Potential Exam Question 1

Ramsden (2003)

- Students and teachers present depressing view – students can pass exams and still be unable to use KL in real-world. Instead of study for sake of study, for love of subject, encouraged to study for sake of career advancement.

But what do we actually want students to learn in HE?

Different kinds of learning occurs at different levels of quality from specific objectives related to field, as well as generic capabilities that all students should develop:

Level 1: Abstract level = general intellectual development (general abilities, personal qualities e.g. think critically and imaginatively, effective communication, a gradual change in ways of thinking.)

Level 2-3: Content related outcomes =

2- More specific content-related understanding, linked to specific discipline

3- highly categorical proficiencies (factual knowledge, technical skills, prob solving techniques) - teachers help students understand phenomena in the way subject experts do.

Teachers want students to have understating of concepts, knowledge at all levels and ability to connect knowledge at each level to others.

- Most academics say core of their job is challenging students to think (Ramsden, 2010). The general learning aims in HE show similar themes across reports, unchanged over years:

- Whitehead (1929):

-- HE should lead to “imaginative” acquisition of knowledge or understanding, atmosphere of excitement, transforms knowledge.

-- Not just facts or burden on memory – imagination illuminates facts

-- Elicits general principles applying to facts and alternative possibilities

- Other studies show consensus = develop “critical thinking”; think for themselves, independent judgment and critical self-awareness.

- Modern variations for knowledge economy and comparable statements in most writings about LLL in HE = flexibility, learn throughout career; integrate theory/practice by generalizing to capably deal with previously unmet situations.

- Australian/Canadian lectures most agreed on 3 educational objectives:

 à teach students to analyse ideas/issues critically

 à develop students’ intellectual/thinking skills

 à teach students to comprehend principles or generalisations.

- Content related expectations (e.g. discipline/professional abilities) overlap with these general aims.

- Some content-specific aims of vet schools/objectives lecturers aim for:

-- Develop professional problem solving skills and ability to apply info to new probs

-- Development of prof values of the vocation.

-- Communicate professionally with patient

-- Appreciate significance of normal when interpreting data form patients.

The generic capabilities and more specific objectives relate to each other:

- the general education goals gain their meaning through the specific subject content in which they are expressed.

- Important to relate teaching methods to particular goals.

- Content related objectives form a more accessible link between what students learn and the curriculum

- Factual knowledge has no value in itself but general objectives have no meaning unless they are taken to imply the lower level knowledge.

- Concern arises: highly general aims also a weakness, as differences in intellectual development that are tied to specific subject matter are invisible.

With regards to these specific objectives and more fundamental capabilities, similarities were found among academics, and across disciplines.

- What lecturers want consistent across fields = high quality learning:

- understanding key issues/concepts – appreciate significance and appropriate arguments – awareness of relevant evidence, analyzing and interpreting.

– Acquisition of knowledge/skills subordinate to general objectives.

- More emphasis on self-critical awareness of deficiencies (= only precursor of further inquiry) and thus readiness to find out more, on something more fundamental - go beyond the orthodox, tackle unfamiliar problems with spirit, awareness of what learning and understanding in the discipline consist of.

- Less dependence on teachers as sources of info

- Needs to overcome inadequate skills in working cooperatively to solve problems.

How do students achieve these overlapping gen and specific aims?

Other researchers support Ramsden’s point of view. Many studies show higher education should foster particular educational experiences to build student knowledge and skills to prepare them for a globally and digitally interconnected world.

- Jewels and Albon (2007)

- even high-level knowledge and skills insufficient to enable students to prosper in modern world.

- Complex problems span across disciplines and cognitive/geographical/cultural boundaries, so best addresses by crossing boundaries, different perspectives, teams.

- Rather than rewarding individuals, HE needs multi-dimensional teaching model to developing team competencies and knowledge sharing.

- Many pedagogies focus on group approach and knowledge access (distinct from cooperative learning and knowledge sharing) - leads to knowledge dependent on context, so learning cannot be separated from situations and theories will not transfer well.

- Needs education transformation into “high risk quadrant”, team-centered pedagogies with culture of LLL of individual and team.

- Shown to be successful when academics recognise teams they are unconsciously engaged in and adopt team principles and assessable/authentic teaching approaches, thus creating optimum learning environments.

– Successful due to individuals’ commitment to goal, fun delivery, not subject to “bell curve” marking, includes skills such as team dynamics, group conflict and resolution, personality types, etc.

– Reinforces notion no matter how well individual able to assess problem, others able to provide alternative solutions.

- If assessments structured around case studies, problem solving, scenarios, simulation etc. and include trust and commitment to group welfare, deeper more meaningful learning occurs, fosters additional skills and attitudes.

Herrington and Parker (2013)

- Encouraging students to become self-regulated learners adept in collaboration, reflection, research and adapt to changing ITC landscapes in school and society generally – Requires major shift in first year HE from exam-oriented to fully embraced authentic learning (AL) environment – efforts essential and rewarding, helps personal life, learning and careers.

- Digital media literacy rises in importance as key skill in every discipline/profession but pedagogies focus on teaching about technologies, not how students can use them as tools to learn with, not from.

-AL supported by emerging technology help students become more self-directed learners. Complex authentic tasks require significant student collaboration.

- Herrington et al (2010) identifies 9 design elements required for AL to achieve understanding when applying knowledge to real world situations: 1 – authentic context 2 – authentic tasks/activities 3 – access expert performances 4 – multiple perspectives 5 – collaboration 6 – reflection 7 – articulation 8 – coaching and scaffolding (so no need to focus on content/info) 9 – authentic assessment.

Briggs (2012)

- Meaning not imposed or transmitted by direct instruction, but created by learning activities.

- Student-focused strategies focus on bringing about conceptual changes in understanding – what students do to achieve understanding, not what teachers do, that is important (i.e. not a teacher-focused transmission process)

- Teachers’ job to organise learning so all students maximize engagement with/use higher-level learning processes.

- Such experiences occur when “constructive alignment” of objectives, learning activities, assessments - achieved in variety of successful teaching methods:

- (cf. traditional method where disciplines taught first, independently of each other, gain declarative knowledge, some skill training, then student accredited as ready to practice as a professional)

- PBL: Objectives = get students to solve problems they will meet in their professional careers. Teaching method = present problems to solve. Assessment = based on how well they solve. Problems selected so by end of course, learners covered much of the same content as traditional method, but nature of knowledge gained is diff, in a working context so can be used in context.

- LP: aim = based on reflective practice, created for student teachers demonstrate they can drive classroom decision-making with their psychological knowledge, but applicable across professions. Objectives = students reflect, evaluate, improve, formulate theories, generate new approaches. Assessment tasks drive the learning activities.

During my undergraduate degree, many of these educational experiences were fostered. The Murdoch vet course is unique in that much of the final year is based around learner-centered work-placements/experience and in real-world scenarios (zoos, farms, abattoirs, clinics and laboratories, across countries) with feedback from experts in all these fields. Team competencies are built through these AL experiences. The initial 3-year science degree followed a more traditional teacher-focused transmission process - disciplines taught first, independently of each other, to gain declarative knowledge, followed by some skill training. However, prior to graduates being accredited as a professional, there was strong emphasis on student-focused PBLs. Assessments varied from memory-based, practical skills through to AL scenarios, problem solving, authentic role-play simulations with actors, etc. I believe my undergrad degree teaching method have been very successful.

Resources:

Briggs, J. (2012). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development. 31(1) pp. 39-55. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.642839

Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4) pp. 607-615.

Jewels, T., & Albon, R. (2007). Supporting arguments for including the teaching of team competency principles in higher education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 3(1) pp. 58-69.

Ramsden, P. (2003 2nd Ed.). What students learn (Chapter #, pp. 19-38). In Learning to teach in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ramsden, P. (2010, August 12). How to improve university teaching. Times Higher Education, 5 August, 2010. Retrieved from https://paulramsden48.wordpress.com/pauls-blog/page/4/