–217. Kember D. & Ginns P. (2012) Evaluating Teaching and Learning. Routledge, New York. Kinshuk, Chen N.-S., Cheng I.-L. & Chew S.W. (2016) Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26(2), 561–581. Kirschner P.A., Beers P., Boshuizen H. & Gijselaers W.H. (2008) Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 24(2), 403–420. Kizilcec R.F., Saltarelli A.J., Reich J. & Cohen G.L. (2017) Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science 355(6322), 251–252. Laurillard D. (2013) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies (2nd ed.). Routledge, London. Li N., Marsh V., Rienties B. & Whitelock D. (2017) Online learning experiences of new versus continuing learners: A large scale replication study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(4), 657–672. doi: 0.1080/02602938.2016.1176989. Lockyer L. & Dawson S. (2011) Learning designs and learning analytics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

373

Lisette Toetenel and Bart Rienties Lockyer L., Heathcote E. & Dawson S. (2013) Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist 57(10), 1439–1459. MacLean P. & Scott B. (2011) Competencies for learning design: A review of the literature and a proposed framework. British Journal of Educational Technology 42(4), 557–572. Madge C., Breines M., Beatrice Dalu M.T., Gunter A., Mittelmeier J., Prinsloo P. & Raghuram P. (2019) WhatsApp use among African international distance education (IDE) students: Transferring, translating and transforming educational experiences. Learning, Media and Technology 44(3), 267–282. Mangaroska K. & Giannakos M.N. (2018) Learning analytics for learning design: A systematic literature review of analytics-driven design to enhance learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 1(1). Margaryan A., Bianco M. & Littlejohn A. (2015) Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education 80, 77–83. McAuley A., Stewart B., Siemens G. & Cormier D. (2010) The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf on 20 October 2019. Mittelmeier J., Long D., Melis Cin F., Reedy K., Gunter A., Raghuram P. & Rienties B. (2018) Learning design in diverse institutional and cultural contexts: Suggestions from a participatory workshop with higher education leaders in Africa. Open Learning 33(3), 250–266. Mor Y., Ferguson R. & Wasson B. (2015) Editorial: Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of Educational Technology 46(2), 221–229. Nguyen Q., Huptych M. & Rienties B. (2018) Using temporal analytics to detect inconsistencies between learning design and students’ behaviours. Journal of Learning Analytics 5(3), 120–135. Nguyen Q., Rienties B., Toetenel L., Ferguson F. & Whitelock D. (2017) Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior 76, 703–714. Norton L., Richardson T., Hartley J., Newstead S. & Mayes J. (2005) Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education 50(4), 537–571. Olney T., Rienties B. & Toetenel L. (2018) Gathering, visualising and interpreting learning design analytics to inform classroom practice and curriculum design: A student-centred approach from the Open University. In From Data and Analytics to the Classroom: Translating Learning Analytics for Teachers. (Lodge J.M., Horvath J.C. & Corrin L., eds.), Routledge, London, pp. 71–92. Palvia S., Aeron P., Gupta P., Mahapatra D., Parida R., Rosner R. & Sindhi S. (2018) Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 21(4), 233–241. Persico D. & Pozzi F. (2015) Informing learning design with learning analytics to improve teacher inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology 46(2), 230–248. Rienties B., Boroowa A., Cross S., Kubiak C., Mayles K. & Murphy S. (2016) Analytics4Action Evaluation Framework: A review of evidence-based learning analytics interventions at Open University UK. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 1(2), 1–12. Rienties B., Brouwer N. & Lygo-Baker S. (2013) The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education 29, 122–131. Rienties B., Nguyen Q., Holmes W. & Reedy K. (2017) A review of ten years of implementation and research in aligning learning design with learning analytics at the Open University UK. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal 33, 134–154. Rienties B. & Toetenel L. (2016) The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior 60, 333–341. Rizvi S., Rienties B., Rogaten J. & Kizilcec R. (2019) Investigating variation in learning processes in a FutureLearn MOOC. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 32, 162–181. doi:10.1007/s12528019-09231-0. Schulmeister R. (2014) The position of xMOOCs in educational systems. eleed 10(1). Schwendimann B.A., Rodríguez-Triana M.J., Vozniuk A., Prieto L.P., Boroujeni M.S., Holzer A., . . . Dillenbourg P. (2017) Perceiving learning at a glance: A systematic literature review of learning dashboard research. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 10(1), 30–41. Shah D. (2018) By the Numbers: MOOCs in 2018. Retrieved from www.classcentral.com/report/moocstats-2018/ on 20 October 2019. Sharples M. (2019) Practical Pedagogy: 40 New Ways to Teach and Learn. Routledge, London.

374

The virtuous circle of learning design Sie R.L.L., Delahunty J., Bell K., Percy A., Rienties B., Cao T. & De Laat M. (2018) Artificial Intelligence to enhance learning design in UOW online, a unified approach to fully online learning. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 4–7 December, Wollongong, NSW. Stalmeijer R.E., Gijselaers W., Wolfhagen I., Harendza S. & Scherpbier A. (2007) How interdisciplinary teams can create multi-disciplinary education: The interplay between team processes and educational quality. Medical Education 41(11), 1059–1066. Struyven K., Dochy F. & Janssens S. (2011) Explaining students’ appraisal of lectures and student-activating teaching: Perceived context and student characteristics. Interactive Learning Environments 20(5), 391–422. Tait A. (2018) Open Universities: The next phase. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal 13(1), 13–23. Toetenel L. (2018) The Targeted Use of the Informal Regiser on a Social Networking Site by Foreign-Language Learners Evaluated Through Linguistic Analysis and Perceived-Context Appropriatensess. PhD. Oxford Brookes, Oxford. Toetenel L. & Rienties B. (2016a) Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology 47(5), 981–992. Toetenel L. & Rienties B. (2016b) Learning design: Creative design to visualise learning activities. Open Learning 31(3), 233–244. Wan H., Liu K., Yu Q. & Gao X. (2019) Pedagogical intervention practices: Improving learning engagement based on early prediction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 12(2), 278–289. Wang F. & Hannafin M.J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 53(4), 5–23. Wong B.T.M. & Li K.C. (2018) Learning analytics intervention: A review of case studies. Paper presented at the 2018 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), Osaka, Japan.

375

22 PROMOTING LEARNING GOALS IN AN ADVANCED PHYSICS LABORATORY VIA STUDENTCENTERED LEARNING A case study using the MITx residential platform Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson

Introduction Since 2010, the MIT Department of Physics has been engaged in a curriculum reform project for its upper division advanced laboratory course in modern physics, the so-called Junior Lab, MIT subjects 8.13 Experimental Physics I and 8.14 Experimental Physics II.1 These efforts have benefited from coinciding with a period of renewed interest across the US in laboratory teaching by the physics education and other content-specific science and engineering education research communities (Reichert 2006; Leff 2007; Galvez & Singh 2010; Zwickl et al. 2013a, 2013b; AAPT 2014; Eblen-Zayas et al. 2015; Feder 2017; Otero & Meltzer 2017; Eblen-Zayas et al. 2018). This shift has in turn mirrored other movements in higher education that have focused on transforming traditional instruction to be more student-centered (Wright 2011; ENQA 2015; Wieman 2017). At the core of this transition is a focus on using active learning strategies, grounded in constructivist learning theory, and leveraging lessons learned from the science of learning (Bransford et al. 2000; National Academy of Sciences 2018). Building on this work, the principal intervention in Junior Lab was the rearrangement of course material in the fall 2012 and 2013 semesters to allow for the introduction of flipped instructional techniques for those portions of the course where such techniques were appropriate. Using the Residential MITx platform, a locally hosted instantiation of the OpenedX platform – designed for massive open online courses (MOOCs) – to enact a flipped approach within a laboratory class was novel when the curriculum reform initiative was beginning and is still unique to residential lab experiences at MIT. Indeed, the application of a platform designed for MOOCs to a residential learning environment is nonintuitive, since the course under study is neither “massive” nor “open,” and the very nature of residential laboratory work precludes a fully “online” offering. Nevertheless, even within a teaching model where the bulk of learning takes place via active, hands-on laboratory work with cycles of personalized feedback from instructors, some degree 376

Promoting learning goals in physics

of direct content delivery remains necessary for the scaffolding of students’ understanding of inlab activities before physically engaging them. This instruction had previously taken the form of in-class lectures (preempting some amount of valuable lab time) and pre-class reading that was assessed by preparatory homework problems to be handed in before starting each new laboratory exercise. Both of these elements of the course – that is, the instruction lectures and preparatory homework – were identified as being the most likely elements of the curriculum to benefit from using the flipped classroom techniques via the affordances of the then-new MOOC tools made available in OpenedX, specifically through its local campus implementation, the Residential MITx platform. In this case report, we will first describe the structure, content and learning goals of the Junior Lab courses; the institutional motivations for curriculum reform; and the details of the reform itself. As described later, comparison of a variety of student metrics – some of them uniquely enabled via MITx content delivery – before and after the intervention constituted a natural experiment on the effectiveness of flipped classroom methods in an advanced laboratory environment, albeit one in which many variables of the classroom environment were not controlled during the study period. The presentation given here will therefore remain primarily a descriptive case study supplemented by statistics rather than a rigorous statistical examination of student metrics.

Project motivation and goal The curriculum reform project was motivated by a number of factors that presented themselves to the instructional team. (The instructional team consisted of a combination of departmental administrators, faculty and laboratory staff with extensive experience teaching the courses under study; this included one of the co-authors.) First, as a product of historical trends and external factors, enrollment in the second course in the Junior Lab sequence (8.14 Experimental Physics II) had seen a steady decline in enrollment over a number of years. As such, the Junior Lab instructional team and the Physics Department as a whole wished to enact curricular changes that would stabilize or increase enrollment in 8.14. One major factor in this decrease was the reformulation of the physics major graduation requirements in 2001 which made 8.14 an elective rather than required subject. A second factor was student-perceived difficulties (see what follows) with 8.14’s immediate prerequisite subject, 8.13 Experimental Physics I, which led students not to continue with the now-optional second subject in the Junior Lab sequence. This suggested that both improving the desirability of 8.14 and decreasing problematic aspects 8.13 could improve enrollment in 8.14. Institutionally, increasing 8.14 enrollment by reinstituting it as a graduation requirement was not an option available to the Junior Lab instructional staff. Second, while the learning in Experimental Physics I (8.13) was often highly valued by students and alumni (as evaluated by the instructional team through open responses in the course and program evaluations over a number of years), the 8.13 experience itself would sometimes be described in course evaluations as demoralizing, unproductively time-consuming, and emotionally or academically overwhelming. Echoing this student sentiment, Junior Lab instructional staff routinely noted inefficiencies of execution in certain parts of the 8.13 course activities, which seemingly led to levels of student frustration and time-on-task far beyond any reasonably useful notion of “productive struggle” (Hiebert & Grouws 2007) that would contribute to positive outcomes in course goals, such as students’ development of growth mindset (Yeager & Dweck 2012), self-identity within the community of practice of physics (Lave & Wenger 1991) or mastery of content knowledge. 377

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson

At the onset of the curriculum reform project the instructional team aimed to address two main goals. The first goal was institutionally driven: to increase enrollment in subject 8.14. The second goal was more broadly educational: to improve the Junior Lab learning environment and learning outcomes. It was believed that pursuing the second goal by ameliorating the unpleasant intensity of the student experience in 8.13 would reinforce the first goal of increased enrollment in 8.14.

Project strategy Two major areas of inefficiency seemed immediately primed for transformation to the instructional team. The first was the amount of unproductive time-on-task spent on key technical areas associated with completing work required in 8.13 but not necessarily associated with the learning of physics. Areas such as creating professional-style manuscripts and applying data analysis software were crucial to completion of the course and building a set of capacities that were associated with the community of practitioners these physics students were expected to join. The instructional work, often short lectures or brief course readings, that introduced these general technical areas were already provided throughout this and other courses. Missing from that approach were structured opportunities to practice applying and working with those skills in the curriculum. Further, the students’ incoming knowledge of these areas was apparently insufficient to enable knowledge transfer from the provided instruction to the more complex applications that were associated with the lab work. Because the general skills and capacities were necessary across all experiments, it was proposed that a set of structured exercises in key topic areas occurring early in the semester could have a large effect on outcomes. The second inefficiency noticed by the instruction team revolved around students’ preparedness to complete individual labs by completing work prior to class. Instructors often observed that a fraction of student time was wasted in the lab due to students arriving unprepared to do that day’s work. This continued to be the case despite the existence of required exercises (preparatory homework), which quizzed the students on their understanding of the relevant reference materials. Seemingly, students could do the assigned preparatory work without realizing their own lack of understanding of the content. A hypothesis was generated that if students come to lab primed and prepared to learn, they will make more effective use of lab time and contact hours with expert teachers, leading to fewer total hours spent on coursework, better learning outcomes, more expert attitudes, and higher satisfaction with and enrollment in the experimental physics track. All of this pointed toward using flipped classroom techniques in which students were presented with course materials before class, received instant feedback on their understanding of that material through automatically graded questions, came to class ready to engage the expert instructor with meaningful discussion of their own misunderstandings, participated in active learning activities guided by the instructor’s intermittent coaching, and followed up those activities with reflective homework projects that reinforced learning and promoted expert attitudes about experimental physics. The sections that follow elaborate on the specifics of how the curriculum reform project operationalized these plans, the data that was collected to understand the impact of the reform innovative, the result and next steps in the work.

Description of Junior Lab Junior Lab is a two-semester laboratory sequence taken primarily by third-year physics majors. It is a stand-alone course (that is, not supplementary to a corresponding lecture course) in 378

Promoting learning goals in physics Table 22.1 The Junior Lab experimental menu 8.13 Experiments

8.14 Experiments

Preliminary Experiments Atomic Spectroscopy Compton Scattering Cosmic Ray Muons Frank-Hertz Effect Johnson and Shot Noise Optical Trapping Pulsed NMR Radio Astronomy Relativistic Dynamics Rutherford Scattering X-Ray Physics

Doppler-Free Saturation Spectroscopy Mössbauer Effect Optical Pumping Optical Trapping Pulsed NMR Quantum Information Radio Astronomy Raman Spectroscopy Superconductivity X-Ray Physics Exploratory Project

The experimental menu in the MIT Physics Junior Lab as of the 2019–2020 academic year. Each student will perform four of the listed experiments per semester. The “preliminary experiments” are a series of three quick experiments (Poisson Statistics, Photoelectric Effect, Optical Interferometry) performed by all students before any other experiments. The “exploratory project” is a project to be proposed, designed and executed by each student group in 8.14.

experimental physics, with a majority of the available experiments being drawn from the canon of modern physics. As shown in Table 22.1, the experiments span special relativity, experimental foundations of quantum mechanics, atomic structure and optics, statistical mechanics, nuclear and particle physics, and other more contemporary topics. Students, who work in pairs with coaching from instructional staff (including faculty), are intended to spend between four and six 3-hour lab sessions on each experiment. Each experiment is preceded by a short set of questions on the required preparatory reading and is followed by a report on the performance, analysis and results of the experiment. The report consists of a four-page written summary in the style of Physical Review Letters (a premier journal across all subfields of physics) and a 15-minute conference-style presentation to the students’ faculty instructor. While nominally a course in modern experimental physics, the primary focus of Junior Lab is on the professional and personal development of the student as a scientist. This includes laboratory technique and topics in modern physics but extends beyond that to skills such as oral and written communication methods, the troubleshooting process, professional scientific attitude, data analysis, and reasoning about uncertainty. Unlike similar courses at many US institutions, Junior Lab does not necessarily serve as a gateway to undergraduate research, as the majority of MIT physics majors will have already been engaged in faculty research projects well before the third year via the MIT UROP program (MIT 2019). Junior Lab is intended to provide a structured environment for learning authentic but generalized modes of professional practice, in complement to the less structured setting and more specialized modes encountered in research experiences. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the physics major requirements at MIT, the first semester of Junior Lab (8.13 Experimental Physics I) is required for most physics majors, while the second semester (8.14 Experimental Physics II) is not required for most physics majors. As a result, 8.13 serves about 70 students per year while 8.14 serves only about 15. Indeed, as shown in Figure 22.1, since the introduction of a “flexible” physics major track in 2001 which loosened this laboratory requirement, the enrollment in 8.14 has dropped precipitously, while the enrollment 379

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson

Figure 22.1 Physics students and junior lab 1979–2019 Source: One goal of the reform efforts in 8.13 is to increase enrollment in 8.14, which follows it in the curriculum but has been optional since the introduction in 2001 of a “flexible” physics track. The data shows that while the physics major overall is quite healthy in terms of enrollments, the recent (since fall 2013, graduation cohort 2015) changes in the 8.13 curriculum have not significantly improved 8.14 enrollments, at best stabilizing a previously falling trend. Trend lines on the plot are cubic smoothing splines.

in 8.13 has remained high. (Note that all students on the flexible track are still required to take an advanced laboratory course, but some students are allowed to fulfill the requirement with a sufficiently rigorous offering from another academic department in lieu of 8.13 or 8.14. In contrast, the traditional or “focused” physics major track requires both 8.13 and 8.14.)

The curricular transformation The “flipped classroom” is a specific blended learning approach, first noted as the “inverted classroom” (Lage et al. 2000), in which students complete work typically associated with inclass time, like presentation of content through lectures, using an online platform and outside of class time (Staker & Horn 2012; Akcayir & Akcayir 2018). The intent of the method is to optimize the limited classroom hours available for the high level of learning associated with student-teacher engagement and student-centered instruction (DeLozier & Rhodes 2017). As the capabilities of online platforms have improved, the flipped approach has become associated with content delivery (lectures or text) being combined with autograded problems to test students’ understanding as they prepare for class and to provide instantaneous feedback. The classroom activities that replace the traditional instruction time typically employ active learning studentcentered strategies (Freeman et al. 2014). In the present study, Residential MITx – a locally hosted and deployed instance of the OpenedX platform – was used to enable flipped classroom techniques. Specifically, the curriculum reform project allowed for portions of the classroom work, not the lab, to be “flipped.” That is, the delivery method for the content (general skills and processes and specific pre-lab 380

Promoting learning goals in physics

instruction and supports) was changed in instances where it was suspected that in-lab lectures were either not necessary or where lab time could be better utilized. The majority of the coursework was left unchanged. Hands-on laboratory work and professional-style communication with extensive student-centered feedback from an instructor who is a professional expert in the authentic practices of the field of study were maintained as the core of the learning experience. Experimental Physics I was offered every fall semester during the study period (fall 2010– spring 2019), as well as spring 2012–2018. Spring enrollments averaged 12 students per semester, while fall enrollments were closer to 50 students per semester. In the semesters prior to fall 2012, 8.13 was facilitated using a more traditional approach to instruction. This traditional approach included the use of direct instruction in laboratory fundamentals, which resulted in significant time being spent on topics like data analysis during the first few lab periods. The introductory period, including the previously mentioned lectures and three short preliminary experiments, lasted 3 weeks and was followed by four longer experiments. Each of the experiments, both preliminary and long, included a lab manual (a PDF document) with preparatory questions which were to be completed in written form and handed in for grading by graduate student teaching assistants. This grading, which could take up to a week – half of the lab sessions of some experiments – was the students’ only external feedback on whether they had properly understood the preparatory reading, and therefore the proper laboratory procedures and even the background motivation and theory of the experiments to be performed. The students who had unknowingly (to themselves) not understood the reading would routinely work inefficiently or perform counterproductive procedures with the experimental apparatus until the misunderstanding would be exposed when the graded problems were returned several lab sessions later. In the worst-case scenario, students would discover that the entirety of their prior work was wasted and would need to schedule extra sessions with their instructors to make up for the lost time. The work of transitioning the curricular materials from a traditional model of instruction to a flipped strategy primarily unfolded between fall 2012 and fall 2013. Initially, existing course materials were translated into the new online format. This translation process sometimes required rewording and restructuring the content of the existing material – or even writing large sections of new material – in order for content from a single parent document to still make good narrative sense when broken across several pages in the online platform, which could be visited by the student in any order. In some cases, videos of both the single person lecture and “Khan-style” variety were generated to replace material that had previously been delivered by lecture or short demonstrations during in-lab time. Then, existing problems were transformed or newly written in order to be automatically graded by the software. The overall effort for the instructional team required was comparable to writing a short textbook. The transformation of problems to be suitable for automated grading required some degree of craft, but it is important to note that the platform supports a wide array of problem types beyond simple multiple choice type of problem typically associated with automated grading. For example, a problem such as the following from the “Pulsed NMR” experiment would normally be answered with a short mathematical derivation, the final result being an algebraic expression in many variables: “Give an expression for the energy Em of an eigenstate with spin quantum number m, when a particle with gyromagnetic ratio ɣ is placed in a static magnetic field of magnitude B0.” This type of problem translates nearly unchanged to the online platform using a “formula response” problem type which takes advantage of the software’s ability to properly parse algebraic expressions. The student’s derivation leading up to the result is no longer evaluated as part of the answer, but for a problem for which such a derivation would be quite short, and in a course context where the mathematics is used as an enabling tool rather than 381

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson

the topic of study, such a simple approach works well. (For completeness, the correct answer is Em=−ɣhmB0/(2𝜋).) In contrast, a problem that asked the student to “describe” the workings of a complex apparatus would normally be answered with a paragraph in plain language, graded according to an expert reading with human judgment. Such problems required more nuanced translation to automated grading. Consider, for example, the following question from the Poisson Statistics preliminary experiment: “Describe how a scintillation counter works, starting from the entrance of an energetic charged particle or photon, and ending with an electrical pulse at the output of the photomultiplier. Why are subsequent signals independent?” In this case, the two sentences of the question were broken into two separate questions. The first was made into a choiceresponse question (“Check all statements that do NOT correctly describe steps in the process of measuring a gamma ray with a scintillation counter.”) with seven possible answers (including “none of the above”), each such answer being a statement of sufficient complexity that it could not be immediately dismissed without some meaningful intellectual engagement. The second sentence became, “Which condition helps guarantee that two signals from a scintillation counter are independent of one another?” This was a simple multiple choice question with four possible options, but again, the context of the question is sufficiently rich that the four possible answers could be written in such a way that they are not simple variations of each other, solvable by simple exam-gaming approaches, and all seemingly plausible at a superficial level. Thus, even multiple choice questions could be made intellectually challenging if used with care in an appropriate context. In fall 2012 and spring 2013, while the new online curricular materials were being developed, the introductory course materials were expanded to include more in-class exercises and homework over 4 weeks, followed by three longer experiments. Then, for all semesters fall 2013–spring 2019, the introductory exercises were delivered in a flipped format of assignment sequences including introductory videos, autograded online questions, in-class active exercises, and follow-up homework projects. In addition, each lab manual was divided into a set of Residential MITx web pages and all preparatory questions were transformed into autograded problems. Experimental Physics II (8.14) was offered every spring semester during the study period. Students perform four longer experiments, one of which is an exploratory project of their own design. Because all students enrolled in 8.14 are required to have taken and passed 8.13, no general introductory work (data analysis or paper writing) are part of the 8.13 curriculum. In the pre-curricular reform semesters, students would complete preparatory assignments in which they were to read the experiment manual and answer sets of preparatory questions associated with the apparatus to be used in the experiment, the underlying physics involved in the work, and analysis plans. Similar issues with student performance reported in 8.13 were encountered in 8.14. Again, just like the curricular reform transition in 8.13, the experiments manuals and preparatory questions were transformed to be included in the online platform. This meant that students would be required to complete the questions on the platform prior to the beginning of in-lab experiments. In spring 2013, the 8.14 lab manuals and questions were fully implemented using the flipped format.

Data collection While not fully controlling for all variables, the use of the MITx platform and the transition in instructional approach provided an opportunity to explore the impact of flipped classroom 382

Promoting learning goals in physics

methods in the advanced laboratory environment. That impact was determined using a number of indicators that informed the stated goals from the instructional team. Platform data for 8.13 and 8.14 was collected from log files for each student that included click and usage information, date and time that actions occurred in the platform, assessment information, and much more. Most critical for this case study were the timestamp data of when a problem was submitted to the system (meaning a student entered a question answer and clicked the “submit” button on the screen) and the number of the attempt for the problem being submitted (most problems allowed for multiple attempts). Another goal was based on the institutional motivation of increasing or stabilizing enrollment in 8.14, measured each semester as the number of registered students at the “add day” deadline. This measure enabled the reporting the percentage of physics majors enrolling in 8.14 across the pre and post curricular reform project. Standard end-of-semester subject and instructor evaluations administered anonymously online to students by the institution were also collected throughout the study period. This allowed for comparison of responses before and after the intervention. Response rates ranged between 32% and 79%, with 22 of the 27 courses having a response rate over 50%. In this study, we examined three of the subject evaluation questions for subjects 8.13 and 8.14: overall subject rating; the workload of the subject (hours per week spent in the lab; and hours per week spent on coursework outside of the lab). These measures are notoriously poor indicators of learning; however, we are not attempting to make claims about objective learning gains, but rather about students’ subjective views of their own experience. For that purpose, the self-reported evaluation statistics are an acceptable indicator. To inform our understanding of the intervention, we use this evaluation simply to insure we have not made transformations that have a negative impact on a flawed evaluation.

Results and discussion Figure 22.1 shows the enrollment in 8.13, 8.14, and overall physics majors. The first intervention in fall 2012 should show up in cohort year 2014, while the fully flipped curriculum should affect cohort year 2015. The data here show no discernible effect of the interventions on enrollment trends. Three measures of the overall student experience in 8.13 are shown in Figure 22.2: average overall subject rating (on a 7-point scale) and student-reported number of hours per week in class and out of class. Notable improvement in both metrics coincides with the initial intervention in 2012. Further improvement follows the fully flipped curriculum implementation in fall of 2013. Specifically, the average overall rating for 8.13 went from 5.29 (fall 2010–spring 2013) to 5.76 (fall 2013–spring 2019). Despite seeing similar improving trends in student-reported hours in the 8.14 course (Figure 22.3), minimal change is noticed in the overall subject rating with the pre-intervention average of 6.00 (2010–2012) only improving to 6.16 (2013–2019). Further, it should be noted that while we report out these trends for both 8.13 and 8.14 as a way to consider the interventions impact from the instructional team’s perspective, we are not attempting to make any claims of statistically significant differences. In order to investigate if students were engaging with the pre-lab content and problems, individual submission times for each submitted problem within the MITx platform were compared against the beginning of each students assigned class time for a particular section within a specific year. Students that clicked “Submit” prior to the beginning of their assigned class session were coded as having submitted before class. Those students that clicked submit after the beginning 383

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson 25

20

15

10

5

0 Fall 2010

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 Hours In Class

Hours Out of Class

Average Course Rating

Figure 22.2 8.13 Subject evaluation results Source: Three metrics of student perception of 8.13 are shown for the semesters between fall 2010 and spring 2019: overall course evaluation, hours per week spent working on 8.13 in class and out of class. All three metrics are averages of numbers self-reported by students on standardized end-of-semester surveys. A notable improvement in all three metrics can be seen starting with initial interventions in 2012. Further improvements appear with the fully flipped implementation beginning fall 2013 (average score 5.77 in 2013–2019 vs. 5.29 in 2010–2013; time spent in class reduced from 8.40 hours/week to 5.77 hours/week and time spent out of class reduced from 17.69 hours/week to 15.23 hours/week for same study periods).

of class were counted as having submitted after class. The “All Problem Submissions” category in Table 22.2 includes every problem submission, including multiple attempts at a problem, in which an assigned class start could be determined. (Note: some students were granted extensions or alternative due dates. When the exact class start time for a submission could not be determined the data was removed. This represented ~3% of data across all years.) Next, before and after counts were calculated for the first attempt at submitting a problem. Many problems allowed students to submit multiple submissions in an attempt to earn all the points and provide formative feedback on students’ errors prior to class. By looking at only the first submissions counts we can determine if students submitted any materials prior to class or if they did not begin their assigned work until after the class period began. In the 8.13 course (Table 22.2), 87% of all problem submissions (n = 11,675 across all students from fall 2014– spring 2019) were submitted prior to the assigned class period. Looking at just initial problem submissions for 8.13 we see that 90% of initial submissions (n = 3,679 across all students fall 2014–spring 2019) occurred before students’ assigned class period. Further, no single year had an initial submission percentage below 86% for the 5 years of data that can be reported. In the 8.14 course (Table 22.3), 74% of all problem submissions (n = 1,489 across all students from spring 2015–spring 2019) were submitted prior to the assigned class period. Looking at just initial problem submissions for 8.14, we see that 83% of initial submissions (n = 800 problem 384

Promoting learning goals in physics 25

20

15

10

5

0 2010

2011

2012

2013

Hours In Class

2014

2015

Hours Out of Class

2016

2017

2018

2019

Average Course Rating

Figure 22.3 8.14 Subject evaluation results Source: Three metrics of student perception of 8.14 are shown for the semesters between fall 2010 and spring 2019: overall course evaluation, hours per week spent working on 8.14 in class and out of class. All three metrics are averages of numbers self-reported by students on standardized end-of-semester surveys. An improvement in all three metrics can be seen starting with initial interventions in 2012. Further improvements appear with the fully flipped implementation beginning fall 2013 (average score 6.16 in 2013–2019 vs. 6.00 in 2010–2012; time spent in class reduced from 8.57 hours/week to 6.98 hours/week and time spent out of class reduced from 16.05 hours/week to 12.28 hours/week for same study periods).

submissions) occurred before students’ assigned class period. Further, no single year had an initial submission percentage below 70% for the 5 years of data that can be reported. The larger number of initial submissions occurring before class as compared to all problem submissions suggest that a vast majority of students first attempted a problem before the assigned class period. However, unlike 8.13, the 8.14 students seemed to often attempt answering questions again after the assigned class. This suggests that 8.14 students were revisiting the platform in an attempt to either earn a better grade on the problem or revisit course materials after engaging with in-lab activities and the course community members.

Summary and implications Notable improvements were observed in the student-reported overall class rating and hours spent per week from before to after the 8.13 curriculum reforms in 2012 and 2013, however no discernible changes were observed in 8.14 student-reported metrics. The previously falling enrollment trend in 8.14 appears to have stabilized at a low level, but not reversed. While enrollment stabilization in 8.14 was not necessarily large enough to be considered a success for administratively motivated goals of enrollment increases, this was only one of the goals of the intervention as designed by the Junior Lab instructional staff. The goal of having students in both 8.13 and 8.14 arrive in class more assuredly prepared to work efficiently and 385

386

1094 228 1322 82.8% 17.2% 554 89 643 86.2% 13.8% 38 10 48

Fall 2015 – Spring 2016 1505 263 1768 85.1% 14.9% 744 101 845 88.0% 12.0% 43 18 61

Fall 2016 – Spring 2017 1668 392 2060 81.0% 19.0% 598 62 660 90.6% 9.4% 39 15 54

Fall 2017 – Spring 2018 4378 499 4877 89.8% 10.2% 707 85 792 89.3% 10.7% 48 20 68

Fall 2018 – Spring 2019

10114 1561 11675 86.6% 13.4% 3291 388 3679 89.5% 10.5%

Total

The problem submission results reported for 8.13 include the before and after class submission counts and percentages for all problems submitted to the platform (regardless of whether it was a resubmission or not) and results for just the initial submission attempt for a problem for each academic year. Included in the table are the individual number of students enrolled in the course within the academic year and sorted by term.

Number of Students

Initial Problem Submissions

1469 179 1648 89.1% 10.9% 688 51 739 93.1% 6.9% 47 9 56

Count Before Class Count After Class Count Total % Before Class % After Class Count Before Class Count After Class Count Total % Before Class % After Class Fall Spring Total

8.13

All Problem Submissions

Fall 2014 – Spring 2015

 

Table 22.2 8.13 Problem submission results

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson

Promoting learning goals in physics Table 22.3 8.14 Problem submission results  

8.14 All Problem Submissions

Count Before Class Count After Class Count Total % Before Class % After Class Initial Problem Count Before Class Submissions Count After Class Count Total % Before Class % After Class Number of Students

Spring 2015

Spring 2016

Spring 2017

228 46 274 83.2% 16.8% 109 23 132 82.6% 17.4% 11

185 205 8 86 193 291 95.9% 70.4% 4.1% 29.6% 108 99 6 41 114 140 94.7% 70.7% 5.3% 29.3% 7 15

Spring 2018

Spring 2019

Total

197 67 264 74.6% 25.4% 127 35 162 78.4% 21.6% 9

281 1096 186 393 467 1489 60.2% 73.6% 39.8% 26.4% 221 664 31 136 252 800 87.7% 83.0% 12.3% 17.0% 16

The problem submission results reported for 8.14 include the before and after class submission counts and percentages for all problems submitted to the platform (regardless of whether it was a resubmission or not) and results for just the initial submission attempt for a problem for each academic year. Included in the table are the individual number of students enrolled in the course within the academic year and sorted by term.

enabled with enhanced awareness of their own misunderstandings of the day’s topic was also a desired outcome for the intervention. This goal is largely borne out as a success by the high submission rate of preparatory problems before class time, as shown in Tables 22.2 and 22.3. While the observed improvements in 8.13 evaluation metrics and the enrollment stabilization of 8.14 are encouraging, flipped classroom techniques alone cannot be identified with full confidence as the cause of the measured changes, due to the intervention not being designed with careful controls for external factors – such as the varying overall enrollment in the physics major, likely driven more by the flux of students into computer science than anything related to the present study. Beyond the overall lack of controls, another limit on the statistical power of this study is that individual click data from the platform was not captured until the 2014–2015 school year. As such, we are unable to report on platform data from the first-year post-curricular reform intervention. Of course, click data is also unavailable from all years before the MITx platform was implemented, so no pre-post comparison can be performed to assess the intervention with these data. Nevertheless, despite poor control of systematics within the statistics, these observations remain useful at the level of the case study presented here. Seeing the positive impact on student submissions prior to arriving in lab and overall course evaluations, beyond instructors’ anecdotal evidence, highlights the importance and value of the course team’s curriculum reform efforts. In light of the impacts noted earlier, the course team is now considering another round of curriculum change to take advantage of advancements in the residential MITx platform’s capabilities that have been developed since the initial reform in 2012. While many lab reform efforts have focused on providing opportunities for student-centered learning, this work demonstrates how combining such reform with blended approaches to lab instruction can produce desired student outcomes.2

Notes 1 In physics education parlance, “advanced lab” refers to courses focused on professional-level scientific practice in experimental physics, usually aimed at students engaged in physics as a major course of study, contrasted with “introductory lab” which refers to courses where laboratory work provides an alternative modality to lecture for enforcing content knowledge, usually for a general education audience. In the

387

Aaron Kessler and Sean P. Robinson same context, “modern physics” is a mild misnomer for the physics largely discovered in the first half of the 20th century: quantum mechanics, relativity, atomic, nuclear, and particle physics, and so on. 2 A preliminary analysis of this case was given in Robinson et al. (2015). 

References Akcayir G. & Akcayir M. (2018) The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education 126, 334–345. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03601 31518302045?via%3Dihub on 20 October 2019. American Association of Physics Teachers (2014) AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum. Retrieved from www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_ EBendorsed_nov10.pdf on 30 August 2019. Bransford J.D., Brown A.L. & Cocking R.R. (2000) How People Learn. Volume 11. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. DeLozier S.J. & Rhodes M.G. (2017) Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review 29(1), 141–151. Eblen-Zayas M., Behringer E. & Kozminski J. (eds.) (2015) Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year of College Proceedings. College Park, MD. Retrieved from https://advlabs.aapt.org/bfy/ Proceedings/2015/ on 20 October 2019. Eblen-Zayas M., Behringer E. & Kozminski J. (eds.) (2018) Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year of College Proceedings. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from https://advlabs.aapt.org/bfy/ Proceedings/2018/ on 20 October 2019. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) (2015) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ENQA, Brussels. Feder T. (2017) Undergraduate labs lag in science and technology. Physics Today 70(4), 26. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. & Wenderoth M.P. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23), 8410–8415. Galvez E. & Singh C. (2010) Introduction to the theme issue on experiments and laboratories in physics education. American Journal of Physics 78, 453. Hiebert J. & Grouws D.A. (2007) The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. (Frank K. & Lester, Jr., eds.), Information Age, Charlotte, NC, pp. 371–404. Lage M.J., Platt G.J. & Treglia M. (2000) Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education 31, 30–43. Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leff H. (2007) President’s commentary (September 2007): The advanced physics laboratory, from A–Z. In American Association of Physics Teachers Reports Archives. Retrieved from www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/ reports/pres-September2007.cfm on 30 August 2019. MIT (2019) Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program: UROP. MIT Office of Undergraduate Advising and Academic Programs. Retrieved from https://uaap.mit.edu/research-exploration/urop on 30 August 2019. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Otero V. & Meltzer D. (2017) The past and future of physics education reform. Physics Today 70(5), 50. Reichert J.F. (2006) What happened to the Advanced Lab? American Journal of Physics 74(11), 951. Robinson S.P., Roland G., Bosse C. & Zayas E. (2015) Effectiveness of flipped classroom techniques in an advanced laboratory physics course. 2015 Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year of College Proceedings, pp. 92–95, Juyl 22–24, College Park, MD. Staker H. & Horn M.B. (2012) Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf on 20 October 2019. Wieman C. (2017) Improving How Universities Teach Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wright G.B. (2011) Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(1), 92–97.

388

Promoting learning goals in physics Yeager D.S. & Dweck C.S. (2012) Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist 47(4), 302–314. Zwickl B., Finkelstein N. & Lewandowski H.J. (2013a) Development and validation of the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 1513, 442–445. Zwickl B., Hirokawa T., Finkelstein N. & Lewandowski H.J. (2013b) Development and results from a survey on students views of experiments in lab classes and research. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, pp. 381–384, July 17–18, Portland, OR.

389

23 EFFECTIVENESS OF A FLIPPED CLASSROOM APPROACH WHEN TEACHING LAB-BASED TECHNIQUES Melinda Maris

Introduction It has been well substantiated that greater learning gains and increased student engagement are associated with SCL techniques (e.g., Freeman et al. 2014; Hoidn & Kärkkäinen 2014). SCL consists of teaching and learning strategies that engage students in the learning process, requiring students to process and apply information in a variety of contexts. SCL strategies revolve around authentic tasks that provide frequent opportunities for timely, specific, individualized, and educative feedback from peers and from the instructor. This feedback guides students on how to improve and helps students build their skills in self-assessment and self-adjustment, skills that underlie and support deep learning. These hallmarks of SCL, or “active” learning, strategies are often absent in typical lectures and other “passive” teaching and learning strategies. Teaching and learning strategies such as instructor-led lecturing, textbook reading, and summarizing typically provide few opportunities for students to engage in the active processing necessary to construct enduring and transferable knowledge unless these approaches are intentionally structured to guide students to engage in active processing. The motivation for undertaking this study stemmed from an observation that, in prior terms, students performed poorly on middle- and higher-order (Bloom’s taxonomy levels 3–6) summative MCQs assessing their knowledge of how laboratory techniques are performed, how laboratory techniques can be used to diagnose diseases and disorders, and how the data generated by laboratory techniques are interpreted to make medical diagnoses and develop treatment plans. It is important for students to develop and retain a clear understanding of the laboratory techniques because questions based on these techniques commonly appear on the US Medical Licensing Examination (Usmle.org 2019) and on the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the US (Nbome.org 2019), the examinations required for medical licensure in the US. Additionally, in their future careers as physicians, students will frequently be called upon to explain these topics to their patients. This study was conducted in two different biochemistry courses at a US medical school. One course was situated in the first term of the master of science in biomedical sciences program. The other course was situated in the second term of the first year of the medical curriculum. 390

Effectiveness of a flipped classroom

Laboratory techniques was one topic presented in each of these courses, comprising 2 hours of in-class time in each course. In this study, the full scope of teaching and learning approaches associated with the laboratory techniques topic is referred to the “laboratory techniques module.” In prior terms, laboratory techniques were taught solely by instructor-led lecturing. Because the US medical school in which this study was conducted lacked teaching laboratory facilities, it was not possible to include hands-on laboratory sessions in the courses and enable students to learn the techniques by performing them. It was hypothesized that SCL approaches such as blended learning, as opposed to instructor-led lecture-based methods, would lead to greater learning gains in the laboratory techniques module.

Student-centered medical education In the US, a bachelor’s degree is typically required for admission to medical school. Additionally, many students elect to participate in master-level programs, such as a master of science in biomedical sciences program, prior to pursuing medical school, though having a master’s degree is typically not a requirement for admission to medical school. Frequently, students who elect to participate in master-level programs prior to pursuing medical school are doing so in order to build knowledge and skills that will help them be successful during medical school and as healthcare practitioners. Most US medical schools divide training into two parts: pre-clinical, including 2 years of science coursework along with basic physician skills such as taking medical histories, and clinical, including hands-on experience with patients. The curriculum, and teaching and learning methodologies employed vary among medical schools. However, despite mounting evidence that SCL methods are more effective than instructor-centered methods, instructor-centered methods tend to be predominant teaching approaches at many US medical schools (Nandi et al. 2000; DeZee et al. 2012).

The flipped classroom approach A small-scale flipped classroom approach was implemented in two different biochemistry courses at a US medical school. One course was situated in the first term of the master of science in biomedical sciences program. The other course was situated in the second term of the first year of the medical curriculum. Both courses were required courses in their respective curricula. Laboratory techniques was one topic presented in each of these courses, comprising 2 hours of in-class time in each course. In this study, the full scope of teaching and learning approaches associated with the laboratory techniques topic is referred to the “laboratory techniques module.” In both the medical and master’s programs, students were randomly divided into teams of eight to ten students at the beginning of the term. The institution in which this study was conducted had a deeply entrenched culture of instructor-led lecturing. Despite the body of research that supports the efficacy of student-centered approaches, instructor-led lecturing was considered to be a superior and more efficient teaching and learning approach, as compared to student-centered approaches, at this institution. Therefore, implementing student-centered approaches was viewed as radical, and the leadership of the institution permitted studentcentered approaches to be used on a very limited scale. To examine the efficacy of SCL in this setting – that is, whether SCL approaches, as opposed to instructor-led lecture-based methods, would lead to greater learning gains as evinced by improved scores on summative MCQs – a module was developed as depicted in Table 23.1. 391

Melinda Maris Table 23.1 Outline of laboratory techniques module Pre-class

Class (2 Hours)

Post-class

– Instructor provides learning objectives and module overview to students. – Students read relevant textbook chapters and primary sources related to module topics. – Students post summary of assigned technique to discussion board on course website. – Students read other groups’ technique summaries. – Students script, act out, and record clinical scenarios. – Clicker quiz (10 minutes). – Just-in-time teaching for topics with 0.95 would be considered as an excellent fit to the data. The goodness-of-fit indexes for this model were RMSEA = 0.057 (90%, CI = 0.052, 0.062), SRMR = 0.042 and CFI = 0.943, which indicates a very good fit to the observed data. The standardized parameter estimates of the model are shown in Figure 32.3. All of the paths between the latent variables were statistically significant, except the one from teaching to working together. Moreover, the directions of all the paths were positive as anticipated. The fit of the data to the model is of considerable value when advising departments on results from the questionnaire in the consultations sessions described later. First, there is evidence that the teaching and learning environment does impact on the development of attributes. If the evaluation results indicate that a particular attribute needs enhancing, the model indicates which element of the teaching and learning environment needs attention. Potential improvements in aspects of teaching and learning can be linked to better attainment of graduate attributes. The existence of a coherent model also improves the diagnostic power of the instrument. Scales are related together in ways which can be understood from the model. Patterns of data can be explained. An example is the pattern of results for the common problem of overly didactic teaching. This commonly results in low scores on scales for active learning, teaching for understanding and critical thinking. Assessment often rates low too, as didactic teaching is often coupled with the type of assessment which tests recall.

Administering questionnaires to two universities in Hong Kong This main section provides quite detailed practical information about how questionnaires were administered; what groupings were used for gathering and presenting data; how results were presented; the nature of consultations; and strategies for using the process for institutional change. The aim is to provide sufficient information for others to implement similar evaluation systems. In both universities questionnaires were administered online. The student record systems were used to generate email lists of students. Email messages were sent to students requesting them to complete the questionnaire. Embedded within the email was a URL for the questionnaire. Clicking on the URL revealed the questionnaire to be completed. Completed questionnaires were returned to a database, compiled automatically from the list sent out. The database had records of which students had responded. Reminders were sent to nonrespondents – in some cases several reminders. Lecturers were asked to encourage students to respond. Publicity was given to changes resulting from the evaluation exercise, to convince the students that the questionnaires were worth completing.

534

535

0.79

0.78

0.93

Teaching

0.68

0.49

0.63 0.65

0.70

Working Together

0.50

Intellectual

Communication skills

Interpersonal skills & groupwork

0.79 (fixed)

Problem solving

Adaptability

Creative thinking 0.60 0.55 (fixed) 0.52 Self-managed learning

Critical thinking

Figure 32.3 SEM model of the teaching and learning environment, promoting SCL, and influencing the development of a set of attributes

0.72

0.63

0.63

0.43

Student-student Relationship

0.58

Teacher-student Relationship

0.63

0.62

0.78

Cooperative learning

Relationship with other students

Feedback to assist learning

Relationship between teachers and students

Coherence of curriculum

Assessment

Teaching for understand

Active learning

Implementing a university-wide evaluation

David Kember

The SEQ or a similar instrument were used for quality enhancement purposes in CUHK and then HKU. The instrument was administered to all first and final year students in the universities toward the end of the academic year. In most cases this was on an annual basis. For some departments at CUHK, the administration was every other year.

Unit for presenting results and consultations As the questionnaire database was compiled from the student record system, there was a record of the students, faculty, department, course enrollment and year of study. There was a need to choose an appropriate unit for the analysis of the data and the presentation of results. Teaching often follows similar patterns within broad discipline areas, so similar issues often arise. It can, therefore, be effective to arrange meetings by broad disciplinary groupings, such as faculties or schools. In the first university, degree programs were reasonably discrete, so this was a convenient unit for collecting data and providing feedback. For most degrees, the substantial majority of courses were taught by the host department, so a program of study was well defined and it was clear where responsibility lay for teaching quality. When program structures are more flexible, with a wide choice of course combinations, it can be more difficult to assign responsibility for program-level results, particularly in the early stages of a degree. A typical example might be a general BA degree, in which students can pick from a wide range of courses from the arts faculty, or even other faculties. In such situations it is useful to ask students to indicate their major on the questionnaire forms. As long as returns are sufficient, feedback can then be provided to disciplines. In the second university, meetings were held by faculty for arts, engineering, science and social science, but results were presented for individual disciplines. Flexibility over the choice of unit is important, though. An example of where a faculty-level meeting was not effective was the medical faculty, which contained medicine, nursing, pharmacy and Chinese medicine. Styles of teaching and administrative issues within the four areas were quite different, so separate meetings worked better.

Presenting feedback Feedback was supplied to departments and units by using a presentation for each scale of the form shown in Figure 32.4. Scales are shown, rather than items, so as to reduce the amount of information presented to a manageable amount. Presenting scales is also consistent with the psychometric design of the instrument, featuring a scale for each relevant construct. The departments received a profile in this form for first and final year students. They were also provided with a complete set of responses to the two open-ended questions. Figure 32.4 shows a way of presenting results from a single scale which gives all relevant information concisely and graphically. There would be a bar like this for each scale in the

Agree

Neutral

69.3 Active learning

56.5

Mean n = 51 Mean n = 49

Disagree

22.9 32.0

HKU Mean Effect Size n = 1731 (Compare to Effect Size HKU Mean HKU) n = 1442

7.8

3.67

3.53

+S

11.6

3.46

3.47

N

Figure 32.4 A way of presenting data for a single scale

536

+M

SLEQ0910 Final SLEQ0809 Final

Implementing a university-wide evaluation

questionnaire. The method of presentation allows this year’s results to be compared to last year’s and the results for the degree in question to be compared to those for the rest of the university. Moving from left to right, the first column gives the name of the scale. Then comes the bar charts showing the frequency distributions. Frequencies are shown graphically. The questionnaire uses a 5-point scale, but for graphic simplicity, frequencies are collapsed into three groupings (strongly agree and agree), neutral and (disagree and strongly disagree). The upper bar gives the frequencies for the current year and the lower bar, those for the previous administration of the questionnaire. The next column gives the mean scores for the degree, again with the current administration results above those for the previous administration. The penultimate column compares the results for the degree for this year and last. +M shows that there has been an increase of a medium effect size. The final column is a reminder of which results are compared in the upper and lower bars. These comparisons are important as the aim in a quality enhancement initiative is improvement – and specific to this chapter, it would be greater evidence of SCL. The questionnaire scales are indicative of the type of teaching consistent with SCLT and the outcomes expected from its deployment. The aim of greater deployment of SCL is, therefore, evidenced by the year on year comparisons. The fourth column gives the mean scores for the university. The following column compares the mean scores for the degree to those for the university by means of effect sizes. +S means a small effect size above the university mean and N implies a negligible effect size difference. Effect sizes were calculated using the standardized mean difference, or Cohen’s d. Effect sizes were designated according to the following ranges: negligible, d = 0 to 0.09; small, d = 0.10 to 0.29; medium, d = 0.30 to 0.49; large, d ≥ 0.50. These cut-off values are a little lower than those commonly used in research, reflecting the difficulty of achieving meaningful improvement in teaching and learning over time. It will be noted that university means vary quite widely. This is mainly a feature of the nature of the variable. For example, ratings for workload are invariably on the low side. The wording of an item also has some influence on overall scores. Comparison to the university mean, therefore, gives a useful relative measure of the significance or meaning of a score. The comparison also benchmarks a department against the rest of the university.

Consultation Evidence from Kember et al. (2002) and Marsh (1987, 2007) shows that SET data for individual or groups of teachers are normally fairly stable over time. These results suggest that administering questionnaires on a regular basis and simply handing over results to the respective teacher may not in itself be sufficient to improve the quality of learning. There is, though, evidence of improvement when there is counseling about the results (Marsh & Roche 1993, 1994; Penny & Coe 2004). When the evaluation is targeted at bringing about change at the institutional level, counseling and consultation is even more important. The remainder of this section discusses an appropriate form for the activity.

Literature on consultancy strategies for individual teachers There is a literature on counseling individual teachers on the feedback from SET. Penny and Coe (2004) performed a meta-analysis of results from experiments on the effectiveness of 537

David Kember

consultation accompanying feedback from questionnaires. Their conclusion included eight consultation strategies they found to be effective (Penny & Coe 2004, p. 245): • • • • • • • •

Active involvement of teachers in the learning process; Use of multiple sources of information; Interaction with peers; Sufficient time for dialogue and interaction; Use of teacher self-ratings; Use of high-quality feedback information; Examination of conception of teaching; Setting of improvement goals.

The analysis by Penny and Coe was largely of consultations over results from SET questionnaires. The following section gives practical insights into how the principles were implemented in a practical way in the two universities. The principles over consultation need to be translated from the SET case with individual teachers to the departmental level evaluation in this case.

Consultation strategies for institutional change There is considerably less literature on consultation strategies at institutional or program level. This section contains ideas built up from many such meetings to consult with departments or faculties about the results of evaluations. It should be noted that they are generally consistent with the eight strategies listed earlier. •

•

•

•

•

First – who do you meet with? Insist on meeting with senior staff, such as the head of department and/or dean, plus staff responsible for teaching coordination. It can be positive to also include interested teachers, but not these alone. There is no point meeting with those without the responsibility or power to implement change. This has implications for who does the meeting. Sending along junior staff from teaching development units to meet with deans and heads of department is completely inappropriate. In the two universities the consultants were full professors. These had appropriate status, the expertise and experience to give appropriate advice and the ability to set up the institutional evaluation system. Start by asking the department for their interpretation of the data. It is better if diagnoses come from them, so that you do not have to create the impression of coming along to present a report card. Have your own diagnosis ready, though, as many find it easier to rely on those who are used to interpreting such data. Data were treated as indicative, rather than absolute, and needing intelligent interpretation in the particular context of the program. Ask if there are contextual influences which could affect results. It is important that results are treated as indicators to be interpreted in context, rather than absolute data. The meetings, therefore, took the form of interactive dialogues. The aim was to identify strengths, which could be built upon, and which could inform other sections of the university, by being models of good practice. There was also an attempt to identify potential areas for improvement. If there was agreement on these, an action plan would be formulated. Take into account all available data. This will include other available evaluation data, such as qualitative data from sources such as staff-student consultative committees or web-forums.

538

Implementing a university-wide evaluation

•

•

•

It also includes perceptions of staff in the department about their program. This is legitimate and useful information. Start with praising positive aspects – there is usually something to be found. Try to build on strengths, rather than asking for weaknesses to be remedied. If in a faculty meeting with several departments, look for models of good practice in constituent departments. Try to tack improvements onto changes which will have to take place anyway. Academics are reluctant to make major changes for the sake of it – they have better things to do. Examples of potential prompts are starting a new program, the need to obtain accreditation or the need to change the curriculum because of major changes in the field. Hong Kong was about to undergo a change from 3- to 4-year undergraduate degrees, which made it possible to pursue major renovation and quality enhancement initiatives. There should be some record of what was discussed and agreed in the meeting. This should note positive aspects from the evaluation. Ideally it should address aspects conducive to improvement through an action plan for dealing with them.

Overall, the relationship between the consultant and the department is important. If the teachers are treated with respect, they are more likely to accept the expertise of the consultant. If a good rapport is established, there is a chance of meaningful improvement.

Conclusion Anyone who has been involved in discussing evaluation data with senior staff will realize that the process is often not at all easy or straightforward. As with any educational development initiative, initial reactions vary considerably. Departments with better results usually find them more convincing. If feedback is less positive, the credibility of the process is usually challenged. Those most in need of help tend to be the least willing to take notice. When consultation over program-level evaluation is introduced, it is inevitable that in the initial stages reactions to the initiative will vary. My experiences suggest that attitudes can change over time, but it does take time and is by no means easy. Working in conjunction with, and having support from, university senior management is essential. In the two universities changes in mean scores over time were used as evidence of improvement at department, faculty and university levels. Changes to department and faculty scores on particular scales were important diagnostic indicators in the consultation sessions. Changes and improvements in the institutional level means were used as evidence that the universities had effective quality enhancement systems in place. Such evidence was important for the learning and teaching reviews of the universities. Kember (2009) shows some results which indicated evidence consistent with enhancement in SCL in one of the universities. This indicates that institutional level evaluation can be effective in enhancing SCLT.

References Bentler P.M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246. Bentler P.M. (1995) EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software, Encino, CA. Biggs J. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne. Browne M.W. & Cudeck R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models. (Bollen K.A. & Long J.S., eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136–162. Fraser B.J. (1998) The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research 1(1), 1–5.

539

David Kember Gow L. & Kember D. (1993) Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 20–33. Kember D. (1997) A reconcepualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275. Kember D. (2009) Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education 58(1), 1–13. Kember D. & Gow L. (1994) Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education 65(1), 58–74. Kember D. & Kwan K.P. (2000) Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science 28, 469–490. Kember D. & Leung D.Y.P. (2005) The impact of the teaching and learning environment on the development of generic capabilities needed for a knowledge-based society. Learning Environments Research 8, 245–266. Kember D. & Leung D.Y.P. (2009) Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research 12, 15–29. Kember D., Leung D.Y.P. & Kwan K.P. (2002) Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 27(5), 411–425. Kember D., Leung D.Y.P. & Ma R.S.F. (2007) Characterising learning environments capable of nurturing generic capabilities in higher education. Research in Higher Education 48(5), 609–632. Leung D.Y.P. & Kember D. (2006) The influence of teaching approach and teacher-student interaction on the development of graduate capabilities. Structural Equation Modeling 13(2), 264–286. Marsh H.W. (1987) Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11, 253–388. Marsh H.W. (2007) Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An EvidenceBased Perspective. (Perry R.P. & Smart J.C., eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 319–383. Marsh H.W. & Roche L. (1993) The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal 30(1), 217–251. Marsh H.W. & Roche L. (1994) The Use of Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching to Improve Teaching Effectiveness. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Marton F. & Säljö R. (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process I. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11. Marton F. & Säljö R. (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process II. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 115–127. Penny A.R. & Coe R. (2004) Effectiveness of consultation on student ratings feedback: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 74(2), 215–253. Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham. Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76(2), 405–419. Ramsden P. (1987) Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education 12(3), 275–286. Trigwell K. & Prosser M. (1996) Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education 32, 77–87. Trigwell K. & Prosser M. (2004) Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review 16(4), 409–424. Trigwell K., Prosser M. & Ginns P. (2005) Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development 24(4), 349–360. Trigwell K., Prosser M. & Taylor P. (1994) Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education 27, 75–84. Trigwell K., Prosser M. & Waterhouse F. (1999) Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education 37, 57–70.

540

PART VII

Student-centered policies and advocacy

33 BRIDGING THE POLICYPRACTICE GAP Student-centered learning from the students’ perspective Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

Introduction Student-centered learning (SCL) as a concept has been a subject of discussion in pedagogic literature for some time but has only relatively recently captured the attention of higher education (HE) policy makers. Primarily coming through the Bologna Process (BP) policy documents since 2007 (BP 2007), SCL gained a more central stage after the Yerevan Ministerial Summit of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2015 (Klemenčič 2017, p.  69). SCL has also become widely accepted by the stakeholder organizations, such as representatives of higher education institutions (HEIs), teachers and students (ibid.) and, unsurprisingly, the European Students’ Union (ESU) has been at the forefront of promoting it. However, despite the inclusion of SCL in many of the European policies, a strong lobbying effort from ESU and the support of other stakeholder organizations, there are reasons to doubt to what degree a paradigm shift toward SCL has actually taken place. As several European-level surveys conducted by ESU suggest, in practice the implementation of SCL is inadequate – at least from the students’ perspective. We argue that part of the reason for these issues with implementation is that SCL is often conceptualized wrongly, meaning that the ideas and expectations about what it entails are misguided. On the one hand, SCL is very rarely operationalized, and on the other hand, its definition is sometimes too narrow. In addition to this, policies on SCL lack acknowledgment that students themselves need to be properly consulted on and prepared for a shift to SCL. Against this backdrop we also aim to make suggestions regarding how SCL is to be understood and which actions can be taken in practice in order to facilitate this shift from the perspective of ESU policies.

Growing influence of student representatives in European higher education policy making Through the EHEA a new perspective of stakeholder engagement emerged where student participation was identified as a substantial value (Klemenčič 2012, p.  27). ESU played a prominent role in the formation of policies and practices of students’ participation. This 543

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

ensured the representation of students’ interests within the BP policies and strengthened ESU’s position and role in European HE policy making in general (Zgaga 2019; Klemenčič 2012). However, the very beginning of the BP was not very promising for the students’ participation which “was neither foreseen nor much talked about at the original 1999 Bologna Conference” (Bergan 2004, p. 15). ESU did not receive an invitation to contribute to the drafting process of the Bologna declaration, and the organization’s presence at the Bologna Conference was secured through hard and effective lobby work of that year’s Executive Committee (EC) of ESU and an Italian students’ union – Unione degli universitari (UDU). During the conference, ESU gave a clear message for the need of transparency and student participation in the process, expressing a hope for better involvement in the future both at the national level for national unions of students and at the European level for ESU. This was an unexpected breakthrough and the first step toward ensuring representation of students by ESU today within the EHEA, as well as strengthening the overall student voice in the European HE policy making (Zgaga 2019; Klemenčič & Galán 2018). The initial success at the Bologna Conference was followed by ESU’s commitment to actively involving itself with the creation of the EHEA and preparing for the ministerial meeting in Prague 2001. While ESU was requesting official participation in the FollowUp Group of the Bologna Declaration, the Prague Communiqué “appreciated the active involvement of ” ESU in the BP and stressed the need for and welcomed “the involvement of students as competent, active and constructive partners in the establishment and shaping of a European Higher Education Area” (BP 2001, pp.  1–2). The Communiqué also reaffirmed that ESU (as well as other stakeholders) “should be consulted in the follow-up work” (ibid., p. 3). In her article about ESU’s involvement in the BP, Manja Klemenčič (2012), the Secretary General of ESU between 1999 and 2001 provides a comparison of citations from ESU’s Student Göteborg Declaration (students’ statement prepared for the conference) and the Prague Ministerial Communiqué. From this comparison, it can be seen that a significant portion of ESU’s positions was adopted in the Prague Communiqué (ibid., p.  27). At the next ministerial meeting in 2003 in Berlin, ESU (and other stakeholder organizations) were granted a consultative membership to the Follow-Up Group of the Bologna Process (BP 2003, p.  8). This is how student participation developed into being one of the EHEA fundamental principles. In parallel with the EHEA, ESU has also developed strong representation within the EU HE policy-making structures. Today, ESU effectively holds memberships in a number of expert groups of the European Commission,1 among which the ET2020 (Education and Training 2020) Working Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education is of particular strategic importance. ESU is also the only student association invited to the meetings of the EU directors general for higher education (Klemenčič & Galán 2018). More recently – in the first months of 2019, ESU also joined the European Commission’s Curriculum Guidelines Experts Group, which is particularly relevant for promoting an increased focus on SCL (ESU 2019). Overall, ESU as a transnational student organization made a history of strategic policy development to secure today’s unique and influential voice on behalf of students within the EU and EHEA policy making. With its advocacy work, it covers several priority topics for students, and one of the main priorities is SCL. Hence, besides being a flagship goal for students, SCL has become an important topic of discussion in European HE policy making. It is therefore important to explore the presence of SCL in European policy documents, as well as the impact of those policies on the learning experience of students at European HEIs. 544

Bridging the policy-practice gap

Overview of student-centered learning and European higher education policies Student-centered learning in Bologna Process policies The ministerial communiques agreed by the Bologna Ministerial Conferences outline the commitments and priorities of the Bologna Process. An analysis of these communiques can be especially illuminating when it comes to the inclusion of SCL in BP policies. The term student-centered education was first mentioned in the London Communiqué in 2007 (Klemenčič 2017, p. 72), in which there is a strong implicit assumption that BP tools such as learning outcomes methodology, qualifications frameworks and ECTS will lead to more student-centeredness (BP 2007, p. 7). The 2009 Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (BP 2009) first used the term as it is currently used – student-centered learning instead of student-centered education. Rather than focusing merely on national and institutional policy tools and instruments, as has been the preference within the BP up until this point, this communiqué made SCL a part of the wider goal of giving more importance to teaching and learning at HEIs. It stated that student-centred learning requires empowering individual learners, new approaches to teaching and learning, effective support and guidance structures and a curriculum focused more clearly on the learner in all three cycles. (BP 2009, p. 3) Another encouraging development was that after this communique, reporting on SCL policies became a part of the BP national implementation reports (Klemenčič 2017, p.  72). In the following Bucharest Communiqué (BP 2012) and Yerevan Communiqué (BP 2015), the commitment to SCL was reaffirmed with a more explicit emphasis on innovative pedagogies, active participation of students in their own learning and the need for supporting HEIs and staff: We reiterate our commitment to promote student-centred learning in higher education, characterised by innovative methods of teaching that involve students as active participants in their own learning. (BP 2012, p. 2) We will encourage and support higher education institutions and staff in promoting pedagogical innovation in student-centred learning environments. (BP 2015, p. 2) The most recent communique, Paris Communiqué (BP 2018) continues in a similar vein with a commitment to facilitate implementation of SCL: We will develop joint European initiatives to support and stimulate a wide range of innovative learning and teaching practices, building on existing good practice in our countries and beyond. This will encompass the further development and full implementation of student-centred learning. (BP 2018, p. 3) From this brief overview of the communiques’ content, it can be seen that the concept of SCL has, after initially being left out as a goal of the BP, over time achieved recognition as “an underlying principle of the EHEA,” as it is referenced in the 2015 ECTS Users’ Guide (Klemenčič 2017, p. 75). 545

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

Another result of the BP which is arguably more important for the practical implementation of SCL is its inclusion in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (or shortly: European Standards and Guidelines – ESG).2 The practical importance of this document lies in the fact that its standards and guidelines are to be used both in internal quality assurance, meaning that HEIs use them to enhance their own quality, and in external quality assurance, meaning that these standards and guidelines are used in external assessment of HEIs and/or their study programs. In this way, the ESG both create the external incentives for HEIs to increase the quality of their education and facilitate the growth of internal capacities for such an improvement. SCL was included in the ESG through their revision in 2015; the section on internal quality assurance now contains a standard on “Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment.” In addition, a couple of other standards in this section include a reference to SCL (Klemenčič 2017, pp. 72–73). It is also important to note that having a standard on SCL in the ESG signified that this concept is endorsed by virtually all HE stakeholders since drafting both the original version of ESG in 2005 and its revision in 2015 was entrusted to stakeholder organizations.3

Student-centered learning in European union policies However, the concept of SCL is not only contained in the BP and its outcomes. The European Union has also taken an interest in this concept and has included it in a variety of its policy documents, one example of which is the EU’s Modernisation Agenda. Although SCL is not present in the 2006 Modernisation Agenda for Universities (European Commission 2006), the European Commission presented a new agenda in 2011, called Supporting Growth and Jobs – an Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems, with SCL featuring both in the conclusions of the Council of the European Union (2011)4 and the declaration of the European Parliament (2012). In 2017, the European Commission presented a renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education which followed this previous Council conclusion with a statement that “Well-designed higher education programmes and curricula, centred on students’ learning needs, are crucial for effective skills development” (European Commission 2017a, p. 5). In the roadmap for this initiative, the commission lists “promoting student-centred learning and teaching” as one of its aims (European Commission 2017b, p. 2), while the Council of the European Union’s conclusions on this renewed agenda also include support for a student-centered approach (Council of the European Union 2017). Finally, the European Parliament in 2018 in its resolution on the modernization of education in the EU “recommends that Member States and educational institutions promote learner-centred, individualised learning methods” and “highlights the role of research-based education and pedagogical research in terms of stimulating a student-centred approach to learning and teaching” (European Parliament 2018, p. 24). Besides the HE agendas, other EU documents also reference SCL. The report of the High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education with the title Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Europe’s Higher Education Institutions also mentions SCL as a goal and goes into more detail about how SCL can be achieved in practice while also providing some guiding examples for European HEIs. The EU policy documents mentioned here are only examples referring to SCL as a goal of (higher) education so that we can track the process of inclusion of SCL in European Union’s policies in a similar way to the BP. Over the last decade SCL has gained in recognition and its presence in policy documents has gradually increased.

Student-centered learning in policies of other stakeholder organizations In addition to political bodies and organizations at the European level, important stakeholder organizations have also adopted SCL in their policies. For example, the European University 546

Bridging the policy-practice gap

Association (EUA) in 2016 launched its Learning and Teaching Initiative, part of which is also a position paper on learning and teaching in Europe’s universities which endorses SCL as a goal (EUA 2018). The EUA’s interest in SCL is further seen through the document of European Principles for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. One of the ten principles states that “Learning and teaching is learner-centred.” This document also acknowledges that “student-centred learning, quality assurance (QA) and a learning outcomes approach are key elements of higher education in Europe today” (EUA 2017, p. 1). The European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE), an association of teachers’ unions, includes, in its policy paper on quality assurance of higher education, a statement that “principles of student centred learning will enhance the quality of the students’ experiences and thus facilitate the achievement of the desired learning outcomes” (ETUCE 2014, p.  2). Their policy paper on teacher education further makes a claim that “Teacher educators should be able to provide student-centred education” (ETUCE 2008, p. 34).

European Students’ Union’s policies on SCL From the early days of the Bologna Process (early 2000s), the European Students’ Union has been advocating for the inclusion of SCL in European-level policies and for its implementation in HE all over Europe. In the policies of ESIB/ESU, student-centeredness appears as early as 2003 in the policy paper ESIB and the Bologna Process (ESIB 2003) where “student centered patterns of learning and teaching” are mentioned as one of the potential benefits of the BP. In 2006 SCL was given an even more important place in ESU’s policies with the 2010 Policy Paper Student Centered Learning (ESIB 2006), which was adopted at the 51st Board Meeting of ESIB in Paris in 2006 and preceding the London Ministerial Communiqué (BP 2007) to be adopted in 2007. In ESU’s document we see the concept receiving its own stand-alone policy paper which outlined ESU’s vision of SCL for 2010. This policy paper saw the concept of learning outcomes as “the core conceptual basis of a student-centered education system” and pointed to the recognition of informal and non-formal learning as valuable tools in the flexibilization and individualization of HE (ESIB 2006). This was further elaborated in 2008 when ESU published a vision document Towards 2020–A Student-Centred Bologna Process. In this document, ESU expressed its hope that quality assurance in EHEA will lead to education “putting the individual student at the centre of their learning experience,” and that tools like qualifications frameworks will have their ultimate result in the “creation of a system of student-centred learning” (ESU 2008, p. 1). However, the most comprehensive view of SCL from the students’ perspective can be seen in a series (updated continuously every four years) of ESU’s policy papers on quality of HE (ESU 2017). These policy papers are one of five fundamental documents of ESU’s policy work, and they provide a comprehensive picture of what quality education means for ESU. In it, a studentcentered approach is listed as one of the characteristics of a quality education, and SCL is given its own chapter. Points from previous policy documents are reiterated here and once again, the commitment to Bologna structural elements as tools for student-centeredness is clearly visible: Learning outcomes, credit systems, qualification frameworks, flexible curricula and recognition of prior learning are examples of approaches and instruments that form the conceptual and operational basis of this paradigm shift from teaching to learning and a student-centred education system, and can, if used in the right way, lead to a significantly higher quality of our education. (ESU 2017, p. 4) 547

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

In addition to BP structural elements, commitment to the importance of recognition of informal and non-formal learning is reinforced, with an emphasis on how this recognition should, besides being used for accessing HE, also serve as a complement to formal education during studying and in this way help create a more individualized, tailor-made educational experience (ibid., p. 3). Overall, three interesting elements can be discerned in ESU policies on SCL. First, ESU has since the beginning of the BP placed a lot of faith in its structural elements (e.g., learning outcomes and ECTS) as tools for achieving a student-centered education. Second, ESU was very broad in its approach to SCL. In ESU’s vision this term includes a very wide array of HE elements (pedagogy, tools, learning environment, involvement in decision-making, etc.). Third, any attempt to (at least broadly) define SCL appeared fairly late in ESU’s policies, which probably reflects general problems with defining and operationalizing the term. Instead, a more inductive approach was taken where different instances of SCL were listed and elaborated. The following definition appeared for the first time in 2013, with the revision of ESU’s policy paper on the quality of HE: Student-Centred Learning represents both a mindset and a culture within a given higher education institution and is a learning approach which is broadly related to, and supported by, constructivist theories of learning. It is characterized by innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and other learners and which take students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking. (ESU 2013, p. 2) This definition was adopted from earlier European-level projects on SCL since, in addition to developing policies and continuously advocating for SCL, ESU also led two important projects in this field: Time for Student-Centred Learning (T4SCL) and Peer Assessment of Student-Centred Learning (PASCL). The first project, T4SCL was carried out in partnership with Education International (EI), a global level association that represents organizations of teachers and other education employees. This partnership signified that both organizations representing the stakeholders most directly involved in learning and teaching had a strong commitment toward SCL. The project aimed at providing an overview of the theory and practice of SCL as well as guidelines for its practical implementation. Through the work on these publications the project partners arrived at the definition of SCL referenced earlier (ESU & EI 2010a, p.  5). In addition, the project referred to factors such as learning and teaching process (teaching methods, assessment), structural elements (ECTS, learning outcomes), social dimension, mobility, and consultation with the students (ESU & EI 2010a) as issues related to SCL. The second project on SCL, PASCL, was based on the outcomes of the T4SCL project. Using the materials developed earlier, PASCL tried to further promote the concept by developing and testing methodology for assessing the implementation of SCL at HEIs. It also delivered an important research study Overview on Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education in Europe. This project was carried out in partnership with several HEIs and UNICA (Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe).5 These partnerships on developing crucial concepts and methodologies related to SCL and their inclusion in various stakeholders’ policies show that, although students’ representatives at 548

Bridging the policy-practice gap

the European level were the main advocates of inclusion of SCL in European policies, SCL as a policy goal has also been widely supported by other stakeholder organizations such as HEI representatives (EUA and UNICA) and teacher representatives (ETUCE and EI) . However, even though this overview shows a strong role of SCL in European Students’ Union’s policies, the inclusion of SCL in many of the most important policy documents at the European level, and support of different political and stakeholder actors, the question of the actual impact of these policies in influencing learning and teaching in Europe remains open.

Impact and success of European policies on student-centered learning Although there are very few resources providing an overview of the success of SCL policies at the European level, the Bologna with Student Eyes publication and the aforementioned research study Overview on Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education in Europe, can be valuable sources of information. This research study, carried out by the European Students’ Union and its partners within the PASCL project, surveyed students’ representatives from 20 European countries about the implementation of SCL in their HE systems (ESU 2015).6 The most interesting findings of the survey relate to an overall assessment of implementation in practice, students’ level of familiarity with SCL and the level and modes of students’ participation in curriculum design. Bologna with Student Eyes, on the other hand, is a publication based on a survey of national student representatives from all European countries produced by the European Students’ Union before every Bologna Ministerial Conference. It illustrates students’ perceptions of the results and practical implications of the BP and is included in official materials of ministerial conferences.

PASCL project findings Examining the students’ level of familiarity with the concept of SCL, the results show that 74% of students’ representatives believe that the students they represent are not familiar with this concept (ESU 2015, p.  10). Granted, this is only a perception of students’ representatives and not students themselves self-reporting, but since in almost all the contexts it is the constituency which determines the policy goals for students’ representatives, it is likely that their perspective is reliable. Such a finding also supports some of the claims made in pedagogic literature about students’ lack of familiarity with the concept (Lea et al. 2003, p. 326). Questions on the extent of students’ involvement in the curriculum design at an institutional level also offer interesting results (see Figure 33.1). Only 15% of students’ representatives stated that students in their HEIs are meaningfully consulted on curriculum development, 46% reported they are included to some extent, while 39% believe their students are only formally or not consulted at all (ESU 2015, p.  23). Students’ involvement in curriculum design is certainly one of the essential manifestations of SCL; therefore, these results hardly paint a student-centered picture of European HE. Disappointingly, these findings show a clear contrast to educational policies at national and especially European levels, where students’ input is taken much more seriously. Students’ perception of their involvement concerning learning outcomes and associated learning and teaching methods is similarly unsatisfying (see Figure 33.2). Only 23% of the students’ representatives indicated that students are sufficiently informed and consulted about these elements of the curriculum (ibid., p. 25). Since learning outcomes are cited in many EHEA and EU publications as an important tool for increasing the student-centeredness of HE (e.g., ECTS Users’ Guide, European Union 2015, p.  14; EU-High Level Group on the Modernisation of 549

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

21%

15%

15% Yes 46% To some extent 18% Only formally 18%

21% No 46%

Figure 33.1 Are students consulted with regards to curricula development? Source: ESU (2015).

23%

23% Informed and consulted

33%

44% Informed but not consulted 33% Neither informed nor consulted 44%

Figure 33.2 Are students properly informed and consulted with regards to outcomes of programs and teaching and learning methods? Source: ESU (2015).

Higher Education 2013, p.  40), this perception among students’ representatives is definitely problematic. The most comprehensive view; however, is provided by the question about the overall level of practical implementation (see Figure 33.3). Here, as few as 5% of the student representatives saw high or very high levels of progress in the implementation of SCL in their HE systems, 41% assessed progress at a medium level, while as many as 54% indicated little or no progress in implementation (ESU 2015, p. 13). General conclusions drawn from this survey reflect the perception that there has been little progress toward the implementation of SCL and that this progress has been sporadic, uneven across Europe and frustratingly slow (ibid.). Through project partners representing HEIs this research study has also interviewed HEIs about the elements of the SCL paradigm. Some of the findings here seem to strongly support students’ perceptions because some of the responses stated that: 550

Bridging the policy-practice gap

2%

3% 10%

10% - No progress 44% - Low, some efforts can be recognized 41% - Medium, clear actions taken

41% 44%

2% - High, visible progress 3% - Very high, SCL is clearly a priority

Figure 33.3 Progress in practical implementation of SCL Source: ESU (2015).

Learning outcomes at course level are mostly defined by professors themselves, . . . most faculties take student evaluation only partially into account, . . . most universities do not involve students in the development of syllabi and generally students are not involved in the development of teaching and assessment methods. (ibid., pp. 27–29)

Bologna with Student Eyes findings The 2018 edition of this survey contained several questions closely connected to SCL as perceived and defined by ESU, and here three of them are highlighted: (a) recognition of informal and non-formal learning, (b) students’ involvement in decision-making at the program level and (c) SCL as an element of quality assurance. (a) Recognition of informal and non-formal learning in HE has a key role to play in the development of a student-centered approach in at least two ways. Such recognition can facilitate access to HE for a more diverse set of learners, enabling persons with previous unstructured or semi-structured learning experiences to enroll in HE under individualized terms. This use of recognition is often mentioned and emphasized in European policy discussions (e.g., Council of the European Union 2012), while another role of complementing formal HE during the study period is undervalued. Such a complementary role would mean using the recognition of informal and non-formal learning to replace a chosen unit of a study program, be it only a part of a course, a whole course or a module. In this way, HE can achieve further individualization and flexible study programs, granting more control to the learner over their learning experience. In the Bologna with Student Eyes survey, 63% (i.e., 27 out of 43) of the national students’ unions in Europe report that their HE systems generally have either established procedures for recognition of informal and non-formal learning or initiatives for such recognition which are in a mature stage of development (ESU 2018, p.  59). These numbers imply that in the context of more than a third of respondents’ opportunities for the recognition of informal and non-formal learning are lacking or are only in early stages of development, the consequence of which means that an important element of a truly student approach is lacking (see Figure 33.4). 551

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan 2% 37% - Yes, there are established systems

5% 9%

26% - Yes, there are some initiatives 37% 21% - No, not yet, but some initiatives are being developed

21%

9% - No, no work has been done in order to enable RPL 2% - I don’t know 26%

5% - Other

Figure 33.4 Is the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) possible in your country? Source: ESU (2018).

%

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

69 62 44 35

36 33

31

24

24

18

5 National level

2

Institutional level

Main or equal partner

Faculty level

Program level

Representative without a mandate

Not a partner or excluded Figure 33.5 How is the role of students perceived at the following levels? Source: ESU (2018).

(b) When it comes to students’ involvement in the design of their own studies, which is a crucial element of students being co-creators of their own education, a good indicator can be the extent of the students’ impact on decision-making at a program level, since this is where structural decisions about study programs are usually made – at least in terms of content (see Figure 33.5). Here, the survey findings are deeply worrying as “only 36% of the students’ unions (15 out of 43) reported that their students are equal partners at this level” (ibid., p.  112). The Bologna with Student Eyes publication goes on to state that this is thoroughly disappointing both in relative terms, considering that representation improves at higher levels of governances . . ., and in absolute terms of ensuring an equal student partnership in modern higher education. (ibid., p. 112) 552

Bridging the policy-practice gap

5% 20% 5% - Very high

20%

20% - Above average 32% - Average 23% - Below average

23%

20% - Very low/Not at all 32%

Figure 33.6 To what extent is student-centered learning present in the internal quality assurance in your country? Source: ESU (2018).

(c) Finally, as the inclusion of a standard on SCL in the ESG was mentioned as one of the most important moments for the European policies on SCL, it is crucial to look at what impact this has made on internal quality assurance carried out at an institutional level. The students’ representatives were asked to assess the presence of SCL in the internal quality assurance of their HEIs in their country (see Figure 33.6). The results were, again, fairly disappointing as it was found that as many as one-fifth of the unions (8 out of 40) finds SCL present in internal quality assurance to a very low extent or not at all, and a further 22.5% (9 out of 40) find its presence is below average. Only one-quarter of the unions (10 out of 40) believe that the presence of SCL is above average or very high (ibid., p. 114). When drawing conclusions from these two surveys – Bologna with Student Eyes and Overview on Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education in Europe – it is important to have in mind their methodological limitations. The first limitation stems from their design – the surveys mostly did not inquire about factual information but were rather constructed with an aim of exploring how the students’ representatives see recent developments in this area. This might also mean that the opinion of students’ representatives in one country is influenced by a significantly different contextual starting point. The second limitation is based on the fact that there might be differences in the perception of students at a local level and their representatives at the national level, or that there may be differences between individual institutions which are difficult to capture at the national level. However, even though these limitations mean that the results are not strictly comparable across countries, they still reliably track how the representatives of students feel about or experience the student-centeredness of their education, which in itself is valuable information. Furthermore, the student representative bodies usually have a strong grassroots structure which enables them to channel policy preferences and information from the ground up, and these surveys present the only available picture of students’ perspectives on the current state of studentcenteredness of European HE. Overall, from these findings it appears that the “paradigm shift” toward SCL hasn’t actually occurred and that the progress toward this goal is quite slow and uneven across contexts.

Practical implementation challenges The perceived slow progress toward the goal of student-centered HE can be attributed to many possible causes. However, a significant impediment to the meaningful impact of SCL-related 553

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

policies might be the way SCL is presented and conceptualized in these policies. By conceptualization we mean the perception of what SCL exactly entails and expectations and ideas about what it means in practice. We argue that the way SCL is construed in some of these policies is detrimental to its successful implementation.

Conceptualization of student-centered learning in higher education policies As described earlier, policy makers’ conceptualization of SCL developed and transformed during the past decade which can be tracked through various European HE policy documents. Though serving as an expression of common overarching goals for diverse HE systems and countries, these documents approach and address SCL in different ways. Examining the EU and EHEA policy documents quoted earlier, it can be noted that SCL has often been, usually implicitly, characterized or conceptualized in a problematic manner not especially conducive to its implementation in practice. In her 2017 article, Klemenčič (2017) distinguishes three different conceptions of SCL referenced in EHEA policy documents: • • •

A pedagogic concept to foster individual learning; SCL as a cultural frame for developing communities of learning; A lever for supporting learning systems.

Such a wide range of meanings attributed to SCL creates significant problems when it comes to practical implementation. For every policy it is crucial to be able to plan and assess its impact, but this is hardly possible with such different views on what SCL can mean in practice. Another reason why this situation is highly problematic is that SCL is supposed to be measurable, or at least verifiable, from the perspective of quality assurance processes. Nevertheless, in the ESG, characteristics of SCL are vague and the indicators for assessing the extent of student-centeredness of an institution are not clearly specified. As a consequence of this, it is hard to expect that different stakeholders will have a common perception on what SCL actually entails for the purposes of quality assurance. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that Klemenčič (2017, p.  2) argues that “almost anything can be ‘sold’ as SCL to evaluation panels” while O’Neill and McMahon (2005, p.  27) remark that “this slightly overused term can mean different things to different people.” Simply listing SCL as a goal within strategic and policy documents would then in practice be considered as sufficient evidence of SCL application. Yet, O’Neill and McMahon argue that SCL “is used very commonly in the literature and in university policy statements, but this has not necessarily transferred into practice” (2005, p.  34). This existing variety of interpretations proves SCL to be a notoriously vague concept, reflected at the policy level with rather high abstractness and ambiguity. In addition to this general problem with imprecision in defining and operationalizing the term, there is another problematic aspect to some of the European-level policies on SCL. This is the view that SCL will be brought about by using some specific instruments or tools such as digital technologies. Examples of this include the aforementioned Council of the European Union’s conclusion in 2011, which invited the member states to “encourage the adoption of student-centred approaches to teaching and learning, . . . including by making effective use of ICTs” (Council of the European Union 2011, p. 7), or the penultimate version of the draft of the 2018 Bologna Ministerial Communiqué, which stated:

554

Bridging the policy-practice gap

We will ensure that higher education institutions further develop and fully include the student-centred learning approach in teaching and learning and make full use of the opportunities offered by online and digital learning in particular. (BFUG 2018b, p. 3) This version of the draft communiqué was subsequently altered and this perspective was avoided due to the strong lobbying efforts of the ESU (Interview with ESU representative, 20 May 2019, personal records). Nevertheless, it is quite obvious, as is the case in the Council’s conclusions, that too much is expected from digital tools in relation to SCL. In fact, there is no good reason to emphasize digital tools, out of all the other tools, elements, instruments and structures of education, as a way toward SCL. As a call for a shift on the level of institutional culture and mentality, SCL cannot be brought about only by reforming concrete tools and structures, although these can certainly facilitate its implementation. Following ESU’s definition of SCL, what is fundamentally necessary is a new mindset of HE actors (students, teachers, management) and a new institutional culture along with new pedagogical approaches.

Challenges for students In addition to issues stemming from the generality, abstractness and vagueness of the term, effective implementation of SCL suffers from another problematic perspective which might also impede its potential for reshaping education, and this is the idea that SCL is something which will necessarily be immediately attractive to the students and that therefore students will always be supportive of measures designed for this purpose. This idea definitely has a certain intuitive, common-sense appeal – if something is student centered, then this seems to directly imply that students ought to have a positive attitude toward it. However, even though many authors have found that students will in many cases welcome and be extremely positive toward SCL (e.g., Chung & Chow 2004; Kember 2009; Moulding 2010; Geven & Attard 2012), others have found that at least some students can be hesitant toward the implementation of SCL (e.g., Maclellan 2008; O’Neill & McMahon 2005; Lee & Branch 2017). At the same time, ESU representatives, during their continuous advocacy for SCL, have often received questions about what to do in practice when students do not embrace reforms toward a more student-centered education (Interview with ESU representative, July 7, 2018, personal records). These questions usually came from people responsible for education at HEIs (i.e., vice deans or vice rectors for education) who have implemented changes aiming at a more studentcentered approach to learning and teaching and who have found themselves facing negative reactions from students. Therefore, possible difficulties in students’ reactions to SCL are at least somewhat acknowledged in the academic literature and they, at least sporadically, happen at the level of implementation. Yet, in policy documents and discussions a similar acknowledgment is barely visible. An exception to this is the aforementioned publication of the T4SCL project which provides a balanced overview of this issue, and while presenting many reasons to be optimistic, it also cautions that “getting accustomed to new realities in the very short time span of a higher education programme is difficult by any standard” (ESU & EI 2010b, p. 36). Policy documents which refer to SCL, even when they do mention the necessity of teacher training and education, still do not refer to ways of increasing students’ capacities and facilitating their fulfillment of a completely new role. Example of such a perspective can be seen in the results of a survey conducted

555

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

as part of the T4SCL project. In this survey, respondents, which were students’ representatives (through ESU) and teachers’ representatives (through EI) were asked: “What are the barriers to change toward student-centered learning?” Interestingly, only one suggested answer received no responses, and that is “negative attitudes of students” (ESU & EI 2010c, p.  8). This shows that among both students’ and teachers’ representatives, none of the respondents perceived students’ attitude toward SCL as potentially problematic for implementation, demonstrating (perhaps unrealistic) optimism (see Figure 33.7). Nonetheless, whatever the cause of this lack of acknowledgment, it is harmful for the implementation of SCL and for the effectiveness of policies which promote it for several reasons. First, as mentioned earlier, such a misconception can be a symptom of a completely misguided perspective that SCL is being introduced in HE for the sole reason so that students would have a more pleasant and relaxed learning environment. This perspective can then lead those who have implemented SCL to conclude that students are in a way ungrateful for the benefits they have received. However, while some elements are admittedly directly beneficial for the students, SCL is still a higher-order principle about how education should be constructed to effectively fulfill its overall purpose of enabling students to develop into motivated, autonomous and competent learners in the long term and across various contexts. Therefore, as we have argued elsewhere, the primary beneficiary of SCL is education as a whole (Šušnjar 2017, p. 78). Second, without an awareness that students might have difficulties with SCL or even resist it, there is a high risk of frustration, disappointment and, consequently, discouragement on the part of policy makers at the institutional level. In order to implement a more student-centered approach in their institution, these policy makers often must face and overcome strong barriers and prejudices toward SCL from more conservative elements within the institution. When the outcome of such a reform is students’ dissatisfaction, this can be very demotivating and frustrating for such persons or institutional bodies. Third, without being aware that students might be insufficiently prepared for such an active role in their education, there can also be no planning of how to increase students’ capacities and gradually empower them for taking over the role of co-creators of their own education, which will be needed in at least some situations (Elen et al. 2007).

Conclusion: policy measures to facilitate the shift to SCL So far, we have shown how students have become actively engaged in shaping European policies and how one of their main policy goals was SCL which has over time become one of the important policy commitments of policies on HE. At the same time, feedback from student representatives suggests that a shift to SCL has not actually occurred and that progress is rather slow. What should then be done by policy makers to facilitate such a shift? There are several elements to ensure such a shift will be feasible and successful. First of all, as argued by ESU and EI (2010a, p.  4), it is necessary that SCL is understood as an overarching concept which can use and accommodate many different tools and methods as well as facilitate their successful application. This requires SCL to be supported at all levels and in all aspects of the educational setting. In this way, SCL is characterized as a higher-order principle which permeates both more practical principles and all elements of institutional practice. A similar characterization of SCL can be found in the work of Klemenčič (2017, p. 73) who puts forward a proposition that SCL should be understood as a “meta-concept,” a concept at a higher level of abstraction. Indeed, as we have argued elsewhere (Šušnjar 2017) and as ESU policies indicate, various issues at the levels of policy and practice are intertwined with SCL such as pedagogy, 556

557

National barriers for change

Source: ESU & EI (2010c).

Figure 33.7

EI affiliates

Low level of cooperation between academic staff and students

Insufficient student participation

Inadequate national policies

Unfavourable staff working conditions

Other priorities at national level (reform fatigue)

Lack of educational research on SCL

Lack of expertise

Lack of funding

Negative attitudes of institutions

Negative attitudes of students

Negative attitudes of academic staff

0

ESU members

20

40

60

80

100

Bridging the policy-practice gap

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan

curriculum and study program design, recognition of prior learning, quality assurance and engagement of students as equal partners. All of these have a strong influence on students’ learning and are therefore educational elements where a student-centered approach is to be applied. This conception of SCL as a comprehensive overarching concept to be applied in all areas of education is not to be confused with it being a vague and blurry concept. Quite the opposite, as can be seen later, we find it extremely important to be able to distinguish what is and what is not student-centered. Another important thing that policy makers should have in mind when planning the implementation of SCL is that this is not being done (at least not primarily) to appease the students and make them feel more comfortable and satisfied, but to make their learning more effective and their whole learning experience of a higher quality. Connected with this is the awareness that some students might have problems adapting to the new paradigm, and especially to the shift itself which “cannot be achieved only by structural measures, but requires . . . acceptance by the whole academic community, including students” (ESU 2017, p.  4). Therefore, a shift toward a more student-centered approach needs to be carefully negotiated with the students through their participation at different levels to understand the difficulties and barriers they experience, so that these can be addressed. Openly discussing and negotiating with the students about reforms in this direction and involving them as co-creators of the curriculum can support students to gradually build up their (meta-)capacities and assume more responsibility for effective learning. Besides the fundamental importance of properly conceptualizing SCL in policy, there are also several other things that policy makers should take into consideration when seeking to facilitate the shift to SCL. They would do well to try to look at education as a whole, from elementary to HE. If the previous levels of education haven’t adequately prepared students for a studentcentered approach, this needs to be explicitly acknowledged and addressed. However, even when focusing solely on HE, there are still constructive steps to be made. Involving students in reforms toward a student-centered approach from the beginning can help avoid missteps and more negatively received aspects. Another possibility for the policy makers is to gradually introduce students to a student-centered approach, which can be especially effective if connected with popular measures like practical learning or flexibility of study programs through the recognition of informal and non-formal learning. As it was pointed out in the T4SCL publication: “the transition from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred approach is often correlated with other side-measures that may contribute to the popularity, or otherwise, of the new learning style” (ESU & EI 2010b, p. 33). Most importantly, however, the shift to SCL will require a much stronger commitment from policy makers than just mentioning SCL in strategic and policy documents as an abstract ideal which will hardly ever be reached or even assessed. Reliable methods of assessment, particularly through quality assurance, need to be developed not only in order to realize the possibility of measuring at what stage implementation is and what needs to be done for improvement, but also to clearly demonstrate that SCL can be something concrete and tangible. These characteristics are important in order to motivate policy makers to truly commit to investing more resources and effort into SCL as a way forward for education.

Acknowledgment Special thanks go to Nik Heerens, former ESU director and student representative, for all the guidance and fruitful ideas on the history and conceptualization of student-centered learning in European policies and practice. 558

Bridging the policy-practice gap

Notes 1 The whole list can be seen in the Register of Commission Expert Groups at this link: http://ec.europa. eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=search.resultNew [30 May 2019]. The groups are Europass Advisory Group, European Qualifications Framework Advisory Group, Commission expert group on graduate tracking, Advisory Board for user-driven, multidimensional international ranking for HEIs, and Commission Initiative on Curriculum Guidelines Experts Group. 2 ESG part 1 (Standards and Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance) includes the standard 1.3: Studentcentered learning, teaching and assessment. In its elaboration, the standard is defined as follows: Institutions should ensure that the programs are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach. A corresponding guideline for this standard states: Student-centered learning and teaching plays an important role in stimulating students’ motivation, self-reflection and engagement in the learning process. This means careful consideration of the design and delivery of study programs and the assessment of outcomes. More detailed information can be found here: https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ ESG_2015.pdf, retrieved July 29, 2019. 3 It was entrusted to the so-called E4 Group, namely European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), European University Association (EUA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) and European Students’ Union (ESU). 4 Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council. 5 For more information, see www.unica-network.eu/, retrieved July 29, 2019. 6 Surveyed student representatives were at the time enrolled in European HEIs and members of either the elected student councils or student organizations active at HEIs. Thirty-nine answers were received from 20 different countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

References Bergan S. (2004) Higher education governance and democratic participation: The university and democratic culture. In The University as Res Publica: HE Governance, Student Participation and the University as a Site of Citizenship. (Bergan S., ed.), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 13–30. Bologna Follow-Up Group [BFUG] (2018b) BFUG Meeting 60: Draft For the 2018 Ministerial Communiqué. Sofia, Bulgaria. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/20180424-25-Sofia/54/0/ BFUG_BG_SR_60_6_DraftCommunique7_0_936540.pdf on 7 December 2018. Bologna Process (2001, May 19) Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education in Prague. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2001_Prague/44/2/2001_Prague_Communique_English_553442.pdf Bologna Process (2003, September 19) Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2003_Berlin/28/4/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf Bologna Process (2007) London Communiqué: Towards the European Higher Education Area: Responding to Challenges in a Globalised World. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2007_ London/69/7/2007_London_Communique_English_588697.pdf on 7 December 2018. Bologna Process (2009) The Bologna Process 2020: The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvainla-Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf on 7 December 2018. Bologna Process (2012) Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. Bucharest Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2012_Bucharest/67/3/ Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf on 7 December 2018. Bologna Process (2015) Yerevan Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_ Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf on 7 December 2018. Bologna Process (2018) Paris Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2018_ Paris/77/1/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf on 7 December 2018.

559

Aleksandar Šušnjar and Gohar Hovhannisyan Chung J.C.C. & Chow S.M.K. (2004) Promoting student learning through a student-centred, problembased subject curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41(2), 157–168. Council of the European Union (2011) Council Conclusions on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011XG122 0(07)&qid=1532986181167&from=EN on 7 December 2018. Council of the European Union (2012) Council Recommendation on the Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:320 12H1222(01)&from=EN on 7 December 2018. Council of the European Union (2017) Council Conclusions on a Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XG121 4(01)&from=EN on 7 December 2018. Elen J., Clarebout G., Léonard R. & Lowyck J. (2007) Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education 12(1), 105–117. EU-High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education (2013) Report to the European Commission on Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Europe’s Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fbd4c2aa-aeb7-41ac-ab4ca94feea9eb1f on 7 December 2018. European Commission (2006) Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation. COM (2006) 208 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=COM:2006:0208:FIN:en:PDF on 7 December 2018. European Commission (2011) Supporting Growth and Jobs: An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems. COM (2011) 567 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0567&from=EN on 7 December 2018. European Commission (2017a) Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education. COM (2017) 247 final. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-com-2017-247_en.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Commission (2017b) Roadmap of an Agenda for the Modernisation of Higher Education. EAC B1. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1312/publication/9611/ attachment/090166e5b0a53ec0_en on 7 December 2018. European Parliament (2012) European Parliament Resolution of 20 April 2012 on Modernising Europe’s Higher Education Systems. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CEL EX:52012IP0139&from=EN on 7 December 2018. European Parliament (2018) Resolution of 12 June 2018 on Modernisation of Education in the EU. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-20180247+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN on 7 December 2018. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2008) Towards 2020: A Student-Centred Bologna Process. Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/?policy=2008-towards-2020-a-student-centred-bologna-process on 30 May 2019. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2013) Policy Paper on Quality of Higher Education (Board Meeting Document). Internal ESU document. Unpublished. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2015) Overview on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education in Europe: Research Study. European Students’ Union, Brussels. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2017) Policy Paper on Quality of Higher Education (Amended). Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BM73_Amended_PolicyPaper OnQualityOofHE.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2018) Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown. European Students’ Union, Brussels. European Students’ Union [ESU] (2019) General Activity Report (Board Meeting Document). Internal ESU Report. Unpublished. European Students’ Union [ESU] & Education International [EI] (2010a) Time for a New Paradigm in Education: Student-Centred Learning Toolkit. Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/07/100814-SCL.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Students’ Union [ESU] & Education International [EI] (2010b) Student Centered Learning: An Insight into Theory and Practice. Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2010T4SCL-Stakeholders-Forum-Leuven-An-Insight-Into-Theory-And-Practice.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Students’ Union [ESU] & Education International [EI] (2010c) Student Centered Learning: A Survey on the Views of National Unions of Students and Higher Education Staff. Retrieved from www.coe. int/t/dg4/highereducation/2010/Student%20centred%20learning%20ESU%20handbook.pdf on 25 June 2018.

560

Bridging the policy-practice gap European Trade Union Committee for Education [ETUCE] (2008) Teacher Education in Europe: An ETUCE Policy Paper. European Trade Union Committee for Education, Brussels. European Trade Union Committee for Education [ETUCE] (2014) Policy Paper on Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrieved from www.csee-etuce.org/images/attachments/Policy_paper_on_ Quality_Assurance_in_Higher_Education-EN.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Union (2015) ECTS Users’ Guide. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. European University Association [EUA] (2017) Enhancing the Education Mission of European Universities: A Proactive Response to Change. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/downloads/content/ten%20european%20 principles%20for%20the%20enhancement%20of%20learning%20and%20teaching16102017.pdf on 7 December 2018. European University Association [EUA] (2018) Learning and Teaching in Europe’s Universities: An EUA Position Paper. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/learning-and-teachingin-europe-s-universities-an-eua-position-paper on 7 December 2018. Geven K. & Attard A. (2012) Time for student-centred learning? In European Higher Education at the Crossroads. (Curaj A., Scott P., Vlasceanu L. & Wilson L., eds.), Springer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 153–172. Kember D. (2009) Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education 58(1), 1–13. Klemenčič M. (2012) How ESIB got into the Bologna process. In ESU Turns 30! Fighting for Student Rights Since 1982. (Ivosevic V., Päll A., Primožič R., Slegers M. & Vukasovic M., eds.), ESU, Brussels, pp. 17–28. Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 30(1), 69–85. Klemenčič M. & Galán F. (2018) Transnational student associations in the European multi-level governance of higher education policies. European Educational Research Journal 17(3), 365–384. Lee S.J. & Branch R.M. (2017) Students’ beliefs about teaching and learning and their perceptions of student-centred learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55(5), 585–593. Lea S.J., Stephenson D. & Troy J. (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334. Maclellan E. (2008) The significance of motivation in student-centred learning: A reflective case study. Teaching in Higher Education 13(4), 411–421. Moulding N.T. (2010) Intelligent design: Student perceptions of teaching and learning in large social work classes. Higher Education Research and Development 29(2), 151–165. National Unions of Students in Europe [ESIB] (2003) Policy Paper “ESIB and the Bologna Process.” Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/?policy=2003-policy-paper-esib-and-the-bologna-process on 30 May 2019. National Unions of Students in Europe [ESIB] (2006) 2010 Policy Paper “Student Centered Learning.” Retrieved from www.esu-online.org/?policy=2010-policy-paper-student-centered-learning on 30 May 2019. O’Neill G. & McMahon T. (2005) Student-Centred Learning: What Does It Mean for Students and Lecturers? Retrieved from www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Student%20Centered%20Learning%20Article.pdf on 7 December 2018. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (2015) Brussels, Belgium. Šušnjar A. (2017) Student-centred learning: Why and how? Journal of the European Higher Education Area 7(4), 77–94. Zgaga P. (2019) European higher education reforms and the role of students. In Preparing Students for Life and Work: Policies and Reforms Affecting Higher Education’s Principal Mission. (Walter A. & Hans G.S., eds.), Brill Sense, Leiden, Boston, pp. 272–288.

561

34 STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING FROM A EUROPEAN POLICY AND PRACTICE PERSPECTIVE Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang1

Introduction As demand on higher education grows and student bodies become more diverse, universities seek approaches that will meet new learning needs and ensure the quality of student learning experiences (Hénard & Roseveare 2012; Haywood et al. 2015; Sursock 2015). The conditions universities work in are further challenged by the increased digitalization of societies, globalization, migration flows, increased expectations for higher education to contribute to the skills needed on the labor market, and students’ civic and critical competences. In the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), these trends are taking place following a decade of negative demographic flows and financial and economic crisis, which have affected many higher education systems’ budgets and autonomy. The economic situation and the increase of youth unemployment have also prompted national authorities as well as the European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to call for enhancing the employability of graduates and respond to the economic and social challenges (Sursock 2015). In addition, the age of post-factual politics and a worldwide rise in populist movements have demanded from higher education to play a stronger civic role and enable students to value the role of science and knowledge production, e.g., by exercising critical thinking. Against this background, the higher education sector and policy makers have continuously grown in the awareness to improve how students are being taught and how they learn. Learning and teaching has gained importance in universities’ agendas, including the most researchintensive ones. While, under the Bologna Process, the Ministers of Higher Education of the EHEA first focused on student-centered learning (SCL) from the angle of curricular reforms, the attention has now shifted toward greater care for the learning and teaching processes themselves. Today, European universities consider the variety of their own approaches to SCL. The chapter explores how universities in Europe seek to embrace SCL in their education provision and argues that context-sensitive and encompassing institutional approaches to SCL are needed to implement it. First, the chapter introduces the policy work on SCL in the EHEA, based on a review of policy documents and various studies conducted by stakeholder organizations in higher education. It has been a characteristic of the EHEA since start to involve organizations representing the higher education sector: the European University Association (EUA)2 and the European 562

A European policy and practice perspective

Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) representing higher education institutions (HEIs); the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), representing quality assurance agencies; and the European Students’ Union (ESU), representing students. These organizations’ experience with both SCL in a policy context and in grassroots (i.e., institutional contexts) makes their contributions on SCL particularly relevant for the purpose of this chapter. Since the concept of SCL started gaining in importance over a decade ago, definitions of SCL have evolved around core characteristics, such as a learning outcomes approach and subsequent curricular reforms. SCL has also been consistently viewed as a means to enable higher education to address societal challenges, such as better grasping competences that are needed for students’ future professional and civic lives. Studies that explored the implementation of SCL at European universities also emphasized the importance of a multifaceted approach when promoting SCL – with consideration to the specificities of the discipline, study programs, and profile and mission of each institution. The second part of the chapter identifies conditions in place for fostering the implementation of SCL at European HEIs. This part is built upon EUA’s Trends 2018 survey results, which collected responses from 303 European HEIs on their learning and teaching (L&T) policies and practices. EUA, the largest and most extensive association of European universities and the representative organization of national rectors’ conferences, has been publishing the Trends3 reports since 1999, with the view to contribute to the knowledge base on the developments of European higher education reforms and to feed an institutional perspective into European higher education policy discussions. Next to the Trends 2018 survey results, this part of the chapter builds on the association’s work with its member universities on learning and teaching since 20154, with the aim to engage with relevant university communities and networks, and consolidate a European dimension on the topic. Finally, the last part of the chapter summarizes the lessons learned from EUA’s work with its member universities, where findings from EUA’s Trends 2018 survey and other activities explore ways to support institutions in the development of strategic approaches to learning and teaching.

European policies for student-centered learning Policy developments in the European higher education area In the past decade, SCL came into the policy arena as a way to enhance higher education and to respond to its societal demands. European policy documents have progressively promoted definitions of SCL, and how it is – or could be – implemented in HEIs. The concept of studentcentered learning or student-centered education has an almost century-long history in education sciences: there is no doubt that it has already blossomed in research and in practices at HEIs. However, when the concept was first introduced in a modern European higher education policy context and mentioned in policy documents, there was no comprehensive or consensual definition of SCL. Over time, different features were added or were granted a new focus. Therefore, exploring how the most relevant European policy documents describe SCL over time also provides an overview on how priorities have shifted in the past ten years. The concept of SCL was first introduced in the European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process5 policy context in 2007. The London Communiqué from the European Ministers of Higher Education stated that “a significant outcome of the [Bologna] process will be a move towards student-centered education and away from teacher driven provision” (EHEA 2007, p. 2). The communiqué associated SCL with learning outcomes, together with national 563

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

qualifications frameworks, credits, lifelong learning, and the recognition of prior learning (EHEA 2007, point 3.7, p.  7). EUA’s Trends V report, which contributed to this ministerial meeting and communiqué, emphasized the use of a learning outcomes-based approach in teaching – thus laying the grounds for a student-centered concept in higher education learning and teaching (Crosier et al. 2007). However, using learning outcomes as the basic building blocks for reforming higher education dates back prior to 2007. For example, learning outcomes had already been used to describe qualifications (EHEA 2003, 2005) and as “a basis of the generic ‘Dublin descriptors’ for the three European Higher Education Area (EHEA) cycles” (Adam 2008, p. 4). Since 2007, the definitions and approaches to SCL have vastly developed and have continued to include learning outcomes as one of its vital elements. The following ministerial communiqués reiterated the connection between SCL, learning outcomes, and curricular reforms. In addition, several communiqués referred to the role of SCL in developing competences that are needed in a changing labor market and in forming students as active and responsible citizens (EHEA 2009). The Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (2009) reaffirmed the importance of the teaching mission of HEIs and set a vision of how to address SCL: it would require curricular reforms geared toward the development of learning outcomes, but also empowering individual learners, curricula focused more clearly on the learner in all cycles, as well as effective support and guidance structures (EHEA 2009). As from 2009, another aspect was introduced: SCL should provide solutions for flexible, individually tailored learning paths (EHEA 2009, 2010, 2015). Most recently, the 2018 Paris Communiqué referred to SCL in the context of enabling flexible learning paths that can foster social mobility and lifelong learning (EHEA 2018), thus reiterating the value of SCL in a wider higher education policy context. At the European Union level, in 2017 the European Commission (EC) issued its Communication on a Renewed Agenda for Higher Education, stating its vision and priorities in supporting European cooperation in the higher education sector for the upcoming years. Without using the term “student-centered learning,” the EC emphasized the importance of “well-designed higher education programs and curricula, centered on students’ learning needs,” targeting effective skills development (EC 2017, p. 5). Higher education should allow students to acquire skills and experiences “through activities based around real-world problems,” such as workbased learning. Technology may also offer new ways to structure the organization of learning and teaching and increase the flexibility of learning paths and teacher-student interaction. The use of open educational resources (OER), digitally enabled open science, and learning analytics6 holds an underexploited potential in this regard. The EC additionally saw teachers’ training and systematic investment in continuous professional development as important factors in developing the aforementioned study programs. Last, but not least, the agenda noted that national and institutional strategies to improve career opportunities and reward good teachers are still far from standard (ibid.). On this point, the conclusions of the agenda share the concerns noted in the Paris Communiqué, where the EHEA Ministers committed to promote and support initiatives for pedagogical training and continuous professional development and to explore ways to better recognize high-quality and innovative teaching in career paths (EHEA 2018). This policy context shows that while structural reforms received a continuous and substantial emphasis in the Bologna Process, there is still a need to pay more attention to the process of learning and teaching itself. Addressing SCL takes place in a context where policy attention has shifted from structural reforms to include the enhancement of learning and teaching as well as L&T practices at institutions and in the classrooms. 564

A European policy and practice perspective

Definitions and concept mapping by European stakeholder associations Parallel to discussions in the European policy fora, several European studies have proposed definitions of SCL, thus contributing to understanding better the concept for the higher education sector. EUA defined SCL as referring to pedagogies focused on the learner, where the learning process is not only, or not primarily, about transfer of knowledge, but about a deeper understanding and critical thinking. In this approach, teachers are viewed as facilitators who share the responsibility for learning with their students and focus on their learning autonomy, encouraging them to construct their own meaning through proactive independent learning, discovery and reflection (Sursock 2015; Sursock & Smidt 2010; Gaebel & Zhang 2018). The Trends 2010 report also identified common characteristics for a student-centered approach: • • • • • •

Learners seen as individuals – taking account of their particular backgrounds, experiences, perceptual frameworks, learning style and needs; Often an emphasis on interdisciplinarity; Involvement of learners in determining what is learned; Formative assessment and continuous feedback; Blended teaching models; Recognition of prior learning, thus benefiting both traditional and non-traditional learners and providing the flexibility to learn throughout life. (ibid.)

Furthermore, Trends 2015 connected SCL with interdisciplinarity and ICT-supported and research-led teaching (Sursock 2015, p. 96). In its position paper published in 2017, EUA underlines the importance of learning and teaching as a core mission and responsibility of universities. In the paper, SCL forms an integral and implicitly evident part of higher education learning and teaching. The first key message is that “universities should ensure that their L&T activities are geared towards student learning and success” (EUA 2018a, p. 1). Student learning needs and success are pinpointed as core to the universities’ educational mission. Such focus on student learning is strongly tied to the development, assessment and achievement of learning outcomes. The EUA position paper also grants an important role to staff development and better recognition of teaching. Indeed, student-centered learning and teaching embrace a variety of methods and approaches, and the engagement and competence of academic staff is crucial in this context. Measures aiming to foster innovation in learning and teaching, and incorporating it into the academic work, are required for such engagement. In calling for these measures, and the synergies between them, EUA emphasized the currently most cited pitfall in learning and teaching: presently, not all higher education systems grant sufficient attention to the value of the education mission. Its lack of prominence to date in political and institutional contexts correlates with the lack of recognition for teaching in academic staff careers. In addition to the position paper, in 2017 EUA and an international consortium of partners gathered under the EFFECT project7 launched the ten European Principles for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (see Table 34.1) to inspire and facilitate the development and enhancement of institutional strategies on the topic, and to exchange and cooperate between universities and between national and European initiatives on learning and teaching. The principles underpin the need to re-emphasize the education mission of the university, and aim to serve institutional leaders working with staff, students and external stakeholders. The second Principle states that “learning and teaching is learner-centered.” Universities are expected to 565

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang Table 34.1 European Principles for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (EUA 2017) Principle 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Description The higher education learning experience nurtures and enables the development of learners as active and responsible citizens, critical thinkers, problem solvers, equipped for life-long learning. Learning and teaching is learner-centered. Commitment to learning and teaching is integral to the purpose, mission and strategy of the university. Institutional leadership actively promotes and enables the advancement of learning and teaching. Learning and teaching is a collaborative and collegial process involving collaboration across the university and with the wider community. Learning, teaching and research are interconnected and mutually enriching. Teaching is core to academic practice and is respected as scholarly and professional. The university community actively explores and cherishes a variety of approaches to learning and teaching that respect a diversity of learners, stakeholders, and disciplines. Sustainable resources and structures are required to support and enable learning and teaching enhancement. Institutional QA for learning and teaching aims at enhancement, and is a shared responsibility of staff and students.

provide learning opportunities that are tailored to the needs and capabilities of the diverse learners. SCL should nurture a culture and an environment in which reciprocal learning between students and teachers can take place. The active role of students as co-creators in all aspects of the learning experience is underlined. Students are expected to share the responsibility for their own learning in partnership with the staff of the institution. The principles also underline that learning and teaching is a collaborative and collegial process across the university and with the wider community. The European Students’ Union (ESU) and Education International (EI) have defined SCL as both a mindset and a culture within a given higher education institution, and a learning approach that broadly relates to, and is supported by, constructivist theories of learning (Gaebel & Zhang 2018). This approach can be characterized by innovative methods of teaching, aiming to promote learning in communication with teachers and other learners, and taking students seriously as active participants in their own learning (ESU & EI 2010). Most importantly, SCL should not be viewed as limited to a certain methodology: as pointed out by ESU, it is rather about a cultural shift in the institution (Todorovski et al. 2015, p. 4). One challenge related to the implementation of SCL is how to ensure that a flexible, multifaceted approach to learning offers high-quality learning and ultimately could be quality assured. Since 2015, standard 1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area states that “institutions should ensure that the programs are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach” (ESG 2015, p. 12). Institutions and quality assurance (QA) agencies thus worked on their QA provision to align it with the ESG. However, research shows that, across institutions and countries, there is still a lack of formalized definition or common approach to defining SCL (Gover & Loukkola 2018, pp.  24). Likewise, there is no common understanding of what features or indicators would demonstrate the presence of SCL at institutions, even when institutions do implement SCL, and 566

A European policy and practice perspective

internal policies are explicit on the need for SCL. These findings confirm that SCL is a complex, multifaceted concept, which requires internal and external stakeholders to engage into developing a common understanding of how institutions could feature it, and how this would translate into their education provision (ibid.).

Beyond Definitions: A Complex and Multifaceted Implementation in the EHEA Countries As demonstrated, over the past decade SCL moved from being associated with a learning outcomes-based curriculum to including other aspects of learning and teaching. This can be noticed when examining the Bologna Process stocktaking, or implementation, reports that have been issued since 2007. The stocktaking exercises, based on national reports or collection of national data, cover periods leading up to the next ministerial conference and aim to provide an overview of implementation of the Bologna reforms in the EHEA countries. In the Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2007, SCL received only two mentions, for Slovenia (committing to “promoting student-centered learning,” see Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2007, p. 75), and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, now North Macedonia (“working towards student-centered learning,” ibid., p. 77). This does not necessarily mean that the approach was not of interest to other countries of the Bologna Process, but it may have meant that examining its implementation beyond structural reforms may have proven to be difficult at the time. The finding is not surprising, considering that SCL was brought up in a Bologna Ministerial Communiqué only that same year. Two years later, the next Bologna Process Stocktaking Report provides a different picture. The report explicitly mentions that, in 2007, the ministers recommended that the next stocktaking should address several themes in an integrated way so as to develop more active learning approaches (Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009, p.  21). The themes in question were the establishment of the national qualifications frameworks, linking programs and credits with learning outcomes, a paradigm shift toward SCL, lifelong learning, and the recognition of prior learning. In the country reports, Austria, Cyprus and Switzerland explicitly referred to working toward SCL. The 2012 Bologna Process Implementation Report still mostly related a student-centered approach to the implementation of learning outcomes. SCL, together with qualifications frameworks, internal quality assurance and other important Bologna action lines, are all described as being dependent “on successful implementation of learning outcomes” (European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice 2012, p.  50). Learning outcomes and assessment based on learning outcomes are found to be the most important elements in SCL in the EHEA countries, followed by student evaluation of teaching, student-staff ratio, independent learning, recognition of prior learning, training in teaching for staff and learning in small groups (which received the lowest mark of 3.3/5). The report noted that genuine student-centered learning is a complex matter that is difficult to integrate into everyday higher education reality. It should comprise actions that ensure that students learn how to think critically, participate in all kinds of academic life, and are given more independence and responsibility. (ibid., fig. 2.19, p. 52)8 By 2015, the steering of SCL and the use of learning outcomes in curriculum development had substantially grown across the EHEA. The Bologna Process Implementation Report of that 567

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

year noted that, in countries struggling with the paradigm shift to SCL, the most critical problems remained a lack of recognition on the value of student evaluation of teaching, independent learning, and the use of learning outcomes (European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice 2015, p.  18). The report also noted that, to achieve a student-centered approach based on learning outcomes, the attainment of learning outcomes and of the ECTS credits associated with them need to be assessed in a consistent and transparent way (ibid., pp. 71, 76). The most recent Bologna Process Implementation Report, published in May 2018, investigated SCL through four distinct areas: credits and learning outcomes, modes and forms of study, learning in the digital environment, and teaching (European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice 2018). The report noted that significant progress had taken place in adopting learning outcomes across Europe. Most of the HEIs in the EHEA reportedly ensure flexibility in studies through part-time or alternative study paths. The report also underlined, once again, the importance of developing new ways of student assessment that go hand in hand with the learning outcomes approach, thus reinforcing student-centeredness in learning and teaching. In line with the Yerevan Communiqué of 2015, the report also recalled that ministers would support and encourage HEIs and staff in promoting “pedagogical innovation in student-centered learning environments” (ibid., p. 83; EHEA 2015, p. 2). However, it remains difficult to grasp how institutions address innovation in pedagogy or, more generally, work on higher education pedagogies with the perspective of achieving SCL. The analysis of Bologna Communiqués and Implementation Reports confirms that the concept of SCL was first introduced in the EHEA policy context as a paradigm shift that goes hand in hand with adopting a learning outcomes approach. Since 2015, as learning and teaching practices, and more specifically innovation in learning and teaching, started to receive a renewed interest, the concept of SCL progressively shifted toward including considerations regarding pedagogy and learning and teaching practices – namely, considerations regarding active learning. While SCL and active learning may sound interchangeable in the EHEA policy context at least, they should be differentiated. SCL is not a pedagogy or a range of pedagogies per se. It designates an approach, a philosophy, or a vision of education, which, in the Bologna Process, first concentrated on structural reforms (implementation of learning outcomes, ECTS, and curricular reforms). Moreover, it encompasses different aspects and conditions related to learning and teaching, including learning and teaching processes themselves, and active learning pedagogies as part of these processes. On the other hand, active learning primarily refers to an ensemble of pedagogical approaches that activate students at the center of learning processes. The Trends 2015 report concluded that the efforts to promote SCL take different shapes, depending upon the discipline, the type of program, its level and learning outcomes, and, very importantly, the profile and mission of the institution in question (Sursock 2015). ESU and EI also underlined that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for SCL (ESU & EI 2010, p. 3). Therefore, to bring a paradigm-shift approach such as SCL to life, institutions need to agree on an operational definition of SCL within their own institutional environment (Gover & Loukkola 2018).

Student-centered learning at higher education institutions Policy documents from the EHEA set SCL as a significant characteristic of European higher education, grounded in learning outcomes-based curricula. However, the distribution of roles

568

A European policy and practice perspective

among stakeholders (institutional leadership, students, staff, faculties) in fulfilling the purpose of SCL may appear fragmented and blurred due to the multiple functions that SCL is expected to fulfill and the number of actors involved – thus adding to the challenge HEIs have in implementing SCL. EUA’s work with universities has shown the need for an institutional approach to the implementation of SCL. The importance of embedding SCL into institutional strategies, procedures and frameworks has been also identified by students (see Todorovski et al. 2015). This certainly does not mean that a single approach should prevail in classrooms. On the contrary, universities that acknowledge the variety of learning and teaching practices in their institutions and manage to build on them to offer a clear vision of their institutions’ common goals and strategy will ultimately make the most out of SCL. Findings from the Trends studies and the work with thematic peer groups demonstrate that SCL appears as a cross-cutting topic, which is still difficult for institutions to grasp (Sursock 2015; Loukkola & Dakovic 2017; Gaebel & Zhang 2018). SCL encompasses several challenges that the institution faces (Loukkola & Dakovic 2017). For instance, adopting and implementing research-based learning, which promotes students’ active learning through inquiry and research, contribute to foster the nexus between research and teaching at institutions. Student-centered, practice-based and flexible teaching approaches also encourage active and personalized learning suitable for diverse student bodies. In this context, the question arises about how to grasp the most out of SCL, i.e., how to develop the modes of delivery related to more structural attempts to enhance education through curriculum design and development, and the learning outcomes approach. EUA’s work with its membership identified several conditions that are relevant for consolidating an institutional setting to support active learning: 1 2 3 4 5

Institutional strategies, policies and procedures; Curriculum design and implementation, and assessment of learning outcomes; The status of teaching in higher education; Role(s) of technologies and learning environment; Empowerment of learners and teachers.

These conditions have been addressed by European universities to different extents and could be built upon to further develop SCL.

Institutional strategies, policies and procedures Trends 2018 shows a clear convergence among European HEIs that are placing more emphasis on learning and teaching than in the past (Sursock 2015; Gaebel & Zhang 2018). Eighty-six percent of the institutions that were surveyed under Trends 2018 have an institutional strategy or policy for learning and teaching, mostly at central level (46%), or at both central and faculty level (38%)9 (see Figure 34.1, Gaebel & Zhang 2018). The top three elements included in these strategies and policies are academic staff development (86% of respondents who have a strategy/policy), providing international opportunities (87%), and general measures to improve teaching (84%) (see Figure 34.2). These findings confirm that universities are adopting a strategic approach to enhancing learning. HEIs have also developed structures to support the development of learning and teaching. According to Trends 2018, 65% of responding institutions have a dedicated unit or center for the development of learning and teaching for the entire institution, and 19% have such a unit or

569

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

3%

3%

8%

Yes, at institutional level Yes, at faculty/department level

46%

Yes, at both institutional and faculty/department level No, but we are in the process of developing one No

38% Other

2%

Figure 34.1 Does your institution have a learning and teaching strategy or policy? Source: Question 9, N = 303, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

Providing international opportunities

87%

Academic staff development

86%

Measures to improve teaching

84%

Curriculum design, approval and/or evaluation

80%

Student support services

78%

Learning environment

71%

Modes of delivery (e-learning, lectures, group work, flipped classrooms, etc.)

71%

Providing lifelong learning opportunities

67%

Course design, approval and/or evaluation

65%

The role of students in their learning

57%

Quantitative goals/benchmarks to reach the strategy/policy goals

53%

An operational plan for implementing the strategy/policy

52%

Other

4%

Figure 34.2 What elements does your institutional learning and teaching strategy/policy address or include? Source: Question 9.1, N = 260, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

570

A European policy and practice perspective Table 34.2 What is the [unit for higher education teaching development]’s role and function? (Question 12.1, N = 254, Gaebel and Zhang 2018.) Role and function of the unit/center for teaching development

Percentage

Offering academic staff development courses and material Providing consultations and advice to academic staff on improving teaching Supporting innovative teaching initiatives (through advice, financial incentives, logistical support, etc.) Analyzing student feedback/performance and/or results of teachers’ evaluations Conducting research in higher education pedagogy and didactics Organizing teaching awards/prizes Developing and/or implementing personalized staff development plans Other

65% 62% 54% 45% 39% 31% 24% 9%

center at both the institutional and faculty or departmental level (Gaebel & Zhang 2018). Such structures can offer valuable support to teachers to innovate in teaching: this is the case for 54% of institutions with such structures (see Table 34.2). The findings point to the rising importance of teaching enhancement, and to the role that institutions play in supporting learning and teaching in a systematic, structured way. This constitutes a solid ground that would contribute to encourage the implementation of student-centered approaches, should the institution clearly point in that direction when describing its vision of education provision offered, and consequently adopt operational plans.

Curriculum design and implementation, assessment of learning outcomes There is already considerable literature dedicated to the role and importance of learning outcomes and curriculum for SCL – including studies on how a learning outcomes-based approach is being progressively implemented at European HEIs (Bologna Stocktaking Reports and Implementation Reports, 2007–2018). SCL in higher education builds on the alignment of learning outcomes with pedagogy when developing a study program. According to the constructivist perspective of learning, the curriculum design and implementation serve to ensure that the learning outcomes are formulated, carried out, and assessed so as to support the learner in constructing, owning and applying the knowledge (see for instance Biggs s.d.; Biggs & Tang 2011). Students’ roles in the design of the learning process becomes vital through active involvement in curriculum design and development. EUA’s work emphasizes that the clearly defined learning outcomes form a basis for an effective implementation of a curriculum through SCL methods (EUA 2018b; Gaebel & Zhang 2018). Active learning methods are particularly relevant in this regard, as they enable the development of learners as active and responsible citizens, critical thinkers, and problem solvers, equipped for lifelong learning (EUA 2017, p. 1, Principle 1).

The status of teaching in higher education A recent EUA report noted that the higher education sector “clearly emphasizes the value of research over teaching . . . [with] many incentives for staff to engage in research (research

571

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

sabbatical, research funding, impact of research on career prospects), [while] this is not the case for teaching” (Loukkola & Dakovic 2017, p.  5). In such a context as this, teachers would tend not to value investing in improving their teaching, which consequently undermines the development of SCL. The university experience shows that acknowledging “the impact of student-centered learning on the role of teachers and supporting staff in moving away from the classical role of the teacher as a ‘transmitter of knowledge’ toward focusing on student outcomes and active learning, in a holistic approach to supporting student development” is a crucial step in addressing this imparity of esteem (Loukkola & Dakovic 2017, p.  6). Such approaches also have the potential to renew the indispensable interconnection between education and research. In research-based learning, for instance, students stand at the center of knowledge production, at the same time as learning becomes a shared effort between the teacher and the student. Several initiatives, at the institutional or national level, recognize and value the status of teaching. They range from institutional support for teachers to manage their workload more efficiently, to the development of national-level incentives that recognize efforts in teaching (for instance, as part of career progression in academia) (ibid.). Any such initiative takes place in a context of established academic and organizational cultures. To be successful, HEIs should consider the value of research in teaching, where learning and teaching enhancement measures would be “based on sound knowledge on student learning patterns and how effective learning can be promoted. For this to happen, research on these matters and, importantly, dissemination and use of the research results, must be encouraged” (EUA 2018a, p. 2).

Role(s) of technologies and learning environment EUA’s work with university communities also pinpoints the design and adaptation of teaching places and learning spaces, and the role of technologies, as conditions for consolidating the institutional setting to address SCL. Digital learning has been a much-discussed topic in higher education policies, especially since the rise of massive online open courses (MOOCs) when, by 2012, it had captured the attention of European HEIs (Gaebel 2013, 2014). While the enthusiasm for MOOCs has subdued since then, digitalization in higher education learning and teaching still stands high on agendas at the European, national, and institutional levels. In 2015, the EHEA ministers called to encourage and support HEIs and staff to fully exploit the potential benefits of digital technologies for learning and teaching (EHEA 2015, p. 2). Almost three-quarters of Trends 2018 respondents agreed fully, or to some extent, that the possibilities offered by e-learning have boosted their education provision. Importantly for SCL, digital learning is used for innovating learning and teaching, and increasingly in regular teaching, by respectively 93% and 87% of all respondents (see Figure 34.3 – aggregated positive answers). The findings of Trends 2018 show that institutions already see digital learning as a useful, strategic area for enhancing learning and teaching, while not granting a full plebiscite for online learning programs per se. Against this background, developing purposeful, context-sensitive learning and teaching approaches and curricula, which embed digital technologies, would make a more significant contribution toward improving the education offer (Gaebel & Zhang 2018). Changing learning and teaching practices to make them more student-centered also requires adapting physical spaces. In the Trends 2018 data, apart from libraries and computer labs, less than 40% of institutions have implemented learning resource facilities and collaborative spaces for the entire institution (see Figure 34.4). Given the diversity of institutional contexts and situations, it is not easy to draw general conclusions on the consequences of physical spaces for learning and teaching. The fact that 64% of Trends 2018 respondents stated to have “rooms where 572

A European policy and practice perspective

General acceptance of digital learning has improved Digital learning becoming part of the institutional strategy

44%

Used for innovating learning and teaching

43%

Increased use in regular teaching (e.g. through blended learning) 17%

More online learning – for non-degree purposes

17%

More online learning degree programs

4% 3%

50%

9% 4%

51%

4%

20%

58%

10%

38%

35%

6%

45%

35%

14%

Yes, it is the case

11% 3%

43%

36%

Lectures are available on video/podcast

12% 4%

36%

49%

More strategic use of digital learning

4% 2%

41%

52%

Yes, to some extent

No

Information unavailable

Figure 34.3 What are the main trends at your institution regarding digital learning in the last three years? Source: Question 25, N = 293, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

Libraries Computer labs 38%

Spaces for student-student interaction and collaboration

34%

Learning resource centers

33%

Rooms where chairs and tables can be moved – depending on the teaching approach

26%

Spaces for staff-staff interaction and collaboration

26%

Spaces for increased student-staff interaction Yes, for the whole institution No

Figure 34.4

5%1%

35%

59%

Science labs

44%

13% 4%

56%

8% 3%

41%

51% 55%

7%

19%

9%2%

64%

24%

2%1%

26%

72%

19% 19%

4% 3%

Yes, to some extent/for some parts of the institution Information unavailable

Are the physical spaces at your institution well adapted to new forms of learning and teaching?

Source: Question 26, N = 292, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

573

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

chairs and tables can be moved” only partly available, could mean that teaching predominantly takes place in theater-style rooms. But it could also mean that institutions continue to have few lecture halls, or simply that there are diverse attitudes and approaches in different parts of the institution. These findings tend to confirm that the dynamism and initiatives for innovating learning and teaching approaches appear to lie with sub-institutional entities (Sursock 2015), which may have the flexibility or autonomy needed to adapt and even shape the learning environment according to teaching innovation and methods used in the classrooms.

Empowerment of learners and teachers Empowering students to take responsibility for their learning first requires institutions’ acknowledgment of students’ ownership in knowledge acquisition. Students who engage in the learning process from the very beginning are able to include their own understanding and expectations on learning into the curriculum, as well as discuss the learning outcomes and co-create the overall study program (EUA 2018c). Such an approach enables students to actively shape their own learning paths and generates trust toward SCL methods. When discussing the issue in a thematic peer group, based on existing practices in the respective institutions, EUA’s member universities also identified other attributes that are relevant for empowering students with active learning once the learning outcomes and the curriculum have been set (ibid.). Smaller learning groups tend to enable better communication among learners and teachers, leaving sufficient opportunities for teachers (i.e., academic mentors) to regularly discuss, guide and evaluate students’ learning progress. An encouraging and rewarding attitude in teaching, as well as a positive learning atmosphere have generally been identified as highly influential in stimulating students’ engagement in active learning. Moreover, learners were found to engage better in active learning

Teaching in small groups

52%

Problem-based learning

43%

Peer learning (students learning with each other)

28%

Community projects

27%

Flipped classrooms

Yes, fully useful

39%

44%

9%

45%

39%

No

6%

13%

We intend to implement it

2% 4%

4% 4% 6%

47%

15%

Yes, to some extent

3%

13%

8%

6%

9%

14%

20%

Information unavailable

Figure 34.5 Which of the following approaches has your institution found useful for enhancing student learning? Source: Question 24, N = 290, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

574

A European policy and practice perspective

Each teacher can decide for his/her courses

77%

It is decided at the level of the faculty/department

43%

The institution has set up guidelines or policies on teaching methods for teachers

36%

Authorities specify some methods in some disciplines or programs

Authorities generally specify all or most methods

Other

14%

1%

5%

Figure 34.6 At your institution, who decides which teaching methods are to be used? Source: Question 14, N = 301, Gaebel and Zhang (2018).

methods if the purpose of using those methods has been clearly presented and explained to the students. Finally, universities highlighted the importance of carefully balancing students’ workloads by regularly monitoring the learner’s engagement in active learning methods. The responding institutions in the Trends 2018 report show that in many cases methods that are promoted as active learning are being explored and are found useful for enhancing student learning. As Figure 34.5 shows, teaching in small groups, problem-based learning, peer learning, community projects and flipped classrooms were all found useful by at least half of the respondents – to various extents. In addition, respondents to Trends 2018 identified other initiatives, such as gamification, work placement and internships, which confirm institutions’ dynamism in testing and implementing various teaching approaches (Gaebel & Zhang 2018). The results also illustrate how difficult it can be for institutions to state the success of these approaches in absolute terms – as already pointed out in previous studies (Sursock 2015; Gaebel et al. 2014). Only very few stated that the approaches are not at all useful. At the same time, based on the Trends 2018 data it is difficult to see how widespread these teaching approaches are across the institution.10 Depending on the faculty, the discipline, the study program, or the teachers themselves, any of these active learning approaches could be found useful or not. Teachers may also find such approaches to be more or less useful, depending on the student audience they have. This is confirmed when looking into the profiles of Trends 2018 respondents: large11 institutions, with an institutional mass, a diversity of fields covered and the capacity to explore new teaching approaches, tend particularly to find all approaches to some extent, but not fully, useful (Gaebel & Zhang 2018). As regards empowerment of teachers for SCL, the autonomous role of teachers in higher education first needs to be acknowledged. As shown in Trends 2018, about 77% of surveyed HEIs reported that the teachers decide for themselves on teaching methods (see Figure 34.6; 575

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

Gaebel & Zhang 2018). In other words, institutions could be, or are, ready to strategically support SCL, but in practice there may be various forms of SCL within institutions that are already in place in various contexts and at various scales, depending on teachers, disciplines, and teaching cultures. Therefore, the role of individual teachers should be acknowledged and taken as a starting point when supporting SCL. Institutions should then build up additional support measures for teachers to enhance SCL, such as training, rewards, enhancing communication with students, mentoring or assessment, to name a few (EUA 2018c).

Enhancing student-centered learning: lessons learned from EUA’s work Policy documents, studies and discussions in the EHEA identify SCL as a key characteristic of European higher education today. The policy relevance of SCL stems from encompassing structural reforms, rather than promoting itself as a pedagogical method or approach. This way, SCL allows to better bridge the education provision with social and societal challenges – be it by better addressing a diverse student body – that require new skills and competences from graduates. Structural reforms seem to be on track in many countries and learning outcomes have gradually become the norm rather than the exception across the EHEA. However, there is still little common understanding, at European level, on how SCL could be further, or better, implemented. Policy makers tend to see SCL as a game changer in learning and teaching, without much detailed attention paid to supporting universities for SCL to become a widespread reality. The European HEIs should seize this opportunity and drive the process of reaffirming their crucial role in redefining what kind of learning and teaching is most fit for purpose in their respective contexts. SCL requires a comprehensive, encompassing approach in each institutional context: it needs to be reflected in the institutions’ mission and vision of the education offer. The importance of institutional contexts should not undermine the autonomy of teachers in deciding on their teaching methods. As Trends 2018 showed, teaching methods are still a highly personal matter (Gaebel & Zhang 2018), and the earlier section has emphasized this as a starting point for building up change. Nevertheless, each institution could explore what it can do to increase commitment toward SCL. In this process, the value and importance of dialogue with the whole university community (staff, students, faculties etc.) should not be underestimated. SCL can fulfill its potential only if the pedagogical paradigm is accepted, rooted and nourished within the higher education institution. Therefore, each institution needs to agree on its vision for education that includes the operational definition of SCL, specific to a university community, while respecting the disciplinary specificities. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all format applicable for SCL. EUA’s thematic peer group on promoting active learning (EUA 2018c) discussed elements of an institutional vision for education, identifying the following essentials that may be useful for HEIs that aim to promote active learning: • •

SCL requires clear objective(s) and goal(s) within each institution, allowing actors involved in the learning processes to understand why SCL is important, and why it is in place. Institutionally supported empowerment of students and teachers in SCL is vital. Students are sufficiently informed about the purpose, goals and benefits of active learning methods, as well as being trained in a particular active learning method and given the ownership of their learning. Teachers are offered the development of teachers’ competences based on characteristics of the student body and provided with opportunities for careers in teaching. Systematic research on teaching (i.e., scholarship of learning and teaching) is an important 576

A European policy and practice perspective

•

• •

•

•

element of teachers’ empowerment for SCL. The workloads of both students and teachers for SCL is carefully monitored. The institutional setting in which SCL is implemented requires the recognition of the value of the administrative and technical staff, leadership and middle management, and external stakeholders in creating an institutional culture that honors, sufficiently funds, administratively manages and provides practical case-studies for SCL. Where relevant, the institution enables the participation of the whole institutional community and engages all disciplines. Institutions should build on the dynamism of teachers’ individual active learning initiatives and embed these activities into the purpose and vision of the program curriculum. The design of a physical learning environment is considered together with its users (i.e., students and teachers). Both physical and virtual learning environments support the digitalization of learning, where relevant. SCL stimulates the use of diversified assessment practices so that students can better present the necessary acquired knowledge, skills and competences. Assessment provides a feedback that goes beyond explaining whether the learning outcomes have been reached. It needs to stimulate the student’s self-reflection on the learning process, preparing him or her for further, lifelong learning. The internal quality assurance for learning and teaching considers the overall university’s profile and missions.

As a concept, SCL has the potential to reaffirm the holistic nature of knowledge inquiry, based on research and delivered through teaching. By transforming SCL into a daily practice, HEIs would renew their education provision, and reaffirm their role in educating citizens and future professionals. Finally, it is worth noticing the role of stakeholder organizations, such as EUA, in shedding light on the concept of SCL in the Bologna Process context. Nowadays, after several ministerial communiqués and even with all the shortcomings of a still-multifaceted concept, SCL has become an undisputed paradigm for learning and teaching in the EHEA. In this context, the role of stakeholder organizations representing the higher education sector was and remains essential, both as drivers for policy developments that are sensitive at grassroots levels, and as facilitators for the much-needed exchanges across institutions and countries, and the spread of good practices.

Notes 1 This chapter was written when Goran Dakovic was working for European University Association (EUA). 2 The European University Association (EUA) is the representative organization of universities and national rectors’ conferences in 47 European countries. EUA plays a crucial role in the Bologna Process and in influencing EU policies on higher education, research and innovation. Officially, the Association is a Consultative Member and participates in all Bologna activities, including the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG). It also engages in dialogue and cooperation activities with members and partners on Bologna topics, including beyond Europe, to explain and promote the Process. EUA works on a wide range of issues that are of central importance for the EHEA and its universities, such as quality assurance, recognition, governance, funding, lifelong learning, student tracking and employability, etc. In close collaboration with its members, EUA contributes to policy development and to building the frameworks and conditions European universities need to thrive. Finally, through projects, events and other activities, the Association also provides opportunities for members for practice sharing and mutual learning. For more information, see www.eua.eu, retrieved December 7, 2018). 3 Over time, the Trends reports have become a landmark publication of EUA and are considered as reference tools for policy makers and the higher education community alike. For more information, see

577

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

https://eua.eu/issues/10:bologna-process.html#sec-trends-reports, retrieved December 7, 2018. The 2018 Trends survey sample includes data from 43 higher education systems across the European Higher Education Area. Countries with the most respondents include Germany (31 institutions), Poland (25), Italy (22), Spain (21), France (15), Kazakhstan (15) and Russia (13). For more information on the methodology and the sample, see Gaebel and Zhang (2018, Fig. 1, p. 12). EUA’s activities in learning and teaching include the organisation of thematic peer groups, bringing small groups of universities together for an in-depth discussion on a chosen topic; the European L&T Forum; and various publications and webinars. In addition, based on the outcomes of these activities, EUA issued a position paper in early 2018. The position paper and reports presenting the outcomes of the groups’ work, as well as information on other activities, is available at www.eua.be/policyrepresentation/higher-education-policies/eua-learning-teaching-initiative, retrieved December 7, 2018. The Bologna Process brings together 48 higher education systems which, since 1999, implement reforms on higher education on the basis of common tools and structures, with the view to achieve a European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Through this process, countries, institutions and stakeholders of the EHEA continuously adapt their higher education systems making them more compatible and strengthening cooperation across national systems. For more information, see www.ehea.info, retrieved December 7, 2018. Defined as “data about learners and their contexts used to identify students’ learning needs” (EC 2017, p. 5, fn. 16). The Principles were developed in the framework of the European Forum for Enhanced Collaboration in Teaching (EFFECT) project (EUA 2018b), with a broad partnership of European higher education institutions, national rectors’ conferences, and stakeholder organizations in the EHEA. The Principles were also piloted by a group of 11 European universities, selected through a call for interest, who discussed them at their home institutions, in the context of their institutional strategy work on learning and teaching. More information on the EFFECT project can be found under https://eua.eu/101projects/560-effect.html, retrieved December 7, 2018. The Bologna Process Implementation Reports of 2012 and 2015 refer to Langworthy et al. (2009) to define student-centered pedagogy in the following manner: it “provides learning opportunities that are shaped by the needs and interests of the students. Using this approach, students are active learners, and instructors work to facilitate student learning” (European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice 2012, p. 187, 2015, p. 273). The Trends 2018 survey questionnaire included a glossary that defined a strategy as an “overarching public document that outlines the major directions to be followed in a certain area of policy making, in an effort to achieve successfully an overall goal or objective. It provides a framework for measures and actions.” (Gaebel & Zhang 2018, p. 14). The Trends 2018 survey collected one response per institution, for which a senior institutional representative had to take responsibility. Therefore, Trends mostly reflects the views of institutions at central leadership level. Under Trends 2018, large (and very large) institutions are defined as institutions that have over 25,000 students (Gaebel & Zhang 2018).

References Adam S. (2008, February 21–22) Learning Outcomes Current Developments in Europe: Update on the Issues and Applications of Learning Outcomes Associated with the Bologna Process. Background paper presented at the Bologna Seminar “Learning Outcomes Based Higher Education: The Scottish Experience,” Edinburgh. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/32806775/Learning_Outcomes_ Current_Developments_in_Europe_Update_on_the_Issues_and_Applications_of_Learning_ Outcomes_Associated_with_the_Bologna_Process on 7 December 2008. Biggs J. (s.d.) Aligning teaching for constructing learning. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from www. heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/aligning-teaching-constructing-learning on 7 December 2018. Biggs J. & Tang C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill & Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Maidenhead. Bologna Follow-up Group (2007, May) Bologna Process Stocktaking Report. Report presented by the Bologna Follow-up Group to the Ministerial Conference, London. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media. ehea.info/file/20070417-18_Berlin/66/6/BFUG11_4_WG-Stocktaking_ReportDraft_585666.pdf on 7 December 2018.

578

A European policy and practice perspective Bologna Follow-up Group (2009, April 28–29) Bologna Process Stocktaking Report. Report from Working Groups appointed by the Bologna Follow-up Group to the Ministerial Conference, Leuven/Louvainla-Neuve. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/20090326-27-Prague/61/0/BFUG_ CZ_16_5.1a_stocktaking_final_594610.pdf on 7 December 2018. Crosier D., Purser L. & Smidt H. (2007) Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area. European University Association, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepagelist/eua_trends_v_for_web1b9364ca84b96a879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 7 December 2018. European Commission (EC) (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education. COM(2017)247 final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0247&from=EN on 7 December 2018. European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice (2012) The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice (2015) The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. European Commission, EACEA & Eurydice (2018) The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2003) Berlin Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2003_Berlin/28/4/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2005) Bergen Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea. info/media.ehea.info/file/2005_Bergen/52/0/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2007) London Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2007_London/69/7/2007_London_Communique_English_588697.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2009) Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvainla-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2010) Budapest-Vienna Declaration of the EHEA. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2010_Budapest_Vienna/64/0/Budapest-Vienna_Declaration_ 598640.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2015) Yerevan Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (2018) Paris Communiqué. Retrieved from www.ehea.info/ media.ehea.info/file/2018_Paris/77/1/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf on 7 December 2018. European Students’ Union (ESU) & Education International (EI) (2010) Student-Centred Learning: Toolkit for Students, Staff, and Higher Education Institutions. ESU & EI, Brussels. Retrieved from www.esu-online. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SCL_toolkit_ESU_EI.compressed.pdf on 7 December 2018. European University Association (EUA) (2017) Enhancing the Education Mission of European Universities: A Proactive Response to Change: European Principles for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/default-document-library/web_effect-principles-onepager16102017.pdf?sfvrsn=2 on 7 December 2018. European University Association (EUA) (2018a) Learning and Teaching in Europe’s Universities: An EUA Position Paper. Retrieved from http://eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/learning-and-teachingin-europe-s-universities-an-eua-position-paper.pdf?sfvrsn=4 on 7 December 2018. European University Association (EUA) (2018b) European Forum for the Enhanced Collaboration in Teaching (EFFECT). Retrieved from www.eua.be/activities-services/projects/current-projects/higher-educationpolicy/effect on 7 December 2018. European University Association (EUA) (2018c, forthcoming). EUA’s Learning and Teaching Initiative: Report from the Thematic Peer Group on Promoting Active Learning in Universities. EUA, Brussels. Gaebel M. (2013) MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses. EUA Occasional Papers, Brussels. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/resources/publications/680:moocs-massive-open-online-courses.html on 7 December 2018. Gaebel M. (2014) MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses: An Update. EUA Occasional Papers, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.eu/Libraries/publication/MOOCs_Update_January_2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 on 7 December 2018.

579

Goran Dakovic and Thérèse Zhang Gaebel M., Kupriyanova V., Morais R. & Colucci E. (2014) E-Learning in European Higher Education Institutions: Results of a Mapping Survey. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/elearning_survey.pdf?sfvrsn=2 on 7 December 2018. Gaebel M. & Zhang T. (2018) Trends 2018: Learning and Teaching in the European Higher Education Area. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/resources/publications/757:trends-2018-learning-andteaching-in-the-european-higher-education-area.html on 27 December 2018. Gover A. & Loukkola T. (2018) Enhancing Quality: From Policy to Practice: The EQUIP Project: Enhancing Quality through Innovative Policy & Practice. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/resources/publications/322:enhancingquality-from-policy-to-practice.html on 7 December 2018. Haywood J., Connelly L., Henderikx P., Weller M. & Williams K. (2015) The Changing Pedagogical Landscape: New Ways of Teaching and Learning and Their Implications for Higher Education Policy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Hénard F. & Roseveare D. (2012) Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies and Practices: An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD & IMHE, Paris. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/ education/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf on 7 December 2018. Langworthy M., Shear L., Means B., Gallagher L. & House A. (2009) ITL Research Design, p. 30. Retrieved from www.sri.com/work/publications/itl-research-design-document on 7 December 2018. Loukkola T. & Dakovic G. (2017) EUA’s Learning and Teaching Initiative: Report from the Thematic Peer Groups. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/eua-s-learningand-teaching-initiative – report-from-the-thematic-peer-groups-in-2017 on 7 December 2018. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (2015) Retrieved from www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf on 7 December 2018. Sursock A. (2015) Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_Trends_2015_web.pdf?sfvrsn=18 on 7 December 2018. Sursock A. & Smidt H. (2010) Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher Education. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/trends_2010049364ca84b96a 879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 7 December 2018. Todorovski B., Nordal E. & Isoski T. (2015) Overview on Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education in Europe. European Students’ Union, Brussels. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED572762.pdf on 7 December 2018.

580

35 STUDENT-CENTERED PHILOSOPHIES AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN ASIAN HIGHER EDUCATION Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

Introduction Throughout much of Asia, education is seen as the only path to success. Parental expectation, fear of failure, competition and pride are fueling Asia’s academic ascension (Breitenstein 2013). Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC) across Asian countries like China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam share characteristics of a collectivist society and value harmony, which have high regard for education and teachers. The teacher is a respected mentor, a guru and an authority figure (Biggs & Watkins 2001). They resume the role as mentor far more than Western teachers (Levinsohn 2007). The status of teachers in Asia (e.g., China) was given the highest level of public respect (Coughlan 2013). In fact, according to the 2018 Global Teacher Status Index, a large-scale public survey on 35 countries, Asian countries took nearly all the top ten positions in the index. Most notably were China (No. 1), Malaysia (No. 2), and Taiwan (No. 3), where teacher is ranked highest in status. Other Asian countries in the top ten list were Indonesia (No. 5), South Korea (No. 6), India (No. 8) and Singapore (No. 10) (Dolton et al. 2018). Generally, there are two main perspectives about Asian students’ approaches to learning. The first argues that Asian students are rote/surface learners; learning is by memorization, not by understanding (e.g., Ballard & Clancy 1994; Robertson et al. 2000). Students are considered as “receptacles” and “filled” with the content delivered by their teachers. Teachers and/or texts are viewed as the definitive source of knowledge, while students are passive, quiet and nonparticipative in class. Such a surface approach to learning is deemed ineffective (Robertson et al. 2000). The second perspective submits that Asian students are very successful at learning as they consistently outperform their Western counterparts in international examinations (Jensen et al. 2012). As mentioned by Pham and Pham in Chapter 10 of this handbook, many Asian learners achieved excellent performance in PISA reading, maths and science assessments. Pham and Pham argue that if Asian students only deploy rote approach to learning in preparation for PISA, they should have achieved lower scores in these international assessments. This paradox has driven many researchers from a range of theoretical perspectives (e.g., Cheng 2000; Watkins & Biggs 2001) to start reconstructing the stereotyped views on Asian learners. Researchers want to understand how students from Confucian heritage were able to obtain impressive 581

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

performance on international tests (Cheng & Wan 2016) and to do so it is crucial to understand the philosophical paradigm that underpins Asian teaching and learning. Confucius or KongZi (孔子) was the first educational and political revolutionary in Chinese antiquity around 500 bc (Chuang 2007). Many scholars believe that Confucius played a major role in constructing the society, with a cross-border influence upon generations, eras and regions (Cho & Lee 2001; Pun 2001). In fact, Confucian education tradition has evolved over 2,000 years and is greatly valued in East Asia (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea) and Southeast Asia (e.g., Singapore, Vietnam; Ho 2017; Rao & Chan 2010).

Philosophies of teaching and learning through Asian lenses Confucianism is centered on the teaching and learning of ren (人), which is the exhibition of true and supreme level of human behaviors (Bonnie 2010). Confucian heritage cultures have high regard for education and believe that academic success plays a significant role in upward social mobility. Confucian values promote a strong work ethic that gives practical expression both to this high regard for education and to this commitment to the cultivation of the self (Mason 2014). A sense of respect for teachers is also part of the traditional ethics practiced by the Asian society, as teachers play important roles in imparting knowledge, morality and values in education. Apart from the influence of Confucian philosophies, teaching and learning practices in Asia were also influenced by other philosophies such as Indian philosophies and Islamic philosophies. Indian philosophies are largely based on religious thoughts, beliefs and faith, and the goal of teaching and learning was to achieve both spiritual and intellectual development (Ravi 2015). Teacher, or guru in Sanskrit, is considered to be of supreme importance in education (Kiran 2017). Today, Indian educational system still largely depends on this didactic approach to teaching and learning. For example, in most of the medical schools of India, it is mainly taught by means of didactic lectures, tutorials and practical classes. Such a system is teacher-centered with minimal active participation from the students (Ghosh 2007). In addition, some Muslim majority countries in Asia are also influenced by Islamic philosophies of teaching and learning. The history of education in Malaysia and Indonesia, for instance, has started with the emergence of ‘Pondok’ schools (known as Pesantran in Indonesia) as well as Arabic and religious schools. The influence of Islamic values is evident in the national education philosophy of these countries (Che Noraini & Hassan 2008). Teachers are considered semi-prophets who continued learning and teaching throughout their whole voyage of life (Tahira et al. 2011). From the Islamic perspective, the teacher has an ethical duty as a murabbi (an educator), not only as a mu’allim (an instructor or a transmitter of knowledge). This implies that teachers not only play a significant role in nurturing students’ intellectual development but also have the duty to build their personality and character. For a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country like Malaysia, the influence of various philosophies including Islamic, Confucianism and Indian is inevitable, since Chinese is the second largest population and Indian is the third in this Muslim majority country (Tengku Sarina 2012). The various philosophies share similar emphasis on the key roles played by teachers in education. In general, most Asian education philosophies still hold on to the concept of teaching. There is a general belief that teaching and learning in the Asian context mainly relies on book learning and memorization (Lin 2009). The teacher is regarded as an authority figure who will transmit knowledge to learners, who then put in an effort to engage in rote learning with the primary goal of doing well in standardized examinations (Ho 2017). These beliefs reflect an oversimplified interpretation of Asian teaching and learning philosophy, which is contrary to the constructivist paradigm that places more emphasis on the roles of the learners. Constructivists 582

Developments in Asian higher education

see learners as active agents in the process of learning (Olusegun 2015), whereby knowledge cannot be simply transmitted by teachers as it needs to be constructed by learners. Constructivism is rooted in the work of Dewey (1916), Vygotsky (1962), Bruner (1966), Piaget (1980), and Von Glaserfeld (1995). Dewey (1916), for instance, advocated progressive education that promotes a more student-centered approach to education. He was the first to describe the close link between knowledge and action of teachers and students. Dewey’s (1929) philosophies of learning have promoted inquiry-based instruction and “learning by doing.” This is in line with Bruner’s (1966, p. 88) view that one is able to approach learning as task of discovering something rather than “learning about it,” to that degree there will be a tendency for the child to work with the autonomy of self-reward, more properly, be rewarded by discovery itself. As such, learning is not just a stimulus-response phenomenon. It is a process that requires learners to be engaged in activities like projects, experiments and real-world problem-solving to construct their knowledge. To do so, teachers have to put students at the center of the teaching and learning and ground their educational practices in the students’ needs and capacities. Such a principle does not seem to be in line with Confucianism. Confucius is often perceived as a representative of rote learning and of the authoritative role of the teacher. Such perception, according to Hall and Ames (1987), does not accurately described the real Confucianism. Zhao (2013) further explained that Confucius did not stand for memorization of textual information and mere rote learning. Asian students do understand information contained within the text or supplied by the teacher (Pham 2010a). The meaning of “knowledge” in the Chinese language, 学问, is written by two words; one is “learn” (学) and the other is “question” (问) in English, which can be interpreted as that the knowledge is gained through observing and questioning, not through memorization (Kennedy 2002). Confucius also calls for self-reflection on oneself during learning, as learning (学) and reflection（思）are closely intertwined. One who learns without reflection cannot adequately understand what has been learned, and one who relies on reflection without learning will be lacking in knowledge to reflect meaningfully, since knowledge is gained through learning. Confucius believed that students are not passive learners as they need to engage in self- reflection and practices (Liu 2013; McEnroe 2014). This is in line with the knowledge construction principles proposed by Constructivists. During self-reflection, learners will engage in higher-order thinking processes to understand one’s own knowledge, limitations and biases (Zhao 2013). Reflection promotes critical thinking, understanding of own shortcomings and reducing tendencies toward emotional biases, which are important for self-improvement. Learning becomes more effective when self-reflection is involved. This suggests that Asian students are not merely passive receptacles of information since the Confucian model of learning requires them to be actively involved in introspection or self-reflection. This is in line with Islamic scholars’ views that teaching is not about transmitting knowledge. Learners should be provided with mental tools to comprehend what is being learned. For instance, Ibn Al’ Arabi, student of Al-Ghazali, one of the famous Islamic scholars, suggested that simply giving information to students without teaching them how to further develop and evaluate the information would not help in learning (Tengu Sarina 2012). Students in Confucian cultures do not engage in shallow memorization as it might appear. Memorizing may result in deep learning, albeit this approach is contrary to the Constructivist approach of learning. Meaningful or deep memorization, based on reflective repetition, is an important strategy in learning anything complex, and this is a strategy used frequently in Asian 583

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

teaching. It is a process of learning by induction or the generation of concepts and the inference of higher-level principles through repeated practicing and memorization of empirical examples (Kember & Gow 1989; Watkins & Biggs 1996). Confucius said “Study without thought is labor lost; thought without study is dangerous” (McEnroe 2014, para. 1). He saw learning as a highly personal and individual activity, and once learning occurs it can be repeated by the student to achieve mastery of knowledge and skills. The use of memorization, rehearsal and repetition is to coordinate the complex and synthetic expression. It does not necessary indicate a surface approach to learning, as argued by Biggs (1996). This is in line with Dewey’s (1916, 1929) views that learning is not an end by itself but rather an ongoing process from practice to theory and from theory to practice. Confucian philosophies do support individual learning and active learning methods (Chuang 2007). In Chapter 10 of this Handbook, Pham and Pham mention that Asian civilization has a rich arena of philosophical and ethical-social-political thought. Asian teachers tend to believe that they master a profound body of knowledge and can transmit this knowledge to students and it is their responsibilities to evaluate students’ progress. Pham and Pham found that to engage Asian students in learning, there must be a good balance between verbal interactions and quiet learning culture. Another important note was that the important role of a group leader was a necessary condition to form effective teamwork. There are needs to develop practical pedagogical and assessment practices that could incorporate diverse intellectual heritages during the teaching and learning processes.

Student-centered learning and teaching in higher education Higher education institutions (HEIs) in Asia have joined the global race to promote quality higher education to better prepare students for meeting the demand of the fourth industrial revolution and an increasingly globalized world (Mok & Cheung 2011; Tran & Swierczek 2009). A quality educational approach may be classified as student-centered when the focus of the education is on active learning to develop students’ higher order skills and knowledge in meeting the demands of the 21st-century workforce (Santhiram Raman 2016; Kamariah Abu Bakar et al. 2012). In the early 2000s, education reform focusing on student-centered learning (SCL), curriculum reform, technology and other aspects were implemented by countries under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).1 Similar to the Bologna process in the EU, the ten ASEAN member countries are in the process of redesigning their education to address the critical needs for rapid workforce development in the region. Education must be redesigned to move away from the industrial model of the last century into a network and ecosystem model that focus on student-centered, collaborative, and constructivist learning (Macaranas 2017). The ASEAN Work Plan on Education (2016–2020) was drawn to promote people-centered government policy in the region, while SCL in higher education is being championed by the ASEAN University Network (AUN) (Baviera & Maramis 2017). Through participative and active learning models, it is hoped that students will be more engaged in SCL, which allows for greater responsibility, accountability and autonomy (CADE Universiti Sains Malaysia 2019). For instance, Malaysia as one of the ASEAN members is committed to SCLT in higher education. Driven by top-down policies on student-centered approaches (i.e., National Higher Education Action Plan (2007–2010); National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020), local HEIs including research-intensive universities such as Universiti Malaysia (UM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kabangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) are promoting student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT). Teaching and learning in these institutions aim at meeting the student’s needs, 584

Developments in Asian higher education Table 35.1 SCL activities for higher education Outside the Classroom

In the Classroom

Independent projects Group discussion

Buzz groups (short discussion in twos) Pyramids/snowballing (buzz groups continuing the discussion into larger group) Crossovers (mixing students into groups by letter/number allocations) Rounds (giving turns to individual students to talk) Quizzes Student class presentations Role-playing Poster presentations Student producing mind maps in class Problem-based learning (PBL) – less complex problems Case study (simpler case)  

Peer mentoring of other students Debates Field trips Reflective diaries, learning journals Computer-assisted learning Projects Writing newspaper articles Problem-based learning (PBL) Case study Modular approach

Source: CADE Universiti Sains Malaysia (2019).

abilities, interests and learning styles, with the lecturer acting as a facilitator. Modules on SCLT and training of staff have been carried out to support the implementation of student-centered instruction. Table 35.1 shows some examples of activities that are being promoted to enhance SCL in and outside of the classroom (CADE Universiti Sains Malaysia 2019).

Development of student-centered learning across Asia Pedagogical reform is needed to prepare the workforce to meet the demands and expectations of a global knowledge-based economy, which requires students to be lifelong learners who are self-directed, adaptable and creative (Lennon 2010). Realizing the importance of SCL approach in education, reforms have taken place in Asia. Through meta-analyses, systematic literature reviews were carried out to synthesize and evaluate the policy and state SCL practices in selected Asian countries. The reviews covered studies published from 2010 onwards. Meta-analyses allow the results of different studies to be evaluated and synthesize to draw an overview of SCL practices. These findings are summarized in Table 35.2. The findings presented in Table 35.1 show that Asia has witnessed a paradigm shift toward SCL (Jacobs & Toh-Heng 2013). In fact, SCL is the fastest growing and most heavily emphasized aspect of curriculum development and teaching methodology in education reform across the region (Jones 2001). However, its implementation and impact varied across different parts of Asia. In the following section, findings from three countries in the East Asia region, namely China, Japan and Korea, will be discussed first, followed by findings from Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, which are countries located in the Southeast Asia region.

China In the 1990s, there were growing concerns about Chinese education that the heavily examinationcentered education is not only harmful to students’ psychological well-being but also ineffective in cultivating the skills and dispositions that are necessary for competition in the global information society (Ministry of Education 2002; Tan & Hairon 2016). A process of curriculum reform 585

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah Table 35.2 Overview of student-centered learning practices in selected Asian countries Country

Region

Source

Key Findings

China

East Asia

• Li and Du (2015) • Lu and Liu (2016) • Ministry of Education (2002) • Tsegay (2015) • Wang (2010) • Zhong (2010) 

Japan  

East Asia

• • • •

Korea

East Asia

• • • • •

Vietnam

Southeast Asia

• Global Partnership for Education (2018) • Pham (2010b)

• China launched the quality education reform policy at the turn of the century • SCL is being promoted under the curriculum reform • Still faces significant challenges due to the nation’s examination-oriented evaluation system • Most university lecturers are conservative with regard to student autonomy • Participation of students is not equal; some are dominant while others are passive • Interaction of students is highly influenced by the experiences and perceptions of lecturers toward SCLT • Trainings of lecturers are crucial  • Active learning started gaining recognition in Japanese higher education around 2010. The importance of active learning in higher education was emphasized by MEXT1 under the Transformation of Undergraduate Education and National Project (2012–2015) • The concept of “active learning” is not clearly defined • Most university lecturers do not have profound understanding of SCLT and still rely on teachercentered lectures • However, there seems to be a gradual shift toward active learning approaches • There is a lack of coherency and systemic transformation in the education ecosystem (elementary school, middle school, higher education) • Education blueprint released in 1999, among others, focused on establishing SCL • SCL rarely occurs in practice as teacherdominated classrooms remain common • Korean students are generally uncomfortable in non-traditional classrooms • Teacher is expected to have complete control over the teaching and learning processes • Some degree of teacher-centered methods is still required in large classes • SCLT is likely to be met with considerable resistance, at least in the initial stage • Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA), Educational Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) (2014–2019) and an Education for ALL Action Plan (2003–2015) were carried out to revamp the country’s education system

Ito (2017) LeTendre (2017) Mizokami (2014) The Japan Times (2013) • Yamada and Yamada (2018)

DeWaelsche (2015) Choi and Rhee (2013) Dailey (2010) Kim (2015) Lee and Sriraman (2013)

586

Developments in Asian higher education Table 35.2 (Continued) Country

Region

Source

Malaysia

• Southeast Asia

• Chen and Chang (2014) • Grapragasem et al. (2014) • Mahamood et al. (2009) • Nurahimah et al. (2013) • Siti Zuraidah et al. (2015) • Tengku Sarina (2012) • Yap (2016)

Singapore

Southeast Asia

• Gopinathan (2001) • Maxwell (2017) • Tan et al. (2017)

Key Findings • Many reforms have failed because an SCL approach was rejected • Student-centered approach is considered new and radical • It appears hard to sweep away traditional practices and implant SCL at higher education institutions • The Ministry of Education (MOE) launched a National Education Blueprint (NEB) in 2012 and the government has also developed strategies and plans to transform higher education • HEIs are at the stage of transforming from teacher-centered teaching in the classroom to a more learner-centered teaching environment • The process has been slow due to lack of guidelines provided • Lecturers used a mixed of teacher centered and student-centered approaches • In general, lecturers are doing well at implementing SCL • A major curriculum review in 1997 led to the education reforms toward SCL approach in teaching and learning was carried out in a transformational and systemic manner • The entire ecosystem and educational paradigm of Singapore’s education system were altered • The “Thinking schools, Learning Nations (TSLN)” was a pivotal policy shift toward 21st-century education • Model of Teacher Education for the 21st century (TE21) emphasizes the critical importance of learner-centeredness • Higher education has undergone a pedagogical shift with new approaches to improve student motivation and autonomy • Lecturers and tutors play important role in providing a conducive environment for SCL • Staff development programs are crucial • The cohesive education system support students as active participants, autonomous, proactive and constructive learning from elementary to higher education

1

In Japan, MEXT refers to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. MEXT has conducted a survey called “Survey for Educational Reform Situation in Japanese Universities” on 776 four-year universities and colleges, with a response rate of 99%.

587

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

with the goal of transforming Chinse education from traditional exam-oriented education to SCL has begun. China launched the quality education reform policy at the turn of the century (Ministry of Education 2002). Central to the reform are curricular changes that aim at reducing student workload, cultivating higher-order thinking skills and encouraging all-around development (Feng 2004). With respect to pedagogical change, traditional lecturing and rote learning are to give way to student-centered teaching approaches as the learner’s autonomy is being emphasized in the reform (Wang 2010; Lu & Liu 2016). The reform to embrace SCL approaches in teaching and learning in China still faced significant challenges. Even though students were able to share ideas and experiences, learn collaboratively and apply content-based knowledge into real-world problems after the implementation of SCLT, a major problem with regards to recognizing every student and embracing them to the class interaction equally still exists. Tsegay (2015) found that some students are dominant, while others rarely participate in the class interaction. The interaction of students is highly influenced by the experience and perception of lecturers toward students’ participation. Findings from Li and Du (2015) showed that although university lecturers have realized the value of SCL, they still prefer direct guidance in the educational process and are conservative when it comes to student autonomy (ibid.). Professional development must be a priority to realize education reform. To implement a SCL approach, the government and institutions should provide adequate training opportunities for lecturers (Zhong 2010).

Japan In the late 1990s, the University Council of Japan submitted a report titled A Vision for the University of the 21st Century and Future Reform Measures, which built upon the progress of university reform. The reforms called for a more student-centered approach in teaching and learning, as Japanese education had become too rigid, uniform and exam-centered during that time. Student-centered teaching and active learning was promoted by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The concept of “active learning,” however, was not easy to be translated into Japanese. Although the term has a Japanese translation (noudouteki/syutaiteki na gakusyū), it does not convey the nuance of “active learning.” A borrowed term, akutibu lāningu, was used. This implies that active learning is not a norm in Japanese education culture. However, this learning approach gradually gained recognition in Japanese higher education around 2010 (Mizokami 2014) and became increasingly popular after it was emphasized in the 2012 comprehensive report, Qualitative Transformation of Undergraduate Education by the Central Council for Education. Active learning was again emphasized in the national project (2012–2015), Improving Higher Education for Industrial Needs (IHEN), funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (Ito 2017). Despite the policy advocacy, implementation of active learning in higher education faced many challenges. A majority of the university lecturers are not trained as education scholars but rather consider themselves as discipline-specific experts. Due to a lack of profound understanding of the educational approach, lecturers perceived SCL and active learning as set of instructional methods instead of an overarching pedagogical methodology (Ito 2017). According to survey conducted by MEXT, in 2015 about 41.6% of four-year universities and colleges have carried out workshops to promote active learning method among lecturers, as compared to merely 26.9% in 2013 (Yamada & Yamada 2018). Many Japanese universities and colleges have gradually started to introduce active learning methods (Yamada & Yamada 2018). For instance, the Center for Research and Development of Higher Education at the University of Tokyo have promoted active learning through ICT integration. However, the drive for SCLT seems to be lacking at the school levels. According to LeTendre (2017), MEXT’s emphasis on 588

Developments in Asian higher education

active learning is very confusing to the elementary and middle school teachers, which hinders its implementation. There is a lack of clarity on the part of MEXT as to just what “active learning” is about. As a whole, Japanese universities remain far behind other countries in improving their university teaching, as too many universities in Japan are still relying on teacher-centered lectures as the main pedagogical approach (The Japan Times 2013) and there is a lack of coherency and systemic transformation in the country’s education ecosystem.

Korea The traditional Korean classroom is teacher centered, and this kind of teaching approach has its historical roots set in Confucianism. An education blueprint, The Five-Year Plan for Educational Development, was established and released in 1999. The reform plan focused on establishing student-centered education, among others (Lee 2001). The student-centered curriculum focuses on fostering individual talents, aptitudes and creativity to prepare students for the globalization and knowledge economy. What the Ministry of Education hopes to achieve rarely occurs in practice as teacher-dominated classrooms remain common in Korea (DeWaelsche 2015). Both lecturers and students are more accustomed to the teacher-centered approach, which is compatible with the traditional view of education and teachers’ traditional role. Allowing the class to be student centered and working in small groups is a concern for teachers, not only because the role of the teacher becomes unfamiliar, but also because in Korean culture, which is rooted in Confucianism, the teacher is expected to have complete control over the teaching and learning processes, and when students are working together in groups, this control no longer exists (Dailey 2010). In addition, Korean students are generally uncomfortable with communicative tasks where they are expected to think critically and share original ideas with classmates in nontraditional classroom settings (Choi & Rhee 2013). Studies showed that students expressed “burdened and anxious” feelings about the approach, which seemed to result from the unexpected and considerable amount of group tasks. Hence, when implementing SCLT, particularly in large classes, some degree of teacher-centered methods is required so that students can become accustomed to the approach (Kim 2015). There seems to be cultural barriers when implementing the SCL approach in Korean higher education. Korean education culture is deeply rooted in Confucian philosophies that promote rote learning for exam preparation, a tendency toward teacher-centered lessons and an authority-reverent culture (Cho 2004). A paradigm shift toward student-centeredness is an uphill task for both lecturers and students, as the approach is likely be met with considerable resistance, at least in the initial stage.

Vietnam A number of factors such as didactic instructional methods, inadequate professional preparation of teachers and heavy teaching loads are impacting the quality of education in Vietnamese HEIs. To address these issues, reform efforts have been out line in the Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA), which serves as a roadmap for reform to be made by year 2020. In addition, the Vietnamese government has also introduced the Educational Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) (2014–2019) and the Education for ALL Action Plan (2003–2015) to revamp the country’s education system (Global Partnership for Education 2018). The introduction of a learnercentered approach was considered to be a necessary reform to provide an education for all due to its aim of meeting the learning needs of all learners. However, despite the apparent influence of the learner-centered approach that the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training is trying to encourage, learning that occurs in the classroom is still very much teacher centered. 589

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

The implementation of SCLT was hindered by various cultural barriers and local infrastructure conditions (Pham 2010a). Many reforms have failed because a SCL approach was rejected by the education community. Taking into account that Vietnam is a society that is culturally oriented toward collectivism rather than individualism, a student-centered approach is considered new and radical. It appears hard to sweep away traditional practice and implement SCL in HEIs in Vietnam. In the Vietnamese context – a teacher-centered culture where unquestioning respect for teachers has long been a dominant attitude – students learn from the teachers as the source of knowledge. It is crucial to address the mismatches between principles of SCL and the local cultural values. A lack of conceptual understanding also weakened the process of change and ensure that it occurred only at the surface level. Professional development needs to be provided for the lecturers so that they are aware of the disadvantages of the traditional teacher-centered approach (Pham 2010a) and willing to take the first step toward change.

Malaysia The Ministry of Education (MOE) of Malaysia has developed and launched a new National Education Blueprint (NEB) in 2012 and the government has also developed strategies and plans (i.e., National Higher Education Action Plan (2007–2010); National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020) to ensure that HEIs undertake change and achieve excellence to face the competition posed by the global education market (Grapragasem et al. 2014). HEIs are at the stage of transforming toward learner-centered teaching environments. The process has been slow due to lack of guidelines provided (Yap 2016). Several studies indicated that Malaysian lecturers at HEIs employed various methodologies, involving the traditional teacher-centered approaches or a mixture of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches such as direct lectures, discussions and tutorials in their teaching (e.g., Mahamood 2009). Lecturers’ partial adoption of SCL may have been due to the pressure of government demand rather than as being representative of their own belief that the approach can contribute to learning among students. This led the university lecturers to integrate teacher-centered strategies together with a studentcentered approach (Tengku Sarina 2012). Nevertheless, recent studies showed that university lecturers are doing well at implementing SCL (Chen & Chang 2014; Siti Zuraidah Md Osman et al. 2015). They are aware of the active facilitating role-played by the lecturers to ensure SCL takes place. They do not promote rote learning and utilize some dimensions of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) as part of their SCL approaches (Nurahimah et al. 2013). However, there are still university lecturers who prefer to prescribe how learning takes place rather than allow learners to control their own learning. There are still lecturers who find it difficult to use an SCL approach when teaching large classes as they feel that they do not have enough experience in using this approach (Siti Zuraidah Md Osman et al. 2015). As a result, some lecturers prefer the traditional approach, especially in terms of assessment procedures, compared to SCL practices (i.e., portfolios, peer assessment, reflective writing) (Nurahimah et al. 2013).

Singapore Initially, the Singaporean educational system was typical of Asia, highly scripted and uniform across all levels. The pedagogy of those early years was very much aligned with a teacher-centered approach. Facing rapid globalization, the knowledge-based economy and increasing global competition, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore undertook a major curriculum review in 1997 to rethink its goals and directions for the future. Realizing that a responsive education system requires a whole system reform, Singapore’s education system, from preschool to 590

Developments in Asian higher education

university levels, has undergone what was described as a “big bang,” where the entire system was reviewed and reformed (Gopinathan 2001). A major strategy in this reform was to put in place and implement the many pieces of strategies and structures to systematically drive and support the vision for student-centeredness in education. This strategy is a key factor that contributes to the success of whole system education reform in Singapore. In other words, for reform to take place successfully in higher education, changes need to be made at the foundation level. A concerted attempt at reforming the education in Singapore is found in Thinking Schools, Learning Nations (TSLN), launched in 1997. TSLN was a pivotal policy shift toward 21st-century education that aimed to prepare Singapore’s students for the future (Tan et al. 2017). The whole education system has adopted a more student-centered approach to learning, which focuses on quality of learning rather than quantity of learning (Maxwell 2017). The education reform has also brought sweeping changes to teaching approaches at all levels of education. Recognizing the important roles played by the teachers in SCLT, a Model of Teacher Education for the 21st Century (TE21)2 was implemented. This model was underpinned by learner-centered values that put students at the center of the teachers’ work (Tan et al. 2017). Teaching in higher education has also undergone a pedagogical shift with new approaches to improve student motivation and autonomy. For instance, at the National University of Singapore (NUS), the medical curriculum represents a hybrid curriculum with a fundamental paradigm shift from teacher-centered, discipline-based teaching and learning to a more student-centered, self-directed, active learning environment. In addition, the implementation of problem-based learning (PBL) at the university also represents a major shift from traditional teacher-centered instruction to SCL (Gwee & Tan 2001). Most students were able to display highly effective communication and creative thinking skills during tutorials and presentations. This underscored the need to create more opportunities for self-expression and self-teaching and learning. In this respect, lecturers and tutors at the university play a major role in providing a conducive environment for SCL for all students. The introduction of tailored staff development programs, hence, is crucial in supporting and promoting the implementation of SCLT at the university level. As a whole, Singapore has laid a strong foundation for SCL, which includes primary and secondary education, teacher education and tertiary education. The systemic revolution in education toward student-centered education is the key to Singapore success in education. Among the country cases presented in Table 35.2, Singapore has the most comprehensive and systemic approach in implementing SCLT, whereby reforms were carried out from elementary to higher education levels. Education reform in Singapore since the late 1990s has brought sweeping changes to the country’s approach to teaching, learning and the curriculum in an effort to promote a more student-centered and value-centric education system. The country’s education reform policy is coherently carried out and alignment between government, schools, universities and teachers can be achieved. The entire ecosystem and educational paradigm of Singapore’s education system is moving toward SCLT. The entire ecosystem supports students’ active participants, autonomous, proactive and constructive learning from elementary to higher education. This is a key factor that contributes to the success of education reform in the country. In addition, the country’s success also massively depends on a high-quality teacher workforce. Asia is home to some of the top education systems and universities in the world. Many countries in the region have carried out educational reforms to improve the quality of its education, tying learning to new and emerging needs. Central to this region’s education reform is a focus on the SCL paradigm. Despite the strong education reform policy toward SCL, the implementation of SCLT in most Asian countries still faced many challenges, as documented by past studies (Pham 2011; Shin & Crookes 2005). It is particularly challenging to make a paradigm shift in countries like China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, where Confucian culture is deeply rooted in its 591

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah

teaching and learning philosophies and practices. When interacting in class, lecturers must create a conducive learning environment that can provide opportunities for students to play an active role in learning. However, as Confucian culture places great emphasis on hierarchical relationships, students are taught to accept and listen to their teachers as authority figures and definitive knowledge sources. As a result, they may not have the skills to engage in intellectual discourse with their lecturers who are regarded as authority figures. Power sharing needs to occur in the classroom to drive student-centered instruction in higher education so that students can take more responsibility for their own learning, and the role of the lecturer can be shifted from one that leads to one that facilitates learning.

Conclusion In countries where Confucianism is deeply rooted, the adoption of SCL principles and practices has to be done within its sociocultural context and with careful consideration. It is more feasible to modify and adapt some of the pedagogical principles of SCL, making them more culturally appropriate to the local context, than to make a complete change to the pedagogical approach. For example, students in Confucian culture do not just engage in shallow memorization as it might appear. Meaningful or deep memorization, based on reflective repetition, is an effective strategy used by many Asian learners to master complex concepts. Hence, hybrid pedagogies that merge the principals of constructivism with the Asian cultural values can be developed. Students can use memorization and reflective repetition strategy to learn key concepts and later reinforce their understanding through independent projects or case study. To promote active learning among Asian students, there must also be a good balance between quiet learning culture and verbal interactions, which could combine self-reading time with online discussions and small group work. Students’ communication skills should also be enhanced through the infusion of soft skills in the university courses to promote more active academic discussions during the learning processes. In addition, a judicious mixture of both didactic lectures and a constructivist approach may be helpful in coaching undergraduates, particularly during their first year of study (Ghosh 2007). Didactic lectures remain valuable for giving students an overview of a particular area of study, especially during their first year of study (Ghosh 2007). Even though many Asian countries still face challenges in implementing SCLT, Singapore has managed to transform its whole education system, from elementary to higher education, to cohesively support and promote SCL. The country’s strong policy advocacy and systemic transformation toward SCLT have led to its success in education reform. This suggests that to promote SCL in higher education, changes need to be made in the whole education ecosystem, particularly at the school level, so that students and teachers can embrace SCL as early as possible. Singapore’s success in transforming its education system toward SCLT can also be attributed to the country’s high-quality teacher workforce, which is a key driver in education reform. Primary and secondary teachers play important roles in laying a strong foundation for SCL before students enroll in tertiary education. University students will be more ready for SCLT if they have already been immersed in the SCL approach since primary education and are equipped with critical skills such as communication skills, problem-solving skills and self-regulated learning skills to engage in SCL activities at the university level. To ensure the sustainability of SCLT in higher education, lecturers and tutors have to undergo professional development such as training programs, workshops and seminars on SCL pedagogy. Modules on SCLT which are customized to the different programs (e.g., medical, science, engineering, social sciences, humanities) can also be developed at the university level for staff training purposes. Infrastructure and resources development is also an area that should not be overlooked, 592

Developments in Asian higher education

as educational technology infrastructure, educational tools, classroom design, learning space and resources (i.e., modules, online resources) are important in promoting SCLT. In conclusion, many Asian countries are already in the process of making a paradigm shift toward SCL through education reform. The strong advocacy and policy development for SCLT is a positive sign in educational transformation. Nevertheless, most Asian countries are making slow progress due to a number of cultural and non-cultural barriers. Findings from the country cases and literature reviews suggest that education reforms toward SCLT in Asian higher education requires systemic transformation of the whole education ecosystem (as in the case of Singapore), implementation of hybrid pedagogies that merges Constructivist principles with Confucius values, continuous staff training and infrastructure and resources development.

Notes 1 As of 2019, ASEAN consists of 10 Southeast Asian countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. 2 The Model of Teacher Education for the 21st Century (TE21) is a transformative endeavor that guides the design, delivery and evaluation of teacher training programs to provide the best education to aspiring and serving teachers to become 21st-century teaching professionals. The model is underpinned by learnercentered values that put learner at the center of teachers’ work.

References Ballard B. & Clancy J. (1994) Study abroad: A manual for Asian students. Longman, Kuala Lumpur. Baviera A. & Maramis L. (2017) ASEAN@50 Volume 4: Building ASEAN Community: Political-Security and Socio-Cultural Reflections. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta, Indonesia. Biggs J. (1996) Academic development in Confucian heritage culture. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Child Development, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong. Biggs J. & Watkins D.A. (2001) The Paradox of the Chinese Leaner and Beyond. Comparative Education Research Centre, Hong Kong. Bonnie M. (2010) Two Theories on Education: Confucius and John Dewey. (ERIC Documentary File: No. ED509159). Breitenstein D. (2013) Asian Students Carry High Expectation. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday. com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/asian-students-carry-high-expectations-for-success/2615483/ on 7 November 2019. Bruner J.S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. CDAE Universiti Sains Malaysia. (2019) Student-Centered Learning (SCL). Retrieved from https://cdae. usm.my/index.php/resources/student-centered-learning-scl on 15 August 2019. Che Noraini H. & Hassan L. (2008) Islamic religions curriculum in Muslim countries: The experiences of Indonesia and Malaysia. Bulletin of Education & Research 30(1), 1–19. Chen C.M. & Chang C.C. (2014) Mining learning social networks for cooperative learning with appropriate learning partners in a problem-based learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments 22(1), 97–124. Cheng M.H.M. & Wan Z.H. (2016) Unpacking the paradox of Chinese science learners: Insights from research into Asian Chinese school students’ attitudes towards learning science, science learning strategies, and science learning strategies and scientific epistemological views. Studies in Science Education 52, 29–62. Cheng X. (2000) Asian students’ reticence revisited. System 28, 435–446. Cho B.E. (2004) Issues concerning Korean learners of English: English education in Korea and some common difficulties of Korean students. The East Asian Learner 1(2), 31–36. Cho K.H. & Lee S.H. (2001) Another look at public-private distinction and organizational commitment: A cultural explanation. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(1), 84–102. Choi B.K. & Rhee B.S. (2013) The influence of student-engagement, institutional mission and cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate students. Higher Education 67(1), 1–18.

593

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah Chuang S.F. (2007) The Influence of Confucian Philosophy on Adult’s Preference for Learning: A Comparison of Confucian Adult Learners and Non-Confucian Adult Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Louisiana. Coughlan S. (2013) Teachers in China given highest level of public respect. Education and Family, BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/education-24381946 on 7 November 2019. Dailey A. (2010) Difficulties implementing CLT in South Korea: Mismatch between language policy and what is taking place in the classroom. University of Birmingham, UK. DeWaelsche S.A. (2015) Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean university English course. Linguistic and Education 32, 131-147. Dewey J. (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Macmillan, New York. Dewey J. (1929) Experience and Nature. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London. Dewey J. (1929) The Quest for Certainty. Minton, New York. Dolton P., Marcenaro O., De Vries R. & She P. (2018) Global Teacher Status Index 2018. Varkey Foundation, UK. Feng S.Y. (2004) Curriculum Reform: World and China [In Chinese].Guangdong Education Press, Guangzhou. Ghosh S. (2007) Combination of didactic lecturers and case-oriented problem-solving toward better learning: Perceptions of students from a conventional medical curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education 31, 193–197. Global Partnership for Education (2018) Education in Vietnam. Retrieved from www.globalpartnership.org/ country/vietnam on 7 November 2019. Gopinathan S. (2001) Globalisation the state and education policy in Singapore. In Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today. (Tan J., Gopinathan S. & Ho W.K., eds.), Pearson Prentice Hall, Singapore, pp. 3–17. Grapragasem S., Krishnan A. & Mansor A.N. (2014) Current trends in Malaysian higher education and the effect on education policy and practice: An overview. International Journal of Higher Education 3(1), 85–93. Gwee M.C.E. & Tan C.H. (2001) Problem-based learning in medical education: The Singapore hybrid. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 20(4), 356–362. Hall D. & Ames R. (1987) Thinking Through Confucius. State University of New York Press, New York, NY. Ho F.M. (2017) Reforms in pedagogy and the Confucian tradition: Looking below the surface. Cultural Studies of Science Education 13(1), 133–145. Ito H. (2017) Rethinking active learning in the context of Japanese higher education. Cogent Education 4(1), 1–10. Jacobs G.M. & Toh-Heng H.L. (2013, July 11–13) Small steps towards student-centered learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing the Asian Century, pp. 55–64, ICMAC 2013 [International Conference on Managing the Asian Century], Singapore. The Japan Times (2013) Improving Teaching Universities. Retrieved from www.japantimes.co.jp/ opinion/2013/04/16/editorials/improving-teachng-at-universities/#.WyqBRG5As2w on 7 November 2019. Jensen B., Hunter A., Sonnemann J. & Burns T. (2012) Catching Up: Learning from the Best School Systems in East Asia. Grattan Institute, Australia. Jones A.M.E. (2001) Student-Centered Learning: A Curriculum Trend Across Asia. Retrieved from www. directions.usp.ac.fj/collect/direct/ index/assoc/D1065325.dir/doc.pdf on 10 February 2019. Kamariah Abu Bakar, Wong S.L., Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub & Zaidatul Akmaliah Lpe Pihie. (2012, December 4–5). Reforming higher education through student-centered learning (SCL) at Universiti Putra Malaysia: Lectures’ perspectives. Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Education Reform and Management Innovation, Shenzen, China. Kember D. & Gow L. (1989) Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology 60, 356–363. Kennedy P. (2002) Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21(5), 430–445. Kim M.K. (2015) Students’ and teachers’ reflection on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT, English Teaching 70(2), 1–26. Kiran S. (2017) Role of Philosophy of Education in India. Tattva-Journal of Philosophy 9(2), 11–21. Lee J. (2001) School reform initiatives as balancing acts: Policy variation and educational convergence among Japan, Korea, England and the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives 9(13), 1–11.

594

Developments in Asian higher education Lee K. & Sriraman B. (2013) An eastern learning paradox: Paradoxes in two Korean mathematics teachers’ pedagogy of silence in the classroom. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education 43(2), 147–166. Lennon M.C. (2010) A Fine Balance: Supporting Skills and Competency Development. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, Toronto. LeTendre G. (2017) Active Learning in a Tight Frame: ICT and Active Learning in Japanese Elementary Education. Retrieved from www.childresearch.net/papers/school/ 2017_01.html on 14 August 2019. Levinsohn K.R. (2007) Cultural differences and learning styles of Chinese and European trades students. Institute for Learning Styles Journal 1, 12–22. Li H.C. & Du X.Y. (2015) Teachers’ perceptive of their role and student autonomy in the PBL context in China. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 10(2), 18–31. Lin J. (2009) The Difference Between Western and Eastern Education: Education System in Need of Change? Retrieved from http://docshare01.docshare.tips/files/20332/203324596.pdf on 7 November 2019. Liu K. (2013) Pedagogy: What Are the Differences Between the Educational Methods of Confucius and Socrates? Retrieved from www.quora.com/Pedagogy-What-are-the-differences-between-the-educationalmethods-of-Confucius-and-Socrates on 7 November 2019. Lu J. & Liu Y. (2016) Learner autonomy as element in Chinese education reform: A case of English language subject. English Language Teaching 9(3), 33–48. Macaranas F.M. (2017) ASEAN in the Asia-Pacific century: Innovating education and health services provision for equity and efficiency-the role of the private section, technology, and regulatory cooperation. In ASEAN@50 Volume 4: Building ASEAN Community: Political-Security and Socio-Cultural Reflections. (Baviera A. & Maramis L., eds.), ERIA, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp. 260–308. Mahamood Z., Lasan C., Nik Yusoff N.M.R. & Embi A.A. (2009) Teaching and learning the Malay language in the private higher institutions (PHIL) in Sawara, Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences 9(4), 573–585. Mason M. (2014) Culture and Educational Outcomes in “Confucian Heritage” Societies in Asia. Retrieved from https://repository.eduhk.hk/en/publications/culture-and-educational-outcomes-in-confucianheritage-societies-7 on 11 August 2019. Maxwell D. (2017) Lessons from Singapore education system. Retrieved from www.theeducator.com/blog/ lessons-singapore-education-system/ on 7 November 2019. McEnroe A.M. (2014) Confucius’s Educational Theory. Retrieved from www.newfoundations.com/ GALLERY/Confucius.html on 7 November 2019. Ministry of Education (2002) The Concept of Quality Education: Key Points for Study [Suzhi Jiaoyu Guannian: Xuexi tiyao]. Ministry of Education, Beijing, China. Mizokami S. (2014) Active Learning and the Transition of Teaching/Learning Paradigm. Toshindo, Tokyo. Mok K.H. & Cheung A.B.L. (2011) Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New from politics in higher education governance in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(3), 231–251. Nurahimah M.Y., Abdul Malek A.K., Rohana O, Mohaida M. & Siti Azhani A.R. (2013) Student-centered learning (SCL) in the Malaysian higher education institutions. ASEAN Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 5(2), 14–33. Olusegun S. (2015) Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education 5(6), 66–70. Pham T. (2010a) Implementing a student-centered learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: Barriers under layers of casual layered analysis (VLA). Journal of Future Studies 15(1), 21–38. Pham T. (2010b) Issues to consider when implementing student-centered learning practices at Asian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(5), 519–528. Pham T. (2011) Issues to consider when implementing student-centered learning practices at Asian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(5), 519–528. Piaget J. (1980) The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In Language and Learning. (Piatelli-Palmarini M., ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 23–34. Pun K.F. (2001) Cultural influence on total quality management adoption in Chinese enterprises: An empirical study. Total Quality Management 12(3), 415–428. Rao N. & Chan C.K.K. (2010) Moving beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learners and their teachers. In Revisiting the Chinese Learner: Changing Contexts, Changing Education. (Chan C.K.K. & Rao N., eds.), Springer, Hong Kong, pp. 3–34. Ravi S.S. (2015) Education in Emerging India. PHI Learning Private Limited, Delhi.

595

Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah Robertson M., Line M., Jones S. & Thomas S. (2000) International students’ learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development 19(1), 89–102. Santhiram Raman (2016) Emerging Trends in Higher Education Pedagogy. WOU Press, Penang. Shin H. & Crookes G. (2005) Exploring the possibilities for EFL critical pedagogy in Korea-a two-part case study. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 2(2), 113–138. Siti Zuraidah Md Osman, Rozinah Jamaludin & Mohammad Iranmanesh (2015) Student centered learning at USM: What lecturer and students think of this new approach? Journal of Education and Practice 6(19), 264–277. Tahira B., Hafiz M.I. & Friha B. (2011) The Confucius philosophy and Islamic teaching of lifelong learning: Implications for professional development of teachers. Bulletin of Education and Research 33(1), 31–46. Tan C. & Hairon S. (2016) Education reform in China: Towards classroom communities. Action in Teacher Education 38(4), 315–326. Tan J.P.L., Koh E., Chan M., Coster-Onishi P. & Hung D. (2017) Advancing 21st century competencies in Singapore. Retrieved from https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/advancing-21st-centurycompetencies-in-singapore.pdf on 7 November 2019. Tengku Sarina, Aini Tengku Kasim (2012) Teaching and Learning Experiences in Malaysian Higher Education: A Case Study of a Teacher Education Programme. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Auckland University of Technology. Tran Q.T. & Swierczek F.W. (2009) Skills development in higher education in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Business Review 15(4), 565–586. Tsegay S.M. (2015) Students’ experience in student-centered learning at higher education institutions in China: A case study. EDUCARE 7(2), 135–146. Von Glaserfeld E. (1995) A constructivist approach to teaching. In Constructivism in Education. (Steffee L.P. & Gale J., eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–15. Vygotsky L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Wang D. (2010) The dilemma of time: Student-centered teaching in the rural classroom in China. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(1), 157–164. Watkins D.A. & Biggs J.B. (eds.) (1996) The Chinese Leaner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Inferences. CERC and ACER, Hong Kong and Camberwell. Watkins D.A. & Biggs J.B. (2001) The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. (Watkins D.A. & Biggs J.B., eds.), CERC/ACER, Hong Kong/Melbourne, pp. 3–26. Yamada A. & Yamada R. (2018) The New Movement of Active Learning Case in Japanese Graduate Programs. Retrieved from www.intechopen.com/online-first/the-new-movement-of-active-learning-injapanese-higher-education-the-analysis-of-active-learning-cas on 10 February 2019. Yap W.L. (2016) Transforming conventional teaching classroom to learner-centered teaching classroom using multimedia-mediated learning module. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6(2), 105–112. Zhao J. (2013) Confucius as a critical educator: Towards educational thoughts of Confucius. Frontier of Education in China 8(1), 9–27. Zhong H. (2010) The Effectiveness of Student-Centered Learning in the Development of a New Communication Curriculum in China. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/9102/1/hzhongfinalthesis.pdf on 7 November 2019.

596

36 WHAT PISA TELLS US ABOUT STUDENT-CENTERED TEACHING AND STUDENT OUTCOMES1 Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

Introduction Schools and universities around the globe are trying to foster higher-order skills such as critical thinking and creativity, and social and emotional skills such as adaptability, resilience, collaboration and communication, among their students so they remain competitive in a labor market where many jobs, particularly low-skilled ones, are at risk of becoming computerized (Frey & Osborne 2017). The question is whether “traditional” classrooms, where teachers and textbooks are the main providers of information and students are recipients of what they are told, is the best way of meeting these goals. Or, alternatively, whether the best way is through “progressive” teaching, whereby the role of teachers is to provide students opportunities to discover an interdisciplinary curriculum related to real problems at their own pace. However, many argue that there is no single “best” way of teaching; effective teachers are able to use a variety of strategies and tailor them depending on the content to be learned, the characteristics of the students and the learning environment (OECD 2013). This chapter looks at the relationship between teaching strategies and 15-year-old students’ outcomes, including academic performance and students’ dispositions and attitudes toward learning, using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). While the main focus is on student-oriented practices in mathematics, the chapter also extends the analysis to teacher-directed strategies in mathematics (as a way of comparison), and to enquirybased teaching in science lessons (as a teaching approach that shares many principles and goals with student-centered teaching). While the authors recognize that a global shift toward less traditional approaches to teaching is taking place – with sporadic pushback from back-to-basics education – the chapter does not a priori endorse any particular teaching approach. The geographical breadth of PISA – 72 education systems participated in the 2015 edition – provides a unique opportunity to describe the extent to which students around the globe are exposed to student-centered practices, as well as other related teaching strategies such as enquiry-based teaching. While cross-sectional studies like PISA are not ideal for establishing causal relationships, the wealth of information collected from students, parents, teachers and school principals can be used to describe which students are more exposed to these strategies and how these strategies are related to a set of student outcomes, including their academic 597

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

performance and their dispositions and attitudes toward learning. The chapter analyzes the learning environment of 15-year-olds who are about to end compulsory education. Some of the results may be extrapolated to higher education given that the teaching and learning experiences of both levels of education share many similarities.

Student-oriented, teacher-directed and enquiry-based teaching practices in PISA This chapter focuses on students’ reports on their exposure to three teaching approaches: student-oriented teaching in mathematics lessons, teacher-directed teaching in mathematics lessons, and enquiry-based teaching in science lessons. PISA collected information on these teaching approaches through a battery of items in the student questionnaire that ask students about the frequency with which certain teaching practices were employed in their lessons. Continuous indices were then created using item response theory (IRT). All these indices have an average of zero and a standard deviation of 1, on average across OECD countries.

Student-oriented versus teacher-directed teaching Student-oriented instruction aims to give students an active role in classroom processes, for instance by having students work in small groups, assigning long-term projects or giving students a role in planning classroom activities (Deboer 2002; Felder & Brent 1996). On the other hand, teacher-directed instruction essentially aims to provide a well-structured, clear and informative lecture on a given topic. Under this teaching approach, learning is transmitted by teachers who, in a one-way process, decide what students have to learn, plan the lessons, deliver the content and ask questions of students to ensure that they are understanding the material (Bietenbeck 2014;Schwerdt & Wuppermann 2011). While there is clear evidence that the way teachers teach has a strong influence on student outcomes (Hattie 2009; Lavy 2011; Wang et al. 1993), there are still no conclusive findings showing that a more progressive way of teaching improves student outcomes. For instance, Goldhaber and Brewer (1997) cast doubt on the positive effects of having students work in small groups or solve problems on their own; and Schwerdt and Wuppermann (2011) show that students who are more frequently exposed to lecture-style presentations performed better in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In their analysis of 15 interventions on teaching mathematics to low-performing students, Baker et al. (2002) found that there was little evidence that contextualized approaches – teachers as facilitators, using real-world examples, discussing alternative solutions – were beneficial for these students. Hattie (2009) finds that many of the pillars of the constructivist approach, such as the idea that students should construct meaning “through discussion, reflection and the sharing of ideas with other learners with minimal corrective intervention,” are against “the successful recipe for teaching and learning” that is developed in his synthesis of 800 meta-analyses (a statistical technique for summarizing the findings from independent studies) of the influences on student achievement. However, other findings do suggest that student-oriented practices have beneficial effects on student outcomes. For instance, using a cross-subject student fixed-effects methodology, Algan et al. (2013) and Bietenbeck (2014) find that the use of progressive practices, such as group work and project-based learning, increase the reasoning ability of students and improve their social capital. PISA 2012 collected data for student-oriented and teacher-directed teaching in mathematics lessons using the following question: How often do these things happen in your mathematics 598

What PISA tells us

lessons? The response categories were: every lesson; most lessons; some lessons; and never or hardly ever. Items considered for the index of student-oriented instruction include the following: (1) the teacher gives different work to classmates who have difficulties learning and/ or to those who can advance faster; (2) the teacher assigns projects that require at least 1 week to complete; (3) the teacher has us work in small groups to come up with joint solutions to a problem or task; and (4) the teacher asks us to help plan classroom activities or topics. Items considered for the index of teacher-directed instruction include the following: (1) the teacher sets clear goals for our learning; (2) the teacher asks me or my classmates to present our thinking or reasoning at some length; (3) the teacher asks questions to check whether we have understood what was taught; (4) at the beginning of a lesson, the teacher presents a short summary of the previous lesson; and (5) the teacher tells us what we have to learn.

Enquiry-based science teaching Enquiry-based science teaching (EBST) refers to diverse ways of teaching science through which students develop a critical way of engaging with science. Through EBST, students should be able to acquire a deep understanding about a topic, develop a coherent scientific method and ultimately provide a robust answer to the question under investigation. One of the major assumptions of the proponents of EBST is that, by experiencing the procedures of the discipline, enquiry-based activities help students develop a deeper understanding of science topics, develop coherent arguments and scientific methods and ultimately provide robust answers to scientific questions (Crawford 2007). However, in practice, successful EBST is fraught with many challenges. First, the success of EBST depends on the teacher’s ability to organize and deliver enquiry-based instruction in a way that allows novice learners to develop the intended knowledge and skills (Sweller et al. 1998; Sweller 1999). Second, the use of enquiry-based practices shifts the emphasis from learning science content to experiencing the procedures of the discipline, which may not always be beneficial (Kirschner 1992; Kirschner et al. 2006). Moreover, the success of EBST could also hinge on the existence of a favorable school context. For instance, it is expected that effective EBST would require certain resources, discipline in science classes, sufficient instruction time, trained teachers, a positive school environment and a school leadership that encourages scientific enquiry. PISA 2015 collected data for enquiry-based teaching in science lessons using the following question: When learning school science topics at school, how often do the following activities occur? The response categories were: in all lessons; in most lessons; in some lessons; and never or hardly ever. Items considered for the index of enquiry-based instruction include the following: (1) students are given opportunities to explain their ideas; (2) students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments; (3) students are required to argue about science questions; (4) students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted; (5) the teacher explains how a school science idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena; (6) students are allowed to design their own experiments; (7) there is a class debate about investigations; (8) the teacher clearly explains the relevance of broad science concepts to our lives; and (9) students are asked to do an investigation to test ideas.

PISA data and methods The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international large-scale assessment that examines academic performance every 3 years. In PISA 2012 and 2015, over half a million 15-year-old students in over 70 countries and economies – of which only OECD 599

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

members are analyzed in this chapter – took a test lasting a total of 2 hours (see the Appendix for a description of the sample). This test evaluates students’ capacity to apply creatively their knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts related to science (major domain in 2015), mathematics (major domain in 2012), reading, financial literacy and collaborative problem- solving. Students also answered questions about their personal context, school, attitudes toward learning, parents and teachers. Policy-makers and school principals provided additional information on the school policies and practices, the resources and the institutional factors that shape the learning environment. Among these questions, this chapter focuses mainly on the information collected on students’ perceptions of the teaching practices employed in their mathematics (in 2012) and science (in 2015) lessons. Samples are representative of all students enrolled in schools (grade 7 or above) who were between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months at the time of the assessment. A stratified two-stage sampling method is used whereby schools are first sampled and students are then randomly selected within each of the participating schools. Given the two-stage sampling approach employed in PISA, data is analyzed using sampling design weights and replicate weights in line with PISA recommended guidelines. As in other large-scale assessments, student performance was estimated using plausible values – 5 in PISA 2012 and 10 in PISA 2015 – and therefore all analyses consider these plausible values. This chapter explores the relationship between teaching practices, academic outcomes and other outcomes using three types of statistical analyses: descriptive statistics, correlations and ordinary least squares (OLS) multivariate regressions. Given the cross-sectional nature of PISA data, the analyses in this chapter do not try to establish causal relationships between a particular teaching approach and student outcomes. The goal is rather to provide descriptive evidence on the frequency of certain teaching practices, describe the type of students who reported being more exposed to these practices, and find consistent patterns of association between these practices and certain student outcomes, such as students’ academic performance and their attitudes toward learning. This chapter also mentions a series of analyses using the TALIS-PISA link, an extension of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) whereby the teachers participating in their 2013 survey could be linked to students participating in PISA 2012. The TALIS survey provides insight into teachers’ backgrounds, beliefs and practices through data collected from teachers and their school principals (OECD 2014). The variables employed in this chapter are described in the Appendix.

Results for student-oriented versus teacher-directed practices in mathematics lessons Frequency of student-oriented and teacher-directed practices On average across OECD countries, student-oriented instructional practices were much less frequently used than the more traditional teacher-directed practices, according to students’ responses to the PISA 2012 questionnaires (Figure 36.1). For instance, about 1 in 4 students reported that their mathematics teacher has them work in small groups to come up with joint solutions to a task in every or most lessons, compared to 8 out of 10 students who reported having a mathematics teacher who tells them what they have to learn. Similar differences are observed between other student-oriented practices, such as giving different work to students who are struggling or can advance faster, conducting projects that require at least one week to complete, or asking students to help plan classroom activities, and other teacher-directed 600

601

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Adapted from PISA 2012 database.

Student-oriented and teacher-directed practices, OECD average

0%

Every lesson

Some lessons

Teacher-directed

Figure 36.1

The teacher tells us what we have to learn

The teacher asks questions to check whether we have understood what was taught

Most lessons

Never or hardly ever

Student-oriented

The teacher sets clear goals for our learning

The teacher asks us to present our thinking or reasoning at some length

At the beginning of a lesson, the teacher presents a short summary of the previous lesson

The teacher gives different work to classmates who have difficulties and/or who can advance faster

The teacher has us work in small groups to come up with joint solutions to a problem or task

The teacher asks us to help plan classroom activities or topics

The teacher assigns projects that require at least one week to complete

Activities in mathematics lessons

What PISA tells us

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

practices, such as asking questions to check whether students understood the material, presenting a short summary of the previous lesson, or setting clear goals for student learning. While it should come as no surprise that teacher-directed practices are more frequently used than student-oriented practices – the implementation of student-oriented practices is often more time-consuming and challenging – it is revealing that a majority of students reported that their mathematics teacher never assigns projects that require at least one week to complete or that almost half of students said that they are never organized in small groups to find joint solutions to problems. The analysis of cross-country differences show that student-oriented teaching is most frequently used in Chile, Mexico, Sweden and Turkey, and least frequently used in Austria, France, Hungary, Ireland and Slovenia (Figure 36.2). However, these comparisons may be sensitive to problems of cross-cultural comparability as suggested by the strong negative correlation between the indices of instructional practices and a country’s average performance.2 There are several ways in which the response style of students can be accounted for. For our purposes – basically measuring how traditional are the teaching practices across OECD countries – it suffices with calculating the differences between both indices. This analysis shows that Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) are the least traditional, and France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Slovenia are the most traditional. Interestingly, according to this measure, teaching in Japan and Korea, often placed at the traditional end of the spectrum, is somewhat less traditional than in some English-speaking countries like Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK or the the US. However, in a similar analysis of all school systems participating in PISA 2012, other East Asian education systems, such as Shanghai (China) and Hong Kong (China), did appear at the traditional end of the spectrum (Echazarra et al. 2016).

Index points (OECD average = 0)

0.8

Teacher-directed instruction

Student-oriented instruction

Difference

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 –0.2 –0.4 –0.6 Less traditional

More traditional

Sweden Denmark Norway Iceland Mexico Switzerland Korea Italy Japan New Zealand Poland Slovak Republic Finland Netherlands Estonia United States Germany Chile Latvia Israel Spain Portugal Turkey Australia Czech Republic Luxembourg United Kingdom Canada Belgium Austria France Greece Hungary Slovenia Ireland

–0.8

Figure 36.2 Indices of student-oriented and teacher-directed instruction Source: Adapted from PISA 2012 database.

602

What PISA tells us

Students’ characteristics and exposure to student-oriented and teacher-directed instruction Socioeconomically advantaged students and those in larger classes were less likely to report that they are exposed to both student-oriented and teacher-directed instruction (Figure 36.3). On the other hand, students were more likely to be exposed to both types of teaching strategies when they reported a greater experience with applied mathematics, positive teacher-student relations and a greater availability of information and communication technology (ICT) at school. Probably the most interesting findings are those where the association differs between studentoriented and teacher-directed instruction. For instance, the disciplinary climate in mathematics lessons and the experience with pure mathematics are positively related to teacher-directed instruction, but negatively so with student-oriented teaching. Whether employing teacherdirected strategies, such as presenting summaries or setting clear learning goals, results in a more positive disciplinary climate, or whether teachers are more likely to resort to this type of strategies when they encounter well-behaved and respectful students, cannot be answered with a cross-sectional study like PISA. In any event, all the correlations are small in magnitude, except for teacher-student relations.

Students’ attitudes When teachers decide to use a particular teaching approach, they typically take into consideration how effective it will be for student learning. However, many teachers also factor in other considerations, such as how much they will foster students’ interest in the subject or whether it will increase their sense of self-efficacy and reduce their anxiety. PISA 2012 results show that,

Teacher-directed instruction

Student-oriented instruction

0.4

Correlation coefficients

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 –0.1 –0.2 Student ICT socio-economic availability status at school

Class size in languageof-instruction lessons

Disciplinary Teacher-student Experience climate in relations with applied mathematics mathematics lessons

Experience with pure mathematics

Figure 36.3 Student-oriented and teacher-directed practices, and students’ and schools’ characteristics, OECD average Notes: Analysis based on 29 OECD countries. All correlation coefficients are statistically significant. Source: Adapted from PISA 2012 database.

603

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa Teacher-directed instruction

Correlation coefficient

0.4

Student-oriented instruction

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

–0.1

Interest in mathematics

Mathematics self-efficacy

Mathematics anxiety

Perseverance Sense of belonging at school

Figure 36.4 Student-oriented and teacher-directed instruction and student attitudes, OECD average Note: All correlation coefficients are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. Source: Adapted from PISA 2012 database.

across OECD countries, a greater exposure to both types of instruction was positively related to their interest and sense of self-efficacy in mathematics, though the associations were stronger for teacher-directed instruction (Figure 36.4). Similarly, a greater exposure to both teaching approaches was positively associated with students’ self-reported perseverance and sense of belonging at school. Interestingly, students expressed greater mathematics anxiety the more exposed they were to student-oriented teaching in mathematics lessons, and the less exposed they were to teacher-directed instruction.

Students’ mathematics performance In every OECD country, students who reported being more exposed to student-oriented teaching in mathematics lessons scored lower in mathematics, after accounting for other teaching strategies and student and school socioeconomic characteristics (Figure 36.5). On average across OECD countries, a 1-point increase in the index of student-oriented instruction was associated with a decrease of 19 score points in the mathematics assessment, and in Greece, Korea, Portugal and Turkey with a decrease of at least 25 score points. By contrast, teacher-directed instruction showed a positive association with mathematics performance, on average across OECD countries and in 14 school systems. Only in five school systems – Belgium, Chile, Denmark, France and Switzerland – did students who reported a greater exposure to teacher-directed instruction score lower in mathematics than students who reported a lower exposure. While these results may give a negative view of student-oriented practices, it is important to bear in mind that they do not prove cause and effect. For instance, teachers often adapt their teaching practices based on their initial observation of student performance; and students frequently select themselves, or are streamed, into classes where certain teaching methods are more frequently used than others, according to their performance. This reverse causality cannot be completely ruled out with cross-sectional data, even with the most elaborate analyses. It is therefore risky to talk about the effects of certain teaching practices when analyzing observational 604

What PISA tells us Teacher-directed instruction

Student-oriented instruction

15 10 5 0 –5 –10 –15 –20 –25 –30 –35

Belgium Denmark United Kingdom France Chile Ireland Mexico Estonia Japan Poland Latvia Switzerland Germany Hungary Slovenia Sweden New Zealand Iceland Finland Norway Slovak Republic Austria Spain Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic Italy Australia United States Canada Israel Portugal Turkey Greece Korea OECD average

Change in mathematics score

20

Figure 36.5 Student-oriented and teacher-directed instruction and mathematics performance Notes: Statistically significant coefficients at a 95% confidence level are marked in a darker tone. Results based on a linear regression model accounting for other teaching strategies and students’ and schools’ socioeconomic status. Source: Adapted from PISA 2012 database.

data. In fact, there is a large body of literature showing the benefits of student-oriented practices, including in other chapters of this handbook, and more elaborate analysis using PISA data provide a more nuanced picture of the negative association between student-oriented teaching and mathematics performance. 1

2

The first of these analyses is a cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects combining PISA and TALIS data (i.e., TALIS-PISA link). These analyses examine the relationship between students’ performance in a given subject (e.g., mathematics) – relative to other subjects (e.g., reading and science) – and the frequency with which school teachers of a given subject (e.g., mathematics) use a teaching approach (e.g., student-oriented practices) – relative to teachers in other subjects (e.g., reading and science) – after accounting for relevant characteristics of the students and the teaching staff (for a full explanation, see Echazarra et al. 2016). This analytical strategy controls for students’ general academic skills and other student, family and school characteristics. The results emerging from these analyses indicate that, in 7 out of the 8 countries analyzed, student-oriented teaching practices were positively associated with students’ success in PISA items, particularly those of lower difficulty. The second of the findings is the consistent positive association between cognitive activation – a teaching approach that fosters deep learning and critical thinking – and students’ performance in mathematics (Echazarra et al. 2016). In every school system, students who reported a greater exposure to cognitive activation strategies, such as explaining how a problem is solved or applying knowledge to new contexts, scored higher in mathematics, after accounting for other teaching strategies. While all the cognitive activation strategies 605

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

3

asked in PISA are initiated by teachers (e.g., “the teacher asks questions that make us reflect on the problem” or “the teacher gives problems that can be solved in several different ways”), the type of skills these strategies try to develop are also an expected outcome of student-oriented strategies. The last of these findings is related to the strategies that students report using when learning mathematics. The use of memorization – a strategy associated with surface learning and often criticized by advocates of student-centered approaches – is negatively related to the success in difficult PISA mathematics questions, whereas the use of elaboration strategies – closely linked to skills, such as critical thinking and creativity, that studentcentered approaches try to instill in students – increases the probability of answering those same items correctly (Echazarra et al. 2016). In this regard, PISA data show that in countries where teaching was more traditional – teacher-directed teaching was relatively more frequently employed than student-oriented teaching – students were more likely, relative to the use of elaboration strategies, to resort to memorization strategies when studying mathematics (Echazarra et al. 2016). However, the association was not particularly strong (i.e., R2 is 0.1) and in many high-performing school systems, including Estonia, Hong Kong (China) and Shanghai (China), students reported comparatively little use of memorization strategies despite the fact that teaching remained traditional.

In summary, PISA 2012 descriptive findings show that student-oriented strategies are less frequently used than teacher-directed strategies. Besides, both types of strategies are positively associated with most students’ attitudes toward learning and the school. Finally, while studentoriented instruction is negatively correlated to mathematics performance in every school system, more elaborate analysis shows a more nuanced picture. Unfortunately, PISA 2015 did not measure students’ exposure to student-oriented strategies but did measure their exposure to a closely related teaching approach: enquiry-based science teaching.

Results for enquiry-based teaching in science lessons In this section, we investigate the effectiveness of enquiry-based teaching in science lessons. We try to answer the following questions: How frequent is enquiry-based science teaching? And what is the association of enquiry-based science teaching with students’ performance in science and their science-related attitudes?

Frequency of enquiry-based teaching Figure 36.6 shows that students are most frequently exposed to enquiry-based science teaching (EBST) in Canada, Denmark, Mexico, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and the US. In all these countries the average of the EBST index is more than 0.2 of a standard deviation higher than that of all OECD countries. The reverse is true in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Spain where students report less frequent exposure to EBST (0.2 of a standard deviation lower than the OECD average). Moreover, exposure to EBST varies according to the socio-demographic characteristics of schools. For instance, EBST is more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged schools (i.e., schools in the bottom 25% of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status [ESCS] which is based on students’ home possessions, their parents’ educational and occupational status). This could be due to the fact that disadvantaged students are more likely to attend vocational schools and tracks where they are exposed to more enquiry-based activities. 606

What PISA tells us

Index of enquiry-based science teaching, reported by students –0.8

–0.6

–0.4

–0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Standard deviation of the mean index of enquirybased science teaching

1.0 Mexico (0.97) Denmark (0.74) United States (1.04) Portugal (1.02) Turkey (1.17) Sweden (0.97) Canada (0.97) Slovenia (1.03) Australia (0.84) New Zealand (0.86) France (0.90) Switzerland (0.95) Latvia (0.76) Luxembourg (1.02) Chile (0.99) Germany (0.88) Israel (1.12) Ireland (0.80) OECD average (0.96) United Kingdom (0.84) Norway (0.91) Czech Republic (0.94) Estonia (0.83) Greece (1.04) Poland (0.95) Iceland (1.07) Italy (0.92) Belgium (0.98) Hungary (1.01) Slovak Republic (1.11) Spain (0.95) Netherlands (0.95) Austria (1.09) Finland (0.86) Korea (1.16) Japan (1.09)

Figure 36.6 Index of enquiry-based science teaching, reported by students countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of enquiry-based science teaching, reported by students. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table WP2_ibteach.

When it comes to individual questionnaire items, Figure 36.7 shows that the most common EBST activity across all OECD countries is explaining science ideas with 69% of students exposed to it. This activity is followed by teacher explaining how science ideas can be applied to other phenomena (59% of students so reported), the teacher explaining the broad relevance of 607

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa Percentage of students who reported that the following activities occur “In most lessons” or “In all lessons”: %

OECD average

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Students are The teacher The teacher Students are Students are There is a Students are Students Students are given explains how clearly asked to draw required to class debate asked to do spend time in allowed to opportunities

relevance of from an science investigations investigation laboratory own their ideas ideas can be

they have practical concepts to conducted experiments our lives

Figure 36.7 Enquiry-based teaching in science lessons Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table WP2_ibteach.

science to students’ lives (50%) and students drawing conclusions from experiments (42%). All other activities are relatively less common.

Enquiry-based science teaching and science performance The results presented in Figure 36.8 and the following figures rely on two types of regression analyses. The first is a simple univariate regression (labeled as before) accounting for student self-reported exposure to EBST and the second is a multivariate regression (labeled as after) accounting for EBST in addition to the following control variables: students’ socioeconomic status, gender, the number of science courses attended and the grade in which the student is enrolled, in addition to school fixed effects. The results in Figure 36.8 show a negative and statistically significant association between student exposure to EBST and PISA science performance scores in 23 OECD countries after accounting for student characteristics and school fixed effects. The association is the strongest in Estonia, New Zealand, Greece, Norway, and Poland where a rise of 1 unit on the index of EBST is associated with a drop of more than 10 points in science performance. This negative association between exposure to EBST and science performance warrants the further investigation of the mediating effect of the school environment. For instance, the lack of resources and the absence of discipline could undermine the effectiveness of teaching strategies. In order to investigate these hypotheses, regression analyses with EBST interacted with student and school characteristics were carried out. In particular we focused on the mediating effect of student-reported interest, enjoyment and motivation in science, students’ sense of belonging at school, perception of teacher fairness and discipline in science classes, in addition to information 608

What PISA tells us After accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features 5 0 –5 –10 –15 –20 Estonia New Zealand Greece Norway Poland Latvia Canada Slovak Republic Korea Chile Czech Republic United States Japan Sweden Slovenia OECD average Mexico Portugal United Kingdom Netherlands Italy Iceland Australia Spain Switzerland Turkey Hungary France Ireland Finland Austria Germany Belgium Denmark Israel Luxembourg

Change in science performance

Before accounting for student characteristics1 and school observed and unobserved features

Figure 36.8 Performance in science and enquiry-based science teaching 1. Student characteristics include socioeconomic status (as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status), gender, the number of science courses attended and the grade in which the student is enrolled. Notes: Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in science performance associated with a 1-unit increase in the index of enquiry-based science teaching reported by students, after accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table_pv@scie_ibteach.

reported by school principals on shortages of resources, and student- and teacher-related behavioral problems affecting instruction. The findings in Figure 36.9, show that, in most countries, the negative association between EBST and science performance is attenuated, or disappears entirely, if students are attending highly disciplined classrooms. The interaction between EBST and the top quarter of discipline in science lessons is positively associated with science performance in 13 OECD countries. A positive and significant interaction between EBST and students’ sense of belonging at school (i.e., students in the top quarter of sense of belonging) was also observed in nine OECD countries. The positive association between the interaction of EBST, class discipline and sense of belonging at school on the one hand, and science performance on the other, indicates that the success of EBST is conditional on a positive school environment. Other factors, like school physical and human resources and student interest and motivation, do not mediate the association between EBST and performance.

Enquiry-based teaching and attitudes toward science Even though the relationship between EBST and science achievements is ambiguous, EBST activities could still foster positive attitudes toward science regardless of their impact on science performance. In this subsection we focus on a number of students’ attitudes and predispositions such as: enjoyment of and interest in science, science-related self-efficacy, epistemic beliefs (i.e., their beliefs about the nature of knowledge and about the validity of 609

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

5

Students in the top quarter of the index of discliplinary climate Students in the bottom quarter of the index of disciplinary climate

0 –5 –10 –15 –20 –25 Luxembourg Belgium Hungary Germany Finland Australia Israel Spain Portugal Ireland Netherlands France Turkey Austria Mexico Sweden Slovak Republic Italy Denmark Slovenia Switzerland OECD average Iceland Japan Korea Chile Latvia Poland Estonia United States Canada Czech Republic United Kingdom Greece Norway New Zealand

Change in science performance

Change in science performance, after accounting for student characteristics¹ and school observed and unobserved features for:

Figure 36.9 Performance in science and enquiry-based science teaching 1. Student characteristics include socioeconomic status (as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status), gender, the number of science courses attended and the grade in which the student is enrolled. Notes: Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in science performance associated with a 1-unit increase in the index of enquiry-based science teaching reported by students, for students in the top quarter of the index of discliplinary climate. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table WP2_regint_ibteach.

scientific methods as a source of knowledge) and expectations of a science-related career by the age of 30. Figure 36.10 presents the findings of the association between EBST and enjoyment of science. The results are based on two analyses: the first relies on a univariate regression that does not account for any variable other than EBST while the second relies on a school fixedeffects approach that takes into account students’ socioeconomic status, gender, grade, science performance and the number of science subjects taken in addition to exposure to EBST and school fixed effects. The results show a clear positive association between exposure to EBST and enjoyment of science in all OECD countries. This association is similar when school fixed effects and other controls are accounted for. On average, a one unit increase in EBST is associated with a rise of 0.2 units on the index of enjoyment of science across OECD countries. Similar findings were encountered when examining the impact of exposure to EBST on interest in science, and science-related self-efficacy. The relationship between EBST and these noncognitive outcomes is positive and statistically significant even after accounting for the various controls. The association is slightly weaker in magnitude when it comes to epistemic beliefs and is non-significant in eight countries. Figure 36.11 shows that a rise of 1 unit in exposure to EBST is associated with a rise of 0.7 units on the index of students’ epistemic beliefs (i.e., their beliefs about the nature of knowledge and about the validity of scientific methods as a source of knowledge). As there is growing concern about the capacity of education systems to produce the science skills needed in the labor market, students participating in PISA 2015 were asked about whether 610

After accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features Before accounting for student characteristics¹ and school observed and unobserved features 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 New Zealand United Kingdom Australia Ireland Sweden Norway Denmark Israel Italy Austria Belgium Finland Chile Canada Germany OECD average Spain Poland Japan Iceland Korea Luxembourg Hungary Slovenia Czech Republic Portugal France Latvia United States Switzerland Netherlands Greece Mexico Estonia Turkey Slovak Republic

Change in the index of enjoyment of science

What PISA tells us

Figure 36.10 Enjoyment of science and enquiry-based science teaching 1. Student characteristics include socioeconomic status (as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status), gender, science performance, the number of science courses attended and the grade in which the student is enrolled. Notes: All values are statistically significant. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of enjoyment of science associated with a 1-unit increase in the index of enquiry-based science teaching reported by students, after accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table_joyscie_ibteach.

they expect a science-related career at the age of 30. The assumption is that children who expect, at an early age, to have a science-related career are more likely to graduate from college or university with a science degree (OECD 2018; Tai et al. 2006). Figure 36.12, relies on two logistic regression analyses. The first accounts only for students’ exposure to EBST and the second controls for students’ and school characteristics. The findings show a positive association between exposure to EBST and the likelihood of expecting a career in science at age 30. On average across OECD countries, a rise of 1 unit on the index of exposure to EBST is associated with a 10% rise in the likelihood of expecting a career in science. This association is the strongest in Italy (26%), followed by Israel (22%), and Ireland (21%). When analyses are broken by gender, findings show (Figure 36.13) that girls are more likely to expect a career in science when exposed to EBST. In fact, girls are 10% more likely to expect a career in science while boys are about 3% more likely to expect the same. As Figure 36.13 shows, EBST stands out among the different teaching practices as the one that is most beneficial for girls. Therefore, exposing girls to enquiry-based teaching practices could not only draw more of them into a science career but may also close the gender gap in traditionally maledominated science occupations.

Conclusions Despite the global efforts to innovate in the field of teaching (Hoidn & Kärkkäinen 2014), evidence from PISA 2012 reveals that student-oriented practices, such as team work and 611

After accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features Before accounting for student characteristics¹ and school observed and unobserved features 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 –0.05 –0.10

Germany United Kingdom Ireland Korea New Zealand Sweden Australia Japan Israel France Norway Austria Mexico Switzerland Canada Luxembourg Denmark Chile Portugal Spain Belgium OECD average Italy United States Iceland Hungary Finland Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia Estonia Poland Turkey Greece Latvia Slovak Republic

Change in the index of epistemic beliefsin science

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

Figure 36.11 Epistemic beliefs in science and enquiry-based science teaching 1. Student characteristics include socioeconomic status (as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status), gender, science performance, the number of science courses attended and the grade in which the student is enrolled. Notes: Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of epistemic beliefs in science associated with a 1-unit increase in the index of enquiry-based science teaching reported by students, after accounting for student characteristics and school observed and unobserved features. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table_epist_ibteach.

project-based learning, are not as frequently used across OECD countries as other teaching practices, especially teacher-directed strategies. While this could be expected given that students who were more exposed to student-centered practices scored considerably lower in mathematics in every education system, the cross-sectional nature of our analyses cannot discard the existence of reverse causality (e.g., teachers using more student-centered strategies to engage low-achieving students). In fact, further analyses using PISA data, especially those based on cross-subject student fixed effects, show that the relationship between student-centered strategies and mathematics performance is, at best, unclear. Finally, students who were more frequently exposed to student-centered teaching reported greater perseverance, a stronger school attachment and better attitudes toward mathematics (except for mathematics anxiety) than students who reported less frequent exposure. As for enquiry-based teaching, a teaching approach that shares many principles and goals with student-centered teaching, our findings based on PISA 2015 data show that, while a greater exposure to enquiry-based teaching in science is negatively associated with science performance, the impact varies with the context of the school and its students. Although the lack of schools’ physical and human resources does not seem to matter a great deal, the presence of a disciplined environment in science classes acts as a catalyst for the success of enquiry-based teaching. Moreover, exposure to enquiry-based teaching appears to foster the enjoyment of and interest in science, student self-efficacy and epistemic beliefs, in addition to cultivating a passion for science which translates into expectations of future careers in this field. This later finding is especially more pronounced for girls than for boys. 612

What PISA tells us

1.30

After accounting for student and school characteristics Before accounting for student and school characteristics¹

1.25

Odds ratio

1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 Italy Israel Ireland Portugal Hungary Belgium Slovenia Luxembourg Australia United Kingdom Netherlands Spain Austria Greece Slovak Republic OECD average Canada Czech Republic Norway New Zealand Germany Sweden Chile United States Denmark Mexico Turkey France Japan Finland Switzerland Korea Estonia Poland Iceland Latvia

0.85

Figure 36.12 Expectations of a science-related career and enquiry-based science teaching 1. Student and school characteristics include gender, science performance, the number of science courses attended, the grade in which the student is enrolled, and socioeconomic status (as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status) at the student and school levels. Note: Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the likelihood of students expecting to work in a science-related career at age 30 associated with a 1-unit increase in the index of enquiry-based science teaching reported by students, after accounting for student and school characteristics. Source: Adapted from OECD, PISA 2015 database, Table_career_ibteach.

Implications Probably everyone agrees that some degree of knowledge transmission, from a “more knowledgeable other” to students, is crucial for learning to happen. However, students also need to work independently, in teams and in long projects with minimal teacher intervention to foster their creativity, collaborative and leadership skills, and their academic engagement (Barret & Moore 2011). Since student-oriented strategies remain the exception across OECD countries – for instance, about half of students reported that their mathematics teachers never or hardly ever assign them projects that require at least a week to complete or ask them to work in small groups to reach joint solutions – there is great room for pedagogical innovations. For teachers to try new pedagogies, they need to be appropriately trained, highly motivated and self-confident (OECD 2016). Above all, they need time and support from their school leaders and policy-makers; too many teachers cite overcrowded curricula and high-stakes qualification examinations, and not student learning, as determining the types of strategies they can employ in their lessons (Boardman & Woodruff 2004). Ultimately, improving student learning requires from teachers to be strategic and versatile in the methods they use, and to guarantee a positive disciplinary climate in which these teaching strategies can succeed. 613

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

Girls

Boys

1.15 More likely to expect to work in a science-related career

Odds ratio

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

Less likely to expect to work in a science-related career Teacher-directed practices

Teacher feedback

Adaptive teaching

Enquiry-based teaching

Teacher support

Figure 36.13 Teaching practices and expectations of pursuing a science-related career, OECD average. Statistically significant odds ratios are marked in a darker tone. Notes: Results based on logit regression analysis accounting for science performance and other teaching practices. Source: Adapted from PISA 2015 database.

Striking a balance between teacher-directed and student-oriented practices is certainly challenging, but some education systems have gone to great lengths in this regard. In Singapore, for instance, mathematics teachers are encouraged to combine direct instruction, inquiry-based and activity-based learning in their lessons (Echazarra et al. 2016). With the assistance of technology (e.g., graphing and dynamic geometry software, spreadsheets), teachers expose students to a wide array of problems. Routine problems help students achieve fluency, non-routine problems give them the opportunity to use their creativity, and contextualized problems make students understand the value of learning. In the absence of an international large-scale for higher education institutions, and the slim chance that there will be one in the near future after the discontinuation of AHELO (Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education), using the PISA study to examine how student-centered learning and teaching relate to student outcomes in an international comparative perspective can provide invaluable information for higher education institutions. While the PISA study touches mostly on the learning environment at the end of compulsory education, the findings presented in this chapter can be informative for the teaching and learning of mathematics and science in higher education, particularly in the case of foundational courses.

Notes 1 This chapter summarizes the findings from two previous studies: Echazarra et al. (2016), “How Teachers Teach and Student Learn: Successful Strategies for School,” OECD Education Working Papers 130, OECD Publishing, Paris; and Mostafa, Echazarra and Guillou (2018), “The Science of Teaching Science: An Exploration of Science Teaching Practices in PISA 2015,” OECD Education Working Papers 188, OECD Publishing, Paris. 2 Among the 34 OECD countries that participated in PISA 2012, the correlation between the mathematics score and the index of student-oriented instruction is −0.48, and between the mathematics score and the index of teacher-directed instruction is −0.70. See also Echazarra et al. (2016) for further details.

614

What PISA tells us

References Algan Y., Cahuc P. & Shleifer A. (2013) Teaching Practices and Social Capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5(3), 189–210. Baker S., Gersten R. & Lee D. (2002) A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Teaching Mathematics to Low-Achieving Students. The Elementary School Journal, 51–73. Barrett T. & Moore S. (eds.) (2011) New Approaches to Problem-Based Learning: Revitalising Your Practice in Higher Education. Routledge, New York, NY. Bietenbeck J. (2014) Teaching practices and cognitive skills. Labour Economics 30, 143–153. Boardman A. & Woodruff A. (2004) Teacher change and “high-dtakes” assessment: What happens to professional development? Teaching and Teacher Education 20(6), 545–557. Crawford B.A. (2007) Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(4), 613–642. Deboer G.E. (2002) Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible balance. Science & Education 11(4), 405–417. Echazarra A., Salinas D., Méndez I., Denis V. & Rech G. (2016) How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school. OECD Education Working Papers, 130. OECD Publishing, Paris. Felder R.M. & Brent R. (1996) Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching 44(2), 43–47. Frey C.B. & Osborne M.A. (2017) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114, 254–280. Goldhaber D. & Brewer D. (1997) Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 505–523. Hattie J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analysis Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London. Hoidn S. & Kärkkäinen K. (2014) Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: A literature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching behaviours, OECD Education Working Papers, 100. OECD Publishing, Paris. Kirschner P.A. (1992) Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science and Education 1(3), 273–299. Kirschner P.A., Sweller J. & Clark R.E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75–86. Lavy V. (2011) What Makes an Effective Teacher? Quasi-Experimental Evidence. NBER Working Papers, 16885. OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2014) TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2016) Equations and Inequalities: Making Mathematics Accessible to All. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2018) Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris. Schwerdt G. & Wuppermann A. (2011) Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within-student between-subject approach. Economics of Education Review 30(2), 365–379. Sweller J. (1999) Instructional Design. ACER Press, Camberwell. Sweller J., van Merrienboer J. & Paas F. (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251–296. Tai R., Liu C., Maltese A. & Fan X. (2006) Planning early for careers in science. Science 312(5777), 1143–1144. Wang M., Haertel G. & Walberg H. (1993) Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research 63(3), 249–294.

615

APPENDIX

A1. The PISA target population and sample In the PISA 2012 analysis, 34 OECD countries have been examined: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the the US. Latvia became a member of the OECD in 2016 and has therefore been included in the PISA 2015 analyses.

616

 

617

6 082 1 472 875 193 190 59 118

  5 260 33 806 4 460 5 248

 

  0.893 0.627 1.012 0.876

0.859 0.879 0.955 0.833 0.834 0.847 0.908 0.920 0.960 0.885 0.948 0.874 0.816 0.925 0.911 0.906 0.861 0.909 0.879 17 255 6 327 2 257 399 201 670 60 162

282 888 88 013 123 630 396 966 255 440 90 391 68 174 11 676 58 526 807 867 774 149 105 530 94 515 4 250 61 234 124 852 616 761 1 201 615 620 687

6 187 2 114 745 194 000 60 940

17 774 4 756 9 690 21 548 6 857 6 535 7 481 5 867 8 829 5 682 5 001 5 125 4 810 3 508 5 016 6 061 38 142 6 351 5 033

Latvia1 Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand

288 159 89 073 121 493 409 453 252 733 93 214 70 854 12 438 62 195 755 447 798 136 105 096 108 816 4 491 57 979 113 278 566 973 1 214 756 672 101

291 967 93 537 123 469 417 873 274 803 96 946 72 310 12 649 62 523 792 983 798 136 110 521 111 761 4 505 59 296 118 953 605 490 1 241 786 687 104

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea

Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population

Total population of 15-year-olds

PISA sample: Number of participating students

Total population of 15-year-olds

OECD countries

Total enrolled population of 15-year-olds at grade 7 or above

PISA 2015

PISA 2012

Table A1 PISA target populations and samples

16 955 6 053 1 401 247 200 976 57 448

282 547 82 683 121 954 381 660 245 947 90 076 67 466 11 491 58 955 778 679 774 149 105 253 90 065 4 195 59 811 118 997 567 268 1 175 907 619 950

Total enrolled population of 15-year-olds at grade 7 or above

4 869 5 299 7 568 5 385 4 520

14 530 7 007 9 651 20 058 7 053 6 894 7 161 5 587 5 882 6 108 6 522 5 532 5 658 3 374 5 741 6 598 11 583 6 647 5 581

PISA sample: Number of participating students

(Continued)

0.888 0.876 0.617 0.951 0.902

0.906 0.834 0.929 0.835 0.798 0.935 0.890 0.928 0.973 0.910 0.961 0.911 0.896 0.933 0.965 0.937 0.803 0.947 0.917

Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population

What PISA tells us

618

4 686 5 662 5 722 5 737 7 229 25 335 4 739 11 234 4 848 12 659 6 111

0.916 0.891 0.883 0.912 0.940 0.884 0.930 0.914 0.684 0.932 0.887

63 642 380 366 110 939 55 674 18 078 440 084 97 749 85 495 1 324 089 747 593 4 220 325

63 491 361 600 101 107 55 203 17 689 414 276 97 210 83 655 1 100 074 746 328 3 992 053

Total enrolled population of 15-year-olds at grade 7 or above

5 456 4 478 7 325 6 350 6 406 6 736 5 458 5 860 5 895 14 157 5 712

PISA sample: Number of participating students

0.913 0.909 0.876 0.892 0.928 0.909 0.936 0.962 0.699 0.840 0.835

Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population

Source: OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing; OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Latvia joined the OECD in 2016 and was treated as an OECD country as of PISA 2015.

1

64 777 410 700 127 537 59 367 18 935 404 374 102 027 85 239 965 736 745 581 4 074 457

64 917 425 597 108 728 59 723 19 471 423 444 102 087 87 200 1 266 638 738 066 3 985 714

Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population

Total population of 15-year-olds

PISA sample: Number of participating students

Total population of 15-year-olds

OECD countries

Total enrolled population of 15-year-olds at grade 7 or above

PISA 2015

PISA 2012

Table A1 (Continued)

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

What PISA tells us

A2. Description of variables StQ: student questionnaire; SchQ: school questionnaire

PISA 2012 •

•

•

•

•

•

•

The index of cognitive activation (StQ) is based on the question “Thinking about the mathematics teacher that taught your last mathematics class: How often does each of the following happen?” The response options are “Always or almost always,” “Often,” “Sometimes” and “Never or rarely,” and there are 9 items: (1) the teacher asks questions that make us reflect on the problem; (2) the teacher gives problems that require us to think for an extended time; (3) the teacher asks us to decide on our own procedures for solving complex problems; (4) the teacher presents problems for which there is no immediately obvious method of solution; (5) the teacher presents problems in different contexts so that students know whether they have understood the concepts; (6) the teacher helps us to learn from mistakes we have made; (7) the teacher asks us to explain how we have solved a problem; (8) the teacher presents problems that require students to apply what they have learned to new contexts; and (9) the teacher gives problems that can be solved in several different ways. The student socioeconomic status (StQ), or PISA index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status, comprises three components: (1) home possessions; (2) the highest parental occupation; and (3) the highest parental education. The index of ICT availability at school (SchQ) is based on availability at school of the following devices: (1) desktop computers; (2) portable laptop or notebook; (3) tablets; (4) Internet connection; (5) printers; (6) USB memory stick; and (7) book reader. Class size in language-of-instruction lessons (SchQ) was derived from one of nine possible categories, ranging from “15 students or fewer” to “More than 50 students” for the average class size of the test language in the sampled schools. The index of disciplinary climate in mathematics lessons (StQ) is based on the question, “How often do these things happen in your mathematics lessons?” The response options are “Every lesson,” “Most lessons,” “Some lessons,” to “Never or hardly ever,” and there are 5 items: (1) students don’t listen to what the teacher says; (2) there is noise and disorder; (3) the teacher has to wait a long time for students to ; and (4) students cannot work well; students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins. The index of teacher-student relations (StQ) is based on the question, “Thinking about the teachers at your school: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?” The response options are “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree” to “Strongly disagree,” and there are 5 items: (1) students get along well with most teachers; (2) most teachers are interested in students’ well-being; (3) most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say; (4) if I need extra help, I will receive it from my teachers; and (5) most of my teachers treat me fairly. The indices of experience with applied mathematics and pure mathematics are based on the question, “How often have you encountered the following types of mathematics tasks during your time at school?” The response options are “Frequently,” “Sometimes,” “Rarely” and “Never.” There are 6 items for applied mathematics: (1) working out from a how long it would take to get from one place to another; (2) calculating how much more expensive a computer would be after adding tax; (3) calculating how many square metres of tiles you need to cover a floor; (4) understanding scientific tables presented in an article; (5) finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:10,000 scale; 619

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

•

•

•

•

•

and (6) calculating the power consumption of an electronic appliance per week; and 3 items for pure mathematics: (1) solving an equation like 6x2 + 5 = 29; (2) solving an equation like 2(x + 3) = (x + 3)(x − 3); and (3) solving an equation like 3x + 5 = 17. The index interest in mathematics is based on the question, “Thinking about your views on mathematics: to what extent do you agree with the following statements? The response options are “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree,” and there are 4 items: (1) I enjoy reading about mathematics; (2) I look forward to my mathematics lessons; (3) I do mathematics because I enjoy it; and (4) I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics. The index of mathematics self-efficacy is based on the question, “How confident do you feel about having to do the following mathematics tasks?” The response options are “Very confident,” “Confident,” “Not very confident” and “Not at all confident,” and there are 8 items: (1) using a to work out how long it would take to get from one place to another; (2) calculating how much cheaper a TV would be after a 30% discount; (3) calculating how many square metres of tiles you need to cover a floor; (4) understanding graphs presented in newspapers; (5) solving an equation like 3x + 5 = 17; (6) finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:10,000 scale; (7) solving an equation like 2(x + 3) = (x + 3) (x − 3); and (8) calculating the petrol consumption rate of a car. The index of mathematics anxiety is based on the question, “Thinking about studying mathematics: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?” The response options are “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree,” and there are 5 items: (1) I often worry that it will be difficult for me in mathematics classes; (2) I get very tense when I have to do mathematics homework; (3) I get very nervous doing mathematics problem; (4) I feel helpless when doing a mathematics problem; and (5) I worry that I will get poor in mathematics. The index of perseverance is based on the question, “How well does each of the following statements that follow describe you?” The response options are “Very much like me,” “Mostly like me,” “Somewhat like me,” “Not much like me” and “Not at all like me,” and there are 5 items: (1) when confronted with a problem, I give up easily; (2) I put off difficult problems; (3) I remain interested in the tasks that I start; (4) I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect; and (5) when confronted with a problem, I do more than what is expected of me. The index of sense of belonging at school is based on the question “Thinking about your school: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?” The response options are “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree,” and there are 9 items: (1) I feel like an outsider (or left out of things) at school; (2) I make friends easily at school; (3) I feel like I belong at school; (4) I feel awkward and out of place in my school; (5) other students seem to like me; (6) I feel lonely at school; (7) I feel happy at school; (8) things are ideal in my school; and (9) I am satisfied with my school.

PISA 2015 Student-level indices IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND

The PISA database contains three country-specific variables relating to the country of birth of the students, their mother and their father (COBN_S, COBN_M, and COBN_F). The items 620

What PISA tells us

ST019Q01TA, ST019Q01TB and ST019Q01TC were recoded into the following categories: (1) country of birth is the same as country of assessment and (2) other. The index of immigrant background (IMMIG) was calculated from these variables with the following categories: (1) non-immigrant students (those students who had at least one parent born in the country in which they sat the assessment); (2) second-generation immigrant students (those born in the country of assessment but whose parent[s] were born in another country); and (3) first-generation immigrant students (those students born outside the country of assessment and whose parents were also born in another country). Students with missing responses for either themselves or for both parents were assigned missing values for this variable. Based on this derived variable, a binary indicator was computed for schools in which more than 30% of students have a first- or second-generation immigrant background. LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME

Students indicated what language they usually speak at home (ST022), and the database includes a derived variable (LANGN) containing a country-specific code for each language. In addition, an internationally comparable variable (ST022Q01TA) was derived from this information with the following categories: (1) language spoken at home is the same as the language of assessment for that student and (2) language spoken at home is another language. Based on this derived variable, a binary indicator was computed for schools in which more than 30% of students speak a language different from that of the assessment. ENQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE TEACHING

The use of enquiry-based teaching was measured in PISA using both student- and teacherreported information. For the students, one question (question ST098) with nine items was used. The question asked about the frequency with which certain enquiry-based practices are undertaken in science classes. Answers were provided on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “In all lessons”, “In most lessons”, “In some lessons”, to “Never or hardly ever”. The question is: When learning topics at school, how often do the following activities occur? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas. Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments. Students are required to argue about science questions. Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted. The teacher explains how a idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena (e.g. the movement of objects, substances with similar properties). Students are allowed to design their own experiments. There is a class debate about investigations. The teacher clearly explains the relevance of concepts to our lives. Students are asked to do an investigation to test ideas.

An index was constructed based on students’ responses to these nine statements using IRT scaling. The index was standardised to have an average of 0 across OECD countries and a standard deviation of 1, meaning that two-thirds of the population fall between the values of -1 and 1 on the index. 621

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa TEACHER-DIRECTED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION

The use of teacher-directed science instruction (TDSI) was measured in PISA using both studentand teacher-reported information. For the students, one question (question ST103) with 4 items was used. The question asked about the frequency with which certain instructional practices were undertaken by teachers in science classes. Answers were provided on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “Never or almost never”, “Some lessons”, “Many lessons”, to “Every lesson or almost every lesson”. The question is: How often do these things happen in your lessons for this course? 1. 2. 3. 4.

The teacher explains scientific ideas. A whole class discussion takes place with the teacher. The teacher discusses our questions. The teacher demonstrates an idea.

An index was constructed based on answers to these four statements using IRT scaling. The index was standardised to have an average of 0 across OECD countries and a standard deviation of 1.

SCIENCE-RELATED CAREER EXPECTATIONS

In PISA 2015, students were asked “what kind of job they expect to have when they are about 30 years old” (ST114). Answers to this open-ended question were coded to four-digit ISCO codes (ILO, 2007), in variable OCOD3. This variable was used to derive the index of sciencerelated career expectations. Science-related career expectations are defined as those career expectations whose realisation requires further engagement with the study of science beyond compulsory education, typically in formal tertiary education settings. The classification of careers into science-related and nonscience-related is based on the four-digit ISCO-08 classification of occupations. Only professionals (major ISCO group 2) and technicians/associate professionals (major ISCO group 3) were considered to fit the definition of science-related career expectations. In a broad sense, several managerial occupations (major ISCO group 1) are clearly science-related: these include research and development managers, hospital managers, construction managers, and other occupations classified under production and specialised services managers (sub-major group 13). However, it was considered that when science-related experience and training is an important requirement of a managerial occupation, these are not entry-level jobs, and 15-yearold students with science-related career expectations would not expect to be in such a position by the age of 30. Several skilled agriculture, forestry and fishery workers (major ISCO group 6) could also be considered to work in science-related occupations. The United States O*NET Online (2016) classification of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) occupations indeed include these occupations. These, however, do not typically require formal science-related training or study after compulsory education. On these grounds, only major occupation groups that require ISCO skill levels 3 and 4 were included among science-related occupational expectations. Among professionals and technicians/associate professionals, the boundary between sciencerelated and non-science related occupations is sometimes blurred, and different classifications draw different lines. 622

What PISA tells us THE CLASSIFICATION USED IN THIS PAPER INCLUDES FOUR GROUPS OF JOBS:

1.

2.

3. 4.

Science and engineering professionals: All science and engineering professionals (sub-major group 21), except product and garment designers (2163), graphic and multimedia designers (2166). Health professionals: All health professionals in sub-major group 22 (e.g. doctors, nurses, veterinarians), with the exception of traditional and complementary medicine professionals (minor group 223). ICT professionals: All information and communications technology professionals (sub-major group 25). Science technicians and associate professionals, including: • • • • •

physical and engineering science technicians (minor group 311) life science technicians and related associate professionals (minor group 314) air traffic safety electronic technicians (3155) medical and pharmaceutical technicians (minor group 321), except medical and dental prosthetic technicians (3214) telecommunications engineering technicians (3522).

INTEREST IN SCIENCE

The index of broad interest in science topics (INTBRSCI) was constructed using students’ responses to a new question developed for PISA 2015 (ST095). Students reported on a fivepoint Likert scale (with the responses “not interested”, “hardly interested“, “interested”, “highly interested”, and “I don’t know what this is”) their interest in the following topics: biosphere (e.g. ecosystem services, sustainability); motion and forces (e.g. velocity, friction, magnetic and gravitational forces); energy and its transformation (e.g. conservation, chemical reactions); the Universe and its history; and how science can help prevent disease. The last response category (“I don’t know what this is”) was recoded as a missing for the purpose of deriving the index INTBRSCI. Higher values on the index reflect greater levels of agreement with these statements. ENJOYMENT OF SCIENCE

The index of enjoyment of science (JOYSCIE) was constructed based on a trend question (ST094) from PISA 2006 (ID in 2006: ST16), asking students, on a four-point Likert scale (with the responses “strongly agree”, “agree”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”), about their agreement with the following statements: “I generally have fun when I am learning topics”; “I like reading about ”; “I am happy working on topics”; “I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in ”; and “I am interested in learning about ”. The derived variable JOYSCIE was equated to the corresponding scale in the PISA 2006 database, thus allowing for a trend comparison between PISA 2006 and PISA 2015. Higher values on the index reflect greater levels of agreement with these statements. SCIENCE SELF-EFFICACY

The index of science self-efficacy (SCIEEFF) was constructed based on a trend question (ST129) that was taken from PISA 2006 (ID in 2006: ST17). Students were asked, using a four-point answering scale (with the responses “I could do this easily”; “I could do this with a bit of effort”; 623

Alfonso Echazarra and Tarek Mostafa

“I would struggle to do this on my own”; and “I couldn’t do this”) to rate how they would perform in the following science tasks: recognise the science question that underlies a newspaper report on a health issue; explain why earthquakes occur more frequently in some areas than in others; describe the role of antibiotics in the treatment of disease; identify the science question associated with the disposal of garbage; predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species; interpret the scientific information provided on the labelling of food items; discuss how new evidence can lead you to change your understanding about the possibility of life on Mars; and identify the better of two explanations for the formation of acid rain. Responses were reverse-coded so that higher values of the index correspond to higher levels of science self-efficacy. The derived variable SCIEEFF was equated to the corresponding scale in the PISA 2006 database, thus allowing for a trend comparison between PISA 2006 and PISA 2015. DISCIPLINARY CLIMATE

The index of disciplinary climate (DISCLISCI) was constructed from students’ reports on how often (“every lesson”, “most lessons”, “some lessons”, “never or hardly ever”) the following happened in their science lessons (ST097): Students don’t listen to what the teacher say; There is noise and disorder; The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down; Students cannot work well; Students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins. EPISTEMIC BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENCE

The index of epistemic beliefs about science (EPIST) was constructed using students’ responses to a new question developed for PISA 2015 about students’ views on scientific approaches (ST131). Students reported, on a four-point Likert scale (with the responses “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”), their agreement with the following statements: A good way to know if something is true is to do an experiment; Ideas in sometimes change; Good answers are based on evidence from many different experiments; It is good to try experiments more than once to make sure of your findings; Sometimes scientists change their minds about what is true in science; and The ideas in science books sometimes change. Higher levels on the index correspond to greater levels of agreement with these statements. PISA INDEX OF ECONOMIC SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STATUS (ESCS)

The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) was derived, as in previous cycles, from three variables related to family background: parents’ highest level of education (PARED), parents’ highest occupation status (HISEI), and home possessions (HOMEPOS), including books in the home. PARED and HISEI are simple indices, and HOMEPOS is a proxy measure for family wealth. For the purpose of computing the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS), values for students with missing PARED, HISEI or HOMEPOS were imputed with predicted values plus a random component based on a regression on the other two variables. If there were missing data on more than one of the three variables, ESCS was not computed and a missing value was assigned for ESCS. The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status was derived from a principal component analysis of standardised variables (each variable has an OECD mean of zero and a standard deviation of one), taking the factor scores for the first principal component as measures of the 624

What PISA tells us

PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. All countries and economies (both OECD and partner countries/economies) contributed equally to the principal component analysis, while in previous cycles, the principal component analysis was based on OECD countries only. However, for the purpose of reporting, the ESCS scale was transformed, with zero being the score of an average OECD student and one being the standard deviation across equally weighted OECD countries. Principal component analysis was also performed for each participating country or economy separately, to determine the extent to which the components of the index operate in similar ways across countries or economies.

School-level indices SCHOOL TYPE

Schools are classified as either public or private according to whether a private entity or a public agency has the ultimate power for decision making concerning its affairs (SC013). As in previous PISA surveys, the index on school type (SCHLTYPE) has three categories, based on two questions: SC013, which asks if the school is a public or a private school, and SC016, which asks about the sources of funding. This index was calculated in 2015 and in all previous cycles.

625

CONCLUSION Beyond student-centered classrooms – a comprehensive approach to student-centered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn

Introduction The shift from the instruction paradigm to the learning paradigm in higher education as introduced by Barr and Tagg (1995; Tagg 2019) is still far from accomplished around the world. SCLT represents a learning paradigm referring to pedagogical concepts wherein students and their learning are placed at the heart of the educational process, with the aim to foster deeper learning processes and outcomes for students to become self-directed, lifelong learners (Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019). For such a shift to occur, a change in culture (Šušnjar & Hovhannisyan, Chapter 33) is needed to internalize the explicit purposes and principles of SCLT to deepen student learning. Such changes in institutional learning and teaching culture can be difficult (Barr & Tagg 1995; Tagg 2019; Blumberg 2019; Šušnjar & Hovhannisyan, Chapter 33; Kember, Chapter 32; Di Napoli & Geertsema, Chapter 29, Vistro-Yu, Gonzalez & Cuyegkeng, Chapter 30; Struthers & VanArsdale, Chapter 31). Even when institutional or national or international policies have been put into place to advance SCLT in higher education, their implementation has been hampered by the ambiguities in the definition of SCLT, its key elements and the indicators to demonstrate presence of SCLT in a higher education institution (HEI) or a higher education system (HES). In the context of the European Higher Education Area, Gover and Loukkola (2018, p. 24 cited in Dakovic & Zhang, Chapter 34, p. 566) suggest that “across institutions and countries, there is still a lack of formalized definition or common approach to SCL” and “there is no common understanding of what features or indicators would demonstrate the presence of SCL at institutions, even when institutions do implement SCL, and internal policies are explicit on the need for SCL.” The same challenges of elusiveness of the SCLT concept are present in the broader scholarship of teaching and learning (Vithal 2018). There are also unclarities about how student-centered approaches align with different educational philosophies, as for example in Asian higher education (Ng Lee Yen Abdullah, Chapter 35, Pham & Pham, Chapter 10, Vistro-Yu, Gonzalez & Cuyegkeng, Chapter 30, Sugino, Chapter 18; Kember, Chapter 32). 626

Conclusion

Without clarity about which components constitute SCLT and a specific set of related indicators to assess and further improve institutional practice, it is difficult to evaluate presence of SCLT in an HEI or an HES (Klemenčič 2017, 2019). As suggested by McKenna and Quinn (Chapter 6), SCLT is often merely a catchphrase in the course design documents or in the study program’s self-evaluation reports rather than a comprehensive and coherent framework and indeed a culture permeating all educational processes and structures at HEIs. To facilitate genuine and comprehensive implementation of SCLT and to allow for evaluation of presence of SCLT in a HEI or HES, there is a need to conceptually clear ground from the eclectic use of SCLT as synonymous to a broad variety of teaching and learning practices (Hoidn 2017b, 2019; Klemenčič 2017, 2019), and show how the various elements that we associate with SCLT relate to each other and comprise a comprehensive institutional (or system-wide) framework. Klemenčič (2019, p. 2) first mentions such a framework as “a student-centered learning and instruction ecosystem” and defines it as “an interactive system of multiple key elements centered around the study programs and their courses in which the student-centered instructional practices are designed for the purpose of activating and deepening student learning towards the expected learning outcomes.” In this Handbook, we introduce and develop the student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) framework. We aggregate the SCLT elements into five main components and extend the framework to higher education systems at national or regional and supranational levels. In the remainder of the Handbook, we develop each of the five components and their underlying elements and present a list of most relevant indicators for each component.

Student-centered ecosystems framework Student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) are culturally sensitive, flexible and interactive systems of SCLT in higher education. The five components of the SCEs framework in higher education institutions include: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, (2) teaching and learning support, (3) quality of learning and teaching, (4) governance and administration and (5) policies and finance (see Figure 37.1). We conceive these components as being foundational for studentcentered higher education practice. Each of these components comprises several elements which serve as indicators of presence of SCLT in a given institution or study program. There is a presumed constructive alignment between the learning goals for an individual course or study program with the components of the institutional SCEs and their underlying elements. Namely, SCE components and their underlying elements together – in a synergic manner – enable SCLT with the purpose of deepening student learning to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The structure of SCEs is essentially a description of the institutional learning and teaching environment. The SCEs framework has the same five components in any type of HEI, but the underlying elements or indicators of these components vary between institutions depending on the specific characteristics of these institutions, such as institutional mission and profile of students. For example, in research universities, the teaching-research nexus will be a more prominent element in institutional governance and administration and in policies than this is the case in professionally or vocationally oriented types of institutions. Or, service-learning and apprenticeshiplearning will be more prominently featured in professional or vocationally oriented institutions as compared to research universities. Ideally, the institutional SCEs are embedded within national or regional (system-wide) SCEs, which in turn are integrated into supranational SCEs where supranational cooperation in higher education policy exists. We emphasize the variety of elements – both human and material – that 627

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn

Institutional Policies and Finance Institutional Governance and Administration Quality of Learning and Teaching

Teaching and Learning Support

Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment

Figure 37.1 Components of institutional student-centered ecosystems framework

collectively – in an aligned and mutually reinforcing way – constitute SCEs and enable SCLT within individual HEIs and, more broadly, within regional or national and supranational HESs. The SCEs framework on a higher education system (national) level or sub-system (regional) level has three components: policies and finance, governance and administration, and quality. In addition, national or regional SCEs comprise the SCEs of the HEIs they subsume. Similarly, the SCEs on a supranational level comprise policies and finance, governance and administration, and quality assurance, and, in addition, aggregate the national and regional SCEs with their components and the institutional SCEs these systems subsume (see Figures 37.2 and 37.3). The SCEs at all levels of higher education governance – institutional, national, supranational – are designed and implemented, and ought to be evaluated, as a collaborative effort in communities of practice on teaching and learning. Such communities of practice inevitably include all major stakeholders of higher education processes and outcomes such as students, teachers, institutional leaders, policy makers, employers’ representatives, teachers’ unions, educational researchers and other higher education practitioners or stakeholders (Klemenčič 2019). In the remainder of this chapter, we detail the five components of the SCEs framework and their key elements: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, (2) teaching and learning support, (3) quality of learning and teaching, (4) governance and administration and (5) policies and finance. While all the components apply to the institutional student-centered ecosystems, for national/regional and supranational SCEs the following three components may apply: policies 628

Conclusion

National or Regional Policies and Finance of SCLT National or Regional Governance and Administration of SCLT National or Regional Quality of SCLT

Institutional StudentCentered Ecosystems

Figure 37.2 National/regional student-centered ecosystems framework

Supranational Policies and Finance of SCLT Supranational Governance and Administration of SCLT Supranational Quality of SCLT

National and Regional Student-Centered Ecosystems

Figure 37.3 Supranational student-centered ecosystems framework

629

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn

and finance, governance and administration, and quality. For each component, we offer a set of indicators, which are by no means exhaustive, but rather derived from the scholarship featured or referred to in this Handbook and our previous publications on this topic (Hoidn 2016a, 2017a, 2017b, 2019; Klemenčič 2017, 2018, 2019).

Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment Designing student-centered learning environments involves the curricular and pedagogical renewal of courses and study programs following SCLT principles and approaches in alignment with the other components of the SCE. Student-centered teachers are not only sensitive to what students know and understand but also to how students are able to participate in inquiry, discourse, and reasoning, and how they can facilitate a more effective participation in these practices. Existing design frameworks such as Hoidn’s SCLEs (student-centered learning environments) framework, and their underlying teaching and learning principles can support teaching staff in designing and enacting SCLT in their respective classrooms (see Hoidn 2017a, 2017b, 2019). Curriculum is at the heart of SCLT, with explicitly stated learning outcomes and the ways of knowing, of generating new knowledge, of practicing and of conversing in the subject area or discipline that befit a knowledge expert in a discipline. Student-centered (i.e., learning oriented) conceptions of teaching are concerned with cognitively active learning experiences for the students to achieve learning outcomes that yield deeper knowledge and skills (e.g., Biggs 2012; Kember 1997; Ashwin, Chapter 3). It is with this purpose in mind that teachers develop student-centered curricula, pedagogical practices and assessment. These practices are geared toward “decoding the disciplines” (Middendorf & Pace 2004) by making disciplinary thinking visible, modeling disciplinary practices and designing scaffolding depending on whether new knowledge is to be transmitted to the students, developed in dialogue with the students or coconstructed independently by the students (Brodsky & Brooks, Chapter 9; Chang, Hill & Hannafin, Chapter 13; Hoidn 2019). Learning outcomes for the different programs and courses are at the core of the SCLT as they help shift focus on what the student will know, understand, and be able to do on completion of the learning process rather than on what subject content the instructor teaches. Teachers aim for students to achieve “higher-order” thinking in the subject area in the sense that learning tasks and class activities target the upper level of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives (i.e., apply, analyze, evaluate, create) (Bloom 1956; Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). Designing learning tasks for deeper learning further involves developing authentic and intellectually challenging tasks that afford students with opportunities for conceptual agency. Such tasks also foster meta-cognitive skills in that students reflect on their learning processes and continuously adjust their learning strategies (Hoidn 2019). Pedagogy addresses not only the cognitive and meta-cognitive factors in knowledge construction, but also motivational and affective factors, developmental and social, as well as individual student differences (APA 1997; Matthews, Chapter 2). Instructional practices involve applying effective teaching and learning approaches and learning-focused activities, using new information technologies thoughtfully (Briskin & Land, Chapter 20; Maris, Chapter 23; Dawes Duraisingh, Chapter 7; McCarty & Deslauriers, Chapter 11; Kessler & Robinson, Chapter 22), enhancing intercultural experiences (Pham & Pham, Chapter 10) and offering tailored support and guidance structures (Revuluri, Chapter 25) to foster students’ learning processes and outcomes. For example, recognizing contemporary students’ limited attention span, lecturing needs to be modified: broken-up into mini lectures, multimodal (to enable dual coding of information) (Doyle & 630

Conclusion

Doyle, Chapter 4), and to include (inter)active learning components such as think-pair-share, or group work on problem-sets or meaningful class discussions (McCarty & Deslauriers, Chapter 11). Inquiry-based learning (research-based and research-tutored practices) can tap on students’ intrinsic motivations as they have more agency in the teaching-learning processes (Klemenčič, Chapter 5) and gain more ownership over their learning (Struthers & VanArsdale, Chapter 31). Service-learning (engaged scholarship) also activates intrinsic motivations for learning since classroom learning is connected to experiential learning in service roles (Whitney & Nave, Chapter 14; Winterbottom, Richard & Nicholson, Chapter 17). Both collaborative learning and peer-to-peer learning can also yield motivational and emotional influences on learning if organized within inclusive and supportive classroom environments (Dawes Duraisingh, Chapter 7; Duncan & Buskirk-Cohen, Chapter 8). Differentiated instruction practices are specifically designed to address students’ individual differences (Gheyssens, Griful-Freixenet & Struyven, Chapter 15). Furthermore, technology-enhanced learning and teaching shows excellent capabilities to bring about more personalized education (allowing for student choice in contents) and individualized education (allowing students to work at their own pace and according to their particular learning needs) (Langworthy et al. 2010, pp. 111–112). Assessment in SCLT is multifaceted, consisting of assessing and offering feedback on several small (low stake) assignments rather than on one final high-stake assessment. Such feedback helps students self-regulate, i.e., develop learning strategies that are effective in achieving learning objectives. Low-stake assessments allow instructors to adjust their instructional practices and support offered to students. Assessment within SCLT also includes self-assessment/self-quizzing (reflective practice) and peer assessment (peer-to-peer learning) (Motschnig & Cornelius-White, Chapter 16) – both are shown by empirical research to be highly effective practices with regard to student achievement (e.g., Schneider & Preckel 2017). Testing has often been understood as going against the mindset of SCLT and to be used only to measure learning. However, there is powerful evidence from research that testing helps learning, including increased motivation and indeed may be one of the easiest and most promising ways instructors can deliver studentcentered instruction (Schell & Martin, Chapter 12). Table 37.1 Relevant indicators of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment – institutional level (study programs and courses) I. CURRICULUM – Do the learning outcomes aim at “decoding” the disciplinary/subject-specific knowledge, model knowledge expert practices of inquiry and scaffold student adoption of these practices? – Do learning outcomes enable students to connect lived experiences to disciplinary knowledge by solving discipline-specific or real-world problems? – Do the learning outcomes reflect gradual progression toward the upper level of the Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives (i.e., apply, analyze, evaluate, create)? – Does the sequence of courses scaffold students from more directed instruction in foundational courses toward more independent learning and independent knowledge construction? II. PEDAGOGY – Across courses in the given study program, is there a mix of high-impact student-centered classroom practices (inquiry-based, project-based, collaborative, peer, technology-enhanced, differentiated, self-regulated learning and teaching)1 and techniques2 to enable multiple ways of student engagement in generating knowledge, including active, experiential and reflective learning? Which high-impact student-centered classroom practices and techniques are applied in the given course? (Continued)

631

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Table 37.1 (Continued) – What approaches are taken to foster a safe, inclusive and supportive study program/course environment? – How are the different elements of teaching and learning support utilized in this study program/ course (e.g., library support, peer tutoring)? – What is the level of students’ learning autonomy in this program (e.g., course choice, possibilities for research, project-based work)? How much choice/flexibility do students have in this program/ course (e.g., choice of individual/group projects, choice of assessment or assignments)? What scaffolding is applied to help students progress from basic to deeper understanding and greater learner autonomy? – What possibilities do students have to inform and co-design study programs or courses? How is student feedback on study programs or courses canvassed? How is student feedback used in decisions? III. ASSESSMENT – Does assessment reflect the expected progression from the lower toward the upper level of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives (i.e., apply, analyze, evaluate, create)? – Are assessment policies and practices clearly communicated, consistent and fair? – Is there flexibility in assessment practices and policies? Is there a possibility to revise work or repeat assessment to learn from mistakes? For each course, are there multiple assessments, including low stake assessments (testing), peer-to-peer assessment, self-assessment (self-quizzing)? – Is formative feedback offered to students on academic progression, professional/career projections and personal growth? Is timely formative feedback offered to students on their academic progress throughout the duration of the course? 1

For more examples, see Klemenčič, Pupinis & Kirdulytė (2020). See, for example, https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/activity-types, retrieved November 20, 2019.

2

Learning and teaching support Learning support focuses on helping students develop or strengthen knowledge and learning skills needed to succeed in the study program. Such support includes supplemental instruction (remedial classes), academic coaching (learning skills, study strategies, time writing classes, use of library resources, making presentations), peer tutoring (whereby students who have successfully completed a course offer tutoring to students enrolled in that class), academic advising (including course and study program selection) as well as possibly also services for students with disabilities and career advising (Revuluri, Chapter 25). Learner support is especially focused on helping individual students develop self-regulation strategies and learner autonomy (Hoidn & Reusser, Chapter 1; Klemenčič, Chapter 5). This includes helping students to navigate and be ready to use various institutional resources to support their learning and academic achievement. Furthermore, academic support may include online tools on self-study skills, self-regulated learning, foreign language tools, computer-based self-paced courses in introductory subjects and so forth (Revuluri, Chapter 25). Teaching support targets teaching staff professional development, instructional support and advancement of basic and applied research on teaching and learning. It is materialized either through specially designated institutional units for teaching and learning (Brenner et al., Chapter 24) or (in absence of such a unit) through opportunities for professional development created by academic leadership (Carter & Aulette, Chapter 27). In the context of SCEs, teaching support is focused on infusing SCL into the curriculum (Brenner et al., Chapter 24). Thereby instructors should be trained in a way that is student centered so that they can experience this pedagogical approach as learners before they implement this approach in their courses and study programs (Hoidn 2016a). Teaching support targets academic teaching staff, graduate 632

Conclusion

teaching fellows and undergraduate teaching assistants, as well as teaching support staff, such as course design experts, education technologists, learning assessment specialists, learning analytics experts and so forth. Broadly, teaching support not only assists teaching staff toward achieving excellence in teaching, but also supports research and practical experimentation on emerging themes in learning and teaching, such as technology-enhanced learning and teaching, assessment of learning outcomes and implementation of SCLT (Ellis, Warden & Brown, Chapter 26; Whitney & Nave, Chapter 14). Access to online learning platforms is transforming the pedagogical possibilities through student-centered technology-enhanced learning in (virtual) studios (Briskin & Land, Chapter 20), laboratories (Kessler & Robinson, Chapter 22; Maris, Chapter 23) and classroom settings (Dawes Duraisingh, Chapter 7; Toetenel & Rienties, Chapter 21; McCarty & Deslauriers, Chapter 11). Learning technology infrastructures enable a set of SCL elements including helping students prepare for learning activities through a flipped classroom approach comprising prerecorded lectures and various scaffolding moves and self-assessments, all of which enable more peer-to-peer and student-teacher interactions during classroom time (Motschnig & Cornelius-White, Chapter 16). Blended and online provision is associated with an expectation for more SCL designs and new learning analytics approaches are developed to evaluate the success of student-centered approaches that work online (Toetenel & Rienties, Chapter 21). New possibilities are emerging with artificial intelligence (AI) technology as well as virtual and augmented reality technologies (e.g., in foreign language learning). Academic learning spaces including classrooms, laboratories, studios as well as social spaces play a central role in supporting active learning as part of SCTL (Finkelstein & Winer, Chapter 19). Redesigning learning spaces to make them more student-centered is frequently coupled with technological enhancement of these spaces as well as with overall interior amenities, such as lighting and acoustics, temperature and air quality, and type of furniture (Finkelstein & Winer, Chapter 19). The idea of active learning spaces is to signal to students a set of different expectations as to their behavior in the classroom: from bolted seats and a podium which signals listening to a lecture, to classrooms with movable chairs or round tables that point to more studio-like active and collaborative work. Academic libraries are a vital part of teaching and learning support and they have been redesigned to follow the new findings about how humans learn, diversity of student population, increasing use of online resources and challenges associated with information overload and the need to navigate reliable sources (Vedantham, Chapter 27). Strengthening student autonomy as learners, nurturing students’ growth mindsets and attention to using library spaces to support inclusion and belonging are some of the core issues of the design of library spaces and services in the context of SCTL. Table 37.2 Relevant indicators of Teaching and Learning Support – institutional level I. LEARNING SUPPORT – What student academic/learning support services exist at the institution? Are students offered opportunities to learn about self-regulated learning? – How accessible are these services to students and are students aware of their existence? – How are learning support services linked to study programs/courses? – How is the effectiveness of these services monitored/measured at an institution? How is usage and satisfaction with academic/learning support monitored? What is the share of all students that have used learning support services? (Continued)

633

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Table 37.2 (Continued) II. TEACHING SUPPORT – Is there a unit offering support to teachers at the institution? If yes, how is it resourced and what activities does it conduct? If not, who is responsible for teaching and learning quality and support to teachers and what SCLT initiatives or activities are promoted? In sum, what support is available to teachers for teaching and learning activities institution-wide and within the individual study programs? – Does teacher support focus on SCLT practices? – Does teacher support include any of the following: (a) conducting professional development workshops for teaching staff on SCLT, (b) involving graduate teaching fellows and undergraduate teaching assistants in teaching support and offer professional development training in SCLT to these students, (c) offering mentorship programs in SCLT, (d) collecting and sharing research and other resources on SCLT, (e) generating new research or offering incentives/support for research into SCLT? – Is there a mandatory teaching preparation program for new faculty or a teaching certification program? If yes, does it ground its methodology on SCLT? – How is effectiveness of teacher support services monitored/measured at the institution? What is the share of all teaching staff that have participated in professional development in teaching and learning? – How is participation in/usage of teaching support incentivized at the institution? III. TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED SCLT – How many study programs or courses within study programs offer online or blended education? What SCLT practices do these programs or courses entail? – What are student enrollments and success rates in these programs? What (academic technology) support is available to students to be able to navigate and fully use these education opportunities? – What technology support is available to all courses/study programs (e.g., course management platforms)? – What training is available for teaching staff to use technology for SCLT? – What incentives for developing technology-enhanced SCLT are available at the institution? IV. ACTIVE LEARNING SPACES – What is the allocation of resources across departments/schools for refurbishing spaces into active learning spaces? How are these spaces maintained? What features do active learning classrooms entail? – How is refurbishing of the learning spaces coordinated? Is it guided by expert interior designers? – Is there a central oversight of the availability of the active learning spaces for use across the institution? – What is the share of available active learning classrooms of all classroom space available? What is the number of laboratories or studios per number of enrolled students in the relevant study programs that utilize laboratory/studio work? – How is the use of or effectiveness of use of active learning spaces monitored and evaluated? V. ACADEMIC LIBRARIES – What types of services does the library offer to students (e.g., online chats, research appointments, group instructions etc.)? – How well resourced are libraries with the latest print and online resources? – Have there been renovations of library spaces to repurpose space from stacks to hold books to also include active learning spaces and other student-centered features or programs? – Have students been involved in the redesign of libraries? – Is there a direct library link between individual courses/study programs and library support? – What are the shared services between libraries and other areas of teaching and learning support? – Is there data collected on library use (both footprint and online) and data on satisfaction with library use by various stakeholders? How is this data used in decisions?

634

Conclusion

Quality of learning and teaching Internal and external quality frameworks constitute structures and processes of monitoring, reporting and enhancing quality at the institutional level. The emphasis is on systematic and objective collection of data that is analyzed and developed into evidence to demonstrate how the HEIs individually and collectively meet specific institutional or system-wide goals concerning education mission and learning and teaching specifically. Furthermore, the purpose of quality frameworks is also to inform decisions and drive processes toward quality enhancement through incentives and training. Finally, participation of students is an indispensable aspect of both the design and implementation of quality frameworks; and that especially in domain of quality of learning and teaching (Klemenčič 2015, 2018). A well-developed internal quality assurance system on teaching and learning is reflected in good institutional data collection and analysis to monitor an institution’s learning and teaching activities at institutional, program and course levels, and student learning outcomes with a feedback loop to the institution’s strategic orientation (Hoidn 2016b; Klemenčič & Brennan 2013; Klemenčič & Ashwin 2015). Evaluating study programs, student services and faculty, as well as monitoring graduates’ career paths are some of the key measures to get feedback on the quality of students’ education from different stakeholders and improve curricula accordingly to increase instructional quality (EUA 2017). The role of the external quality assurance is to develop and oversee the compliance with standards for HEIs and their study programs. Such compliance plays an important role in accreditation of an institution, specialized accreditation of individual units within that institution and of its study programs. Existence of an independent quality assurance and accreditation body is paramount here and its role is not only summative, but also in providing a platform for formative feedback to the institutions as well as for learning communities to share best practices and conduct research into educational innovations. The most developed forms of external higher education quality assurance frameworks target the institution as well as study programs, treat all types of HEIs equally, focus on educational inputs, processes and outputs, make data and findings publicly available to inform student choice and bring transparency to employers, and involve students both in design of quality frameworks and their implementation (World Bank 2016).

Table 37.3 Relevant indicators of Quality of Learning and Teaching – institutional and system levels I. QUALITY ASSURANCE/INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Institutional level – Is there a unit responsible for monitoring and measuring institutional performance of teaching and learning? Is such a unit explicitly committed to SCLT? If yes, how is such a unit supported/assisted/ guided in data collection and analysis? If not, who is responsible for the quality of learning and teaching? – Are students and other stakeholders involved in the design and application of internal quality, i.e., also as consultants and researchers or in interpretation of data? – Which teaching and learning data is collected from: (a) STUDENTS: (1) Student enrollment, retention and graduation rates; related entry and exit tests; graduate career tracking (employability, job retention and salaries) etc. (2) Is such data filtered for trends in gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, disability, student high school achievement/ standardized tests, student high school background and other characteristics relevant to the institutional or system context? (3) Are course evaluations and student engagement surveys conducted? (Continued)

635

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Table 37.3 (Continued) (b) TEACHERS: (1) Are teachers required to submit a detailed course learning and teaching methodology as part of each course design (syllabi) including assessment guides and rubrics to be checked for evidence of SCLT approaches? (2) Are these course design plans (syllabi) publicly available in an open institutional repository? (3) Are teachers required to prepare teaching statements (that would indicate understanding of and commitment to SCLT) (4) Are classes observed or recorded for evaluation? – What other basic or applied institutional research/educational assessment is performed institution-wide or within a study program (e.g., exploring reasons for drop-out or transfer from a study program)? – To whom is data on learning and teaching and SCLT reported and how is it used in decision-making? System level – Is there an independent quality assurance and accreditation body that covers all types of higher education institutions and study programs across the HES? – Do standards and guidelines for quality in higher education include commitment to SCLT? – Do standards and guidelines for quality in higher education refer to all components of the SCEs framework, and take into consideration input and output factors as well as education processes? – Is institutional data on quality of learning and teaching in individual institutions and study programs made publicly available to inform student choice? – Are students and other stakeholders involved in the design and administration of external quality in higher education?

Governance and administration Governance refers to the processes, structures and actors responsible for decisions on the design, implementation and evaluation of SCLT policies (Klemenčič 2016). If the policies define how some authority – institutional leadership, national government or international organization – intends to steer the development of SCLT, then governance refers to who takes decisions on the design of SCLT policies (political and strategic leadership) and who oversees their implementation and evaluation (administrative and operational processes and structures). Strategic leadership and a professional administration (institutional management) are crucial variables if SCLT is to become a daily higher education practice. For the transition from teacher-centered to student-centered practices, the explicit commitment of institutional leaders and – on system level – policy makers and government officials are a necessary even if not a sufficient criterion to achieve such a transition. In addition, the administrative units responsible for policy implementation and monitoring need to be sufficiently resourced. The administrative/management personnel (i.e., higher education professionals within institutions and government officials) also need opportunities for professional development, independent research and exchange of best practices (Hoidn 2016b). Stakeholder participation, especially of academic staff, students, instructional support staff and possibly other stakeholders is essential not only for informed policy making and legitimation of policies and outcomes, but also for effective implementation and evaluation (Klemenčič 2018). Flexible learning provides diverse learners with flexibility in their learning experiences in relation to any of the following: the goals, time and pace, place and mode of delivery, contents, instructional methods and assessment (cf. Ling et al. 2001; Klemenčič 2019). The concrete measures to design flexible learning pathways include structuring study programs into clear units that allow students to move across the programs matched by opportunities for academic credit transfer, recognition of prior learning, flexible provision of classes in terms of time and place 636

Conclusion

and individualized academic support and scaffolding. Relevant provisions here are also those that enable young people that dropped off from higher education to return and complete it. Helping students to make informed decisions through academic guidance, ease of registration procedures and individual academic support (such as tutoring) too are important measures. Finally, community learning connections and partnerships, such as intra-institutional partnerships with research units, entrepreneurship centers and innovation labs (Struthers & Van Arsdale, Chapter 31), and service-learning educational partnerships with local community actors (Winterbottom, Richard & Nicholson, Chapter 17), can all enhance opportunities for problem-based, project-based, research-based, and service-based (engaged scholarship) types of SCLT. The aim here is to develop learning communities and partnerships within the institution (such as with research units, entrepreneurship and innovation units), and with other institutions within the same higher education system or within the same city or region (e.g., to develop joint projects or to allow students to follow courses for credit at different institutions) or with other community partners, such as employers (e.g., to participate in curriculum development and internship schemes or to support student research) and internationally (e.g., through joint degrees, student and staff exchanges, joint projects with other institutions, foreign language training programs).1

Table 37.4 Relevant indicators of Governance and Administration – institutional and system levels I. GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES Institutional level – Which decision-bodies within the institutional governance are specifically responsible for the education mission? Which stakeholders (e.g., students) are represented in these bodies? How are these bodies coordinated along the different levels of institutional governance (from central authority to the departments)? – Which internal administrative processes and structures are responsible for the implementation of learning and teaching policies (i.e., execution of the educational mission)? Do these administrative processes and structures have sufficient and competent human resources to guide, support and monitor the implementation of SCLT policies and do these professionals have direct access to strategic leadership? – Does strategic leadership and administration support and enable institutional learning through opportunities for professional development for staff (e.g., training, professional exchanges), exchange of best practices with peers, professional communities and researchers (e.g., conference attendance) and research into organizational functioning and operations (e.g., support for educational innovation within their own institutions regarding the use of education technologies, digitalization etc.)? – Is there a body responsible for academic integrity and ethical conduct and for students’ rights (ombudsman)? System level – How is the governance of the higher education mission (learning and teaching in higher education) organized on system level? Which are the central authority units (political level)? Which are the central administrative units (technical level)? Who is represented in the system-level decision bodies responsible for learning and teaching? Do these decision bodies involve stakeholder representatives including students? – How is governance of education mission coordinated horizontally with other higher education (or other) governance structures and vertically with governance structures at different levels of higher education governance? – Do administrative processes and structures have sufficient and competent human resources to guide, support and monitor the implementation of SCLT policies on the system level? Do they have direct access to political leadership and are they supported by political leadership? – Do government officials responsible for learning and teaching (education mission) have opportunities for professional development, research and exchange of best practices with peers from other countries, stakeholder representatives and researchers within policy communities on learning and teaching in higher education? – Is there a system-level body for grievance procedures in higher education, including on questions of academic integrity, ethical conduct, discrimination and sexual harassment or sexual assault in higher education (e.g., an ombudsman’s office and or student complains office)?

(Continued)

637

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Table 37.4 (Continued) II. STRATEGIC/POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Institutional/system level – Do institutional leadership (e.g., university presidents or rectors, provosts, deans and departmental chairs), government officials, politicians responsible for higher education (e.g., in relevant parliamentary committees) explicitly express their commitment to strengthen the teaching mission and recognize SCLT approaches as synonymous with excellence in teaching and learning? – Do representatives of teachers (e.g., faculty councils, teacher trade unions) and students (e.g., student councils) explicitly express their commitment to strengthen the teaching mission and recognize SCLT approaches as synonymous with excellence in teaching and learning? III. FLEXIBLE LEARNING PATHWAYS Institutional/system level – Which flexible learning pathways exist within the institution or the higher education system: (a) interdisciplinary or self-designed study programs, (b) elective and interdisciplinary courses, (c) flexible entry routes to the study programs, (d) flexible delivery modes through part-time, open and blended learning provisions? – Are there provisions for recognition of prior learning and credit transfer? – Are study programs modularized to enable mobility across programs? – Is there academic guidance and academic support available? Are there specific provisions for returning students or those at risk to drop out? – Are policies in place that enable flexible and permeable higher education and training systems and is there support available to higher education institutions to design flexible learning pathways between institutions and or study programs? IV. COMMUNITY LEARNING CONNECTIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS Institutional/system level – What types of community connections or explicit partnerships to enhance teaching and learning (and advance SCLT) exist on the institutional level, for example: (a) intra-institutional partnerships with research units, (b) entrepreneurship centers, (c) innovation labs, (d) service-learning educational partnerships with local community actors, (e) institutional programs and initiatives for practitioners to spend time at the institution as visiting scholars and engage in research and teaching? – What types of system-wide partnerships between higher education institutions, independent research centers, industry and nonprofit sectors exist within the higher education system? – Are there inter-institutional domestic and/or international partnerships in teaching and learning (through bilateral partnerships or university alliances) on the institutional level and support for these on the system level, for example: (a) joint degree programs, (b) student and staff exchanges, (c) joint projects related to the advancement of teaching and learning, (SCLT) practice and policy, (d) sharing of teaching and learning support or resources (e.g., joint online learning platforms, joint library resources)?

Policies and finance Higher education policies are the guiding frameworks or roadmaps that depict the collective values and political vision on the goals and specific objectives of teaching and learning, actions and actors to achieve these objectives, the evaluation and the timeline of the policy. Higher education policies on SCLT can be self-standing or part of the broader higher education landscape (or other) policies. They are developed by responsible higher education authorities at different levels of higher education governance: institutional, system (national) or sub-system (regional) or by intermediary national bodies (such as quality assurance and accreditation agencies or funding councils or national stakeholder associations) and supranational level as in the case of international organizations (Echazarra & Mostafa, Chapter 36) or intergovernmental policy processes (e.g., Bologna Process in Europe) or international professional organizations. One of the key 638

Conclusion

challenges concerning policies is policy coordination in the sense of purposefully aligning institutional policies or combining these within an overarching policy in order to be able to achieve the targeted objectives (Scott 2017). Another challenge is rigorous and systematic data collection and analyses that yield evidence for policy making. Institutional policies come in the form of mission statements and strategies and are prepared by institutional leaders and offices responsible for academic affairs. They also include institutional rules, regulations and incentives – as expressions of collective values and norms – on hiring, promotion, remuneration, workload and professional development of academic teaching staff, graduate teaching fellows and undergraduate teaching assistants as well as teaching support staff and whether these rules and regulations include criteria related to SCLT (Klemenčič 2019). Incentives can also include educationally purposeful internships, paid work and volunteer opportunities for students in administration, quality and/or support of SCLT. Furthermore, rules and regulations concerning student conduct that set clear expectations for students to take responsibility for their learning (Blumberg 2019) and become self-regulated and autonomous learners (Hoidn & Reusser, Chapter 1; Klemenčič, Chapter 5) are as important aspect of normative SCLT environments as are the expectations concerning students’ academic integrity and ethical behavior in education processes. On the national level, the higher education policies can take several forms: legislation, strategy, regulative instruments for accreditation and evaluation and funding instruments. Typically, national policies comprise the description of policy context, benchmarking to similar or best-performing countries, then followed by objectives, instruments to achieve them, a timeline and concrete indicators to evaluate policy implementation (e.g., Irish National Higher Education Strategy 2030).2 International higher education policies come in the form of commitments, guidelines and recommendations which are voluntary rather than having direct legislative effects on the member countries (Echazarra & Mostafa, Chapter 36). They may be accompanied by regulatory and/or funding instruments which typically deem implementation more likely. The ministerial communiqués of the European Higher Education Area are a notable example of policy documents that explicitly introduce SCLT as a policy objective along with the European Standards and Guidelines on Quality Assurance in European Higher Education (ESG 2015) as a supranational regulatory instrument and complementary funding instruments developed by the European Commission (Klemenčič 2017). Public funding is used to steer higher education toward the agreed policy goals and objectives, including financing the implementation of SCLT as a specific objective within the broader goal of the enhancement of the educational mission. This can be done through incentiveor performance-based funding instruments that link the funding formula to the reform and performance (educational outcomes) measures in SCLT. Agreements with the institutions to implement specific reform measures in learning and teaching practice are necessary for more wide-reaching changes. Such reforms can be reinforced through funding incentives for basic and applied research into SCLT and educational innovation.

Table 37.5 Relevant indicators of Policies and Finance – institutional and system levels I. POLICIES – POLICY DOCUMENTS: Is there an institution-wide/departmental/system-wide higher education policy (self-standing or part of broader policy documents) with explicit commitment to SCLT as one of the priority objectives? Does the policy contain an implementation strategy? (Continued)

639

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Table 37.5 (Continued) – EVIDENCE FOR POLICY MAKING: What data (evidence) on SCLT is referred to in policies and gathered to support policy development and monitoring implementation? – POLICY COORDINATION/INTEGRATION: Are policies and strategies on SCLT integrated horizontally with other higher education (or other) policies and aligned vertically with policies at different levels of higher education governance? – SCLT PROGRAMS/INITIATIVES: Do there exist specific institutional programs or initiatives on advancement of SCLT? – RULES, REGULATIONS & INCENTIVES FOR TEACHING STAFF: Do rules and regulations on hiring, promotion, remuneration, workload and professional development of academic teaching staff and graduate teaching fellows, undergraduate teaching assistants and teaching support staff (e.g., instructional designers, learning technology experts, librarians) include SCLT criteria, such as submission of teaching portfolios (complete course design (syllabi), assessment guides and rubrics checking for evidence of SCLT approaches, teaching statement expressing understanding of, and commitment to, SCLT and (if applicable) certification from professional development programs in SCLT in higher education), etc.? – Are there opportunities/incentives for paid and volunteer service work for students in administration, quality and support of SCLT (e.g., as peer tutors, librarians, interns in teaching support units)? – RULES, REGULATIONS & INCENTIVES FOR STUDENTS: Do guidelines for student conduct (e.g., student handbooks) set expectations for students to take responsibility for learning and develop as self-regulated and autonomous learners? – Are there clear guidelines regarding the expectations of students’ academic integrity and ethical behavior in education processes? II. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS. – PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDING: Is implementation of SCLT approaches in study programs included as a performance indicator in performance-based funding? – PROJECT FUNDING: Is there project funding available for advancement of SCLT practices (e.g., for professional development training in SCLT and other policy learning/networking/multiplier events; prizes for excellence in student-centered teaching and course development; purchase of educational technologies supporting SCLT and academic learning spaces remodeling for active learning)? III. RESEARCH FUNDING: Is there research funding available for basic and applied research into SCLT and educational innovation?

Summary Reforms of higher education toward student-centered learning and teaching are a considerable task. The contributions in this Handbook speak of the potential and the benefits of such reforms to deepen students’ learning. They also speak of the challenges of bringing about such reforms. This concluding chapter began with the questions: How can higher education through their education mission best serve its students and the knowledge societies of the 21st century? What kind of learning and teaching policies and practice do we need? How can we support the development of such learning and teaching in higher education? In our attempt to answer these questions we move beyond the studentcentered classroom acknowledging that SCLT processes are embedded in and enabled by broader institutional (and national and supranational) environments that consist of a variety of components and elements – both human and material which constitute student-centered ecosystems (SCEs). We introduce the SCEs framework consisting of five components: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, (2) teaching and learning support, (3) quality of learning and teaching, (4) 640

Conclusion

governance and administration and (5) policies and finance. Each of these components collectively – in an aligned and mutually reinforcing way – constitute SCEs and, if implemented properly, enable SCLT. Drawing on the contributions in his Handbook and our own research, we developed a set of indicators that can help us evaluate the presence of SCLT in a given institution, study program, course or higher education system. In the epilogue, we propose a set of implications and recommendations for policy and practice that follow from our findings and can assist higher education stakeholders to transfer their courses, programs, HEIs and HES to become more student-centered (Hoidn, Epilogue).

Notes 1 See, for example, the European Union’s Erasmus+ initiative “European Universities.” Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-education-area/europeanuniversities-initiative_en, retrieved November 20, 2019. 2 Retrieved from https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/National-Strategy-for-Higher-Education2030.pdf on November 20, 2019.

References Anderson L.W. & Krathwohl D.R. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New York. APA – American Psychological Association Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997) Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Ashwin P. (2020) How student-centered learning and instruction can obscure the importance of knowledge in educational processes and why it matters. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 4. Barr R.B. & Tagg J. (1995) From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 13–23. Retrieved from www.esf.edu/openacademy/tlc/documents/FromTeachingToL earningANewParadigmforUndergraduateEducation.pdf on 20 October 2019. Biggs J.B. (2012) What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development 31(1), 39–55. Bloom B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay Co Inc., New York. Blumberg P. (2019) Making Learning-Centered Teaching Work: Practical Strategies for Implementation. Stylus, Sterling, VA. Brenner T.J., Beaver A., Kuzmick M., Pollock P. & Lue R.A. (2020) Partners in creating student-centered learning: Case study of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 23. Briskin J. & Land S.M. (2020) Student-centered virtual design studio environments. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 19. Brodsky J.E. & Brooks P.J. (2020) Student-centered approaches to fostering media literacy in college students. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 8. Carter K. & Aulette J. (2020) Finding our way to more student-centered teaching in Namibia: The case of the postgraduate certificate in higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 26. Chang Y., Hill J. & Hannafin M. (2020) Emerging trends to foster student-centered learning in the disciplines: science, engineering, computing and medicine. In Routledge International Handbook on StudentCentered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 12.

641

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Dakovic G. & Zhang T. (2020) Student-centered learning from a European policy and practice perspective. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 34. Di Napoli R. & Geertsema J. (2020) A workshop as a lever for pedagogical change? The case of active learning: From practice to theory, and back. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 28. Doyle T. & Doyle B.M. (2020) Learning and teaching in harmony with the brain: Insights from neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 5. Duncan T.A & Buskirk-Cohen A. (2020) Cautiously independent: How student-centered learning encourages emerging adults to take risks. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 7. Duraisingh E.A. (2020) Promoting engagement, understanding, and critical awareness: Tapping the potential of peer-to-peer student-centered learning experiences in higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Instruction in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 6. Echazarra A. & Mostafa T. (2020) What PISA tells us about student-centered teaching and student outcomes. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 36. Ellis S.E., Warden C.H. & Brown H. (2020) Transitioning from instructor-centered to student-centered learning: Case study of the U.S. air force technical training organizations. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 25. European University Association (EUA) (2017) Enhancing the Education Mission of European Universities: A Proactive Response to Change. European Principles for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. EUA, Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/default-document-library/web_effect-principlesone-pager16102017.pdf?sfvrsn=2 on 20 November 2019. Finkelstein A. & Winer L. (2020) Active learning anywhere: A principled-based approach to designing learning spaces. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 18. Gheyssens E., Griful-Freixenet J. & Struyven K. (2020) Differentiated instruction as a student-centered teaching approach in teacher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 14. Gover A. & Loukkola T. (2018) Enhancing quality: From policy to practice. The EQUIP Project: Enhancing Quality through Innovative Policy & Practice. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/resources/ publications/322:enhancing-quality-from-policy-to-practice.html on 7 December 2018. Hoidn S. (2016a) The pedagogical concept of student-centred learning in the context of European higher education reforms. European Scientific Journal (ESJ) 12(28), 439–458. Hoidn S. (2016b) Student-Centred Learning in the Context of European Higher Education Reforms. White paper. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/337858442_Student-centred_learning_in_the_ context_of_European_higher_education_reform Hoidn S. (2017a) Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Hoidn S. (2017b). Student-Centred Learning Environments for Deeper Learning in Higher Education Classrooms. Habilitation thesis. University of Zurich, Zurich. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/profile/ Sabine_Hoidn3/publication/335947185_Student-Centred_Learning_Environments_for_Deeper_ Learning_in_Higher_Education_Classrooms/links/5d84f0b7299bf1996f82ab4c/Student-CentredLearning-Environments-for-Deeper-Learning-in-Higher-Education-Classrooms.pdf Hoidn S. (2019, November 07) Student-Centered Learning and Teaching. Invited presentation at the VIII International Bologna Conference “European Integration of Ukraine’ Higher Education in the Context of the Bologna Process: Student-Centered Learning and Teaching, Evaluation as Part of QA in HE.” Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. Hoidn S. (2020) Usable knowledge: Policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

642

Conclusion Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M. (2020) Introduction. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Introduction. Hoidn S. & Reusser K. (2020) Foundations of student-centered learning and instruction. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 1. Kember D. (1997) A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275. Kember D. (2020) Implementing a university-wide evaluation system to promote student-centered learning. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 31. Kessler A. & Robinson S. (2020) Flipping the delivery of course content in an advanced physics lab setting. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 21. Klemenčič M. (2015) Student involvement in quality enhancement. In The Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. (Huisman J., de Boer H., Dill D. & Souto-Otero M., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York, NY, pp. 526–543. Klemenčič M. (2016) Chapter 1: The role of institutional research in positioning universities: Practices in Central and Eastern European countries (EAIR 2015 keynote). In Positioning Universities. (Prichard R., Taylor J. & Pausits A., eds.), Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 3–18. Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 30(1), 69–85. Klemenčič M. (2018) The student voice in quality assessment and improvement. In Research Handbook on Quality, Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. (Hazelkorn E., Coates H. & McCormick A., eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 332–343. Klemenčič M. (2019, June 25) Successful Design of Student-Centered Learning and Instruction (SCLI) Ecosystems in the European Higher Education Area. Keynote delivered in June 2019 at the 20th Anniversary of the Bologna Process. Retrieved from http://bolognaprocess2019.it/speaker-presentations/manjaklemencic/ on 25 November 2019. Klemenčič M. (2020) Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 5. Klemenčič M. & Ashwin P. (2015) Teaching and learning. In Future of Higher Education in Europe. (Pricopie R., Scott P., Salmi J. & Curaj A., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 323–332. Klemenčič M. & Brennan J. (2013) Institutional research in a European context: A forward look. European Journal of Higher Education 3(3), 265–279. Klemenčič M., Pupinis M. & Kirdulytė G. (2020) Mapping and analysis of student-centred learning and teaching practices: usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ 4cce61a7-6736-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-121835282 Langworthy M., Shear L. & Means B. (2010) The third lever: Innovative teaching and learning research. In OECD, Inspired by Technology, Driven by Pedagogy. OECD, Paris, pp. 105–124. Ling P., Arger G., Smallwood H., Toomey R., Kirkpatrick D. & Barnard I. (2001) The Effectiveness of Models of Flexible Provision of Higher Education. Retrieved from www.dest.gov.au/highered/eippubs/eip01_9/ default.htm on 30 November 2019. Maris M. (2020) Effectiveness of a flipped classroom approach when teaching lab-based techniques. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 22. Matthews M. (2020) Philosophical problems with constructivism: some considerations for student-centered learning and teaching. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 2. McCarthy L. & Deslauriers L. (2020) Transforming a large university physics course to student-centered learning, without sacrificing content: A case study. In Routledge International Handbook on StudentCentered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 10. McKenna S. & Quinn L. (2020) Misapplications of student-centered approaches. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 3.

643

Manja Klemenčič and Sabine Hoidn Middendorf J. & Pace D. (2004) Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2004(98), 1–12. Motschnig R. & Cornelius-White J.H.D. (2020) Person-centered theory and practice: Small versus large student-centered courses. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 15. Ng Lee Yen Abdullah M. (2020) Student-centered philosophies, principles and policy developments in Asian higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 36. Pham T.H.T. (2020) Enhancing Asian students’ engagement by incorporating Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources in teaching and learning. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 9. Revuluri S. (2020) Student-centered learning and instruction: Lessons from academic support. In Routledge Internatinal Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 24. Schell J. & Martin R. (2020) The powerful role of testing in student-centered learning and instruction in higher education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 11. Schneider M. & Preckel F. (2017) Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 143, 565–600. Scott P. (2017) Policy process in higher education. In International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. (Teixeira P. & Shin J.C., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–6. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (2015) Brussels, Belgium. Struthers D. & VanArsdale R. (2020) The connected curriculum framework: Case study of University College London. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 30. Sugino C. (2020) Using role-play in a political science course at a Japanese women’s university. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn and Klemenčič, eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 17. Šušnjar A. & Hovhannisyan G. (2020) Bridging the policy-practice gap: Student-centered learning from the students’ perspective. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 33. Tagg J. (2019) The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education Is Hard to Change, and How to Change It. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Toetenel L. & Rienties B. (2020) The virtuous circle of learning design and learning analytics to develop student-centered online education. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 20. Vedantham A. (2020) Student-centered libraries: Changing both expectations and results. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 27. Vistro-Yu M., Gonzalez C.T. & Cuyegkeng M.A.C. (2020) Building a student-centered organizational culture: Case study of Ateneo de Manila University. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 29. Vithal R. (2018) Growing a scholarship of teaching and learning institutionally. Studies in Higher Education 43(3), 468–483. Whitney J.C. (2020) Student-centered learning through the lens of universal design for learning: lessons from university and k-12 classrooms. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 13. Winterbottom C., Richard D.F. & Nicholson J.S. (2020) Student-centered learning: Investigating the impact of community-based transformational learning experiences on university students. In Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Hoidn S. & Klemenčič M., eds.), Routledge, Abingdon, UK. Chapter 16. World Bank (2016) What Matters Most for Tertiary Education Systems: A Framework Paper. SABER Working Paper Series Number 11. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

644

EPILOGUE Usable knowledge – policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education Sabine Hoidn

This Handbook argues toward a vision of higher education that incorporates student-centered ecosystems as an overarching framework for learning and teaching within higher education systems, higher education institutions, study programs and individual courses. The framework contains five main components or ecosystems: (1) curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, (2) learning and teaching support, (3) governance and administration, (4) quality of learning and teaching and (5) policies and finance. The framework grew out of this Handbook which aims to rethink higher education learning and teaching offering new insights into the roots and the latest thinking, practices and evidence surrounding SCLT in higher education. How can SCLT be strengthened in policy, practice and research? The following implications and recommendations based on this Handbook are introduced to assist policy makers, HEIs, institutional leaders, administrators, program developers, faculty, students and other stakeholders in transforming their courses, programs, HEIs and HESs to become more student-centered.

Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment •

•

•

Change toward student-centered conceptions of teaching on the part of instructors in that the teacher’s role shifts from mainly imparting knowledge to guiding students in their learning. Studentcentered instructors position students with agency as accountable authors, active and vocal participants in social interactions, and responsible co-designers of the educational agenda. Ensure that students understand what is expected of them so that they can take responsibility for their learning (e.g., by explaining why certain methods are used, communicating the value of deep learning) since students’ actual learning outcomes also depend on the extent to which students leverage the learning opportunities provided by the instructor, i.e., the students are responsible for the active uptake of those opportunities. Promote students’ meaningful engagement with disciplinary content by providing them with discipline-specific conceptual frameworks and ways of thinking to help students to make sense of and acquire the habits of mind of the discipline they are studying. Relevant and academically challenging disciplinary knowledge connects to both the students’ lived experiences and discipline-specific real-world problems and thus has the potential to stimulate student motivation, thinking and problem-solving.

645

Sabine Hoidn

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Focus on what students will be able to do with what they know, not merely on what they know and understand. Learning outcomes express the level of competence attained by the student and may involve cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, social and behavioral learning outcomes (e.g., critical thinking, reflection, problem-solving, learning to learn skills such as monitoring, evaluating, transfer, persistence) related to disciplinary content and to the goals of the educational program. The instructor’s role remains crucial in that they design and enact learning environments that support deeper learning. In a student-centered classroom, instructors provide adaptive instructional support with regard to both (1) scaffolding participatory processes of knowledge (co-)construction and (2) cultivating a safe and supportive climate of thinking, dialogue and cooperation. Empirical research shows that not primarily the teaching method or social form or media used in the classroom but how they are implemented and whether effective teacher behaviors are enacted is crucial for student learning. Design open-ended tasks/assignments for deeper learning, that is, authentic and intellectually challenging tasks that afford students with opportunities for conceptual agency and productive talk and thus have the potential to motivate and cognitively activate them. Thereby, the assignments need to be designed in a way so that they align learning outcomes, teaching/ learning methods and assessment. Apply more student-centered instructional practices that take the disciplinary content, the intended outcomes and students’ prior knowledge and interests into account and use new information technologies thoughtfully. Instructional practices have to be carefully selected, depending on whether new knowledge is to be transmitted to the students, developed in dialogue with the students or co-constructed independently by the students. Implement assessment practices that emphasize sense making and allow students to demonstrate their different (mis)understandings and learn from mistakes to achieve mastery of the intended objectives. Ongoing (formative) assessment can tap understanding by helping to make students’ thinking visible and by providing tailored, authentic, informative, constructive and timely feedback (instructor, peers, self) that keeps students thinking. Clear and objective assessment criteria indicate to students when they have reached the goals of the course and allow them to experience ownership and a greater sense of control over their learning processes. Create a safe and supportive climate of thinking, dialogue and cooperation which involves facilitating an intellectual climate of active sense making characterized by a “thinking culture” with students sharing tentative thoughts and reasons for their answers. Norms of interaction and knowledge construction can forward a sense of belonging and community, establish a positive and embracing atmosphere in class, distribute authority in the classroom, reduce the fear to participate and invite a variety of voices. Make students co-designers of the educational agenda in that they have a say regarding course policies, learning outcomes, teaching/learning methods, assignments, assessment methods, deadlines and so forth. Instructors also inform curricular, pedagogical and assessment decisions by their own noticings, classroom experiences and reflections as well as evaluations and feedback from students. This way students experience that they can do something to change and modify their learning environment. Specify how SCLT can be used in different disciplines and cultural contexts studying the effectiveness of specific curricular design elements and instructional practices in different institutional and cultural contexts including barriers, drivers and challenges of student-centered learning environments.

646

Epilogue

Learning and teaching support to facilitate SCLT implementation •

•

•

•

Provide a coherent institutional offer of student services, i.e., learner support, to cater to an increasingly diversified student body (e.g., counseling and tutoring provisions, curricular orientations, writing centers, libraries, career service) to widen access, improve student retention, prepare students for employment and support their entry into the labor market (e.g., study path choices). For example, student-centered libraries can assist students in finding and selecting sources for their studies and thus, help them to foster their information literacy skills, research skills and information and communication technologies skills. Provide more systematic teacher support and professional development opportunities for teaching staff as well as training for graduate students and undergraduate teaching assistants by offering pedagogical training, coaching and mentoring throughout their careers. This way teachers can expand their knowledge and pedagogical skills, and are able to apply and reflect upon innovative teaching methods and practices conducive to SCLT. Continuous professional development requires adequate working conditions, teaching workloads and an institutional culture that values innovation of learning and teaching, and experimentation. Learning technology infrastructure such as online courses (e.g., MOOCs), blended learning formats, the ubiquitous use of mobile devices, videoconferencing, classroom response systems, learning platforms, social media (e.g., blogs, GoogleDocs), gaming and artificial intelligence tutors can support active learning pedagogies. Technology-enhanced learning environments allow students to find information using a variety of sources, offer flexible delivery modes that provide students with choice, support personalized learning, and create an interactive classroom environment. Build active learning spaces (e.g., flexible learning spaces with movable furniture, writing surfaces and integrated information technologies, acoustics and lighting, air quality, temperature and ventilation) designed to encourage cognitively active learning. These spaces allow instructors and students to transition seamlessly between different social forms such as small group activities, lectures or student presentations. The flexible layout enables greater circulation around the room and thus, facilitates better interaction and collaboration between teacher and students.

Governance and administration to implement policies on SCLT •

•

•

Strategic leadership and a professional internal management have set clear expectations and put necessary resources, structures and processes in place for the implementation of the policies on SCLT as well as for the guidance, support and monitoring of the implementation. Governance structures and processes need to be coordinated horizontally with other areas of operation (such as research) and vertically along all governance levels. Make quality education a core mission and responsibility and develop a clear understanding of the SCLT approach and a strategy for the support and ongoing improvement of the quality of SCLT. The strategy also has to take account of societal developments and trends, changes in the goals and purposes of higher education and advances in research on learning and teaching and requires a change of mindset with regard to the prioritization of academic learning and teaching in comparison to research. Create new institutes or centers or departments for teaching and learning to facilitate in-house discussions, research and training, and the cooperation among instructors with regard to the design, development and delivery of curricula as well as the assessment of student

647

Sabine Hoidn

•

•

•

performance. These departments have to embark on national and international cooperation and the generation and dissemination of pedagogical research and good practices to continuously improve the quality of teaching and learning. Allow for flexible learning pathways by broadening the curriculum to include elective courses, and enabling flexible entry routes to the study programs, as well as flexible delivery modes through part-time, distance and e-learning provision, for example. Flexible learning pathways allow diverse learners to adapt their learning pathways to suit their interests, capabilities and needs in relation to the goals, time, place, content, instructional methods and modes of delivery. Flexible learning pathways provide students with choices about what, how, when and where they study. Strengthen community learning connections and partnerships with research, entrepreneurship and with the local community and businesses (e.g., service-learning courses, universitycommunity partnerships, internship or field experience) to feed developments in the labor market, in research and in society back into curricula. Faculty exchanges, including practical experiences and practitioners in courses, study and training periods abroad and consultings with employers and labor market institutions can make programs more relevant to emerging labor market requirements and thus, foster employability. Involve student representatives and other stakeholders (e.g., employers) in institutional governance, quality assurance and curriculum design to increase accountability. The involvement of students as program committee members at the early stage of curricular design across all disciplines, for example, can make sure that students’ experiences, views and (mis)conceptions are taken into account to enhance the usefulness of higher education curricula. HEIs can also solicit student and alumni feedback through surveys, focus groups, complaint offices or town hall meetings, and allow students to serve as tutors in teaching and learning centers, libraries or technology support, for example.

Improving SCLT quality •

•

•

•

Establish internal and external quality assurance to monitor and manage quality at the institutional level by collecting and analyzing institutional data. Evaluating study programs, student services and faculty, as well as monitoring graduates’ career paths are measures to get feedback on the quality of students’ education from different stakeholders (including external quality assurance bodies and accreditation agencies) and improve curricula accordingly to increase instructional quality and foster truly student-centered HEIs. HEIs and quality assurance agencies should take into account the growing importance of empirical research about the quality and effectiveness of SCLT for high-quality higher education, i.e., the scholarship of teaching and learning as well as lighthouse projects on innovative teaching. Research on classroom learning and teaching indicates that SCLT have the potential to establish deeper or more meaningful learning and should be taken into account when designing learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body. Recognize teaching excellence by rewarding and publishing exemplary teaching scholarship and practice including efforts of instructors who steer the SCL approach forward and give awardees opportunities to share good classroom examples and innovative learning practices in order to stimulate the adoption of innovative and good practices in curriculum design and instruction. Use learning and teaching analytics to inform and improve institutional and classroom practices with regard to learning and teaching, decision-making and the allocation of resources. Thereby analytics encompass processes of collecting, evaluating, analyzing and reporting 648

Epilogue

qualitative and/or quantitative organizational data to improve learning and teaching. Data analytics allow HEIs, leaders, administrators and faculty to better plan and enact strategies on the institutional, program and course level.

Policies and finance to promote SCLT •

•

•

•

•

•

Country representatives, educators and policy makers communicate a clear vision for strengthening learning and teaching quality in higher education based on the principles of a student-centered approach to learning and teaching in order for the students to develop knowledge, skills and competences for lifelong learning, social engagement, employment and innovation. Education ministers together with other stakeholders develop a strategy to implement SCLT policy into practice. Commitment of all actors in higher education to become lifelong learning organizations – as governments, HEIs, stakeholder associations or advocacy groups – to continually enable learning and professional development of their own personnel, support research into their own functioning and operations, and periodically reflect on and further revise structures and procedures to make them more learning-centered and to adapt to new trends and developments such as digitalization which affects all aspects of higher education. Policies are evidence-based, supporting data collection and analyses to assist policy-decisions, and coordinated and integrated horizontally with other public and institutional policies and vertically across all levels of governance for a concerted effort to achieve desired policy outcomes. Prepare strategy documents that also include benchmarks to best performing countries or institutions, objectives aligned with the overall vision, instruments and responsible authorities and individuals to achieve the objectives, a timeline and concrete indicators to evaluate policy implementation. Diversify funding sources and expand performance-based funding in that a share of funding is allocated according to pre-defined performance or output criteria (e.g., evaluation or certification results, national ranking systems, incentive for teaching innovations, performance agreements) to implement SCL across HEIs and HESs and improve the overall quality of higher education programs. Implement institutional employment policies aligned with the institution’s student-centered teaching mission with regard to selecting, hiring, remunerating and promoting academic staff (e.g., proof of teaching skills from job applicants, attractive tenure opportunities).

649

INDEX

Note: page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. academic achievement 3, 18, 22, 174, 256, 311, 632; foundations of SCLT 38, 40n10 academic advising 96, 104, 414–416, 632 academic knowledge 22, 67–71, 70, 523 academic leaders 507–508 academic learning 514, 515, 633, 639–640, 648 academic libraries 456–458, 462, 469, 633 academic performance 178–179, 179, 599–600 academic support 414–422, 461–462, 636–637, 637–638 accountability 249, 510–511 active classroom 187, 191–192, 193, 198 active engagement 26–27, 112, 222, 223–225, 248–250, 249 active learning 8–9, 475–476, 630–631; Asian higher education 584, 586, 588–589, 591–592; Asian students’ engagement 173; choice architecture 329–332; communitybased transformational learning 298; cultural change 486–487; educational change at St. George’s, University of London 479–480, 480; a European policy and practice perspective 574–576; foundations of student-centered learning and teaching 18, 23; institutional change 485–486; institutional drivers 476–478; how learning spaces can support active learning 332–340; open education and 30–32; reception and perceptions of workshop 483–485; roleplay 307–309, 319–320; stages 480–483; student-centered online education 363; within the student-centered paradigm 476; students as actors and agents 94; testing 203; transforming lectures 191–194, 193; universitywide evaluation system 534–571, 535–536;

why active learning 327–329; workshop on the efficacy of 392–394; see also active learning (case studies); active learning classrooms; active learning experience; active learning principles; active learning spaces; active learning strategies active learning (case studies): connected curriculum framework 522; Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University 401–402, 409; large university physics course at Harvard University 186–191, 196–199; MITx residential platform 378–380; Namibia 448–449; studentcentered organizational culture at Manila University 493–494; US Air Force 430, 433, 435, 437; active learning classrooms at McGill University 327–344 active learning classrooms (ALCs) 327, 330–332, 331, 336–341, 469, 633–634 active learning experience 291, 348, 494, 630 active learning principles 483–484 active learning spaces 24, 459–460, 633–634, 633, 647; see also Technology Enabled Active Learning Spaces (TEAL) active learning strategies 2, 225, 227, 376, 417–418, 445 active listening 273, 275, 284, 286 Active Organizational Learning 476, 487 active participation: Asian higher education 582; bridging the policy-practice gap 545; case study 494; foundations of student-centered learning and teaching 23, 30, 34, 37, 39; misconceptions and misapplications 116; person-centered theory and practice 270, 274, 281; role-play 307, 310, 315, 319; students as actors and agents 94

650

Index administration 93–94, 98–99, 102–105, 536–537, 627–630; and governance 636–638, 637–640, 647–648; students’ sense of agency and efficacy 101 adult education 32–33 advising 102–104, 414–416, 422, 534, 632 andragogy 24, 32–34 approach(es) to learning 8, 33–34, 649; Asian higher education 584, 591; Asian students’ engagement 171–172; bridging the policypractice gap 546, 555; case study 424, 440, 510; differentiated instruction 254; a European policy and practice perspective 563, 566, 566; the importance of knowledge in educational processes 65; misconceptions and misapplications 115; peer-to-peer 124; roleplay 321; student-centered virtual design studio environments 346; students as actors and agents 94, 98; surface and deep approaches to learning 37–38; university-wide evaluation system 528; see also students’ approaches to learning (SAL) approach(es) to teaching 33, 39; active learning 478, 488; Asian higher education 582, 591; and the brain 86–88; bridging the policypractice gap 554; case study 187, 402, 450; differentiated instruction 254; media literacy 154; misconceptions and misapplications 115; peer-to-peer 135; PISA 597; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 327; relationship between beliefs about teaching and 529–530; university-wide evaluation system 530–531 assessment 2–6, 627–628, 628, 630–632, 631–632, 633–635, 645–646; active learning 480–481; Asian higher education 590; Asian students’ engagement 182–183; bridging the policypractice gap 548–549, 559n2; case study 435–437, 446–447, 494–498, 498, 500–501, 505–506, 514–516, 514, 518–519; a European policy and practice perspective 565–569, 576–577; flipped classroom approach 394–396, 395; foundations of student-centered learning and teaching 22–23, 35–36; of learning outcomes 571; lessons from academic support 419; person-centered theory and practice 276–284; in PGCHE courses 448; principlebased approach to designing learning spaces 329; and risk-taking 144–146; student-centered online education 364–365, 365, 367–372; students as actors and agents 97–98; universal design for learning 237–240, 242, 248–249; university-wide evaluation system 533–535, 535; see also Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education (AHELO); Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessment practices 5–6, 19, 519, 577, 584, 631–632, 646

assignment(s) 97–98, 645–646; case study 195–196, 405–408; community-based transformational learning 295–297; differentiated instruction 258–259; lessons from academic support 417–418; media literacy 163–166, 166; and risk-taking 145–147; science, engineering, computing and medicine 223–225; student-centered virtual design studio environments 350–358; universal design for learning 243–245 attachment 147–148; secure attachment and learning 141–143 attention 158, 161–162, 249–250, 319–321, 465–469; getting and keeping attention 82–83; illusions of 156 authority 488, 589, 636–637, 637–638; authority figure 246, 414, 478, 581–582, 592 autonomy 27–28, 142–143, 401–402, 521–522; Asian higher education 583–584, 586–588, 586–587; students’ autonomy 93, 96–97, 225 backward design 402, 411; and transparency 406–407 barriers 244–245, 250, 451–453, 556–558, 589–590 behavioral activity 30–31 blended classroom(s) 269–271 blended learning 24, 361, 380, 391, 637–638, 544 Bologna Process (BP) 19, 32, 517, 524n1, 562–564, 567–568; bridging the policy-practice gap 543–549; student-centered learning in policies of 545–546; students as actors and agents 103–104 brain 7, 18, 88, 202–206; and the beginnings of student-centered teaching 75–77; checking prior knowledge 83; chunking information 87–88; control of the learning process 81; feedback 83–84; getting and keeping attention 82–83; helping students prepare their brains for learning 84–86; how to teach in harmony with the brain 80–88; movement and learning 81; using a multisensory approach to teaching 86–87; what we know about how students learn 78–80 case studies 186–188, 199, 235–236, 376–378, 383–387, 401–402, 410–411, 424–425, 435–441, 491–492, 501–508, 510, 521–524; architecture of a student-centered virtual design studio 350–358; Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) context 492–494; the challenge of creating student-centered classrooms 402–405; characteristics of existing lecture course 189–191; context 236–237; curricular transformation 380–382; description of junior lab 378–380; the EHEA context 510–512; embracing change with curriculum design 512–513; establishing

651

Index SCL in the Loyola Schools’ classrooms 495–497; goals of course transformation 188–189; historical instructional approaches in technical training 430–431; hybrid design of MOOC content and formal accreditation 369–372, 370–371; impact on faculty colleagues 198–199; implementation 520–521; implications for higher education instruction 250–252; improved student attitudes 197–198; increased student learning 196–197; institutionalization of SCL 497–501; large course on project management 278–287; overview of connected curriculum 513–514; personal rewards of teaching actively engaged students 198; programs and solutions 405–410; SCL and UDL in high school classrooms 244–250; SCL and UDL in the university classroom 238–244; seminar on communication and teamwork 272–278, 286–287; six dimensions of the Connected Curriculum framework 514–516; StudentCentered Instruction Workshop creation and design 425–430; teacher education 144–149, 145; transforming homework to include deliberate practice 194–196; transforming lectures to hybrid style of active learning 191–194; Univeristy College London (UCL) 516–520; the UK higher education context 512; Universal Design for Learning and studentcentered learning 236 challenge(s) 1–3; academic challenges 333–334; Asian higher education 591–592; case studies 401–406, 426–428, 435–436, 445–446, 512–517, 562–563, 568–569; communitybased transformational learning 290–300; facing Japanese universities today 308–309; peer-topeer 126–127, 133–135; person-centered theory and practice 283–287; science, engineering, computing and medicine 224–228; of SCL 506–507; student-centered virtual design studio environments 348–349 child-centered 1, 21 class discussion 71, 160, 312 classroom community 143, 148, 241–242 classroom context 241–244, 243–244, 246–248, 418 classroom design 337, 340, 593 classroom engagement 8, 143 classroom instruction 421–422, 498–500, 500 classroom pedagogy 187, 414, 417 classroom policies 97, 499, 502 classroom teacher(s) 145–146 classroom technique(s) 377–380, 387 clickers 186, 206, 292, 394, 397–398 cognitive activation 35–36, 606, 619 cognitive activity 30–31, 38, 187 cognitive constructivist perspective 28–29 cognitive development 29, 124; and epistemological issues 126–127

cognitive learning 5, 49, 408, 501 cognitive process(es) 28, 76, 85, 308 Cognitive Reflection Test 155–156, 156 cognitive science 7, 155, 207, 346, 456; and the beginnings of student-centered teaching 75–77; how to teach in harmony with the brain 80–88; what we know about how students learn 78–80 collaborative learning 23, 223–225, 330–337 communication technologies 603, 647 communities of practice 10, 377, 410, 476, 482–483, 628 community-based activities 293–294, 452 community-based learning (CBL) 291–292 Community-Based Transformational Learning (CBTL) 6, 290–292; concluding thoughts 303–304; description of course experiences 293–303; and student-centered learning 290–291 community engagement 27, 291–292; simulated experiences leading to improved community engagement 294–298 community learning connections 637, 638, 648 competence 32–36, 60–62; case study 426, 430, 433, 435–436, 436; a European policy and practice perspective 562–565, 576–577; students as actors and agents 99–101 computing education 225–226, 228 conceptions of learning 34–35, 37, 487 conceptions of teaching 4, 34, 487, 630, 645; university-wide evaluation system 528–531, 529, 538 Confucianism 172, 181, 477–478, 581–584, 589–592 Connected Curriculum Framework: 510, 521–524; the EHEA context 510–512; embracing change with curriculum design 512–513; implementation 520–521; overview of connected curriculum 513–514; six dimensions of 514–516; UCL 516–520; the UK higher education context 512 constructivism 7, 18, 34, 47–48, 61–62, 222, 592; conceptual change and Piagetian traditions in learning theory 50–52; cultural consequences of 60–61; in education 28–30; epistemology and learning theory 54–55; origins of educational constructivism 48–50; problems with constructivist epistemology 55–57; problems with constructivist ontology 57–60; and risktaking 139, 144–145; and student-centered instruction 140–141; and Thomas Kuhn 52–54 constructivist 2, 4, 7, 23–24, 31, 33; Asian higher education 582–584, 592–593; bridging the policy-practice gap 548; cognitive constructivist perspective 28–29; constructivist approach 128, 583, 592, 598; differentiated instruction 254–255; a European policy and practice perspective 566, 571; peer-to-peer 124, 126–128, 135; person-centered theory and

652

Index practice 269, 272; philosophical problems with constructivism 47–48, 51–52, 54, 59–62; PISA 598; and risk-taking 140–141, 146; science, engineering, computing and medicine 222; situative constructivist perspective 29–30; social constructivist perspective 29; socioconstructivist approach 372; student-centered online education 370, 373; student-centered virtual design studio environments 345; students as actors and agents 95 constructivist epistemology 55–57, 61 constructivist learning theory 19, 376 constructivist ontology 57–60 constructivist theory 2, 7, 24, 140, 548, 566 consultancy 100, 537–538 consultation(s) 409–410, 532–534, 536–539; structured 99 content 3–5, 186–188, 199, 646; adapt existing content to active learning 430; adapt lesson content 427–428; case studies 376–383, 401–403, 501, 511–513, 513, 522; characteristics of existing lecture course 189–191; communitybased transformational learning 290–293; flipped classroom approach 393–395; foundations of student-centered learning and teaching 17–23, 27–28, 32–37, 39–40; goals of course transformation 188–189; hybrid design of MOOC content 369–372, 370, 371; impact on faculty colleagues 198–199; the importance of knowledge in educational processes 77–78; improved student attitudes 197–198; increased student learning 196–197; lessons from academic support 414–421; media literacy 153–154, 156–165, 157–159, 161; misconceptions and misapplications 112–113; peer-to-peer 134–135; personal rewards of teaching actively engaged students 198; personcentered theory and practice 271–272; PISA 597–599; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 334–339; and risk-taking 140–141, 144–146, 148–149; science, engineering, computing and medicine 223–227; studentcentered libraries 464–465; student-centered virtual design studio environments 353–354; testing 212–214; transforming homework to include deliberate practice 194–196; transforming lectures to hybrid style of active learning 191–194; universal design for learning 238–245, 249–255 content knowledge 71, 172, 223, 377 counseling 26, 425, 467, 532, 537–538, 544 course activities 39, 225, 377, 411, 501, 507 course design 94, 145–148, 145, 273–275, 278–283, 363–364, 505–507; incorporating SCL in the 501–502; partners in 406–408 course evaluation(s) 635–636; case studies 187–190, 197–199, 377, 387, 405–406, 498–501, 499–500,

504–506; lessons from academic support 415; person-centered theory and practice 280, 285–286; and risk-taking 144; students as actors and agents 94, 98–99, 103 course transformation 187–191, 195–199 critical awareness 6–7, 123–124; challenges 133–134; conclusions 135–136; discussion 134–135; methods 127–129; study findings 129–133; theoretical background 124–127 critical education 27–28 critical thinking 159–160, 223–224, 504–505, 606; interventions to promote critical thinking about advertisements 160–161, 161 cultural changes 486–488, 517 cultural resources 30, 173–174 curricular transformation 380–382 curriculum-centered 269, 436 curriculum developer(s) 431–434, 432, 438 curriculum reform 376–378, 584–586, 586 deep learning 21, 33, 37, 645; active learning 484; Asian higher education 583; Asian students’ engagement 174; case study 447; flipped classroom approach 390, 393, 395; misconceptions and misapplications 110; PISA 606; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 327; testing 214 deeper learning 1–6, 18, 21, 30, 646 deeper-level features of instructional quality 35–37 deliberate practice 6, 8, 186–188; transforming homework to include 194–197, 197 design-based research 123–124, 136, 221–223, 228 design principles 123, 341, 421 design process 333, 350, 363, 405, 408 design studios 346–350 diet 81, 84–85, 88 differentiated instruction (DI) 8–9, 254–255, 264–265, 632; the DI-Quest model 256–259; in-service and pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI 259–264; as a SCL approach 255–256 digital literacy 19, 371 direct instruction xxiv, 2, 39, 145–147, 431, 522–523 disciplinary content 4–5, 135, 646 disciplinary knowledge 20, 22, 112–114, 646 disciplinary practice 480, 480, 483 distance learning 361–362 diversity 370–372, 468–469 educational change 479–480, 480, 488 educational constructivism 18, 28, 52, 54, 59; origins of 48–50 educational institutions 67–68, 73, 171, 320, 492, 546; underestimation of the importance of 71–72 educational mission 637–638, 640 educational partnerships 521, 637, 638

653

Index educational practices 124, 254, 301, 310, 475–477, 583 educational reform 20–22, 307, 584–593, 586 educational technologies 8–9, 269, 287, 593, 637–638, 639–640 education reform 48, 584–593, 586–587 education strategy 479, 517–518, 520–521 effective instructor(s) 3, 35, 37 effective learning 203–204, 362–364 effectiveness 201, 221–224, 228, 328–331, 417–418, 431–435, 432; of a flipped classroom approach when teaching lab-based techniques 390–398, 392, 393–395; of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education 33–39 effective pedagogies 173, 402, 410 effective teacher behaviors 36–37, 646 effective teaching 5, 23, 222, 630; active learning 481; case study 403, 409, 447; differentiated instruction 255; foundations of SCLT 23, 33, 36, 39; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 333 efficacy 93–94, 105, 391, 396, 456–459; of active learning 392–393; students’ sense of 101; see also self-efficacy eLearning 80, 275, 280–283, 350, 533 emotional support 7, 139, 149; and sense of belonging 143–144 empirical education research 34, 269 empowerment 27–28, 521–522, 576; of learners and teachers 574–576, 573–575 engagement 2–8, 26–27, 37–39, 123–124, 171–172, 178–183; active learning classrooms 331–332; case study 410–411, 505–506, 513–515, 520–523; challenges 133–134; community-based transformational learning 290–292; conclusions 135–136; discussion 134–135; engaging Asian students with learning in Australia 172–174; a European policy and practice perspective 565, 575; the importance of knowledge in educational processes 65–69, 72–73; and learning 316–318, 317–318; measuring students’ engagement 174; misconceptions and misapplications 109–112, 116–118; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 333–334; and risktaking 143–144, 147–149; role-play 308–310, 319–320; science, engineering, computing and medicine 223–225; simulated experiences leading to improved community engagement 294–298; students as actors and agents 93–95, 98–103; study findings 129–133; theoretical background 124–127; theoretical framework 174–175; universal design for learning 235–242, 247–250 engineering education 224–225, 228, 376 epistemic beliefs 609–611, 612

epistemology/epistemologies 48–52, 54–55, 61–62; active learning 480, 480; and general cognitive development 126–127; misconceptions and misapplications 112–114, 118; peer-to-peer 124–126, 132–134; reflecting on and questioning personal epistemologies 481–482 ePortfolio 272–275, 448 European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 7, 104, 269, 626, 639; bridging the policy-practice gap 543–547, 549, 554; case study 510–512, 515–516, 519–521, 524; a European policy and practice perspective 562, 566, 572, 576, 577; implementation in 567–568; policy developments in 563–564 European policies 543, 549–553, 550–553, 563–567, 564 evaluation(s) 31–33, 36–39, 636; active learning 486–487; and the brain 77, 83–84; case study 187–191, 197–199, 377, 383–387, 384–385, 405–408, 430–434, 493–496, 498–507, 499–500, 504, 511–512, 518–520; content analysis of students’ self-evaluation for significant learning 275–276; a European policy and practice perspective 567–568; final course evaluation 285; media literacy 158–159; personcentered theory and practice 271–274, 278–280; and risk-taking 144–146; role-play 313 evaluation system(s) 10; administering questionnaires to two universities in Hong Kong 534–539; developing an evaluation system to promote SCLT 532–534; influences on the adoption of SCL 528–532 exercise 80–81, 84–85 experiential learning 292; and progressive education 24–26 experiment(s) 25; case study 188–190, 196, 377–379, 379, 381–382; PISA 599, 607–608, 608; testing 205, 210–212 exploration(s) 123–125, 140–141, 229–230 facilitator(s) 31–33, 70–73; active learning 481–485; case study 425–429, 435–436, 436, 448–452; person-centered theory and practice 270–278, 270; and risk-taking 140–141 feedback 2–5, 35–38, 631–632, 633–634, 646–648; active learning 480–483, 487–488; and the brain 81–84; case study 186–187, 193–199, 193, 376–381, 427–430, 434–436, 440–441, 448–449, 519–521; person-centered theory and practice 271–273, 280–286; role-play 312–314; student-centered online education 369–370; student-centered virtual design studio environments 346–348, 351–352, 352; testing 209–210, 213–214; universal design for learning 243–244; university-wide evaluation system 532–533, 535–539, 535

654

Index flexible learning pathways 636–637, 637–638, 648 flipped approach 376, 380 flipped classroom 377–378, 380–383, 447–448; see also flipped classroom approach flipped classroom approach 9, 390–398, 447, 633 funding 333, 512, 638–639, 639–640, 649 governance 6–7, 93–95, 103–104; students as actors in institutional governance 98–102 grading 145–146, 272–275, 281–285, 381–382, 427–430, 436–437 graduate attributes 68, 530–533 group work 186–187, 223–227, 307–308, 316–318, 447–449, 500–502, 500 growth mindset 256–264, 257, 260–261, 263, 456–458, 463–466, 469 higher education institution(s) (HEI) 2, 5–11, 626–628, 635, 635–636, 637–638, 639, 645, 648–649; active learning 488; Asian higher education 584, 589–590; bridging the policypractice gap 543–550, 553, 555; case study 491, 496, 510–511, 521, 524; differentiated instruction 265; a European policy and practice perspective 563–572, 576–577; foundations of student-centered learning and teaching 19–20, 24, 32–33, 39, 40n1; PISA 614; studentcentered learning at 568–571, 570; studentcentered online education 361–362; students as actors and agents 93–95, 98–105; universal design for learning 251 higher education instruction 250–252 higher education pedagogies 568, 571 higher education policies 10, 543–549, 563–564, 572, 627, 638–639 higher education practice 627, 636 higher education system(s) (HESs) 10, 114, 546, 565, 626–628, 636–639, 637–638 higher-order skills 223, 290, 597 higher-order thinking 19, 31–32, 35, 39, 227, 441; Asian higher education 583, 588, 590; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 328, 333 high-level learning outcomes 4–5 high school classrooms 8, 244–250, 249 human information processing system 154–159, 156–159 humanist education 26–27 hybrid pedagogies 173–175, 178–182, 592–593 implementation 626–627, 635–639, 637–638, 639–640, 647; Asian higher education 588–593; bridging the policy-practice gap 543–551, 551; case study 383–385, 384–385, 491–497, 497, 500–502, 505–507, 510–512, 519–524; a European policy and practice perspective 566–571; misconceptions

and misapplications 110–111, 114–118; science, engineering, computing and medicine 229–230; students as actors and agents 96–97, 102–104 implementation challenges 553–556 implication(s) 10–11, 60–61, 96–98, 109–111, 645–649; and risk-taking 149; role-play 319–321; science, engineering, computing and medicine 229–230; student-centered virtual design studio environments 357–358; universal design for learning 250–252 inclusion 420–421, 543–549 inclusive learning environments 70–72, 408–409, 628–631, 631–632 independent learning 505–507, 565–568 indicators of student-centered ecosystems 6, 626–627; curriculum, pedagogy and assessment 630–631; governance and administration 636–637; learning and teaching support 632–633; policies and finance 638–639; quality of learning and teaching 635; student-centered ecosystems framework 627–630 information 3–9, 17–18, 35–37, 153–154, 166, 201–203, 214–215, 646–647; Asian students’ engagement 177–179; and the brain 77–80, 82–88; case studies 424–431, 439–441, 446–452; developing skills in evaluating media 163–166; differentiated instruction 256–258, 264–265; how to design student-centered instruction using retrieval 209–214; about the human information processing system 154–159; lessons from academic support 414–417; about media literacy 154; multimedia design 159–163; peerto-peer 126–128; person-centered theory and practice 281–283; PISA 597–600; principlebased approach to designing learning spaces 328–331; and retrieval practice 203–204; and risk-taking 140–145; role-play 307–314, 313; student-centered libraries 466–470; student-centered online education 363–365, 365; student-centered virtual design studio environments 348–355; students as actors and agents 98–100; universal design for learning 239–242, 245–250; university-wide evaluation system 534–539; when to incorporate retrieval 207–209; the “why” of retrieval practice 204–207 information and communication technology (ICT) 565, 588, 603, 619 initial learning 80, 114, 188, 205, 211–212, 364; and emotion 78 innovation in learning and teaching 565, 568 innovative teaching 39, 251, 450, 564, 647–648 inquiry 23–24, 48–51, 222–223, 346–347, 512–518, 630–631, 631–632 inquiry-based learning 202, 222, 307, 513, 631 in-service teachers 222, 259–264, 260–261

655

Index institutional change(s) 92–93, 95–96, 103–105, 480, 534; consultation strategies for 538–539; students as agents of 103–105; workshop as a lever of 485–486 institutional culture 521, 647; active learning 485; bridging the policy-practice gap 555; a European policy and practice perspective 577; misconceptions and misapplications 111, 115; students as actors and agents 92, 105 institutional drivers 476–478, 487 institutionalizing student-centered learning (SCL) 495–496 institutional leadership 520, 566, 569, 636, 637–638 institutional research 103, 635–636 institutional strategies 7, 9–10, 480, 564–565, 569–571, 570 institutional structures 103, 111, 420, 524 institutional support 97, 103–104, 411, 572 institutional traditions 529, 531 instructional design 162, 202, 362, 403–405 instructional methods 1–3, 512, 636, 648; instructor and student support services 407, 425, 431; learning processes and outcomes 145, 186; learning and teaching theory 18, 21, 31, 35; policies and advocacy 588–589; spaces and educational technologies 329, 348 instructional practices 144, 505, 627, 630, 631, 646–647; classroom practices 242, 308, 321; learning and teaching theory 2, 5, 18, 22, 31; policies and advocacy 600, 601 instructional strategies 31, 35, 147, 222–223, 227–228, 500 instructional support 3, 30, 39, 506, 630, 646 instruction paradigm 6, 19, 103, 626 instructor-centered approaches 427, 391, 395, 403 instructor-centered learning 424–425, 435–441; historical instructional approaches in technical training 430–431; Student-Centered Instruction Workshop creation and design 425–430 intellectual resources 173, 178–179, 179 interaction 3–4, 8, 633, 645–646; classroom practices 223–226, 270, 280–282, 285–287, 295–296; institutional strategies 482, 484, 487, 500, 511, 528–530, 538; instructor and student support services 438, 447, 452, 467; learning processes and outcomes 124–125, 128–132, 143–145, 166, 179, 181–182, 206–207; learning and teaching theory 28–30, 68–69, 70, 111; policies and advocacy 564, 573, 584–588, 586, 592, 609–610; relationship complexity of 523; spaces and educational technologies 332–334, 338, 345–350, 362, 368; students’ interactions in class 178–180, 179, 179; students’ interactions with the teacher 180–181, 180 interactive lecture 39, 187, 192, 193, 198 intrinsic motivation 98, 280, 291, 631

knowledge construction 29–30, 37–39, 512–513, 513 knowledge production 113, 506, 562, 572 laboratory techniques 390–393, 392, 395–396, 397–398 large course(s) 189, 196, 198–199, 285–286; on project management 278–285, 279 learner-centered instruction 141, 222 learner-centeredness 20, 587 learner-centered orientation 503 Learner-Centered Principles 22, 272–273, 282, 286; putting into practice 282–285 learner engagement 129, 523 learner support 37, 632, 647 learning activities 31–37, 81–83, 93–94, 97–98; instructor and student support services 439–441; institutional strategies 493–496; learning processes and outcomes 173–174, 177–181; spaces and educational technologies 362–364, 367–369 learning analytics: case study 369–372; from distance learning to online education 361–362; learning design and learning analytics 368–369; multidisciplinary collaboration 363; student centered 364–368; visualizations 363–364; what is learning design 362–363 learning and teaching conferences 520–521 learning approach 1, 5, 96, 116, 154, 630; classroom practices 228; institutional strategies 530–531; instructor and student support services 421, 430; policies and advocacy 548, 555, 566–567, 575, 588; spaces and educational technologies 341, 364, 380, 391; surface and deep approaches to learning 37–38 learning assessment 437, 633 learning behavior 93, 258, 363, 369, 372 learning community 7, 105, 330, 635; classroom practices 254, 265, 273; institutional strategies 517, 520; learning processes and outcomes 124, 127, 147–149 learning context(s) 18, 29, 76, 94, 97, 345; classroom practices 221, 224, 227, 230, 236, 244, 248; learning processes and outcomes 131, 134 Learning Design 516; case study 369–372; from distance learning to online education 361–362; learning design and learning analytics 368–369; multidisciplinary collaboration 363; studentcentered 364–368; visualizations 363–364; what is learning design 362–363 Learning Design process 362–363 learning differences 256, 420–421 learning environment(s) 1–4, 645–648; classroom practices 228–229, 236, 239–241, 290, 300, 327; institutional strategies 506, 511, 530, 532–535, 535; instructor and student support

656

Index services 409, 421, 436, 441, 446, 463; learning processes and outcomes 124–125, 141, 149; learning and teaching theory 19, 29, 36, 92–94, 102–104; policies and advocacy 556, 569, 570, 577, 591–593, 597–598; role(s) of technologies and 572–574, 573; spaces and educational technologies 330, 335, 361–362, 376, 378; virtual design studio 350–355, 351–352, 353–355; see also student-centered learning environment(s) learning gain(s) 94–95, 196–197, 390–391, 394–396 learning goal(s) 92–98, 104, 191–192, 255–256, 376–378, 383–387, 421; curricular transformation 380–382; description of junior lab 378–380 learning groups 128, 134, 574 learning interactions 65, 362 learning management systems (LMS) 350, 368–369, 439 learning material(s) 363–364, 367–370 learning model(s) 31, 125 learning objective(s) 630–631, 631–632; instructor and student support services 403–405, 430; spaces and educational technologies 364–367, 366, 393, 393 learning opportunities 33, 113, 242–244, 243–244, 250, 256–258 learning outcomes 3–4, 34–36, 207–208, 630–631, 631–632, 645–646; assessment of 569–571, 614, 633; classroom practices 270–272; institutional strategies 481–483, 494–497, 497, 500–501, 528–532; instructor and student support services 419–422; policies and advocacy 545–551, 564–568, 576–577 learning paradigm 6, 19, 76, 441, 626; shift from Instruction to Learning Paradigm 307, 320; student-learning paradigm 92 learning platform(s) 7, 24, 161, 635, 647 learning process(es) 1–9, 626, 630–631, 646; classroom practices 222, 226–227, 254, 257–258, 265, 271–272, 290; institutional strategies 476, 481–483, 492, 495, 503, 520, 522, 538; instructor and student support services 401, 414, 418–420, 437, 450, 456; learning processes and outcomes 139–140, 145, 148; learning and teaching theory 21–23, 28, 31–39, 75–77, 80–85, 92–95; policies and advocacy 565–568, 571, 574, 576, 584, 592; spaces and educational technologies 327–329, 334, 345, 353, 390; students as actors in 96–98; teacher control of 81; see also teaching-learning process(es) learning professionals 433, 441 learning profile 255–259, 257, 262–264 learning provision(s) 261, 361, 637–638, 648 learning situations 30, 39, 134–135, 362 learning spaces 327, 341, 633–634, 633, 639–640, 647; case study 332–340; choice architecture

329–332; design studios as student-centered learning (SCL) spaces 346–348; why active learning 327–329 learning strategies 97–98, 171–172, 201–205, 213, 225–229, 417–418 learning support 36–38, 627–628, 628, 631, 633–634 learning targets 247–249, 249, 251, 270, 511 learning tasks 23–24, 36–38, 172–174, 212, 530 learning techniques 189, 212, 293, 392–393, 448–449 learning technology/technologies 100, 271, 633, 639–640, 647 learning theory 19, 54–55, 426, 425–427, 437, 443, 466; behaviorist 430; constructivist 19, 376; conventional 29; experiential 25; Piagetian 48, 50–52; shallow 53; transformational 291, 299 lecture xxiv–xxv, 1–2, 8–9, 17–20, 30–31, 39–40; active and collaborative “lecture halls” 338–339, 339; and active learning 191–194; case study 377–378, 380–381; characteristics of the existing lecture course 189–191, 190; flipped classroom approach 390–391, 395–396; institutional strategies 485–486, 506–507, 528–529; instructor and student support services 401–403, 406–407, 417–418, 425–427, 436–440, 445–447, 450–453; learning processes and outcomes 186–189, 191–199, 197, 201–209; person-centered theory and practice 270–271, 270, 281–282; policies and advocacy 570, 574, 573, 589–592; principlebased approach to designing learning spaces 327–335, 340–341; role-play 307–309, 315–321, 318; science, engineering, computing and medicine 223–224; universal design for learning 250–251; virtual design studio environments 345–348, 351–352, 353–354 libraries 165, 166, 456–457, 469, 633–634, 633, 647–648; collections 463–466; services 466–469; theoretical frameworks 457–469; see also library spaces library spaces 457–463, 462, 467–469, 633–634, 633 lifelong learners 25–26, 287, 511 lifelong learning 32–33, 478, 511, 564, 571–572, 570, 649 makerspace(s) 467–469 management 173–174, 370–372, 466–468, 518–520, 636; classroom management 36, 403, 426, 443; project management 278–285, 279, 370, 371; self-management 69, 173, 468; see also learning management systems massive open online course(s) (MOOC(s)) 161, 361, 369–372, 370, 371, 376–377, 572 mathematics performance 604–606, 605

657

Index meaningful learning 2–3, 19, 26, 32, 36, 112, 117 media for teaching and learning 161–163, 162 media literacy 153–154, 166; about 154; developing skills in evaluating media 163–166, 163–164, 166; and the human information processing system 154–159, 156–159; and multimedia design 159–163, 161–162 medical education 222, 228; problem-based learning in 226–227; student-centered 391 memorizing 144, 171–173, 438–441, 581–584, 592, 606 memory 75–76, 78–81, 83–84, 86–88, 100–101, 201–205, 207–213; working memory 18, 80, 155, 161–162, 167n2 mentoring 187–188, 199, 516; peer mentoring 124, 585 meta-analysis 2, 36; classroom practices 223, 286; learning processes and outcomes 143, 160, 188, 196, 212; policies and advocacy 585, 598; spaces and educational technologies 328–329; university-wide evaluation system 537–538 metacognition 409–410, 417–419 metacognitive strategies 3, 5, 36, 417–418 microteaching 447–449 misapplications 6–7, 109, 118–119; discourse of the student as a decontextualized learner 114–115; the emergence of student-centered approaches 109–111; focus on student but blind to knowledge 112–114; student as customer 115–117; theoretical argument 111–112 misconceptions 6–7, 67, 109, 118–119, 198; discourse of the student as a decontextualized learner 114–115; the emergence of studentcentered approaches 109–111; focus on student but blind to knowledge 112–114; student as customer 115–117; theoretical argument 111–112 MITx residential platform 376–378, 383–387; curricular transformation 380–382; description of junior lab 378–380 movement 58, 80–81, 332 multidisciplinary 363, 485, 521 multimedia instruction 162–163, 162 neuroscience 476–477, 480, 480; the beginnings of student-centered teaching 75–77; how to teach in harmony with the brain 80–88; interrogating pedagogies 482; what we know about how students learn 78–80 new learning 78–83, 86–88 online activities 274, 281 online education: case study 369–372; from distance learning to online education 361–362; learning design and learning analytics 368–369; multidisciplinary collaboration 363; studentcentered 364–368; visualizations 363–364; what is learning design 362–363

online environment 129, 153, 349, 362, 369 online learning 7, 269–271, 349–350, 361–363, 572–574, 573 online reading 465–466 open education 30–32, 34, 511 opportunities to learn 8, 128, 163, 174, 236, 514 organizational change 6–7, 95–96, 335, 441, 518 organizational culture 9, 486–487, 491–492, 501–508, 572; ADMU context 492–494; establishing SCL in the Loyola Schools’ classrooms 495–497; institutionalization of SCL 497–501 organizational learning 476, 487–488 outcomes-based curricula 567–568 Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) 496–497, 497, 506 outcomes-based learning 491, 495, 564, 571 ownership 94–97, 143–145, 445–450 paradigm shift 567–568, 589–593 partnerships 510–512, 518–524, 637, 638 passive 21–22, 94–95, 186–187, 327–329; Asian higher education 581–583; classroom practices 308–311, 319–320; testing 201–203, 206–208 pedagogical approach(es) 7, 109, 113–114, 118; classroom practices 227, 255; institutional strategies 478, 481, 491, 515, 528; instructor and student support services 414, 445; learning processes and outcomes 124, 141, 189; policies and advocacy 555, 568, 589, 592; virtual design studio environments 358 pedagogical change 9, 475–476, 486–488, 588; active learning within the student-centered paradigm 476; institutional drivers 476–478; reception and perceptions of workshop 483–485; seeking educational change at St George’s, University of London 479–483; workshop as lever of institutional change 485–486 pedagogical cycle 477, 481 pedagogical innovation 479, 545, 568, 613 pedagogical method 188, 202, 511, 520, 576 pedagogical paradigm 576; Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) 492–494, 496–497, 498, 507 pedagogical practice(s) 9, 182, 291, 445, 476, 478, 630; future perspectives in 302–303 pedagogical principle(s) 181–183, 420, 592 pedagogical resources 8, 171–172, 178–183; engaging Asian students with learning in Australia 172–174; measuring students’ engagement 174; methodology 175–178; theoretical framework 174–175 peer instruction 202–204, 329 peer learning/peer-to-peer learning 124–125, 134–135, 349, 574, 631; peer-to-peer coaching 419; peer-to-peer programs 416 peer tutoring 414, 631–632, 632 personal development 292, 298, 379, 510

658

Index personalized learning 345, 352–353, 372, 421, 569, 647 person-centered 26, 346; education 271, 287; pedagogy 271; technology-enhanced learning 271–272, 287; see also person-centered theory person-centered education 271, 287 person-centered technology-enhanced learning (PCeL) 271–272, 287 person-centered theory (PCT) 6, 8, 269–270, 287; large course on project management 278–287; seminar on communication and teamwork 272–278; student-centered learning (SCL) as PCT in practice 270–272 philosophies of teaching and learning 582–584 platform 153–154, 161, 370–372, 633–635; eLearning 280–283; ELMS 350; Out of Eden Learn 127–128, 133, 135; see also MITx residential platform policy development 577, 577n2, 593, 639–640 policy makers 10–11, 524, 554–558 policy measures 556–558, 557 political science 8, 164, 307–308, 314–321, 502; challenges facing Japanese universities today 308–309; role-play as a countermeasure against students’ passivity and inemuri 309–310 postgraduate(s) 445–454, 479 power relations 93; between institutional decisionmakers/administrators and students 98–101; between students and teachers 97 pre-service teachers 8, 141, 144–147, 236, 254–256, 265; profiles on DI 259–264, 260–261, 263 problem-based learning (PBL) 228, 585, 591; in medical education 226–227 problem-solving/problem solving 29–30, 38–39, 40n7, 445–447; classroom practices 223–227; learning processes and outcomes 190–192, 203–205; university-wide evaluation system 531–533 professional(s) 415–417, 636–637, 637–638 professional development 590–592, 632–633, 633–634, 636–639, 639–640, 647; case studies 402–403, 408–411, 446–450 program design 2, 558 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 10, 172, 581, 597–599, 611–614, 612–614; data and methods 599–600; results for enquiry-based teaching in science lessons 606–611, 607–610, 611; results for studentoriented versus teacher-directed practices in mathematics lessons 600–606, 601–605 progressive education 24–26, 583 project-based learning 222–228, 345–347 quality assurance 635–639; institutional strategies 510–511, 517–518; policies and advocacy 546–547, 551–554, 553, 566–567, 577, 578n5

quality of learning and teaching 6, 10, 627–628, 628, 635, 635–636 quality of teaching 102–103 quiz 193–194, 193, 203–212, 370–372; clicker quizzes 392, 394–395, 397–398; self-quizzing 395, 631–632, 631 reflection 25–26, 645–646; classroom practices 224–225, 274–275, 280–282, 291–299, 301–304, 311–319, 313; Cognitive Reflection Test 155–156, 156; institutional strategies 480–483, 480, 487–488, 493–498, 498, 506–508; instructor and student support services 405–406, 417–419, 448–451; learning processes and outcomes 144–148, 193–194, 193; spaces and educational technologies 333–334, 346–348; written reflections 242, 244, 449 reflective learning and teaching 96, 448 reflective practice 292, 346, 364, 447–448, 481–482, 631 reflective practitioner 406, 409–410 reflective thinking 17, 172, 224, 519–520, 548 relationship: between beliefs about teaching and approaches to teaching 529–530; between teachers’ beliefs about teaching and student’s approaches to learning 530; between teaching and learning environment and the development of graduate attributes 530–531; relationship complexity of interaction 523; shifting relationships between teachers and learners 449; student-student 349, 530, 534–535, 535; teacher-student 4, 28, 35, 142–143, 349, 534–535, 535, 603, 619 research activity 514, 515 research-based education 9–10, 513, 518–520, 523, 546 research-based learning 2, 569, 572 research community 376, 517, 524 research content 513, 513 resource(s) 29–30, 37–38, 171–172, 178–183, 632–633, 637–638; allocation of 333, 633–634, 649; and the brain 83–84; classroom practices 246–247, 270–271, 270; engaging Asian students with learning in Australia 172–174; institutional strategies 520–521, 524–528; instructor and student support services 401–402, 410–411, 414–422, 426–430, 438–440, 449–450; learning processes and outcomes 127–128, 141–142, 160–162; learning resource facilities 572, 573; measuring students’ engagement 174; open educational resources (OER) 369, 564; policies and advocacy 592–593, 599–600, 608–612; spaces and educational technologies 351–354, 393–394; theoretical framework 174–175 retrieval 212–213; retrieval activities 209–210, 214–215; retrieval practice 202–211, 214–215

659

Index retrieval-enhanced learning 202, 214 role-play 307–308, 314–321, 447–451; challenges facing Japanese universities today 308–309; role-play as a countermeasure against students’ passivity and inemuri 309–310 rote learning 48, 172, 287, 445, 582–583, 588–590 scaffolding/scaffolds 36–39, 630–631, 631–632, 635; classroom practices 222–226, 222, 244–246, 303–304; learning processes and outcomes 162–163, 163, 175–177, 182–184, 191–192; spaces and educational technologies 351–355, 351 science/science education 6–8, 47–48, 62, 221–230; conceptual change and Piagetian traditions in learning theory 50–52; enquiry-based science teaching and science performance 608–609, 609–610, 612; enquiry-based teaching and attitudes toward science 609–611, 611; epistemic beliefs in science and enquiry-based science teaching 612; epistemology and learning theory 54–55; expectations of a sciencerelated career 613–614; instructor and student support services 406–407; learning processes and outcomes 186–191, 195–199; origins of educational constructivism 48–50; policies and advocacy 562–564, 597–600, 605–608; problems with constructivist epistemology 55–57; problems with constructivist ontology 57–60; spaces and educational technologies 328–329, 387–391; and Thomas Kuhn 52–54; see also cognitive science; political science; science of learning; social science science of learning 202–203, 214–215, 346, 376 SCLT 1–2, 38, 40n10 self-efficacy 9, 31, 38; community-based transformational learning 293; lessons from academic support 417–419, 429; media literacy 160; PISA 604, 609–612, 620; student-centered libraries 456–458, 463–466, 469; students as actors and agents 94, 97; testing 205; universal design for learning 245 self-regulation 26–34, 38–39, 94, 174, 631; see also self-regulated learning self-regulated learning (SRL) 207, 447, 592, 632, 633–634; classroom practices 224, 229, 254, 264, 291; learning and teaching theory 23–24, 31–32, 38–39, 96–97 self-reflection 38, 577, 583 sense-making 4–5, 222, 224, 345 service-learning 291–293, 452, 627, 631, 636, 638, 648 significant learning 113, 270–273, 286–287 situative constructivist perspective 4, 29–30 situative learning 28–30 skills 2–3, 68–69, 114–117, 630–631, 646–649; and the brain 77–79, 82–85; classroom practices

223–228, 241–242, 245–247, 271–278, 281–285, 290–291; foundations of SCLT 19–20, 29–33, 35–36, 38–39; higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) 441, 588, 590; institutional strategies 481–483, 505–507, 510–511, 515–516, 519–520, 530–533; instructor and student support services 401–403, 406–411, 415–420, 428–435, 445–448, 451–454, 466–468; learning processes and outcomes 140–143, 153–154, 159–166, 191–194, 201–209; occupational skills courses 433, 437–439, 441; policies and advocacy 546–548, 562–564, 576–577, 584–592, 597–600, 605–606; spaces and educational technologies 346–347, 363–364, 371–372, 378–380, 390–391; students as actors and agents 95–97 sleep 78–81, 84–88, 458, 463; sleeping in class 8, 308–309, 314–316, 315, 321–322, 438 small group(s) 166, 226, 519; instructor and student support services 419–420, 447–451; person-centered theory and practice 273–274; PISA 598–602; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 334–335 social constructivist perspective 29, 48, 54, 57 social learning 39, 284 social science 61, 292, 364, 492, 536; instructor and student support services 404–405; learning processes and outcomes 135, 141 stakeholder(s) 634–639, 633–634, 635–636, 637–638, 648–649; institutional strategies 510–512, 517–523; policies and advocacy 543–549, 577; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 339–340 stakeholder organizations 10–11, 543–544, 546, 549, 562, 565–567, 577 structural reforms 564, 567–568, 576 student achievement 34–36 student actorhood/students as actors 7, 92–96, 104–105; and institutional change 103–104; and institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning 98–102; and student agency 94–96; in the teaching and learning processes 96–98 student agency 92–96, 104–105, 404–407; and institutional change 103–104; and institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning 98–102; in the teaching and learning processes 96–98 student assessment 518, 568; see also Programme for International Student Assessment student attitudes 197–198, 396, 604, 604 student-centered approach(es) 6–10, 20, 109, 118–119, 153–154, 626, 633, 649; and the brain 77, 88; classroom practices 221, 228, 269, 272, 286, 309, 319–321; developing skills in evaluating media 163–166; discourse of the student as a decontextualized learner

660

Index 114–115; the emergence of student-centered approaches 109–111; focus on student but blind to knowledge 112–114; about the human information processing system 154–159; institutional strategies 478, 510; instructor and student support services 401, 415–422, 424–431, 434, 437–438, 446–450, 453; about media literacy 154; multimedia design 159–163; policies and advocacy 546–547, 555–558, 565–571, 584, 587, 588–591, 606; spaces and educational technologies 364, 391; student as customer 115–117; theoretical argument 111–112; universal design as 421 student-centered classroom(s) 4–6, 30–32, 39, 104, 631–632, 646; the challenge of creating 402–405; instructor and student support services 445–446, 450, 452–453; learning processes and outcomes 141, 182, 214; person-centered theory and practice 269–270, 286–287; universal design for learning 239, 244, 250 student-centered courses 8, 148, 269–270, 287, 405, 432, 448, 452; large course on project management 278–287; seminar on communication and teamwork 272–278; student-centered learning as PCT (PersonCentered Theory) in practice 270–272 student-centered ecosystems (SCEs) 5–6, 626–627, 645; curriculum, pedagogy and assessment 630–631; governance and administration 636–637; learning and teaching support 632–633; policies and finance 638–639; quality of learning and teaching 635; student-centered ecosystems framework 627–630 student-centered education 7–8, 269–270, 545–548, 555, 563–564, 589–591 student-centered higher education 92–96; and institutional change 103–104; and institutional governance and administration of teaching and learning 98–102; policy and practice implications for 645–649; in the teaching and learning processes 96–98 student-centered instruction (SCI) 21–23, 139–141; barriers to implementing 449–450; course syllabus 443–444; instructor and student support services 420–421, 425–427, 426, 431–435, 432, 437–441, 445–451; present an objective 429–430; presentation criteria 430; and retrieval 209–214; students’ reaction and learning to the SCI workshop 435–437, 435–436 student-centered instructional practices 2, 22, 308, 321, 627, 646 student-centered learning (SCL) activities 173, 203, 290–291, 363, 496, 585, 592 student-centered learning and teaching (SCLT) 17–23, 47–48, 61–62, 201–203, 214–215, 414, 626–627; and academic support 414–415;

bringing academic support approaches into the classroom 417–419; conceptual change and Piagetian traditions in learning theory 50–52; concrete practices 421–422; cultural consequences of 60–61; curriculum, pedagogy and assessment 630–631; definitions and features 21–24; design and effectiveness 39–40; epistemology and learning theory 54–55; equity and inclusion 420–421; extraclassroom interventions 419–420; governance and administration 636–637; historical roots and theoretical perspectives 24–33; how to design student-centered instruction using retrieval 209–214; and the importance of knowledge in educational processes 65–73; learning and teaching support 632–633; origins of educational constructivism 48–50; policies and finance 638–639; problems with constructivist epistemology 55–57; problems with constructivist ontology 57–60; quality and effectiveness 33–39; quality of learning and teaching 635; and retrieval practice 203–204; structures to 415–417; and Thomas Kuhn 52–54; when to incorporate retrieval 207–209; the “why” of retrieval practice 204–207 student-centered learning (SCL) approach 20, 109, 115, 124, 648; classroom practices 222, 226–230, 254–255, 265, 308; institutional strategies 491, 505, 521; policies and advocacy 585, 587–590, 587, 592; spaces and educational technologies 364, 391–392, 396, 397 student-centered learning (SCL) concept(s) 510, 521–524; the EHEA context 510–512; embracing change with curriculum design 512–513; implementation 520–521; overview of connected curriculum 513–514; six dimensions of the Connected Curriculum framework 514–516; UCL 516–520; the UK higher education context 512 student-centered learning (SCL) design(s) 133, 364, 367, 633 student-centered learning environment(s) (SCLE) 1–4, 11, 144, 269, 630, 647–648; design of effective SCLEs 39–40; institutional strategies 491, 491, 501–503, 505; instructor and student support services 428, 432; learning and teaching theory 21–24, 38 student-centered learning (SCL) experiences 123–128, 226 student-centered learning (SCL) framework 6, 8, 496–497 student-centered learning (SCL) opportunities 126, 129, 236, 319–321 student-centered learning (SCL) paradigm 310, 346, 550, 591 student-centered learning (SCL) philosophy 495, 503, 507–508

661

Index student-centered learning (SCL) principle(s) 110, 428; Asian higher education 592; classroom practices 221–226, 230, 254; institutional strategies 491, 498, 500–507 student-centered learning (SCL) spaces 346–348 student-centered libraries 9, 456–457, 469, 647; theoretical frameworks 457–469 student-centered methods 227, 358 student-centeredness 7–9, 18, 21, 24, 39, 105, 113–118; classroom practices 239, 269, 286; institutional strategies 475, 479, 488; policies and advocacy 545, 547–549, 553–554, 568, 589–591 student-centered online education 9, 361–375 student-centered organizational culture 9, 491–492, 501–508; ADMU (Ateneo de Manila University) context 492–494; establishing SCL in the Loyola Schools’ classrooms 495–497; institutionalization of SCL 497–501 student-centered paradigm 34, 476 student-centered pedagogies 8, 48, 112, 115, 409, 579n8; active learning 475, 484; Asian students’ engagement 181; community-based transformational learning 291; testing 202, 214 student-centered perspective 20, 272, 291 student-centered philosophies 10, 581–582, 592–593; through Asian lenses 582–584; development of SCL across Asia 585–592; in higher education 584–585 student-centered practice(s) 2, 10, 25, 97, 124, 636; classroom practices 239, 264; instructor and student support services 402, 406, 410–411; PISA 597, 611; virtual design studio environments 349–350 student-centered strategies 8, 224, 380, 611–612 student-centered studio pedagogy 346–348 student-centered teaching 254–255, 264–265, 597–598, 611–614; the beginnings of 75–77; and differentiated instruction as a SCL approach 255–256; the DI-Quest model 256–259; in-service and pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI 259–264; in mathematics lessons 600–606; PISA data and methods 599–600; postgraduate certificate in higher education 445–454; in science lessons 606–611; teaching practices in PISA 598–599 student-centered view of learning 475, 477 student engagement 99–102, 110–112, 116–117; institutional strategies 505–506, 520–522; instructor and student support services 410–411; learning processes and outcomes 147–149, 172–174; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 331–333 student impact 101–102 student involvement 98–105, 140, 476 student learning 20–22, 34–37, 92–97, 626–627; classroom practices 227–229, 295–298;

institutional strategies 486–487, 528–531; instructor and student support services 414–415, 421–422, 439–441, 445–448; PISA 602–604; principle-based approach to designing learning spaces 327–331; structures to center student learning 415–417 student motivation 206–207 student-oriented instruction 598–599, 602–606, 602–605 student outcomes 597–598, 611–614; and mathematics lessons 600–606; PISA data and methods 599–600; and science lessons 606–611; and teaching practices in PISA 598–599 student participation 29, 143, 227, 320, 347, 352, 543–544; in role-plays 310 student performance 395–396, 437, 440, 496, 600, 605 student representatives 98–104, 549–550, 553, 558, 648; in European higher education policy making 543–544 student reviewers 519–520 students’ approaches to learning (SAL) 37, 530, 532, 581; and teachers’ beliefs about teaching 530 student self-transformation 458, 463, 468–469 student-student interaction 530, 573 student-teacher interaction 180–181, 500, 633 student voice 39, 99, 104, 465, 469, 477, 544 student work 127–129, 330, 347, 406, 464, 468 studio pedagogy 346–348 surface learning 37, 291, 606 taxonomy 365, 371–372; Bloom’s 248–249, 249, 390, 393, 394, 425, 630, 631–632 teacher-centered approach 1, 7, 20, 529, 589–590 teacher-centered teaching 270, 495, 587 teacher-directed instruction 598–599, 602, 605; students’ exposure to 603–604, 603–604 teacher-directed strategies 597, 606, 611 teacher education 7–9, 53–55, 235–236, 254–255, 264–265; and differentiated instruction as a SCL approach 255–256; the DI-Quest model 256–259; in-service and pre-service teachers’ profiles on DI 259–264 teacher-focused 17, 34–35, 478, 513, 513, 530 teacher-learner relationship(s) 496–497 teacher-student relationship(s) 4, 28, 142–143, 349, 534–535, 535 teaching and learning activities 35, 174, 177–179, 181, 633–634 teaching and learning environment 102, 290, 335, 530, 532–535, 535 teaching and learning philosophy 582, 592 teaching and learning practice 4, 8, 34, 582, 627; Asian students’ engagement 171, 175; students as actors and agents 93, 103 teaching and learning support 6, 627–628, 628, 631–632, 633–634, 635, 638, 640

662

Index teaching approach 3, 589, 597–598, 604–606, 612; see also student-centered teaching approach teaching-learning process(es) 7, 65–66, 96–98, 631; consequence of SCLT’s characterization of 68–73, 70; simplifying 66–68 teaching methods 3, 34–39, 188–189, 646–647; classroom practices 250–251, 255–256; instructor and student support services 425, 450–452; policies and advocacy 548–549, 576–577, 575 teaching mission 19, 564, 637–638, 649 teaching model(s) 330, 376, 565 teaching practice(s) 37–38, 81–83, 256, 264–265, 409–410, 445–449; policies and advocacy 568–569, 598–602, 609–611 teaching strategies 401–403, 448, 571–572, 570, 603–606 teaching support 632–633, 633–634, 639–640, 645, 647 Technology Enabled Active Learning Spaces (TEAL) 327, 331–332 technology-enhanced learning environments 24, 647 tertiary education 39, 171, 446, 591–592 testing 201–203, 214–215, 631–632, 631–632; how to design student-centered instruction using retrieval 209–214; and retrieval practice 203–204; when to incorporate retrieval 207–209; the “why” of retrieval practice 204–207 thinking 3–5, 645–646; classroom practices 223–227, 247–249, 290–291; institutional strategies 476–478, 481–487, 504–505, 515–519, 531–535, 535; instructor and student support services 417–422, 445–448; learning processes and outcomes 123–128, 131–135, 154–161, 165–166, 172–173, 191–193; policies and advocacy 588–591, 619–620; spaces and educational technologies 328–330, 347–348, 351–352; SCLT theory 17–19, 22–25, 27–32, 35–39, 51–52, 67–69, 82–85, 103–104, 110–112 traditional learning environments 149, 229, 446 traditional lecture 1–2, 17, 34; classroom practices 223, 309; institutional strategies 478, 506; instructor and student support services 403, 407, 460, 463; learning processes and outcomes

187–191, 194, 199; spaces and educational technologies 329, 331–332, 338, 341 traditional practices 33, 269, 587, 590 traditional teaching 8, 430 training 424–425, 435–441, 634–639, 647–648; historical instructional approaches in technical training 430–431; institutional strategies 518–519; instructor and student support services 409–410, 445–446; media literacy 162–166; policies and advocacy 588–589, 592–593; Student-Centered Instruction Workshop creation and design 425–430 transferable skills 19, 95, 401, 438, 515, 519, 548 transformational experiences 291, 300 transformational learning 290–292; concluding thoughts 303–304; critical education and 27–28; description of course experiences 293–303; and student-centered learning 290–291 transformative learning 298–303, 476 transmission model 201, 446 transmission of knowledge 34, 60, 308, 327, 512 undergraduate(s) xxiv–xxv, 143–144, 188–189, 222–229; institutional strategies 512–513; instructor and student support services 403–405, 410–411, 463–466; perspectives 408–409 understanding 23, 38–39, 123–124; challenges 133–134; conclusions 135–136; discussion 134–135; methods 127–129; study findings 129–133; theoretical background 124–127 universal design for learning 235–236; context 236–237; implications for higher education instruction 250–252; participants and methodology 237–238; SCL and UDL in high school classrooms 244–250; SCL and UDL in the university classroom 238–244; Universal Design for Learning and SCL 236 university classroom 236–244, 291 virtual design studio environment(s) 345–360 virtual environment 209, 352–354, 356 visualization(s) 362–364, 368, 372, 408 whole person learning 26–27, 273

663