From New Currents 2.1 January 1995
Approaches to teaching
and learning in higher education
Investigators:
D. Randy Garrison,
Jac Andrews, and
Kris Magnusson
With the support of a Teaching Development Grant, this ongoing research
is focusing on the teaching-learning transaction. By studying approaches
to teaching in conjunction with approaches to learning, the congruence of
teacher expectations and student outcomes are revealed.
Teaching is a complex and often idiosyncratic process. Studies of teacher
effectiveness have typically focused on teachers' performance with little
understanding of how students approach the learning task, nor of the nature
of the learning outcomes. Since the aim of teaching is the facilitation
of learning, it is suggested that the learner's perspective must be considered,
and that effective teaching can only be understood from the context of the
teaching-learning transaction. This view is supported by Ramsden (1992)
who has argued that the best approach to improving teaching is by studying
students' learning.
Murray-Harvey and Keeves (1994) suggest that how students go about learning
is undervalued in higher education and that by the time students enter higher
education, it is assumed that they have learned how to learn. Institutions
of higher education tend to be content driven, and students are expected
to have the metacognitive motivation and strategies to direct and manage
their learning. However, evidence suggests that, with regard to understanding
the nature of knowledge and how to acquire it, students enter post-secondary
education at a basic level of cognitive development (Perry, 1970; King &
Kitchener, 1994.)
A quality learning experience in higher education must consider process
issues as well as content issues. That is, how students approach their learning
should be as much a consideration of effective teaching as are content concerns.
This relationship between students' approaches to learning and the quality
of those learning outcomes has been a focus of study for several groups
of researchers (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton &
Saljo, 1976.) There is general agreement that there are two fundamental
approaches to learning: deep and surface. Students who assume a deep approach
to their learning are intrinsically motivated and search for meaning by
integrating new information with existing knowledge. Surface learners are
extrinsically motivated (largely by grades) and have a reproductive conception
of learning.
In order to foster quality learning experiences, it is necessary to determine
desired outcomes (the learning that is valued) and then create the conditions
that will facilitate achievement of these outcomes (Marton, 1988.) That
is, the educational process must be congruent with the intended aim, whether
it is information acquisition or construction of knowledge.
Unfortunately, with the best of intentions there appear to be two common
pitfalls with regard to facilitating deep and meaningful learning. The first
is not recognizing the pervasive influence that assessment has on the learning
process (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992; Larsson, 1983.) Ramsden (1988)
states that "the most significant single influence on students' learning
is their perception of assessment" (p. 24.) The evidence suggests that
exams determine how students approach learning. For example, exams that
emphasize recall will likely cause students to take a surface approach regardless
of intended outcomes of either student or instructor. The second pitfall
is related to an exclusive focus on content which often creates an excessive
workload for the students. The result is that without time for reflecting
upon and processing content in a deep, meaningful manner, students will
have little choice but to take a surface approach. The combination of recall
exams and excessive workload simply ensures a surface approach to learning.
Thus, "it is in our assessment practices and the amount of content
we cover that we demonstrate to undergraduate students what competence in
a subject really means" (Ramsden, 1992, p. 72.)
The study
The focus of this study is on classes in the sciences and social sciences
where professors are considered to be excellent teachers. A profile of excellent
teaching is developed by interviewing each professor with a semi-structured
schedule in an attempt to examine the professors' values/beliefs, the intended
outcomes, the processes they used to reach the intended outcomes, the knowledge/skills
that were essential to the processes, and the barriers that they perceived
in reaching the outcomes.
To determine student approaches to learning, students were administered
the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987.) In addition, a subsample
of students were interviewed to gain further understanding of their approaches
to learning and their perceptions of their professor's approach to teaching.
To this point, the results have revealed a strong similarity between the
teaching profiles. Effective teaching was seen to result in three primary
student outcomes: increased appreciation for the subject, meaningful acquisition
of subject-related concepts, and increased student responsibility for learning.
The professors also shared common values and beliefs, including respect
for students, the importance of effective communication, a passion for the
discipline, authenticity/honesty, high expectations, and the belief that
teaching is their first priority. With regard to processes, there was common
emphasis on building and maintaining trust/acceptance, questioning, modelling,
and focusing on a framework or the essence of the content.
Data from the Study Process Questionnaire revealed that students approach
their learning in different ways, perhaps due to cognitive development and
the nature of the subject matter. However, most students appeared to be
preoccupied with grades. Students primarily relied on studying the text
and notes for achieving a good grade. With regard to things that students
valued in the transaction, one class described the personal interest of
the professor and the ability to demonstrate concept relevance through applications.
An excessively heavy workload was a common concern.
In summary, the results thus far support the literature on student approaches
to learning. That is, student interviews revealed a preoccupation with grading.
This preoccupation with grading, regardless of assessment method, created
varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the students and professors.
The professors noted what they viewed as a lack of student commitment to
take responsibility for their learning. This apparent lack of commitment,
however, might well be related to what the students perceived as an excessive
workload. As Ramsden (1992) has suggested, workload is directly related
to how students approach and study for exams. Some professors may not have
a full appreciation of the demands on students - especially in terms of
the pressure to get good grades. The professors respected teaching and put
considerable effort into it, had a passion for their subject, and wanted
students to have an understanding of the subject. Unfortunately, the reality
of the emphasis on assessment in higher education may well undermine positive
approaches to teaching if professors do not recognize students' needs with
regards to grades and workload.
Exams and grading are a reality in higher education. Professors must deal
with the enormous impact that exams and grades have on students and the
way they approach learning. Perhaps the best way to avoid conflicts associated
with assessment is to clarify expectations at the beginning of a course.
Expectations of all participants (professor and students) need to be addressed
and agreements negotiated. At a minimum, students should understand the
various constraints even if little compromise is possible. Furthermore,
professors have to be seen to be fair in their grading. This does not mean
lowering standards but simply making the grading criteria clear.
Conclusion
The comparison of student approaches to learning with profiles of their
professors provides additional understanding of the nature of the teaching-learning
transaction. Professors who are seen to be excellent at facilitating the
transaction seem to be defined by the level of congruence between their
stated aims and the means by which they evaluate student progress towards
those outcomes. Thus, it would seem that traditional descriptors of teaching
excellence (i.e., commitment, caring, passion for discipline, command of
instructional techniques) are necessary but insufficient qualities. Professors
should be sensitive to institutional contingencies such as workload and
exams. More specifically, professors must ensure that workload and grading
are associated with the way students approach learning. That is, whether
they approach learning in a deep/meaningful or surface/reproductive manner.
References
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying.
Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Entwistle, A., & Entwistle, N. (1992). Experiences of understanding
in revising for degree examinations. Learning and Instruction, 2,1--22.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student
learning. London: Croom Helm.
King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective
judgement. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Larson, S. (1983). Paradoxes in teaching. Instructional Science,
12, 355--365.
Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In R.R. Schmeck
(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 53--82). New
York: Plenum.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in
learning: I -- outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
46, 4--11.
Murray-Harvey, R., & Keeves, J.P. (1994). Students' learning
processes and progress in higher education. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development
in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P.
Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives. London: Kogan
Page.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education.
London: Routledge.
For more information, contact:
Dr. Randy Garrison, phone: 220-7345, e-mail: 59154@ucdsvm1.admin.ucalgary.ca