TATIONpRÆSEN 4 April 2013 CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES...

TATIONpRÆSEN

4 April 2013CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNINGSCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCESAARHUS UNIVERSITET

Active Learning: Motivational, Cognitive and Instructional Perspectives – Lessons from an Intervention Study and Theory

Kim Jesper Herrmann

Active learning: motivational, cognitive, and instructional perspectives 4 April 2013

Centre for Teaching and LearningSCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCESAARHUS UNIVERSITET

2

Outline

› Background› Theories of learning› Student-centred teaching› Questions

› Methods› Results

› Quantitative› Qualitative

› Discussion› Implications



3

BACKGROUND



4

Challenge for modern universities

› Elite university mass university

› Active learners vs. passive spectators (Rocca, 2010)

› To integrate less academically orientated students

› Increased focus on ‘active’ learning in HE (Lea et al., 2003)



5

Constructivism

› Knowledge cannot be transmitted …

› but is individually constructed …

› and socially negotiated …

› within a given (academic) discourse

Individualistic experiences,

perceptions, and constructions do not

mean that it is impossible for

individuals to construct essentially

the same understanding for any

object or event in the external world.

Common understandings regularly

result from social negotiation of

meaning which is supported by

collaborative construction of

knowledge. Understandings [...] can

be negotiated between learners and

teachers (Jonassen et al., 1993:234,

emphasis added).



6

Student Approaches to Learning (SAL)

› ”Establishing concepts or understanding ideas … depends on making links with what we know already and that demands … the conscious attempt to make sense of topics for oneself” (Entwistle 2009:16, emphasis added)

› “The most basic commonality [between theories of learning in higher education] is that meaning is not imposed or transmitted by direct instruction, but is created by the student’s learning activities, well summarised in the term ‘approaches to learning’ “ (Biggs 2012: 42, emphasis added)

› Deep and surface approaches to learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Biggs, 1987)



7

from Biggs (2012:40)



8

Student-centred instructional methods

› “… the process of learning involves active construction and, accordingly, learning should itself be active” (Stewart, 2012:30, emphasis added)

› Common principles of student-centred instructional methods (Lea et al., 2003):› Emphasis on student activity› Focus on dialogue and interaction› Responsibility and independence

› Cooperative learning deep approaches to learning (Millis, 2010)

Case-Based Learning

Cooperative Learning

Problem-Based Learning

Discovery Learning

Collaborative Learning

Reciprocal Teaching

E-learning

Blended Learning

Concept Mapping



9




10

Questions

› What is the anatomy of approaches to learning in the context of tutorials?

› To what extent does student-centred teaching (cooperative learning) affect the students’ approaches to learning?

› How do students perceive student-centred teaching?



11

METHODS



12

Intervention

1234567891011…Teaching as usual: Student presentations

Intervention: Cooperative learning

Pre-survey+ interviews

Post-survey+ interviews



13

Quantitative methods

› R-SPQ-2F-DA (Lassesen, 2009; Biggs et al. 2001)› Deep approach scale› Surface approach to scale

› Additional questions› In-class participation scale (Rocca,

2010)

› n=142 (pretest-posttest)

› Dependent samples t-test



14

Qualitative methods› Data

› 12x2 semi-structured interviews› 338 pages transcription› Coding in Nvivo

› Validation› Inter-coder reliability (100 percent)› Intra-coder reliabiltiy (80-97

percent)› Coherence and confirmability› Quotes (saliency)› (Miles & Huberman, 2005)

› Analytical strategies

› Approaches› Deductive (predefined criteria)› Categorisation (5 surf. / 7 deep)› Between-case comp.› Matrix coding

› Perceptions› Inductive (data-driven codes)› Between-case comp.› Matrix coding



15

RESULTS



16

Papers

› Paper 1: ‘Cooperative learning in higher education social sciences: A review’

› Paper 2: ‘The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention’ (quantitative analysis)

› Paper 3: ‘When student-centred teaching fails: Explaining the relation between approaches to learning, perceptions of the tutorial, and responses to student-centred teaching’ (qualitative analysis)



17

Quantitative results

› n=142

› Part. (t[140]=-2.405, p<0.05, r=0.199)

› DA (t[140]=-0.930, p>0.05, r=0.08)

› SA (t[140]=-0.553, p>0.05, r=0.05)

› Partial conclusion



18

Approaches

Deep approach Surface approach

Taking notes

Summarises in own words

Writes notes in order to understand

Takes notes of main points

Reproduces verbatin what was said

Writes notes in order to pass exame

Notes as many facts as possible

Listening

Notices what is said (content)

Looks for underlying meaning

Focuses on what is not understood

Compares to own understanding

Notices who says it (tutor vs. peers)

Looks for correct answers

Focuses on what is supposed to be ‘the point’

Disengages when solution is found

Engaging in dialogue

Judges the plausibility of statements

Wonders and asks questions

Comes with questions in mind

Labels statements as right or wrong

Accepts answers without furhter reflection

Empty bucket ready to be filled



19

Approaches


Taking notes







Listening
















I definitely take quite a lot of notes myself,

because what other people have written

isn’t normally enough. It might mean

something to them but it doesn’t mean

exactly the same thing to me (Kirsten, DA)

So I listen to what they say and try to write as much as

possible … I spend a huge amount of time writing

things down, yes. I really do. […] It’s also because

we’re going to have to do an exam and we’re allowed

to take our notes with us, so you can search for

information in OneNote [a note-taking program] … and

then you can find exactly what you need … I suppose I

feel it’s really important to get everything written down

… I’m afraid I won’t be able to remember it … actually I

often feel that it’s hard to express things in my own

words … That’s why I feel it’s better to listen to what

people say and write it down in their words. Then I can

understand what they said later on. (Claudia, SA)



20

Approaches


Taking notes







Listening


















21

Approaches


Taking notes







Listening
















… so I look at my [own] notes and

like try to find out ‘What’s their

answer to this question?’ … ‘Was I

thinking the same thing?’, umm,

and if I wasn’t … then I write it

down and if I don’t feel I’ve

understood what they said I might

ask them at the end … ‘What do

you mean? Is it this?’ (Arthur, DA).

… if you feel that the person giving

a presentation isn’t 100 per cent

on top of things, you might lose a

bit of, umm, incentive to listen

carefully to what they’re saying

[…] so you might as well wait until

Susan [the tutor] takes over and

says the important things //…

people normally believe what they

hear and then rely on it. (Michael,

SA).



22

Pedagogical role of tutor

Role of peers

Purpose of the tutorial

Perceptions



23

Perceptions


Role of peers


… Susan [the tutor] she manages / I mean, I mean that

we cover it all THOROUGHLY … // (IP: What is Susan

good at?) She’s good at putting things clearly and

saying ‘That’s wrong’ and ‘That’s right’ and that kind of

thing. ‘And what I mean is this and that’ […] when a

subject is a bit vague you need some pretty specific

notes, after all […] we have got to do an exam. Umm …

and she’s good at giving you them [notes]. (Kate, SA)

… where the tutor is like in control as far as that’s

necessary and like keeps the teaching on track […]

someone who’s in control but can easily pull back as

well (James, DA)

Knowledgable chairman

Expert authority



24


Role of peers


It’s also because I feel that what Kurt [the

tutor] says is right … or what the presenter

says is right. If we reach our own conclusions, I

tend to feel that they’re wrong. (Claudia, SA)

It’s interesting to hear other people’s interpretations

and questions, and in many cases they have

different points of focus which you might not have

thought about yourself […] So I think it’s really

interesting (John, DA)


Academic colleagues

Expert authority

Fellow ignorants

Perceptions



25

Expert authority

Fellow ignorants

Small scale, interactive lecture


Role of peers


It’s all about going to class

and getting the right

answers. (Kate, SA)


Academic colleagues

Arena to apply and test understanding

Perceptions

I suppose I also expect that in tutorials

you work with the material in a slightly

different way because you can discuss it

[…] you can play an active part in the

discussions. (Victoria, DA).



26

DISCUSSION



27

Questions

› What is the anatomy of approaches to learning in the context of tutorials?

› To what extent does student-centred teaching (cooperative learning) affect the students’ approaches to learning?

› How do students perceive student-centred teaching?



28

The meaning of ‘activity’

Study

› Cognitive activity≠ behavioral activity

› Quantitative and qualitative aspects

› Quality as understanding

› Strategy coherent with intention

Theory

› Intention and strategy (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Biggs et al., 2001)

› Silence ≠ inactivity (Meyer, 2009)

› Approaches and organised effort (Entwistle, McCune & Hounsell, 2002)



29


Symbolic engagement /‘technification’



30

The efficacy of student-centred teaching

Study

› Impact of cooperative learning

› Congruence with deep approach ≠ stimulation of deep approaches

Theory

› Review of student-centred instructional methods (Baeten et al., 2010)

› Learning theory ≠ teaching imperatives (Gergen, 2005)

› Constructivist teaching fallacy (Mayer, 2004)

… a challenge facing educational researchers is to discover instructional methods that promote appropriate processing in learners rather than methods that promote hands-on activity or group discussion as ends in themselves (Mayer, 2004:15)



31

The role of perceptions

Study› Approaches to learning are

responses to instrucational methods as they are perceived

Theory› Structure actions outcome

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009)

› 3P-model (Biggs, 2002)

› Experience of learning (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 2005)

Context (teaching)

Approaches to learning

Learning outcome

Perception of context



32

Student-centred teaching paradox

› Premis: Meaningfull learning involves active knowledge construction i.e. deep approaches

› Problem: Some students adopting surface approaches to learning

› Solution: Student-centred instruction requiring students to engage in learning activities

› Paradox: Students relying on surface approaches to learning are the ones least likely to see the point in student-centred instruction



33

IMPLICATIONS



34

Theoretical implication

› Instructional methods per se

› Alignment (Biggs, 2012)

› Congruence (ETL-project)

› Balanced optimism

› Empirical testing of assumptions

› Formalised instructional methods +

› Experiential dimension +› Teaching approaches



35

Practical implications

› Teaching as intended ≠ teaching as perceived

› Evidence informed trial-and-error

› Feedback about teaching (Hattie, 2012)

› Reaching commonality of meaning (Hounsell, 2005)



36

AcknowledgementsI am deeply indebted to the teachers, tutors and students who participated in my study. Especially, Dr. Søren Flinch Midtgaard and the tutors Kaare, Asbjørn, Lasse, Sara, and Rasmus.

I would also like to thank:› My supervisors Dr. Torben K. Jensen and Dr. Anne Mette Mørcke.› My colleagues at the Centre for Teaching and Learning, Aarhus University. › The staff at the Institute of Academic Development, Edinburgh University, and in particular

Dr. Velda McCune. › Dr. Noel Entwistle and Dr. Charles Anderson for valuable feedback on papers. › The Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences for granting me a three-year scholar-

ship.› Professor Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, professor Dai Hounsell, and professor Berit Eika for taking

time to assess my dissertation.

› Finally, I would very much like to thank friends and family for much needed support.



37

References› 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, 243-260.

› Biggs, J. (2012). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 39-55.

› Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.

› Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking (Universities Into the 21st Century). (1 ed.) Palgrave Macmillan.

› Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary Finding (Rep. No. 1). Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses.

› Entwistle, N. & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.

› ETL project team (2012) ETL Project [On-line]. Available: www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk

http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/



38

References› Gergen, K. (1995). Social Construction and the Educational Process. In L.Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),

Constructivism in Education (pp. 17-39). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

› Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. (1 ed.) Routledge.

› Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. (1 ed.) (vols. 1) London and New York: Routledge.

› Hounsell, D. (2005). Understanding Teaching and Teaching for Understanding. In F.Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd (internet) ed., pp. 238-257). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

› Illeris, K. (2009). Læring. (2 ed.) Roskilde Universitetsforlag.

› Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T.M.Duffy, J. owyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231-247). Berlin: Springer.



39

References› Lassesen, B. (2009). Learning Strategies in a Danish university context - Testing the reliability and validity

of the Revised two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire. (Unpublished).

› Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students' Attitudes to Student-centred Learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321-334.

› Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (2005). The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

› Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I - Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

› Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning: The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. Amercian Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

› Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (2 ed.) Thousand

Oaks: SAGE.

› Millis, B. J. (2010). Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy.

Stylus Publishing.



40

References› Prosser, M. T. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher

Education. SRHE and Open University Press.

› Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student Participation in the College Classroom: An Extended Multidisciplinary Literature Review. Communication Education, 59, 185-213.

› Stewart, M. (2012). Understanding learning: theories and critique. In L.Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-centred approach (1 ed., pp. 3-20). ACER Press.



41

Alternative theories of learning in HE

› Theories’ ecological validity (Entwistle, 1984)

› Collaborative learning and social constructivism

› Ways of thinking and practicing (ETL-project)

› Situated learning, communities of practice (Lave and Wenger [1991] in Stewart, 2012)



42

Scope of intervention› Competition from other courses

(Anderson, 1997)

› Assessment, SAQ’s (Entwistle, 2009)

› Length of intervention one semester (Kember, 2004)

› ETL Final Report› ”… modest collaborative initiaties …”› ”… real world of messy, multifaceted

educational change” (Fullan, 2002)› Sustainable incrementalisme

› Constructive alignment (Biggs, 2012)

Teaching-learning activities

AssessmentIntended learning outcome



43

Conceptions of learning

› Conceptions of learning (Säljö, 1979 [in Marton and Säljö, 1984]; Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993)

1. Increase in knowledge2. Memorizing3. Aquiring facts for later retrieval4. Abstraction of meaning5. Understanding reality6. Changing as a person

› Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning (van Rossum and Schenk, 1984)



44

Cooperative learning

› ”...offers students and faculty a structured, on-task means to foster learner activity and learner interaction” (Millis & Cottell, 1998:38, emphasis added)

› Claim: CL stimulates deep approaches to learning› Ownership and control› Active rather than passive› Multiple sources of inspiration› Opportunity to connect with prior

knowledge

Active

learning

Collaborat

ive

learning

Cooperativ

e learning

TATIONpRÆSEN 4 April 2013 CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES...

Documents

Transcript of TATIONpRÆSEN 4 April 2013 CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES...