rather than learner autonomy (Knowles, 1984). This is the model that the author has been seeking to move away from in practice. Indeed, other academics are.
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
PART ONE
The role of the teacher in higher education: exploring a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning with non-traditional HE students.
This reflective assignment seeks to explore the role of the teacher in higher education in facilitating a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning with widening participation learners. This study will draw on relevant research and theory as well as the author’s own particular experience as an award leader for a new Foundation Degree in Community Learning (FDCL). This assignment has identified ‘learner centred approaches’ as its key focus as this is an approach to teaching and learning (T&L) that the author has been striving to facilitate with the first cohort of FDCL learners. The FDCL is a modular programme that is studied parttime over three years and is delivered through a series of evening and Saturday sessions. The learners on the FDCL are invariably employed as education support practitioners (e.g. parent support workers, home-school link workers, learning mentors, extended schools support officers) by schools or local authorities. Much of the learning that takes place through the FDCL is work-based, which means that the learners must routinely evidence the application of theory in their practice. The learners are also encouraged to bring workplace issues and situations into the university classroom to stimulate and shape learning activities.
The FDCL aims to develop the learners both personally and professionally, by enhancing their knowledge, understanding and skills, so that they are more effective and valued members of the education workforce. For the purposes of this assignment it is also important to point out that the majority of these learners are white, working class women in their forties and fifties, and are considered to be nontraditional higher education students. These issues and their impact on learnercentred approaches will be analysed in this study. Higher education (HE) policy makers, researchers and practitioners are continually exploring ways to enhance university students’ learning experience (Cahill et al.,
1
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
2010). Ongoing shifts in higher education, including widening access and nontraditional students, mean that tutors are having to focus on different approaches to T&L (Archer, 2003a; Archer and Leathwood, 2003; Gilchrist et al., 2003; Archer et al., 2003; Field, 2006). Indeed, as a result of such changes many academic tutors find themselves increasingly designing and facilitating forms of reflective and collaborative enquiry as a means of empowering students within learning contexts (McWhaw et al., 2003; Gillies and Ashman, 2003; Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Shachar, 2003).
This is the situation that the author finds herself in, as a tutor seeking to develop approaches to learning that befit a cohort of non-traditional HE students. However, one of the issues faced in practice was that the FDCL students’ expectations of learning did not automatically fit the tutor’s approach. The tutor’s epistemological positioning (social constructivist) and engagement with relevant research and literature on student engagement convinced her that a learner-centred, non-deficit model of learning was desirable. However, the FDCL students expected to be ‘taught’ in a traditional manner. They appeared to perceive themselves as ‘empty vessels’ and expected the tutors to ‘fill them up with knowledge’, which is not unusual in adult learning contexts (Field, 2006; Tett, 2010). The author has had to work deliberately and continuously with this group in order to gently challenge their perception of what learning is, how it takes place and what their role in the process is. This sees the author assuming that it is desirable to alter learner perceptions, so that they align more easily with a learner-centred approach.
Conventional pedagogic approaches position the teacher as the designer of every aspect of the learning, including what will be learned, when and how (Hart et al., 2004; Field, 2006). However, this teacher-centred approach locates the learner in a largely passive and submissive role (Tett, 2010), fostering dependency on the tutor rather than learner autonomy (Knowles, 1984). This is the model that the author has been seeking to move away from in practice. Indeed, other academics are attempting to move from teacher-centred models of learning to more studentcentred models, where learning takes place through a variety of tasks and activities 2
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
and not just teacher-focused curricula (Samuelowicz and Bain, 2001; Ramsden, 2003; Tett, 2010).
Moving toward more learner-centred approaches to T&L has been given weight as graduates are now routinely required to evidence high levels of proficiency in relation to skills such as time management, teamwork, project management, communication, problem solving and information technology (Gillies and Ashman, 2003; Archer, 2003b; Field, 2006; Tett, 2010). As Stefani et al. (2000: 163) recognised, ‘cognitive skills alone will be insufficient to ensure survival in a competitive work market’. Thus, in order to develop these types of skills, in addition to specific sets of knowledge and understanding, it has been argued that it is the responsibility of university tutors to promote T&L approaches that strive to develop self-motivated, independent and autonomous learners (Stefani et al., 2000; Yuen and Hau, 2006). Moreover, the goals of learner-centred models can include encouraging the learner’s development of interpersonal skills, promoting competence in carrying out generic activities and common roles in professional practice, fostering identification with relevant professionals, and developing an awareness of norms and values that promote or impede the aims of a professional practice (Tsien and Tsui, 2007). The aims communicated by Tsien and Tsui (2007) particularly resonate with the needs of the FDCL learners, as this cohort comprises education practitioner-students whose learning must include the development of professional competencies. The fact that these students are all working in education settings means that it would be short-sighted if tutors did not encourage students to draw on their work-based knowledge and experiences as part of the learning process. In this sense the tutor often sees the FDCL learners as the ‘experts’ and herself as a hands-on facilitator of learning, rather than a font of knowledge in an ivory tower.
Such a move in T&L approaches is consistent with an andragogic model (Knowles, 1984). Andragogy purports that it is desirable to embed distinct approaches in formal
learning situations for
adult
learners.
Such approaches include
communicating the following to learners: the importance and value of the subject 3
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
being studied; how learners can direct the learning themselves, and how the topic relates to their own experiences (Murray and Macdonald, 1997; Ramsden, 2003). Indeed, learner-centred teaching may allow students to actively participate in what to learn and how to learn (Yuen and Hau, 2006), thereby achieving higher-level learning outcomes, such as knowledge application and creation (Bloom et al., 1956), rather than merely knowledge recall (Yuen and Hau, 2006). In relation to the FDCL cohort, it has been relatively easy to communicate the value of the learning taking place and to link the learning to the students’ own experiences as it relates so strongly to the development of their professional knowledge and skills. This means that the learners are largely motivated to engage in learning, albeit not necessarily in the way that the tutor envisages. Facilitating the FDCL learners to actively participate in the learning process (and beyond the classroom) and to see the relationship with the tutor as collaborative has been more challenging.
Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are often considered as alternatives to traditional teacher-centred methods (Field, 2006). Furthermore, constructivist methods are characterised by learners’ active involvement in learning contexts, where they are co-constructors of knowledge (Hart et al., 2004). The focus changes from tutors concentrating on merely ‘transferring knowledge’ to the learners ‘constructing knowledge’ (Murray and Macdonald, 1997), which echoes Ramsden’s (2003) continuum of learning approaches from teaching as ‘effective transmission of information’ to teaching as ‘making learning possible’. Additionally, constructivist models often start with problems and issues that are ‘authentic and relevant to students’ (Yuen and Hau, 2006: 280). Learners then use their initiative, research skills and experience to analyse the problem and to develop solutions with the help of peer and tutor support and collaboration (ibid). Ideally, students are then assessed with authentic tasks (Murray and Macdonald, 1997; Ramsden, 2003; Tsien and Tsui, 2007). Theoretically, such an approach should better equip learners to become reflective and adaptable individuals and to develop the skills and competencies required and desired by graduate employers.
4
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
However, as noted by Stefani et al.’s research (2000), persuading learners of the importance of reflection and collaboration as part of the learning process is not always easy. Furthermore, Yuen and Hau’s study (2006) suggested that learnercentred models might sacrifice the breadth of subject knowledge covered within learning sessions; the concern being that learners may learn ‘less’ when more time intensive learner-centred approaches are adopted. Indeed, teacher-centred models are likely to cover more material in a shorter time, however, Yuen and Hau (2006) also found that constructivist teaching is likely to involve deeper processing of material in class by learners. Thus, enabling the learners to reach the higher-level learning outcomes (e.g. critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation) desired by employers.
As alluded to at the beginning of this assignment, the cohort of FDCL learners bring with them a range of specific learner needs. These are largely centred on issues of age, gender, class, low levels of cultural and social capital, and competing work and family commitments (Archer and Leathwood, 2003; Archer et al., 2003). The group was initially very worried about entering higher education, despite the majority having children who were either at university or who were expected to go to university in the future. It was important that the tutor understood the nature of their concerns by engaging with them at the pre-entry stage about the barriers they perceived (Murray and Macdonald, 1997). These discussions revealed that they did not see themselves as ‘university material’ (Archer and Leathwood, 2003), with the majority experiencing low levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy in relation to academic work. This was a particularly significant issue for the author (as tutor) as it threatened to prevent the group from enrolling on the programme. The tutor gradually overcame this point by regularly meeting the potential learners in their work contexts so that she understood what issues were important for them and their employers. This enabled the tutor to build trust with the potential learners and to break down some of their perceptions about studying in HE (such as academics being unapproachable and inflexible, and the learning being abstract and impossible). The tutor’s high level of pre-entry support could be considered a risky strategy in the future, as it is time intensive (and therefore expensive) with no 5
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
guarantee that it will turn into sufficient student numbers. However, the FDCL learners have since commented that they would not have committed to the programme had it not been for the pre-entry support.
Another of the group’s learning needs was related to their roles at work and in their families (as parents and carers to elderly relatives). This presented two problems that needed to be overcome: firstly, the learners were time-poor outside of class contact, which meant independent study was regularly de-prioritised; and secondly, actual delivery of teaching and learning was difficult to fit in around busy working family lives. The latter point was addressed quite quickly through direct negotiation with the group. It was decided that the first year of the programme would be run at an adult education centre (rather than the university, which was still perceived as foreboding, even though the tutor now was not) that they were familiar with and that the modules would be delivered through 2-hour weekly twilight sessions and occasional Saturday mornings. Taking their needs seriously and adopting a flexible, tailored approach to delivery was welcomed by the learners and made them feel valued. The former point was less quick to address as it was bound up with other issues including low self-confidence and a lack of HE knowledge and experience. The tutor has been striving to embed time-management activities as well as study skills into the sessions so as to steadily build the learners’ confidence as effective HE students (as well as juggling work and family commitments).
This brief study suggests that the alignment between the author’s T&L principles (learner-centred) and her practice with the FDCL cohort are not consistently congruent at present. However, perhaps the most important learning point is that different T&L approaches should not be seen as being mutually exclusive. For example, models of andragogy and pedagogy are probably best viewed as a continuum of approaches to T&L, which need to be responded to flexibly depending on the learning context and its learners.
[Word count: 2046]
6
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
PART TWO
Skills Development Plan The Skills Development Plan is a self-assessment of the author’s own CPD needs relating to supporting student learning. It comprises an audit of current skills and a development plan relevant to enhancing student learning. Table 1 communicates the skills identified that are currently used in the author’s learning and teaching role (as the award leader and tutor on the FDCL). For the each skill identified, the author’s competence is assessed. Table 2 communicates the author’s development plan in order to build on the initial skills audit. The development plan includes strategies identified, success criteria and timescales to ensure that the actions are achievable and measurable.
Table 1 identifies fifteen relevant and significant competencies. These have been identified in two ways: firstly, by reflecting on the author’s T&L roles and responsibilities, and secondly, by drawing on appropriate findings from research and literature on effective T&L approaches. For example, auditing practice against the Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) principles and values was a useful exercise. Additionally, Zepke and Leach’s (2010) proposal for ten actions to improve student engagement, based on an international synthesis of 93 research studies on enhancing student engagement, was also highly relevant, as was Seale’s (2010) research on participatory methods of enacting student voice approaches in higher education. Seale’s (ibid) work made this author reflect on how actively she involves students in teaching and learning development. For example, does she: regularly ask questions about student experiences; see and understand the student perspective; reflect on implications for practice; listen to potentially marginalized voices?
…
[Word count: ]
7
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
References Archer, L. (2003a) ‘Social class and higher education’, in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Archer, L. (2003b) ‘The ‘value’ of higher education’ in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Archer, L. and Leathwood, C. (2003) ‘Identities, inequalities and higher education’ in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Archer, L., Hutchings, M., Leathwood, C. and Ross, A. (2003) ‘Widening participation in higher education: implications for policy and practice’, in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) (2003) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Ashman, A.F. (2003) ‘Peer mediation and students with diverse learning needs’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (Eds.) Co-operative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ashman, A.F. and Gillies, R.M. (2003a) ‘Guiding intellectual and personal growth across educational contexts’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (2003) Cooperative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ashman, A.F. and Gillies, R.M. (2003b) ‘Peer support networks in school and community settings’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (2003) Co-operative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: cognitive domain, New York: David McKay.
8
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
Cahill, J., Turner, J. and Barefoot, H. (2010) ‘Enhancing the student learning experience: the perspective of academic staff’, Educational Research, 52 (3), pp.283-295. Field, J. (2006) Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Gilchrist, R., Phillips, D. and Ross, A. (2003) ‘Participation and potential participation in UK higher education’ in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (Eds.) (2003) Co-operative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J. and McIntyre, D. (2004) Learning without Limits, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2003) ‘Student motivation in co-operative groups: social interdependence theory’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (Eds.) Cooperative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Knowles, M.S. (1984) The Adult Learner: A neglected species, Houston: Gulf Publishing. Leathwood, C. and Hutchings, M. (2003) ‘Entry routes to higher education: pathways, qualifications and social class’ in Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A. (Eds.) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. McWhaw, K., Schnackenberg, H., Sclater, J. and Abrami, P.C. (2003) ‘From cooperation to collaboration: helping students to become collaborative learners’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (Eds.) Co-operative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Murray, K. and Macdonald, R. (1997) ‘The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice’, Higher Education, 33, pp.331-349.
9
01911377
PgC HPE: Supporting Learning Module
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Second Edition, London: Kogan Page. Samuelowicz, K. and Bain, J.D. (2001) ‘Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning’, Higher Education, 41 pp.299-325. Seale, J. (2010) ‘Doing student voice work in higher education: an exploration of the value of participatory methods’, British Educational Research Journal, 36 (6), pp.995-1015. Shachar, H. (2003) ‘Who gains what from co-operative learning: an overview of eight studies’ in Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (Eds.) Co-operative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Stefani, L.A.J., Clarke, J. and Littlejohn, A.H. (2000) ‘Developing a student-centred approach to reflective learning’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37 (2) pp.163-171. Tett, L. (2010) Community Education, Learning and Development, Third Edition, Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press. Tsien, T.B.K. and Tsui, M. (2007) ‘A participative learning and teaching model: the partnership of students and teachers in practice teaching’, Social Work Education, 26 (4) pp.348-358. Yuen, K. and Hau, K. (2006) ‘Constructivist teaching and teacher-centred teaching: a comparison of students’ learning in a university course’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43 (3) pp.279-290. Zepke, N. and Leach, L. (2010) ‘Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 11 (3) pp.167-177.
10
