INDUCTION FOR PART TIME LECTURERS (6)

THEME TWO;


OPTIMISING THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE OF PART TIME LEARNING IN OPEN AND DISTANCE E-LEARNING (ODEL).

UNIT ONE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENT LEARNING

INTRODUCTION

Teaching and learning are opposite sides of the same coin. Was it Plato who once said?

“A wise man learns from experience and an even wiser man from the experience of others?”

In order to ensure that students learn effectively, lecturing must be effective. Teaching effectiveness is therefore defined in terms of the achievement of learning outcomes and learning goals. Learning efficiency, on the other hand, is defined as the utilisation of resources (financial, physical, human) in the most economical way in order to achieve these goals. The effectiveness of education thus depends on the student who is learning, the content of what is being taught, and the teaching/learning goals, but also on the characteristics of the lecturer (Mc keachie, Pintrich, Lin, Smith & Sharma, 1990: 104). Enthusiasm, an ability to express oneself, active involvement and dedication to students and education can make a significant difference in the pursuit of teaching effectiveness.

Lecture-orientation materials of the University Free State (1999) emphasize that the lecturer’s primary role in the teaching-learning situation is that of facilitator of learning (education manager) and expert in the learning material (scholar). It describes the excellent lecturer as “people-centred, more interested in individuality than conformity, more interested in finding solutions than in following rules”. When values are internalized the need for rules diminishes (Cf. Process and Management Communiquè, 2005).

In order to know how students can be helped to learn better, lecturers must first know how students learn. In the light of the literature on learning theories, there is a need to reconcile the various theoretical foundations used to explain the learning process, and to bring education into the context of learning theories. The different learning theories reflect the different ways in which one can look at the learning process, and in this way different principles can be emphasised.


1. STUDENT LEARNING

1.1 Conceptual development

For sometime now, the question “How do students learn?” has been answered in the behaviouristic terms of stimulus and response (S-R theory) (Cf. Venter, 2001). An answer to this question would suggest that students learn by means of conditioning or by bringing certain actions in line with certain consequences. Retention of what is learnt would be brought about by repetition or practice and reward.

Over the past 20 or so years, and on the basis of research findings, there has been a dramatic change in the concept of learning. The S-R approach has been gradually replaced with theories in terms of which the learner is seen as an active processor of information.

A key figure in the development of this new cognitive philosophy was Ausubel. He shifted the focus from the importance of learners’ prior knowledge in determining what new information should be learned (assimilated) and how this should be done. He strongly emphasised the need for anchoring concepts, methods promoting progress, and a clear structuring of teaching material. In 1978 he wrote: “If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (Ausubel, 1978 in Brown & Atkins, 1988) (Cf Venter, 2001)..

Since the 1970 ‘s and 1980’s many other educationists pointed out that it is important to analyse learning tasks. According to him, different learning tasks, which make different demands on the learner, can be differentiated, e.g. extension, which requires only that students add knowledge to their existing knowledge; refinement, which requires that students refine their knowledge and/or skills in such a way that these can be more effectively utilised; and restructuring, which requires that the student extends or changes knowledge he already possesses or makes new associations between existing knowledge patterns. (Cf. Lecture-orientation materials of the University Free State, 1999).

1.1 Studies on learning

Developments in recent cognitive psychology have led to an increase in clinical, experimental and survey-type research. One branch of the research focused on the effect of personality traits and motivation on learning. A second branch of empirical work focused on individual skills and learning strategies, styles and approaches.

Some of the most fruitful work on student learning is undoubtedly the studies of Marton (Cf. Bitzer and Venter, 2001), which led to the definition of two clearly differentiable learning approaches, described by Marton as deep-level and surface-level processing. Deep-level processing can briefly be described as the active search for meaning/understanding. People with this type of approach start a learning task with the intention to first understand it: they question arguments and conclusions in the learning material and try to reconcile it with knowledge they already possess and with personal experience, in order to assess the validity of the conclusions. In contrast, students with a surface-level approach try to memorise only those parts of the learning material that they suspect questions will be based upon. These learners tend to focus on specific facts that often have absolutely no relation to one another.

During Marton’s investigations, a deep-level approach was almost always associated with better understanding, and after five weeks the learners who made use of this approach were able to remember more details than the surface-level learners who only tried to memorise facts.

Contemporary education science expanded on this and divided the categories further into active deep-level learners and passive deep-level learners on the one hand, and active surface-level learners and passive surface-level learners on the other. This classification is based upon the degree of activity and involvement displayed by students during learning. Fransson also found that students who feel threatened are more likely to follow a surface-level approach (Cf Bitzer and Venter, 2001)).

Other researchers also found that an excessive amount of factual questions and possibly a too-heavily-loaded curriculum could lead to surface-level learning. Habitual surface-level learners tend to find learning difficult, and most are also not prepared to study long hours (Cf Bitzer and Venter, 2001).

In experimental studies psychologists inter alia focused their attention particularly on two learning strategies, namely that of the serialist and that of the holist. “Serialists” focus on details and the steps in an approach and tend to make much less use of analogies, metaphors and illustrations. This strategy appears to be a sophisticated surface-level approach. Students with a holistic approach start with a broad focus and attempt to see the task as a whole and to make associations with existing knowledge while using analogies illustrations. Regular use of the serial approach as “operational learning” and the regular use of the holistic strategy could be described as “conceptual learning”. Phychologists also identified a third style, “versatile learning”, which indicates that the learner is capable of using either of the two aforementioned styles (Cf. Bezuidenhout, 2001).

Bitzer and Venter (2001) as well as Human (2002) who conducted lecturer induction sessions respectively at the University of the free State and the Central University of Technology: Free State, also relied on the historic works (however very empirical) of Marton and Pask which was considerably refined by Entwistle and his research team (Entwistle, Hanley & Hounsell, 1979; Entwistle, Hanley & Ratcliffe, 1979; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Marton, Hannsell & Entwistle, 1984; Richardson, 1986). Entwistle also encompassed study methods in his work. Entwistle’s findings clearly showed that that the deep-level and surface-level approaches imply two totally different processes. Conceptual learning (holism) is thus related to deep-level processing and operational learning (serial learning) is a form of surface-level processing, but both processes may be necessary to bring about true understanding (versatile learning)( Lecture Orientation Hand Outs of the University of the Free State, 2001).

Human (2002) and Bitzer (2001) and Venter (2001) expanded upon these learning orientations or lifestyles amongst students, which they described as “personal meaning”, “reproduction” and “achieving”. Personal meaning is related to intrinsic motivation (the motivation is inherent to the learning task), a preference for autonomy (independence) and a deep-level or versatile (more than one level) approach to learning. Reproduction is linked to extrinsic motivation (motivation from outside the learning task), fear of failure, etc, anxiety, commitment to the syllabus, and a surface-level approach. Achieving is associated with the desire to succeed, as well as a calculating approach to study and a willingness to follow any learning strategy that might lead to high marks. (Lecture-orientation materials of the University of the Free State, 2001).

UNIT TWO: IMPLICATIONS OF LEARNING THEORIES AND RESEARCH

1. Implications for learning
Human (2002) reached the following conclusions in respect of learning theories:

• There are no fundamental conflicts between the different theoretical explanations for the learning process – they rather serve to complement one another.

• The perceptive (observational), affective (emotional) and cognitive (mental) domains of human learning are interdependent, and are inseparably part of the learning process.

• Classroom and experiential learning (active learning) can and should be one and the same.

• Learning is in reality an adjustment process – a way in which a person can learn to deal the world around him/her.

• Learning is a complex process, but it forms a dynamic total process consisting of a series of definable, relatively simpler sub-processes and events that occur in an orderly and rational manner.

Although the learning process is rational in itself, it is the questions of why a person learns, what a person learns and when the knowledge and skills can be utilised that are not always rational in a given situation.

An overview of the research described in the works of Human (2002) and Venter (2001) indicate that most students have a relatively stable orientation towards learning, but that at least some are able to choose from a repertoire of learning strategies, those that best suit the learning content. However, there is no general or “best” learning method (just as there is no general or “best” teaching method). Different learners will use different strategies for different tasks. Some students, however, have a smaller variety of strategies from which to choose, while others may be inclined to make bad choices. Still, two dominant orientations can be identified, namely the search for knowledge (surface) and the search for understanding (deep-level). Each of these orientations has its own strategies and can be followed in an active or passive way.

The research findings can be applied in practice in various ways. In this regard, there are also two approaches: Firstly, the student profile (the common characteristics/traits of the student group) can be accepted as a given and attempts can be made to adapt teaching methods to the situation. Or secondly, one can use the standpoint that the student profile can be adapted by means of intervention strategies.

The Lecture–orientation materials of both the University Free State (2001) and the CUT (2002) state that, following intensive and highly structured study skills programs, students involved in various surveys changed their primarily surface-level profile to a deep-level approach, with strong indications of an improvement in academic performance. In the discussion of the results of recent research, there appears to be a tendency to deduce that those students that fall into the category of knowledge seeker always practise surface-level learning, while the understanding seekers always process their learning in an in-depth manner. One would then accept that the former approach is inferior to the latter. However, according to the experts (Human, 2002)) this does not always apply to all subjects and learning tasks. Learning should be seen as an ongoing process that alternates between these two orientations. Many first-year subjects and courses, for example, set high demands for the knowledge dimension, because students are expected to rapidly learn the terminology and basic knowledge in the various subject fields. In other subjects and courses, on the other hand, students may be expected to have a certain amount of comprehension before they can search for knowledge. However, it is highly likely that in all their subjects, students will at one time or another utilise each of these orientations, sometimes simultaneously.

1.1 Implications for study skills

The research on student learning has also led to an increasing interest in study skills. Traditional study skills programs are often criticised, and rightfully so, for being too comprehensive or general in nature to be truly meaningful (Human, 2002). This is because these programs are based on the naïve view that there is only one correct study method, and also because they encourage students to be aware of their problems, but do not teach them how to solve these problems themselves. With these programs there is also sometimes a tendency to disregard problem areas such as motivation, values ad attitudes (Human, 2002) and to accept that all students have the same approach to learning.

With recent programmes, there has been a shift in focus towards more specific information processing strategies and strategies that are aimed at helping students to deal with their study anxiety, to equip their environments in such a way that maximum learning is possible, and to maintain a positive attitude towards their studies (Venter,2001)).

Another popular approach corresponds more with where the differentiated, individualised nature of learning is emphasised and guidance is more prominent (Venter, 2001). The aim here is to enable learners to determine their own learning style and to monitor their own effectiveness as learners.

1.2 Implications for metacognition (metalearning)

Venter (2001) is a proponent of the theory that learners must be aware of, and must purposefully and selectively make use of, their own cognitive processes. Bezuidenhout uses the term metacognition (seventh sense) to describe this ability. He sees it as a process whereby a learner learns how to learn. As the first step in the process, specific skills, which are learned within the context of a specific subject or assignment, are combined in various orders (sequences) in order to form strategies, e.g. for planning, monitoring, control and self-testing. The next step is to utilise strategies to determine what is needed for a new task, what strategies and skills he/she possesses, and how to best adapt the two to each other.

Venter (2001) emphasises that learners must develop the ability to transfer their learning strategies from on situation or context to another. To be able to do this, the learner must be able to describe his/her strategies and must also be given the opportunity to practise them so that they eventually form an inherent part of his/her behaviour repertoire.

The lecturer can promote metacognition in three ways: initially as a direct instructor of the skills and strategies; secondly as a model who, by demonstrating how he/she uses skills, solves problems, writes creatively, etc., demonstrates his/her own thought processes to the learners; and lastly by creating opportunities for learners to practise their skills and strategies. It is then assumed that as learners become more aware of their own thought processes, and learn how to monitor their own performance, the lecturer can transfer control to the student, and the student can be made more responsible for his/her own learning effectiveness.