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

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of contributors
Foreword
List of abbreviations
Introduction and overview
PART I Student-centered learning and teaching theory
1 Foundations of student-centered learning and teaching
2 Philosophical problems with constructivism: some considerations for student-centered learning and teaching
3 How student-centered learning and teaching can obscure the importance of knowledge in educational processes and why it matters
4 Learning and teaching in harmony with the brain: insights from neuroscience, biology, cognitive science and psychology
5 Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education
6 Misconceptions and misapplications of student-centered approaches
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
8 Cautiously independent: how student-centered learning encourages emerging adults to take risks
9 Student-centered approaches to fostering media literacy in college students
10 Enhancing Asian students’ engagement by incorporating Asian intellectual and pedagogical resources in teaching and learning
11 Transforming a large university physics course to student-centered learning, without sacrificing content: a case study
12 The powerful role of testing in student-centered learning and teaching in higher education
PART III Student-centered classroom practices
13 Emerging trends to foster student-centered learning in the disciplines: science, engineering, computing and medicine
14 Student-centered learning through the lens of universal design for learning: lessons from university and K-12 classrooms
15 Differentiated instruction as a student-centered teaching approach in teacher education
16 Person-centered theory and practice: small versus large student-centered courses
17 Student-centered learning: investigating the impact of community-based transformational learning experiences on university students
18 Using role-play in political science courses at a Japanese women’s university
PART IV Student-centered spaces and educational technologies
19 Active learning anywhere: a principled-based approach to designing learning spaces
20 Student-centered virtual design studio environments
21 The virtuous circle of learning design and learning analytics to develop student-centered online education
22 Promoting learning goals in an advanced physics laboratory via student-centered learning: a case study using the MITx residential platform
23 Effectiveness of a flipped classroom approach when teaching lab-based techniques
PART V Instructor and student support services
24 Partners in creating student-centered learning: case study of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University
25 Student-centered learning and teaching – lessons from academic support
26 Transitioning from instructor-centered to student-centered learning: case study of the US Air Force technical training organizations
27 Finding our way to more student-centered teaching in Namibia: the case of the postgraduate certificate in higher education
28 Student-centered libraries: changing both expectations and results
PART VI Student-centered institutional strategies
29 A workshop as a lever for pedagogical change? The case of Active Learning: from Practice to Theory, and Back
30 Building a student-centered organizational culture: case study of the Ateneo de Manila University
31 The connected curriculum framework: case study of University College London
32 Implementing a university-wide evaluation system to promote student-centered learning
PART VII Student-centered policies and advocacy
33 Bridging the policy-practice gap: student-centered learning from the students’ perspective
34 Student-centered learning from a European policy and practice perspective
35 Student-centered philosophies and policy developments in Asian higher education
36 What PISA tells us about student-centered teaching and student outcomes
Conclusion: beyond student-centered classrooms – a comprehensive approach to student-centered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework
Epilogue: usable knowledge – policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education
Index

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

FLEXIBL