Emerging Issues in the Practice of

University Learning and Teaching

Geraldine O’Neill,
Sarah Moore,
Barry McMullin (Eds.)

AISHE READINGS
Number 1
2005
abouthea_download-logo.jpg (JPEG Image, 250x137 pixels) http://www.hea.ie/siteobjects/soeditor/pro/uploads/abouthea_downlo
aishe-starburst.jpg (JPEG Image, 176x58 pixels) http://www.aishe.org/etc/images/aishe-starburst.jpg
Editors: O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B.

Publisher: All Ireland Society for Higher Education (AISHE),

Office of the Vice President for Learning Innovation
Dublin City University
Dublin 9
Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.aishe.org/

c 2005 Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence.

ISBN No: 0–9550134–0–2

Recommended citation: O’Neill, G., Moore, S. and McMullin, B. (Eds.) (2005) Emerging Issues in
the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Funded by: Higher Education Authority, (HEA) Targeted Initiatives fund.

Web edition: http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/

Cover design by David Jennings, Centre for Teaching and Learning, UCD.
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

Dr Rowena Murray, University of Strathclyde, for her excellent facilitation of the Writers Week in
Delphi, Connemara.

The University of Limerick for creating the concept of the Writers Week and allowing the writers
the opportunity to avail of their workshop.

Dublin City University for their editing and typesetting work, in particular thanks to Karol Kowa-
lik.

University College Dublin for their management of the project.

The staff of the Delphi Mountain Resort & Spa

Finally to the 20 writers who gave generously of their time, creative energy and commitment to
writing in the area of teaching and learning.

i
ii
 Foreword

The idea for this unique collection was created by the

practices and ideas related to learning and teaching in Irish
a collaborative effort between Dr Sarah Moore, in the Unive
in Dublin City University and myself in University College Du

F O R E W O R D The collection explores a range of the current theory to prac

Higher Education in the Republic of Ireland. It is written fo
lecturer in Higher Education who is dealing with teaching an
The idea for this unique collection was created by the need forThe more on
literature experienced lecturer
the emerging issues and
re- students on pos
lated to teaching and learning in Irish higher education. TheDiplomas/Certificates
project was a collaboration between
should also gain some useful insights
Dr Sarah Moore, in the University of Limerick, Dr Barry McMullin in Dublin
the result City University
of a Higher Education and
Authority (HEA) funded
myself in University College Dublin.
contributions from 20 writers involved in the development
The collection explores a range of the current theory to practice learning and teaching issues
Education in Ireland.
in Higher Education in the Republic of Ireland. It is written for the new to competent Lecturer
in Higher Education who is dealing with teaching and learning issues on a daily basis. The more
experienced Lecturer and students on postgraduate teachingThe and introductory chapter describes the collaborative writi
learning Diplomas/Certificates
should also gain some useful insights from the readings. The collection is the result of workshop
included a ‘Writers’-Week’ a Higher in Delphi, Connem
Education Authority (HEA) funded collaborative writing project with contributions from 20deal
presented in three sections to with different aspects
writ-
ers involved in the development of teaching and learning in education:
Higher Education in Ireland.
The introductory chapter described the collaborative writing • process
Sectionin1:this
Working
project,inwhich
the Changing World of L
included a ‘writers-week’ workshop in Delphi, Connemara, Ireland. The book is Education
then presented
• Section
in three parts to deal with different aspects of learning and teaching in higher 2:education:
Moving the Focus from Teaching to Lea
• Section
• Part 1: Working in the Changing World of Learning and Teaching 3: Developing
in Higher and Growing as a University
Education
• Part 2: Moving the Focus from Teaching to Learning The chapters in each section are based on issues that we
• Part 3: Developing and Growing as a University Teacher.important in the current climate of higher education in Irela
scholarship of teaching, theories of teaching and learning
learning,
The chapters in each section were based on issues that were curriculum
identified design,as being
by the group feedback on student le
important in the current climate of higher education in Ireland and therefore include areas such
development of the lecturer and resources for the lecturer. T
as, scholarship of teaching, theories of teaching and learning, student-centred learning, active
practical advice based on the current literature.
learning, curriculum design, feedback on student learning, e-learning, professional development
of the lecturer and resources for the lecturer. The emphasis in each chapter is on practical advice
based on the current literature.
The writers were all members of an Irish Educational Develo
The writers were all members of a recently formed Irish aEducational
range of units such as Centres
Developers group,forandTeaching and Learning
Quality Assurance Centres,
were employed in a range of units such as Centres for Teaching and Learning, Academic Devel- Libraries and Education Departm
opment Centres, Quality Assurance Centres, Libraries, and Education Departments.
This model of collaboration in writing not only links the This
oftenmodel of collaboration
divided teaching andinresearch
writing not only links the of
agendas but also highlights that academic writing need not agendas, but also
necessarily highlights
be an activitythat academic
done in writing need no
isolation.
isolation. In order to support the dissemination of these writings, theIncollection
order to support
is also the dissemination of these writi
available
online on the All Ireland Society for Higher Education websiteonline on the All Ireland Society for Higher
(AISHE):
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/ http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
The energy created and acquaintances made in producing this collaborative piece has drawn
together a community of scholars in higher education, which Thewill benefit
energy the sector
created in the years made in producing
and acquaintances
to come.
together a community of scholars in higher education, which
to come.

Geraldine O’Neill, PhD.

Geraldine O’Neill, PhD.
National University of Ireland,
University College Dublin.

iii
iv
C O P Y R I G H T

Original Works
The separate and original works comprising this collection are subject to copyright by their indi-
vidual authors. The aggregation of the works into the collection, and all ancillary original works
are copyright by the editors. All these original works are made available under the Creative
Commons1 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence.
Informally, this means that you are free:

• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

• to make derivative works

under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must give the original author(s) credit.

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under a license identical to this one.

Note:
• All other rights are reserved by the copyright holders.
• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of the work(s).
• Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the relevant copyright
holder(s).
• Your fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
• This is an informal, human-readable summary of the licence terms, which has no force in its
own right. The legal terms of the licence are determined solely by the Legal Code (the full
license)2 .

Third Party Copyright Works

All usage of third party copyright works in this collection, by way of quotation or otherwise, is
done in good faith under the “fair dealing” and/or “incidental inclusion” provisions of the Irish
Copyright And Related Rights Act, 20003 , sections 51 and 52. Any specific query in relation to
such usage should be referred to the individual author(s).

1 http://creativecommons.org/
2 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
3 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000.html

v
vi
C O N T E N T S

I NTRODUCTION C HAPTER :
W RITERS ’ WEEK : A VEHICLE FOR COLLABORATIVE WRITING AMONG EDU -
CATIONAL DEVELOPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sarah Moore, Geraldine O’Neill and Barry McMullin

PART 1: Working in the changing world of learning and

teaching in higher education
T HE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE . 5
Marian MacCarthy and Bettie Higgs

I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL

UNDERPINNINGS OF PEDAGOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

PART 2: Moving the focus from teaching to learning

S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND
LECTURERS ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

A CTIVE LEARNING - FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO FIELD - WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Bettie Higgs and Marian McCarthy

T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES : EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO

SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Terry Barrett

P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Barry McMullin

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU

CARE ?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Diana Kelly

C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED

LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A CONSIDERATION OF LEARNER -
FOCUSED STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

vii
D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

PART 3: Developing and growing as a University teacher

N EW TRENDS IN ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT: REFLECTIVE JOURNALS ,
TEACHING PORTFOLIOS , ACCREDITATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP -
MENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Iain MacLaren

W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUAL

ACADEMIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Margaret O’Flanagan

F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN

TEACHING AND LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Helen Fallon

A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE ? U SING

STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Sarah Moore and Nyiel Kuol

T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR

TEACHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Ciara O’Farrell

V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT . . . . 159

David Jennings

B IOGRAPHIES OF A UTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

viii
W RITERS ’ WEEK : A VEHICLE FOR COLLABORATIVE
WRITING AMONG EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPERS

Sarah Moore
University of Limerick
Geraldine O’Neill
University College Dublin
Barry McMullin
Dublin City University

Background
The original idea for producing this series of papers came about (as many ideas do) as the result of
a conversation. The conversation focused on the difficulties, obstacles, problems and challenges
associated with academic writing, as well as the importance of many of the interconnected themes
in the area of educational development. All of us in the Irish educational developers group had
witnessed the struggles associated with the role that academic writing plays within the walls of
higher education institutions. In addition, we all had ideas to share about the practice of edu-
cational development, and were eager to find ways of disseminating these insights in ways that
could be accessed in a coherent way by more than just the relatively small group of professionals
we encountered at our inter–university meetings.
It was the combined motivation to explore and participate in the writing process more fully,
and that associated with our collective sense of having something important to say, that fuelled
the impetus for this project. The proposal was supported through funding by Ireland’s Higher
Education Authority, whose commitment to this kind of dialogue and output continues to be cru-
cial as a supporter of change, development and collaboration in Higher Educational Institutions.

The educational developers’ writers’ week

Based on a professional development template that has been used at the University of Limerick for
several years now (Moore 2003; Murray 2005), a writers’ week experience was planned and sub-
sequently took place in September of 2004. The planned project drew heavily from, but was also
significantly different to the writers’ ‘retreats’ that have been part of the University of Limerick’s
professional development landscape since early 2001. While the features of the retreat experience
were very similar to those run at UL, this was the first time that colleagues had met together in
the same dedicated space and time to produce a series of writings on similar and interconnected
themes, with the aim of producing a single cohesive written output for dissemination.
Thus, the pressures on the group may have been more intense, but also the levels of possible
collaboration and peer support were also stronger and more relevant than was the case with
previous writers weeks where academics came from a wide range of diverse fields of expertise.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 W RITERS ’ WEEK : A VEHICLE FOR COLLABORATIVE WRITING AMONG EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPERS

Rationale for a writers’ ‘retreat’

The rationale for a writers’ week is based on previous evidence that people and the quality of
their ideas can derive enormous benefits from a short-term intensive writing environment (Grant
and Knowles 2000). Writers’ retreats have already been found to facilitate the achievement of an
exclusive focus on writing by creating an arena in which the normal distractions of work and
life are temporarily removed (Moore 1995). This can serve to initiate, to nourish or to accelerate
writing, even if standard writing habits need to be sustained in different ways during the nor-
mal course of professional daily life. Despite operating in educational environments, university
faculty (including educational developers) report that it is often difficult to achieve an exclusive
focus on writing in a way that can be facilitated by a retreat environment (Cameron 1998). Fur-
thermore, given the dispersed nature of Ireland’s educational developers network, we hoped that
the logistics of collaboration, interaction and peer support would be much more easily achieved
on this five day, residential programme.
Essentially, the retreat environment was seen as a context within which a community of prac-
tice could be created and enhanced, a set of concrete outcomes could be achieved, and a precedent
for collaborative dialogue (both written and spoken) could be set. This rationale echoes the ob-
jectives originally associated with the UL writers’ retreats i.e.: ‘to create an atmosphere of trust and
safety for productive writing; to help participants to learn from each other about the process of writing;
to create a multidisciplinary community of writers who would provide support and advice to one another
both during the retreat and beyond; to explore the important links between teaching, research, writing and
scholarship; and to have a productive working experience in which each participant would commit to a
specific writing goal and try to achieve it [within the time frame of the retreat]’ (Moore 2003:335).

The format of the week

Writers’ retreats have been designed then to operate as temporary writing ‘sanctuaries’ away from
the normal rhythms of professional life. Because it is still an unusual and unconventional way
of working and collaborating, it often feels like a daring and somewhat complicated experiment
and one that requires much planning and preparation both on a personal and a professional level.
Despite these complexities, the format tends to be simple: Participants gather in a remote location
equipped with ideas, data and literature they have gathered in order to be prepared to complete a
piece of academic writing. Each of the five days is devoted to individual writing time, punctuated
with opportunities for feedback from colleagues, group or paired meetings to discuss progress
and opportunities to exchange shared writing experiences. Every day begins with a facilitated
session that provides structured advice on writing. Participants gather in the evenings for social
interaction and dinner in a central location, and for further discussion on the writing projects in
which each of them is engaged.
All of these features were part of the educational developers writers’ week that gave rise to
this document. In order to gauge participants’ expectations and goals and to ascertain their per-
ceptions about the extent to which these were met, views were sought at the beginning and the
end of the experience. These views were captured on pre and post writers’ week questionnaires,
which contain qualitative insights about the value and the impact of the experience.

Positive expectations
While existing research on the writers’ retreat format shows that participants tend express the
need to ‘get started’, to ‘hit the ground running’ and to initiate a writing project (Moore 2003;
Grant and Knowles 2000), the motives of the participants in this instance seemed to focus more
on completing, on finishing and on pulling together many ideas in the form of a series of written
pieces. This can be attributed at least in part to the pre-work and preparation in which members
had participated in the months leading up to the writers’ week. It may also be the case that the
educational developers group is one that is characterised by a particularly strong need for space

2
 Sarah Moore, Geraldine O’Neill and Barry McMullin

and time in which to contain and articulate the many ideas and experiences that they encounter in
the course of their professional lives. Indeed, the majority of participants specifically highlighted
the importance of creating space and time in which to write, a function of the week to which
they seemed to attribute the most value. In articulating their expectations, they talked about
the importance of sharing wisdom, of getting feedback from their peers, of forging new links, of
enhancing ‘serious writing’, and of the opportunities for creativity, collegiality, collaboration and
enhanced commitment. In terms of more tangible outcomes, they highlighted the importance of
producing a useful, experience–based set of papers/chapters that could be disseminated beyond
the group and that could generally inform educational development and academic practice in
meaningful ways.

Concerns
Like almost any new endeavour, the participants did not come without at least some concerns.
They wondered if they would be able to write effectively without the normal framework of in-
formation access that they could avail of in their educational settings, they had concerns about
building and maintaining project momentum, they worried that they might get side tracked by
distractions, be unable to co-ordinate and integrate their writing and they had some concerns
about the consistency of writing styles among the group. These concerns were subsequently dis-
cussed during the course of the week. This final product represents a negotiation of the different
voices of the members and may also echo some of those concerns.

Outcomes
In addition to the tangible output, participants also expressed some behavioural and attitudinal
changes in their approach both to academic writing and to educational development. They felt
that the experience had reinforced the principles of inter–institutional co-operation, a dynamic
that they felt needed nourishment and support. They sensed that they had developed new strate-
gies for producing important written work within the field of educational development. They
mentioned that the week had helped them to refine, to structure, to express and to display ideas
in a way that was personally empowering. Several participants highlighted that the dialogue and
writing that had occurred during the week had the potential to have a strong impact both within
the educational institutions that were represented and beyond. Generally, a sense of group cohe-
siveness among educational developers was seen as an important ‘by-product’ of the week.

Conclusions
Recently, Grant and Knowles (2000) have argued that writing in academia needs to be reframed.
It may be much more constructive to position writing as a community–based, collaborative, even
social act, dynamics that stand in sharp contrast to private, isolated, individualistic processes that
often prevail (Haines et al. 1997). Certainly, the educational developers’ writers’ week, of which
this document is the first concrete output, demonstrated again the power and the momentum that
can be derived from the creation of a collaborative community of practice. We believe that despite
the temporary nature of the intervention, its impact has traveled back into the educational organ-
isations that it represented, and there is a greater likelihood that dynamics to which it gave rise
can in some way become embedded in academic practice across a range of different institutions.
This project has reinforced the importance for educational developers to be part of the dia-
logue of academic writing, to bring scholarship to their own work and to share that scholarship
with others. Overall, we believe that the voice of the Irish inter-university educational devel-
opers group has become stronger as a result of this endeavour and we continue to endorse the
collegiality and collaboration that it has strengthened.

3
 W RITERS ’ WEEK : A VEHICLE FOR COLLABORATIVE WRITING AMONG EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPERS

References
Cameron, J. (1998). The right to write: an invitation and initiation into the writing life. London:
Macmillan.

Grant, B. and S. Knowles (2000). Flights of imagination: academic women becoming writers.
International Journal of Educational Development 5(1), 6–19.

Haines, D., S. Newcomer, and J. Raphael (1997). Writing together: How to transform your writing in
a writing group. New York: Pedigree.

Moore, S. (1995). Intensive writing program, progress reports. Melbourne: Victoria University of
Technology Collaborative Research Group Scheme.

Moore, S. (2003). Writers’ retreats for academics: exploring and increasing the motivation to write.
Journal of further and higher education 27(3), 333–342.

Murray, R. (2005). Writing for academic journals. Berkshire: Open University Press.

4
T HE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND ITS
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Marian McCarthy and Bettie Higgs
National University of Ireland, Cork
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

Poised on the cusp of a new century in a world that wrestles with a multitude of
difficulties, the university must fulfil a more well- rounded mission. New genera-
tions of college- goers need scholarly teachers to help them prepare for a time when
global interdependency is much more than a slogan. Knowledge, for all the glory and
splendour of the act of pure discovery, remains incomplete without the insights of
those who can best show how to integrate and apply it. (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff
1997:10)

Introduction
In the context of the changing role of the university teacher, this chapter sets out to explore how
Ernest Boyer’s (1990; 1997) four scholarships (of discovery, application, integration and teaching)
have made it possible to bridge the traditional gap between teaching and research. By providing
us with a new paradigm for thinking about research in all its complexity, he has shown us a way
forward which has begun to redefine how we now look at research, teaching and learning. This
chapter is an attempt to chart and define the pathways of this new route. It is our experience that
the process of reflective practice and the documentation of that in various portfolio formats ap-
propriate to harnessing teaching and learning, have provided ways of acquiring and developing
a scholarship of teaching and learning in keeping with the changing face of third level education.
The following questions are kept in mind as the chapter progresses:
1. How is scholarship defined in the context of higher education?
2. What is the scholarship of teaching and how does it define research into teaching and learn-
ing?
3. What are the implications of the scholarship of teaching for practice?
4. How can the portfolio process advance the scholarship of teaching and learning?
5. What general lessons have we learned in UCC from our experience of the portfolio model
and portfolio seminars as a way of documenting scholarship?

Overview
The chapter begins with an overview of Boyer’s perspective, synthesising his thinking as it emerged
in Scholarship Reconsidered and Scholarship Assessed. We then develop his thinking further, by fo-
cusing on the distinction between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching, as defined
by Shulman (2004:158) and by focusing on the idea of learning as part of the scholarship of teach-
ing. The chapter will then tease out some implications of scholarship for current practice, focusing
on how such teaching is to be documented and developed.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 T HE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Scholarship Revisited
In giving us perspective on the concept of scholarship, and on the false dichotomy between teach-
ing and research, Boyer (1990:15) reminds us that the word “research” is only a recent addition
to the language of higher education, the term being used in England in 1870’s for the first time to
mark Oxford and Cambridge out as places of learning (research), as well as teaching. The term
’research’ began to emerge in American education only in 1906. Boyer further adds that schol-
arship originally referred to a variety of creative work, whose “integrity was measured by the
ability to think, communicate and learn” (1990:15) not, therefore, by the number of publications a
scholar produced, as has become the norm:

Scholars are academics who conduct research, publish, and then perhaps convey their
knowledge to students or apply what they have learned. The latter functions grow out
of scholarship, they are not to be considered part of it. But knowledge is not neces-
sarily developed in such a linear manner. The arrow of causality, can, and frequently
does, point in both directions. Theory surely leads to practice. But practice also leads
to theory. And teaching, at its best, shapes both research and practice. (1990:15–16)

Boyer’s point is that a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar is needed: “a
recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice
and through teaching‘” (1990:24). Hence the necessity of positing four dynamically interrelated
scholarships, ’pure research’ being co-dependent on the other forms of scholarship. Such a repo-
sitioning of the traditional view of research is even more pertinent in 2004, where huge funding
can make research attractive as an end in itself and as the chief means of promotion. Such dislo-
cation of research is short sighted, since research has to be communicated, synthesised and tested
in the real world and be of value to the discipline, the students and the community. It is not an
end in itself. As Shulman (2004:16) points out:

The intellectual and political message of Scholarship Reconsidered is that we need a

broader conception of scholarship – one that points to the power of scholarship to
discover and invent, to make sense and connect, to engage with the world and to
teach what we have learned to others. Boyer and his colleagues wanted these differ-
ent scholarly activities to be seen as of equal value to the broader community.

If we are to take Boyer’s challenge seriously, we need to look closely at each scholarship and
tease out its implications for lecturers in the 21st Century.

The Scholarship of discovery

This type of investigative scholarship comes closest to what is traditionally understood by re-
search and its focus on publication. However, “The scholarship of discovery at its best contributes
not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or uni-
versity. Not just the outcomes, but the process, and especially the passion, give meaning to the
effort” (1990:17). In the new order, such scholarship also includes the creative work of scholars
in the literary, visual and performing arts – hence the inclusion of all disciplines. Boyer’s focus
on the words “process” and “passion” are pertinent, already signalling other embedded forms
of scholarship within this one. The question behind this kind of research as Huber points out is,
“What do I know and how do I know it?”. An answer to this question surely points in the direc-
tion of other forms of scholarship – for the how of knowing is dependent on making connections
(integration) and on application of what is known; equally teaching others is one valid way of
knowing what I know. Hence, the dynamic nature of the research even as it is conceived.
Our own experience of meeting regularly together in the university and discussing our disci-
plines and the challenges of trying to teach them, bears this out. The scholarship of discovery is
linked with so many more pedagogical and practical discoveries once the area of expertise and

6
 Marian MacCarthy and Bettie Higgs

original scholarship has to be taught. Once the student enters the picture, the scholarship of dis-
covery has to become interactive and dynamic, or remain inert and inaccessible to all but the few
students whose intelligence profile is on the same plane as that of the lecturer. If the lecturer is to
become a teacher, who transforms rather than informs, and who is inclusive and interactive, then
the scholarship of discovery has to leave the traditional realm of “research” and find new direc-
tions. Indeed, Boyer’s four scholarships can be seen as the new directions that guide the compass
of learning. To extend the metaphor, they are our north, our south, our east, our west. To neglect
one would be to cancel all - for the centre would not hold; the compass could not function.

The Scholarship of Integration

In proposing the scholarship of integration, Boyer highlights the need for scholars to give meaning
to isolated facts, putting them in perspective and making connections within and between dis-
ciplines. This form of scholarship has much to do with purpose and with the goals of a general
education, as Boyer realised in his own experience (Boyer 1997:2) and is therefore asking the ques-
tion: What do the findings mean? Such a question calls for critical analysis and interpretation.
Thus, the specialised knowledge of research is placed in a larger context, “illuminating data in a
revealing way, often educating non-specialists too” (1990:18). Boyer goes on to point out that the
scholarship of integration is closely related to discovery. It involves, first, “doing research at the
boundaries where fields converge” (1990:19). Such work, he continues is increasingly important
as traditional disciplinary categories prove confining, forcing new categories of knowledge:

Today, interdisciplinary and integrative studies, long on the edges of academic life,
are moving towards the centre, responding both to new intellectual questions and to
pressing human problems. As the boundaries of human knowledge are being dramat-
ically reshaped, the academy surely must give increased attention to the scholarship
of integration. (1990:21)

It is our contention that unless lecturers start sitting together, sharing the same space as well
as their research areas, such scholarship will find it difficult to thrive. This process of sharing does
not happen over night, as is well documented in our research to date (Lyons et al. 2002; Hyland
2004). Here in UCC, as part of the Teaching and Learning Support programme, we have spent the
past three years learning to build sense of community, of trust and have struggled with working
out a common language. Before this time, a smaller group of lecturers met regularly to discuss,
develop and represent their practice. Integration is, then, as much attitudinal and habitual, as it
is aspirational; it will only happen in the doing, when there is an audience to whom one must
account and whose very presence demands their inclusion.
The scholarship of integration, therefore, also includes interpretation, fitting one’s own research
– or the research of others – into larger intellectual patterns. Boyer points out that “such efforts are
increasingly essential since specialisation, without broader perspective, risks pedantry” (1990:19).
In an age of increasing specialism, such a caution is worthy, especially for the young lecturer who
can find herself isolated. Hence, again, the importance of sharing practice and research with
others and of creating the culture and climate where this is possible. Our own experience of the
portfolio seminars at UCC is indicative of the effort necessary over time to make the scholarship
of integration possible in practice: “The scholarship of integration is serious, disciplined work
that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on original research” (1997:9).
Part of this drawing together has to do with making time for lecturers to share and investigate
their work. We found, for example, that lunchtimes were productive meeting times – if lunch
were provided – a case, indeed, of providing food for thought!

The scholarship of Application

The third element, the application of knowledge, moves, in Boyer’s words “towards engagement”,
as the scholar asks, “How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems?

7
 T HE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions?” (1990:21). This is where theory
meets practice and one informs and reforms the other. Boyer provides us with some interesting
perspectives on the idea of service, which permeates this form of scholarship. He cautions that
colleges and universities have recently rejected service as serious scholarship because of its vague
definition and disconnected nature: Too often, “Service means not doing scholarship but doing
good” (1990:22). To be considered scholarship, Boyer continues: (1990:22–23)

service activities must be tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge and relate
to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demand-
ing work, requiring the rigor – and the accountability – traditionally associated with
research activities. . . . The scholarship of application, as we define it here, is not a one
way street. Indeed, the term itself may be misleading if it suggests that knowledge
is first “discovered” and then “applied”. The process we have in mind is far more
dynamic. New intellectual understandings can arise out of the very act of applica-
tion whether in medical diagnosis . . . shaping public policy or working with public
schools . . . In activities such as these, theory and practice vitally interact, and one
renews the other.

A key point of learning for us in this university, is to hear, in our regular seminars, how our
colleagues have applied their expertise in various settings and how these, in turn, have impacted
on the discipline itself – how, indeed, practice has transformed theory. Dr. Anthony Ryan’s article
on Teaching Resuscitation and Stabilization of NewBorn Infants in Ireland (Lyons et al. 2002:Chapter 7)
is an excellent example of this and of how the scholarships of application and teaching collide
and sustain each other.

The Scholarship of Teaching

In relation to the scholarship of teaching, Boyer cautions that the “work of the professor becomes
consequential only as it is understood by others” (1990:23). He, therefore, underlines the point
that teaching is about learning. Teaching in his terms, is not some “routine function, tacked on,
something almost anyone can do. When defined as scholarship, teaching both educates and
entices future scholars” (ibid). Throughout his discussion of a scholarship of teaching, Boyer’s
(1990:23–24) weaving of the many strands that are intertwined in its web speaks for itself, issuing
us with many challenges and resetting the compass once again for us:

Teaching is also a dynamic endeavour involving all the analogies, metaphors, and im-
ages that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learn-
ing. Pedagogical procedures must be carefully planned, continuously examined, and
relate directly to the subject taught . . . knowing and learning are communal acts. With
this vision, great teachers create a common ground of intellectual commitment. They
stimulate active, not passive, learning and encourage students to be critical, creative
thinkers, with the capacity to go on learning after their college days are over.

Note Boyer’s commitment to life-long learning here and his pointing to the idea that it is the
lecturer’s job to teach students how to learn, not what to say or regurgitate. He also foregrounds
the idea of Teaching for Understanding here, central to our work in scaffolding teaching and
learning in UCC, by highlighting the process of planning, of making connections, of active learn-
ing and ongoing assessment that underline a scholarship of teaching. Of equal importance then,
is the idea of seeing the teacher as a learner: (Boyer 1990:24)

Further, good teaching means that faculty, as scholars, are also learners. All too of-
ten, teachers transmit information that students are expected to memorise and then
perhaps, recall. While well prepared lectures surely have a place, teaching, at its best,
means not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well . . .
In the end, inspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive.

8
 Marian MacCarthy and Bettie Higgs

In terms of this publication, it is this form of scholarship that is our catalyst, our calling and
our constant challenge.

Shulman’s challenge
In his latest work, Teaching as Community Property, which is a collection of his many essays on
higher education, Lee Shulman, who has now filled Boyer’s shoes as president of the Carnegie
foundation, critiques and develops Boyer’s work and raises the bar for all of us in making real
the following distinctions in terms of the work of CASTL (Carnegie Academy for the scholarship
of Teaching and Learning):

Scholarly teaching is what everyone of us should be engaged in every day we are with
students in a classroom or in our office- tutoring, lecturing, conducing discussions, all
the roles we play pedagogically. Our work as teachers should meet the highest schol-
arly standards of groundedness, of openness, of clarity and of complexity. But the
scholarship of teaching requires that we step back and reflect systematically on the
teaching we have done, recounting what we’ve done in a form that can be publicly re-
viewed and built upon by our peers. It is this difference that moves scholarly teaching
to a scholarship of teaching (Shulman 2004:166).

In another article in this collection, on the distinction between scholarly teaching and scholar-
ship of teaching, Shulman (2004:149) elaborates on this concept by highlighting that scholarship
has ”three additional central features of being public, open to critique and evaluation, and in a
form others can build on”. He builds his case here by quoting from himself in The Course Portfolio:
(Hutchings 1998:6)

A scholarship of teaching will entail a pubic account of some or all of the full act of
teaching – vision, design, enactment, outcomes and analysis – in a manner suscepti-
ble to critical review by the teacher’s professional peers and amenable to productive
employment in future work by members of the same community.

It is this concept of the course portfolio and that of its sister, the teaching portfolio, which has
provided the scaffolding for our collegial work together over the past three years, the adventures
of which can be read as already cited.

References
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E. (1997). Scholarship a Personal Journey. In C. Glassick, M. Huber, and G. Maeroff (Eds.),
Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. An Ernerst Boyer
Project of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Glassick, C., M. Huber, and G. Maeroff (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professori-
ate. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. An Ernest Boyer Project of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.) (1998). The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their Teaching to Ad-
vance Practice and Improve Student Learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education (AAHE).
Hyland, A. (2004). University College Cork as a Learning Organisation. Cork: UCC.
Lyons, N., A. Hyland, and N. Ryan (2002). Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Through a Reflective Portfolio Process: The University College Cork Experience. Cork: UCC.

9
 T HE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey–Bass.

10
I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ?
T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PEDAGOGY
Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan
Waterford Institute of Technology
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

Introduction
The chapter begins with a justification of learning theory and the ways that theory can be useful
to the practitioner. It then presents two major philosophical approaches – one based on ideas and
the other based on experience - an enduring dichotomy in Western thought. We then discuss the
three most influential theories in the Western world – Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Construc-
tivism and show how key aspects of current practice, as discussed in the literature, relate to these
theories.
We write this chapter from a Constructivist perspective and our own position and values
influence our choice of material and the way we present it. It is neither possible nor desirable to
be value-free in such an important area of human endeavour as education. However, it is up to
you, the reader, to engage with the ideas presented from your own values and perspectives.
When speaking of learning in general terms we refer to the ‘learner’. When we are discussing
teaching activities we use the more specific term ‘student’.

Justifying Theory
Underlying the chapter is the maxim that there is ‘nothing as practical as a good theory’ (Lewin
1943:35) and as a practitioner you will base your professional practices on some aspects of theory,
however derived. Educational theory may be considered as the distilled experiences of others
(Carlile et al. 2004:4) and the purpose of this chapter is to share with you the experience and
conclusions of those who have thought deeply about what goes on in learning. For instance, there
is no single agreed definition of learning. It depends on the theory that you hold. This chapter
offers a number of different theoretical perspectives, each of which will imply a slightly different
definition of learning. For a Behaviourist, to learn is to demonstrate a more or less permanent
change in behaviour; for the Constructivist, to learn is to see the meaning or significance of an
experience or concept. Your key role as a facilitator of student learning is dependent then upon
the theory of learning that you hold.
It has been claimed that: “Theory matters because without it education is just hit and miss;
[. . . ] we risk misunderstanding not only the nature of our pedagogy but the epistemic founda-
tions of our discipline” (Webb 1996:23).
Consciously or unconsciously, you hold theories of learning since all action is based on as-
sumptions which may or may not have been articulated or tested. These have been developed
through your own years of formal education, of learning things on your own, and of developing
learning strategies for students. You may not be aware of what your theories are, and they may
never have been challenged. We hope that this chapter will help you to become aware of alterna-
tive views so that you can more readily analyse your own. It may be the case that on reflection

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

your own views form a coherent whole; alternatively you may hold scraps of theory that are in
fact incompatible. It is important not to have principles which clash, so bringing them to light will
help you organise them more coherently so that you can use them more consciously and engage
in ongoing enquiry.

Benefits of Theory

Insight and Affirmation

We hope that, by the end of this chapter you will have acquired a set of concepts and corre-
sponding vocabulary that you can use to gain insight into your own theoretical position(s). It can
validate your existing practice and become self-affirming.

Reflection
Having these concepts will allow you to manipulate and develop them in a reflective process.
For example, current practices of maintaining a learning journal or reflective log depend on some
knowledge of your own theoretical position.

Problem Solving
When problems arise, a theoretical understanding offers you a tool for recognising, analysing and
dealing with the issues in a more focussed, logical and effective manner.

Sharing
Shared reflection, as is demonstrated in the process of peer review, also relies on a joint discourse
which needs a theoretical shared vocabulary in order to explore epistemological and pedagogical
issues.

Scholarship
This shared discourse and communication of ideas is also necessary if you are to engage in the
scholarship of teaching. It enables expertise to be shared and best practice to be disseminated.
As well as acting as a focus for your continuing questions about teaching and learning it is often
necessary to articulate your own practices and values to a wider audience.

Justification
An important aspect of your professional practice will be the justification of your practices to
others, whether they are colleagues, administrators, academic managers, policy makers or other
stakeholders.

Power
Finally, knowledge is power. Awareness of the discourse will empower you, allow you to explain,
justify and promote your ideas about teaching; to communicate with colleagues, to engage in
scholarship and to develop clearly thought-out strategies and tactics to enhance your teaching.

12
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

Philosophical Approaches

Idealism
There is a long-standing tradition in Western academic thought of valuing ideas over experience
or action. We still think ideas are important. The prioritising of concepts, principles and theory
is also an assumption behind the claims made above about the importance and value of theory.
The Idealist tradition finds its clearest exponent in the Greek philosopher Plato who thought that
ideas constituted reality, and that sensory experience was suspect. The value that we place on
ideas is shown in the way that we present principles before practice, for example teaching Ohm’s
Law to students before they apply it in practice in the laboratory.
A standard view of curriculum is that knowledge consists of knowing the epistemology or
ways of knowing in different subjects. For example, there is a different ‘way of knowing’ in
Chemistry than there is in History. The aim of education on this view, is that a student must
acquire the specific way of knowing and the principles of the discipline studied. The popularity
of the ‘Teaching for Understanding’ movement exemplifies the importance of understanding the
key ideas behind a subject rather than simple content.

Empiricism
Empiricism stresses the role of experience and active learning. The scientific revolution of the 16th
century and the overthrow of metaphysical systems led, particularly in North European cultures,
to a new interest in the observable world, and to the role of experience in learning. The English
philosopher Locke claimed that “There is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses”
(Locke 1690). This argument that ideas are developed from experience was pursued by later
educationalists. In the 18th century Rousseau claimed in Émile that, instead of formal education,
children should learn from nature and the real world.
A modern version of this stress on active learning is that provided by the American education-
alist (Kolb 1984). He suggests a cycle of learning which begins with experience and progresses
to reflection on that experience. The next stage of the cycle is that of conceptualisation or the
acquisition of key ideas. These may arise from the reflective process or may be derived from es-
tablished theory. This will lead on to the next stage. The synthesis of experience, reflection and
theory leads to a modification of the learning cycle. The iteration of the learning cycle leads to a
growth in knowledge, depth of understanding and improved practice.

13
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

Concrete
Experience

Active Reflective
Experimentation Observation

Abstract
Conceptualisation

Source: Kolb (1984)

Fig. 1: Kolb’s Learning Cycle

This cycle has been influential in curriculum planning, in the popularity of active learning,
and in the identification of the specific learning orientations of students. Kolb’s own instrument
(Smith and Kolb 1986), and that derived from it by the UK psychologists Honey and Mumford
(1992) seek to identify learners along the four dimensions identified above. Kolb’s theory points
to the diversity of learner styles and the importance of different learning strategies.
The empirical emphasis of experimental psychology in the 19th century led to the first major
scientific theory of learning – that of Behaviourism.

Behaviourism
Behaviourism concentrates on observable behaviour without considering motivation or other
mental processes. It developed from a number of experimental studies with animals, including
Pavlov’s celebrated dog, and progressed to experiments with rats, pigeons and higher animals.
It argues that you can ‘condition’ or train any organism, including human beings, provided that
you think very carefully about key aspects of the conditioning. This includes you, the trainer,
acquiring a clear view of the behaviour you want to change; (introduce, strengthen or eliminate),
the sequencing of events or ‘stimuli’ to bring about this change, the association or link between
the stimuli and the subject’s response and the importance of reward or punishment in motivating
the learner (reinforcement).

14
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

Tab. 1: Key Principles of Behaviourism

Reinforcement
Positive or negative feedback which will lead the learner to form a strong association
between the stimulus and the desired behaviour
(carrot or stick)

Contiguity
The more immediate the feedback the stronger the association
(strike while the iron is hot)

Repetition
The more frequent the stimulus-response the more likely is the desired outcome
(practice makes perfect)

Variation
Varying the pattern of the stimulus generalises the response
(the more the merrier)

Intermittent Reinforcement
Not rewarding the response every time is found to be more effective than constant
reward
(keep ’em guessing)

Extinction
If the stimulus-response bond is not reinforced the association will die
(use it or lose it)

Source: Carlile et al. (2004:9)

One implication of Behaviourism is that the learner or subject is completely passive, and you,
as the teacher, or more correctly ‘trainer’ hold the key to learning success. This is shown by Tyler,
the US Behaviourist, who had been responsible for effective mass-factory training in the Second
World War. When called in to advise the US government in 1947 on falling standards in US public
schools, he stated that the trouble was with the teachers who couldn’t teach, and were unaware
of any teaching principles or strategies. His book on the principles of curriculum design aimed to
rectify this deficiency (Tyler 1949).
The influence of Behaviourism on education has been both malign and benign. Behaviourism
assumes, at its most sinister, the kind of authoritarian manipulation of people you find implicit in
the kind of ‘conditioning’ that Anthony Burgess attacked in his book A Clockwork Orange (Burgess
1962). Behaviourism allows little room for creativity, independent learning or for the concept of
mind at all.
In its favour, Behaviourism builds on aspects of practice that you know are effective. These
include the importance of repetition in learning, of presenting strong and varied stimuli (avoid
boring the group), of careful planning and the sequencing of learning events, and of specifying
achievable and verifiable learning objectives in the form of learning outcomes.
Some of the key developments in modern curriculum planning are Behaviourist. In the 1950’s
Bloom categorised the different worlds of learning into the Cognitive, the Affective and the Psy-
chomotor domains, as demonstrated in observable behaviour (Bloom et al. 1956). The writing
of objectives or goals in the form of tangible learning outcomes is a consequence of Behaviourist
thinking. With regard to planning and delivery of learning, the specification of what should hap-

15
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

pen in any learning sequence, as provided by Gagné, is still highly influential in the training
world.

Tab. 2: Gagné’s Nine Key Instructional Events

Teacher/Designer Action Response of learner
1. Gaining learner’s attention Readiness
2. Stating session objectives Knowing what to expect
3. Reminding what was done before Stimulation of long term memory
4. Highlighting key features Perceiving what is important
5. Structuring learning Creating links and associations
6. Encouraging activity Performing
7. Providing feedback Learning awareness and satisfaction
8. Evaluating progress Strengthening learning
9. Signalling future learning Gaining learning overview

Source: Gagné and Medsker (1996:140) (adapted)

Behaviourism works best in the teaching and assessment of competencies, where you want to
test and verify that the student or trainee does indeed possesses the requisite skills or competen-
cies. Behaviourism also provides the underlying principles of instructional design as shown in
the standard model of instructional design developed by Royce (1970).

Analysis

Design

Develop

Implement

Evaluate

Source: Royce (1970)

Fig. 2: Phases of Instructional Design

Computer-based training (CBT) for example is greatly dependant on the precise sequencing
and chunking of learning materials, the stress on repetition and practice, and the importance of
the reinforcement of behaviour you desire.
Overall, while the training world, particularly in the US, is still dependant on Behaviourist
‘rational’ principles, Behaviourism becomes more problematic when you are dealing with higher
level learning, and acquisition of concepts, problem-solving and originality. It is not a model that
suits the general view of university or higher level learning.

16
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

Tab. 3: Implications of Behaviourism for Practice

• List the learning outcomes (Bloom’s Taxonomies show how these can be categorised)
• Assessment must be based on these learning outcomes and nothing else
• Break the material down into small units
• Carefully sequence these units according to the desired learning
• Present the rules for learning the topic
• Ensure that the learner actively responds (does things)
• Provide opportunities for frequent learner feedback
• Reinforce correct behaviour with immediate rewards

Source: Carlile et al. (2004:10)

Cognitivism
Cognitivism, based on an investigation of human thought processes, is diametrically opposed to
Behaviourism which disregards mental activity or motivation. Cognitive theory developed from
experimental work carried out on memory, perception and attention, such as Miller’s well-known
work on the number of items that can be held in short-term memory (Miller 1956:81–93). Work on
artificial intelligence and the attempt to replicate mental processes by computers also stimulated
Cognitivist thinking.
Cognitivists focus on the ways that learners gain and organise their knowledge and they have
developed ‘information processing input-output’ models of learning. The following diagram il-
lustrates the way that sensory input may be processed through short-term memory, and organised
or ‘encoded’ before being lodged in long-term memory, and learning takes place.

Rehearsal
and Encoding
Long Term
Memory

Attention Short Term

Memory
Cueing and Irretrievable
Retrieval without cue
Sensory
Stimulus Memory
Forgotten

Forgotten

Source: Carlile et al. (2004:12) (adapted)

Fig. 3: Mental Processing

Many current ideas intended to facilitate student learning draw on our awareness of the men-
tal processing outlined above. For example, Ausubel (1968) recommends the use of ‘advance or-
ganisers’ where you present a patterned outline of material to students before you introduce them
to more detailed content. This draws on the importance of encoding material prior to transfer to

17
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

long-term memory. The concept of ‘Mind-mapping’ as a form of effective note-taking developed

by Buzan (1974) draws both on concepts of encoding and those of dual coding- that is, of present-
ing material in more than one medium to increase learner retention. Work carried out on levels
or types of learning also draws on our knowledge of short and long-term memory stores. For
example, work by Marton and Saljo (1984:36–55) identifies two clear types of students – ‘surface
learners’ who try (and generally fail) to retain the material held in short term memory because
of information-overload, and ‘deep learners’ who attempt to understand and encode material so
that it can be transferred to long-term memory and more effectively learnt. Strategic learners are
also effective, but are more instrumental in learning, working only towards the specific goals they
wish to achieve.
The most famous Cognitivist was Piaget and Inhelder (1990) who argued that knowledge is
acquired by the natural development of mental structures as the child responds to experience.
The concept of ‘readiness’ is therefore important in order for the child to move on to the next
stage of conceptual development, and this idea has been picked up by some later theorists. While
Piaget’s work concentrates on child learners, there has been more general interest in his concept
of ‘de-centring’ or being able to see the world from different points of view - an important stage
in the development of abstract thinking. His concept of ‘de-centring’ can be applied to older
learners too, since a mark of an educated person is the ability to ‘generalise’ and see the world
from a number of different perspectives.
For Cognitivists then, learning is developing strategies for thinking. It is not surprising there-
fore that Cognitive approaches underlie the Critical thinking movement which has gained promi-
nence in recent years and is increasingly used as a tool in problem-solving in specific disciplines.
The Accelerated Learning movement, a late Cognitivist development which is attracting much
popular attention, draws on a variety of sources. You as the teacher need a knowledge of neural
processes, the importance of water, sleep and exercise, visualisation, music, and the techniques
derived from neuro-linguistic processing (NLP). With these you can foster and ‘accelerated’ learn-
ing. You can find a growing number of Accelerated Learning Workshops run both in the formal
and informal education sector, though concentrating on child learners.
Cognitivists however, like Behaviourists, still place the teacher or curriculum designer firmly
in control. You need a knowledge of mental processing or of how to produce the desired behav-
iour in order to reinforce or direct learning, but it is still your responsibility to control it. As a
subject specialist you will want your students to adapt particular strategies that are effective in
your domain. For example Mathematics teachers are not very concerned with the answer to a
problem. Their focus is on the cognitive strategies needed to arrive at a solution.
As the student moves up through the educational system from primary, to secondary, to higher
educational levels, the pedagogical approach becomes more Cognitive. At primary level there is
an emphasis on the acquisition of facts (Bruner 1996), whereas at higher levels there is an empha-
sis on general principles, methods and ways of knowing. This is also shown in assessment pro-
cedures and examinations where lower level papers ask for description and reproduction of facts
whereas higher level papers require analysis, discussion and debate - Cognitivist approaches.

18
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

Tab. 4: Implications of Cognitivism for Practice

• Promote active listening

• Don’t overload short term memory by presenting too much material at once
• Don’t lecture for more than twenty minutes without a break
• Chunk material into groups or categories to facilitate retention
• Make the structure and patterning of the material explicit for learners
• Present material in more than one form to facilitate transfer to long term memory
• Give learners the opportunity to revisit topics to strengthen retention
• Use key words and terms as memory cues
• Outline the meta-cognitive strategies needed for your subject

Source: Authors

Constructivism
The last of the meta-theories is not one, but a broad group of theories that can offer you a different
explanation of the way that people learn. Constructivists claim that people ‘construct’ their own
meaning by building on their previous knowledge and experience. New ideas and experiences
are matched against existing knowledge, and the learner constructs new or adapted rules to make
sense of the world. ‘Constructs’ are created which are representations of the world. These are
used to measure and validate current experience and to predict new experience. Constructivism
therefore is a dynamic process where small localised changes in these ‘constructs’ may lead to this
change in overall understanding.
Constructivists believe that learning is a desire to find the meaning in situations, and this
meaning will be an individual one, since we have all had different experiences of being in the
world. You, as the teacher, cannot be in charge of your students’ learning, much as they may like
you to be. How then can you cater for everyone when their views of reality will be so different,
and students will come to learning already possessing their own constructs of the world? They
may easily accommodate the concepts you offer them, or there may be a clash between different
representations of the world. Whereas the Cognitivist tries to take charge and direct the students’
thinking, the Constructivist accepts the autonomy of the student, and instead acts as a facilitator
or mediator. The Constructivist helps the learner to discover meaning and understanding, rather
than simply to accumulate information.
Some modern trends in learning which have been developed from a Constructivist perspective
include student-centred learning which stresses the centrality of the learner, and the fostering of
independent learning through the use of negotiated learning strategies and of learning contracts.
One of the underlying principles of Constructivism is its stress on diversity in learning given
the different constructs of the world held by learners, and this brings together a number of other
well-known theories. Teaching in higher education is increasingly concerned with adult students
who construct knowledge in a different way from children. Knowles (1980) states a number of
different ways in which adult learners are different from child learners.
Learning Style theories also demonstrate diversity in claiming that there are clear learner pref-
erences. Learner preferences are influenced by effective past learning, by habit, or the learner’s
own strengths. There are many different types of Learning Style models. A popular model is
that based on personality constructs (Myers-Briggs 1980). The VARK model is based on visual
auditory, read-write and kinaesthetic modalities (Fleming and Mills 1992). Another is based on

19
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

Tab. 5: Pedagogy versus Androgogy

Child learners Adult learners
Rely on others to decide what is important Decide for themselves what is important
Accept information at face value Use experience to validate information
Don’t expect learning to be immediately useful Expect what they learn to be immediately useful
Have little or no experience to draw on Have much experience
Cannot act as resource to group Significant ability to act as resource to group

Source: Knowles (1980)

preferences for specific stages of the learning cycle as identified by Kolb (1984). Learning Style
Theory implies that you, as the teacher, should adopt a range of teaching strategies. Otherwise
you will privilege one group by teaching to their chosen style, and disadvantage the others. Re-
flection on the use of learning style could also lead you to a consideration of your own learning
and teaching and how it correlates with student learning.
An interest in diversity in intelligence rather than a single unitary intelligence comes from
the US Harvard-based psychologist Gardner (1999) who explicitly claims a Constructivist per-
spective. His Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory posits a number of intelligences rather than one
overarching organising intelligence.

Tab. 6: Gardner’s List of Intelligences

• Linguistic Intelligence
• Logical-mathematical intelligence
• Spatial intelligence
• Bodily/kinaesthetic intelligence
• Musical intelligence
• Interpersonal intelligence
• Intrapersonal intelligence
• Naturalistic intelligence
• Existential or spiritual intelligence (under consideration)

Source: Hyland (2000:32) (adapted)

According to Gardner, all individuals have a ‘jagged intelligence profile’, developed from in-
nate potential, experience, practice, and motivation. Like Learning Styles, MI theory implies
that you should adopt a range of teaching strategies and assessment strategies, including self-
assessment, so that students can know, build on, and be judged on their strengths.
Formative assessment is an important tool for the Constructivist teacher as it reveals the exist-
ing mental constructs held by the student. If these constructs are inadequate or flawed the teacher
can then present counter examples or scenarios that challenge the existing constructs and prompt
the student to a readjustment.
Whereas Cognitive Science has researched measurable cognitive processes, such as the dura-
tion of memory or attention-span, Constructivism is interested in the whole mind, and the affec-

20
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

tive domain, including the place of volition and emotion in learning. Barnett (2004) claims that,
in learning, volition is more important than intellect. If this is the case then it requires an interest
in strategies designed to strengthen volition and motivation in learners, and in the part played
by values. Values are closely linked to purpose and so relate back to volition and motivation of
learners. The values associated with a subject and of the education community can influence stu-
dents’ perception and response. The role of values therefore needs to be made more explicit to
students so that they can be either accepted and affirmed, or subjected to debate and challenge.
Emotion is now recognised as a major element in learning. This is quite natural when you
consider the way that our perceptions of the world are influenced by the way we feel. The limbic
or primitive brain developed prior to other areas of the brain, and therefore exerts a powerful
influence over attention, perception and memory. We know for example that long-term memory
retention is greatly aided by the emotional associations of that memory, and memory loss occurs
when their emotional associations are too painful.
The emotions are central to the interpersonal and intrapersonal domains in Gardner’s multiple
intelligences theory. Recent work by Goleman (1996) has led to the development of a number of
instruments designed to identify EQ or emotional intelligence. One area of particular interest is
in the emotional intelligence of you as the teacher or facilitator in recognising and responding to
the emotions and moods of your students in order to facilitate engagement and motivation.
Strategies that emphasise the emotional aspect of learning include the use by students of re-
flective journals, together with such techniques as ‘critical incident’ and storytelling because these
techniques incorporate the emotions along with the cognitive and narrative elements of experi-
ence therefore promoting deeper levels of meaning.

Tab. 7: Implications of Constructivism for Practice

• Approach material from the learner’s perspective and values

• Acknowledge and accommodate student diversity (ability, age, gender, culture, nationality)
• Encourage reflection through the use of learning journals etc.
• Present an overview of the topic including purpose and objectives
• Explain the relevance of the topic
• Build on what it is already known
• Encourage active and discovery and independent learning
• Give timely feedback on performance
• Constructively align objectives, strategies and assessment

Source: Carlile et al. (2004:17)

Social Constructivism
Western theories of learning have tended to focus on the individual rather than the group (though
this is not the case in eastern philosophies where the group is perceived as more important than
the individual member). However, some key insights on the social aspect of learning are emerg-
ing, both in relation to the role of others as mediators of meaning, and on the importance of
culture in learning.
The research of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1934) demonstrated the importance of oth-
ers as learning mediators. In the first instance he showed that in infants, communication (between
the mother and infant) is a pre-requisite to the child’s acquisition of concepts and language. To

21
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

look at this in reverse, he showed that without communication, there can be no thought. Thinking
does not exist independently of the world, nor of other people. A number of linguistic theories
stress communication and dialogue as being key elements of Constructivism in facilitating mean-
ing.
The second important way in which Vygotsky thought learners interacted with each other was
through what he called the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD).

What the student can learn

unaided

Zone of Proximal
Development

What the student can learn

with your help

Source: Carlile et al. (2004:20)

Fig. 4: Zone of Proximal Development

A certain amount can be learnt by a student on his or her own. However, with your help more
can be learnt. You can recognise the stage the student is presently at, and offer suitable material,
encouragement and prompts to move him or her on to the next level of learning.
As the learning mentor you provide ‘scaffolding’ or support to help students to a higher level,
while gradually withdrawing this support so that the student becomes more independent. You
help your students to internalise external knowledge and make it their own.
Collaborative learning is another area of growing interest, not just for instrumental reasons of
dealing with ever-larger groups in higher education but for sound pedagogical reasons.
Peer tutoring, where students in the same group tutor one another, has the advantage of in-
creasing self-esteem and developing social skills. It also facilitates meaning in both parties, in a
way that you as a teacher may not perceive, since you may not see the problem in a topic from a
student’s perspective. The benefit for the peer tutor is that teaching is a sound method for clarify-
ing understanding. You may have found that your lecturing has increased your own understand-
ing of your subject. Peer assessment can also be used as a tool in student learning, since students
learn to develop the criteria for making judgements and evaluating their own performance.
Many sociological studies have shown the significance of the peer group in creating a culture
that can be either open or hostile to learning. The role of culture in learning is a complex one. For
Bruner (1996) the intellect of the learner is framed by the surrounding culture and learning is a
sharing of that culture. All learning then is induction into a culture, including all the tacit values
of that culture. In Bruner’s view, to be culture-free is to be intelligence-free.
Different cultures have different views on the purposes of learning and education and as a
teacher or educationalist you need to be aware of these differences. For example, some socially
or economically disadvantaged groups do not consider that formal learning has served them
well, and are mistrustful of it. The French sociologist Bourdieu claims that, just as some social
groups lack economic capital in which to invest for the future, so others lack the ‘cultural capital’

22
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

which can be used to take advantage of learning opportunities which they can pass on to the next
generation (Bourdieu and Passeron 1970). The challenge for you, as facilitator, is to provide a
motivation and will to learn in order to influence this cycle.
It is increasingly common to talk about ‘communities of practice’. According to the work of
the French sociologist Foucault (1975), knowledge is embedded in the activities, social relations
and expertise of specific communities, whether these are scientific, political, geographical or vir-
tual. On this view, knowing is inseparable from action and environment, and is also inseparable
from issues of access and empowerment. Recent experiments in the use of ‘collaborative envi-
ronments’ using new technologies have led to the empowerment of learners at quite different
levels. For example, children have been involved in data collection with university researchers
on environmental projects and are properly acknowledged in the resulting publications.
This view raises questions about your role as a representative of the academic community
including that of gatekeeper of knowledge, enforcer of values and monitor of community partic-
ipation and practice.
These are complicated ideas but they suggest the need for situated learning where knowledge
is placed not just in the real world but, in specific practices and social relations. As a member
of a community of practice you are expected to seek out opportunities for students to solve real
problems in realistic situations as exemplified in problem-based learning.

Tab. 8: Implications of Social Constructivism for Practice

• Encourage team working and collaboration

• Promote discussion - even in lectures
• Involve students in project work
• Set up study groups for peer learning
• Allocate a small proportion of grades to peer assessment and train students
in the process and criteria
• Show students models of good practice in essay writing and project work
• Be aware of your own role as a model of ’the way things are done around
here’
• Know your students as people, develop relationships and build trust
• Be emotionally aware and intelligent
• Be explicit about your professional values and the ethical dimensions of your
subject

Source: Authors

Conclusion
In this chapter we have provided some reasons why a knowledge of learning theory is important,
and how it could apply to your practice.
We have briefly outlined two philosophical approaches before going into detail about the three
major theories which influence current principles and practice. As you can see, there has been a
recent move away from the dominance of psychological theories which claim a scientific and
objective explanation of the learning of the individual learner. There is now an increasing aware-
ness of the role of philosophy and sociology in examining learning as a moral and a social activity
which cannot be divorced from purpose, value and context.

23
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

We envisage the chapter as a resource that will inform the ideas and practices outlined in the
other chapters. Finally, we hope that this chapter has stimulated your interest in theory and acts
as an enrichment of your teaching.

References
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View. New York, Holt: Rinehart and
Winston.

Barnett, R. (2004). Willing to Learn in Higher Education. In Conference Paper, AISHE Inaugural
Conference, Dublin.

Bloom, B. et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbooks 1 to 3: The Cognitive, Affective
and Psychomotor Domain. London: Longmans Green.

Bourdieu, P. and J. Passeron (1970). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Bruner, J. (1996). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Burgess, A. (1962). A Clockwork Orange. London: Heinemann.

Buzan, T. (1974). Use Your Head. London: BBC.

Carlile, O., A. Jordan, and A. Stack (2004). Learning by Design: Learning Theory for the Designer of
Multimedia Educational Materials. Waterford: WIT/ BBC Online.

Fleming, N. and C. Mills (1992). Helping students understand how they learn, Volume 7. The Teaching
Professor.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Tavistock.

Gagné, R. and K. Medsker (1996). The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications. Forth Worth:
Harcourt Brace.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Press.

Honey, P. and A. Mumford (1992). The Learning Styles Questionnaire. Maidenhead: Peter Honey
Company.

Hyland, A. (2000). Multiple Intelligences: Curriculum Assessment Project. Cork: UCC. Final Report.

Jordan, A. (2003). FinVoc MI Resource Book for Teachers: FinVoc Pilot Project on Multiple Intelligence.
Waterford: WIT.

Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2 ed.).
Chicago: Follett.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National Research
Council 108, 35–65.

Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Penguin Classics.

Marton, F. and R. Saljo (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle
(Eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

24
 Orison Carlile and Anne Jordan

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for
processing information, Volume 63. Psychological Review.

Myers-Briggs, I. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder (1990). The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.
Royce, W. (1970, August). Managing the development of large software systems. In Proceedings of
IEEE, West Con.

Smith, D. and D. Kolb (1986). The User’s Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory: A Manual for Teachers
and Trainers. Boston, MA.: McBer & Company.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University Press Chicago.

Vygotsky, L. (1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

Webb, J. (1996). Why theory matters. In J. Webb and C. Maughan (Eds.), Teaching Lawyers Skills.
London: Butterworth.

25
 I T WORKS IN PRACTICE BUT WILL IT WORK IN THEORY ? T HE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF
PEDAGOGY

Tab. 9: Useful Websites

Author/Topic Bruner, Jerome, (Main Concepts)
Address http://mercury.sfsu.edu/∼ching/personal/Learning/theorists/
Bruner.html
Accessed 2004
Description An overview of Bruners theory of discovery learning with a home link to many
other relevant theorists and their studies along with a section of quizzes to test your
own knowledge and understanding

Author/Topic Gagné, Robert, M. (Conditions of Learning)

Address http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04d.htm
Accessed 2004
Description An overview of Gagnés conditions of learning theory and how it relates to the
process of instructional design

Author/Topic Kelly, Curtis (David Kolb: The Theory of Experiential Learning)

Address http://reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm
Accessed 2004
Description A critique of Kolb’s experiential learning style model, making reference to other
experiential learning models along with many other relevant references

Author/Topic Mayer, John, Salovey, Peter (The Intelligence of Emotional Intelligence)

Address http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/gallery/young/emotion.htm
Accessed 2002
Description Details on emotional intelligence with many links to other related websites on brain
theory and neuroscience.

Source: Jordan (2003:96–100) (adapted)

26
S TUDENT– CENTRED LEARNING :
W HAT DOES IT MEAN
FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

University College Dublin
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

Introduction
The term student–centred learning (SCL) is widely used in the teaching and learning literature.
Many terms have been linked with student–centred learning, such as flexible learning (Taylor 2000),
experiential learning (Burnard 1999), self-directed learning and therefore the slightly overused term
‘student–centred learning’ can mean different things to different people. In addition, in practice it
is also described by a range of terms and this has led to confusion surrounding its implementation.
The concept of student–centred learning has been credited as early as 1905 to Hayward and
in 1956 to Dewey’s work (O’Sullivan 2003). Carl Rogers, the father of client–centred counseling,
is associated with expanding this approach into a general theory of education (Burnard 1999;
Rogoff 1999). The term student–centred learning was also associated with the work of Piaget and
more recently with Malcolm Knowles (Burnard 1999). Rogers (1983a:25), in his book ‘Freedom
to Learn for the 80s’, describes the shift in power from the expert teacher to the student learner,
driven by a need for a change in the traditional environment where in this ‘so-called educational
atmosphere, students become passive, apathetic and bored’. In the School system, the concept of
child–centred education has been derived, in particular, from the work of Froebel and the idea
that the teacher should not ‘interfere with this process of maturation, but act as a guide’ (Simon 1999).
Simon highlighted that this was linked with the process of development or ‘readiness’, i.e. the
child will learn when he/she is ready (1999).
The paradigm shift away from teaching to an emphasis on learning has encouraged power to
be moved from the teacher to the student (Barr and Tagg 1995). The teacher–focused/transmission
of information formats, such as lecturing, have begun to be increasingly criticised and this has
paved the way for a widespread growth of ‘student–centred learning’ as an alternative approach.
However, despite widespread use of the term, Lea et al. (2003) maintain that one of the issues with
student–centred learning is the fact that ‘many institutions or educators claim to be putting student–
centred learning into practice, but in reality they are not’ (2003:322).
This chapter aims to:

• Give an overview of the various ways student–centred learning is defined,

• Suggest some ways that student–centred learning can be used as the organising principle of
teaching and assessment practices,
• Explore the effectiveness of student–centred learning and

• Present some critiques to it as an approach.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

What is student–centred learning?

Kember (1997) described two broad orientations in teaching: the teacher centred/content oriented
conception and the student centred/learning oriented conceptions. In a very useful breakdown of
these orientations he supports many other authors views in relation to student–centred view in-
cluding: that knowledge is constructed by students and that the lecturer is a facilitator of learning
rather than a presenter of information. Rogers (1983b:188) identified the important precondition
for student–centred learning as the need for: ‘. . . a leader or person who is perceived as an authority
figure in the situation, is sufficiently secure within herself (himself) and in her (his) relationship to others
that she (he) experiences an essential trust in the capacity of others to think for themselves, to learn for
themselves’.
Choice in the area of the learning is emphasised by Burnard, as he interprets Rogers’ ideas
of student–centredness as ‘students might not only choose what to study, but how and why that topic
might be an interesting one to study’ (1999:244). He also emphasises Rogers’ belief that students’
perceptions of the world were important, that they were relevant and appropriate. This definition
therefore emphasises the concept of students having ‘choice’ in their learning.
Harden and Crosby (2000:335) describe teacher–centred learning strategies as the focus on the
teacher transmitting knowledge, from the expert to the novice. In contrast, they describe student–
centred learning as focusing on the students’ learning and ‘what students do to achieve this, rather
than what the teacher does’. This definition emphasises the concept of the student ‘doing’.
Other authors articulate broader, more comprehensive definitions. Lea et al. (2003:322) sum-
marises some of the literature on student–centred learning to include the followings tenets:

1. ‘the reliance on active rather than passive learning,

2. an emphasis on deep learning and understanding,

3. increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student,

4. an increased sense of autonomy in the learner

5. an interdependence between teacher and learner,

6. mutual respect within the learner teacher relationship,

7. and a reflexive approach to the teaching and learning process on the part of both teacher and learner.’
Gibbs (1995) draws on similar concepts when he describes student–centred courses as those
that emphasise: learner activity rather than passivity; students’ experience on the course outside
the institution and prior to the course; process and competence, rather than content; where the
key decisions about learning are made by the student through negotiation with the teacher. Gibbs
elaborates in more detail on these key decisions to include: ‘What is to be learnt, how and when it is
to be learnt, with what outcome, what criteria and standards are to be used, how the judgements are made
and by whom these judgements are made’ (1995:1). In a similar vein in earlier literature, the student–
teacher relationship is particularly elaborated upon by Brandes and Ginnis (1986). In their book
for use in second level education (post–primary), entitled ‘A Guide to Student–Centred Learning’,
they present the main principles of student–centred learning as:

• The learner has full responsibility for her/his learning

• Involvement and participation are necessary for learning

• The relationship between learners is more equal, promoting growth, development

• The teacher becomes a facilitator and resource person

• The learner experiences confluence in his education (affective and cognitive domains flow
together)

28
 Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

• The learner sees himself differently as a result of the learning experience.

The theoretical standing of student–centred learning is often surprisingly absent in the litera-
ture. However, it appears to relate primarily to the constructivist view of learning in the impor-
tance it places on activity, discovery and independent learning (Carlile and Jordan 2005). Cog-
nitive theory also highlights activity but in a different form than that supported by the construc-
tivists (Cobb 1999). The cognitive view supports the idea that the activity of learning is computed
in the head, or as often described ‘in the mind’. The constructivist view of activity is related more
to performing physical activities, for example, projects, practicals. Student–centred learning has
some connections with the social constructivist view, which emphasises activity and the impor-
tance of communities of practice/others in the learning process. However, the definitions of SCL
do not necessarily highlight the importance of peers in learning (Cobb 1999; Bredo 1999).

In summary, it appears from the literature that some view student–centred learning as: the con-
cept of the student’s choice in their education; others see it as the being about the student doing
more than the lecturer (active versus passive learning); while others have a much broader def-
inition which includes both of these concepts but, in addition, describes the shift in the power
relationship between the student and the teacher.

How can you implement student–centred learning?

Learning is often presented in this dualism of either student–centred learning or teacher–centred
learning. In the reality of practice the situation is less black and white. A more useful presentation
of student–centred learning is to see these terms as either end of a continuum, using the three
concepts regularly used to describe student–centred learning (See Table 1).

Tab. 1: Student–centred and teacher–centred continuum

Teacher–centred Learning Student–centred Learning
Low level of student choice High level of student choice
Student passive Student active
Power is primarily with teacher Power primarily with the student

⇐⇒
In examining how you might look at this in practice, it is worth thinking how far up the
continuum you are able to move within the contextual barriers in your teaching situation. The
next sections will present some ideas for your practice to aid you in making that progression.

Implications for curriculum design

In relation to curriculum design, student–centredness includes the idea that students have choice
in what to study, how to study. However, to what extent can this be carried out in the structures
of today’s Universities? Modularisation, which will be expected in all European undergraduate
courses by 2006, provides a structure that allows students an element of choice in what modules
they study. Donnelly and Fitzmaurice (2005) in their chapter in this collection on ‘Designing Mod-
ules for Learning’ highlight the importance of attempting to focus on the needs of the students at
the early stage of curriculum design. Choice in the curriculum is not without its difficulties and
Edwards argues about the dangers of individuality in the concept of the social learner and how
this can in a seemingly contradictory way lead to disempowerment (2001).

29
 S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

One student–centred approach to curriculum design, Problem–Based Learning (PBL), allows

for some choice within a programme of areas that students may study. It allows students to
set some of their own learning objectives/outcomes, dependent on prior knowledge. Problem-
Based Learning, through the use of problems/issues/triggers, encourages the students to de-
velop their own learning goals, thereby filling in the gaps in their knowledge or understanding
(Boud and Feletti 1997). This element of choice or control is referred to in many of the defini-
tions of student–centred learning. This aspect of responsibility aligns with the Lea et al. (2003)
view that student–centred learning involves ‘increased responsibility and accountability on the part
of the student’. Problem–based learning is higher up the student choice aspect of the SCL contin-
uum in Table 1, than the usual problem–solving or problem–oriented exercises performed in a
lecture/tutorial. These approaches are more controlled by the teacher in their presentation and
outcome (Davis and Harden 1999). However, they are useful in addressing the active learning as-
pect of student–centred learning. Other approaches to curriculum design also support the idea of
student choice and activity in learning, for example, the systems–based approach, resource–based
learning, and experiential/ personal relevance approach (Toohey 2000).
A growing practice in course design internationally is the writing of learning outcomes/objectives
focusing on what the student will be able to do, rather than on the content being covered by the
teacher (UCD Centre for Teaching and Learning 2005). This practice is an example of the move to-
wards student–centred learning in the curriculum and helps to shift the emphasis on the learner
as opposed to a coverage model by the teacher. Donnelly and Fitzmaurice (2005) re-iterate the
importance of this shift in emphasis. This is also reflected in Gibbs’ (1995) definition, i.e. an em-
phasis on the process and competence, rather than content. Table 2 presents some examples of
student–centred learning outcomes.

Tab. 2: Learning Outcomes and Student–centred Learning

Student–centred Learning Traditional Learning Out-
Outcomes: Some examples comes/Objectives
By the end of this modules: you The course will cover:
(the student) will be able to:
Recognise the structures of the The anatomy of the heart
heart
Critique one of Yeats’ poems A selection of Yeats poems

Implications for teaching/learning methods

The University of Glasgow (2004) identified four main strategies in a study on student–centred
learning practices in their University. The first strategy was to make the student more active in
acquiring knowledge and skills and might include exercises in class, fieldwork, use of CAL (com-
puter assisted learning) packages etc. The second strategy was to make the student more aware
of what they are doing and why they are doing it. A third strategy is a focus on interaction, such
as the use of tutorials and other discussion groups. The final strategy is the focus on transfer-
able skills. This last strategy is not mentioned in other definitions of the student–centred learning
but does look beyond the immediate course requirements to other benefits to the student in later
employment. Table 3 highlights a sample of student–centred learning/teaching methods and
includes some ideas for lecturers both within (more teacher–centred) and outside of the lecture
format. You may consider, however, in striving to reduce the amount of lecture contact hours for
more student–centred formats, where possible.

Implications for assessment practices

30
 Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

Tab. 3: Examples of student centred learning/teaching methods

Outside of the lecture format In the Lecture
Independent projects Buzz groups (short discussion in
twos)
Group discussion Pyramids/snowballing (Buzz
groups continuing the discussion
into larger groups)
Peer mentoring of other students Cross-overs (mixing students into
groups by letter/number alloca-
tions)
Debates Rounds (giving turns to individual
students to talk)
Field-trips Quizes
Practicals Writing reflections on learning (3/4
minutes)
Reflective diaries, learning journals Student class presentations
Computer assisted learning Role play
Choice in subjects for Poster presentations
study/projects
Writing newspaper article Students producing mind maps in
class
Portfolio development

Black (1999) summarised some of the difficulties highlighted in the literature in the area of assess-
ment, for example, a) that the giving of marks and grades are over emphasised, while the giving of
advice and the learning function are under emphasised, b) pupils are compared with one another
which highlights competition rather than personal improvement. He also explains the concept
of self-assessment as essential activity to help students ‘take responsibility for their own learning’,
an important aspect of SCL (Benett 1999; Black 1999:126). Foucault argued that the examination
was a technique of power, where a student is ’controlled through a system ’micro-penalties’, the con-
stant giving of marks which constitutes a whole field of surveillance’ (cited in Broadfoot 1999:88). The
use of the written examination is still a strong practice in today’s Universities and is primarily a
summative assessment, i.e. an assessment for judgement or accreditation. The addition of more
formative assessment, which emphasises feedback to students on their learning, would ‘enhance
their (student) learning’ (Brown et al. 1997; Light and Cox 2001:170). By developing more for-
mative assessment in your courses you can provide a focus for the student by highlighting their
learning gaps and areas that they can develop. Examples of formative assessment include feed-
back on essays, written comments on assignments, grades during the year that do not add to end
of year mark and multiple-choice questions/answers for feedback only. The addition of more
formative assessment encourages a more student–centred approach.
Table 4 presents practical examples of student–centred assessments as presented by Gibbs
(1995). Further details of some of these assessments can be seen on the UCD Centre for Teaching
and Learning website (http://www.ucd.ie/teaching).
Peer and self-assessment both give some control and responsibility back to the student, em-
phasising ‘ an increased sense of autonomy in the learner’ as noted in Lea et al.’s definition of student–
centred learning (2003). Learning contracts/negotiated contracts are goals set by the student, de-
pending on their learning gaps, which are in turn negotiated with the lecturer (Knight 2002). The
contract can also highlight the manner in which the student would like to be assessed in order
to demonstrate that they have reached the goals. This can add choice in what to study and, in
addition, choice in how the student will be assessed. Choice is one of the key terms in relation

31
 S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

Tab. 4: Examples of student–centred assessments (Gibbs 1995)

• Diaries, logs and journals • Projects

• Portfolios • Group work

• Peer/self assessment • Profiles

• Learning contracts and negoti- • Skills and competencies

ated assessment

to student–centred learning. The concept of negotiation of learning also addresses the unique
change in relationship between lecturer and student noted by Lea et al. (2003) in their definition
of student–centred learning.
Gibbs (1995:1), as mentioned earlier, describes the range of choices available to students in
relation to assessment as: ‘. . . . . . , what criteria and standards are to be used, how the judgements are
made and by whom these judgements are made’. In practice, how do we give students some autonomy
and decision-making in an area such as assessment? Brown et al. (1994) highlight a range of
suggestions on how lecturers can involve students in the assessment process: (Table 5).

Tab. 5: Assessment process and student–centred learning

Involving students at the stage
when the task is set: • Choosing the assessment task

• Setting the assessment task

• Discussion the assessment criteria

• Setting the assessment criteria

Involving students at the stage

• Making self-assessment comments
after the task is completed:
• Making peer-assessment feedback
comments

• Suggesting self-assessment
grades/marks

• Negotiating self-assessment
grades/marks

• Assigning self-assessment
grades/marks

• Assigning peer-assessment
grades/marks

(Brown, Rust, and Gibbs 1994)

The suggestions in Table 5 above may seem a large jump from your current practices, therefore,
you might consider moving your assessment practice slightly up the teacher/student–centred
continuum. An example of a small but significant change is to provide a choice of essay topics
and exam questions as a manageable starting point.

32
 Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

The effectiveness and critiques of student–centred learning

The use of student–centred learning appears to be reflective of today’s society where choice and
democracy are important concepts, however is it an effective approach to learning? Lea et al.
(2003) reviewed several studies on student–centred learning and found that overall it was an
effective approach. A six-year study in Helsinki, which compared traditional and activating in-
struction, found that the activating group developed better study skills and understanding, but
were slower in their study initially (Lonka and Ahola 1995). Equally, Hall and Saunders found
that students had increased participation, motivation and grades in a first year information tech-
nology course (1997). In addition, 94% of the students would recommend it to others over the
more conventional approach (Hall and Saunders 1997). Students in a UK University elaborated
on the impact of student–centred learning on them, i.e. they felt there was more respect for the
student in this approach, that it was more interesting, exciting, and it boosted their confidence
(Lea et al. 2003).
Student–centred learning, despite its popularity, is not without its critics. The main critique
of student–centred learning is its focus on the individual learner. In addition, there are some
difficulties in its implementation, i.e. the resources needed to implement it, the belief system of
the students and staff, and students’ lack of familiarity with the term.
Simon (1999) describes that student–centred learning, in the School system, can be in danger
of focusing completely on the individual learner and taken to its extreme does not take into ac-
count the needs of the whole class. Simon highlights the point that ‘if each child is unique, and each
requires a specific pedagogical approach appropriate to him or her and to no other, the construction of an
all embracing pedagogy or general principles of teaching become an impossibility’ (Simon 1999:42). Ed-
wards (2001:42) also highlights the dangers associated with student–centredness in adult educa-
tion where in empowering an individual there is a potential danger of ‘a person’s physical isolation
from other learners’. The importance of the social context of learning and the value of interaction
with peers is emphasised in the socio-cultural view of learning (Bredo 1999). The concept of be-
ing an independent learner choosing his/her own route of learning, may in fact drive some of the
sociability out of the learning process if care is not taken to emphasise the importance of peers. In
relation to this individuality, Lea et al.’s study on psychology students highlighted their concern
over being abandoned or isolated from other supports in a student–centred learning approach
(2003).
O’Sullivan (2003) described student–centred learning as a Western approach to learning and
may not necessarily transfer to the developing countries, such as Namibia, where there are limited
resources and different learning cultures. It can be equally hard at times to see how the approach
can be economical in the large classes associated with many current University undergraduate
courses. A comprehensive study was conducted in 2004, by the University of Glasgow, on the
use of student–centred learning with full-time undergraduate students (2004). In this study they
found that student–centred learning (SCL) was more prevalent in the later years of the student
degrees, and this they believe is often down to class sizes.
Another concern regarding student centred learning is the belief that students hold in rela-
tion to their learning. Students who value or have experienced more teacher–focused approaches,
may reject the student–centred approach as frightening or indeed not within their remit. Prosser
and Trigwell’s work in higher education emphasises the different belief systems held by staff
and students (2002). They found that lecturers with a teacher–centred approach to teaching held
views that students should accommodate information rather than developing and changing their
conceptions and understanding. The reverse was true for those with more student–centred ap-
proaches to their teaching. Perry’s work on the development of University students highlights
how students move from a dualistic view that knowledge is right or wrong to a relativist view
that all answers are equally valid (Perry 1970). This study highlights that even during the Uni-
versity years, students can change their view on learning and as they move through the years
so to may their views on student–centred learning change. In support of Perry’s work, Steven-
son and Sander (2002) highlighted that 1st year medical students were suspicious of the value of
student–centred learning methods.

33
 S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

Finally, students’ familiarity with the term can be poor. Lea et al. (2003) conducted a study on
48 psychology students in the University of Plymouth on students’ attitudes to student–centred
learning. They found that, despite a University student–centred policy, 60% of the students had
not heard of the term.

Summary
The changing demographics of the student population and the more consumer/client–centred
culture in today’s society have provided a climate where the use of student–centred learning is
thriving. The interpretation of the term ‘student–centred learning’ appears to vary between au-
thors as some equate it with ‘active learning’, while others take a more comprehensive definition
including: active learning, choice in learning, and the shift of power in the teacher–student rela-
tionship. It is used very commonly in the literature and in University policy statements, but this
has not necessarily transferred into practice.
Student–centred learning is not without some criticism but in general it has been seen to be a
positive experience, for example, Edwards (2001) emphasises the value of student–centred learn-
ing: ‘Placing learners at the heart of the learning process and meeting their needs, is taken to a progressive
step in which learner–centred approaches mean that persons are able to learn what is relevant for them in
ways that are appropriate. Waste in human and educational resources is reduced as it suggested learners
no longer have to learn what they already know or can do, nor what they are uninterested in’. (Edwards
2001:37).
Although recognizing that it is not necessarily an easy task, it is hoped that this chapter has
gone some way to providing evidence and ideas to move you higher up the continuum towards
a more student–centred practice.

References
Barr, R. B. and J. Tagg (1995, Nov/Dec). From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for under-
graduate education. Change, 13–25.

Benett, Y. (1999). The validity and reliability of assessments and self-assessments of Work Based
Learning. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment. London: Open University
Press.

Black, P. (1999). Assessment, learning theories and testing systems. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners,
Learning and Assessment. London: Open University Press.

Boud, D. and G. Feletti (1997). The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Brandes, D. and P. Ginnis (1986). A Guide to Student Centred Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bredo, E. (1999). Reconstructing educational psychology. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, Learning

and Assessment. London: Open University Press.

Broadfoot, P. (1999). Assessment and the emergence of modern society. In B. Moon and P. Murphy
(Eds.), Curriculum in Context. London: Sage Publications.

Brown, G., J. Bull, and M. Pendlebury (1997). What is assessment? In Assessing Student Learning
in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Brown, S., C. Rust, and G. Gibbs (1994). Involving students in assessment. In Strategies for Diver-
sifying Assessment in Higher Education. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenged in nursing and health sciences.
Nursing and Health Sciences 1, 241–247.

34
 Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon

Carlile, O. and A. Jordan (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical
underpinnings of pedagogy. In S. Moore, G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues
in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Cobb, P. (1999). Where is the Mind? In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment. London:
Open University Press.

Davis, M. H. and R. M. Harden (1999). AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problem-based
learning: A practical guide. Medical Teacher 21(2), 130–140.

Donnelly, R. and M. Fitzmaurice (2005). Designing Modules for Learning. In S. Moore, G. O’Neill,
and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin:
AISHE.

Edwards, R. (2001). Meeting individual learner needs: power, subject, subjection. In C. Paechter,
M. Preedy, D. Scott, and J. Soler (Eds.), Knowledge, Power and Learning. London: SAGE.
Gibbs, G. (1995). Assessing Student Centred Courses. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and
Development.

Hall, J. and P. Saunders (1997). Adopting a student-centred approach to management of learning.

In C. Bell, M. Bowden, and A. Trott (Eds.), Implementing Flexible Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Harden, R. M. and J. Crosby (2000). AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer-
the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teacher 22(4), 334–347.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics conceptions

of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3), 255–275.

Knight, P. (2002). Learning Contracts. In Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Birmingham:
SEDA series.

Lea, S. J., D. Stephenson, and J. Troy (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student
Centred Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334.

Light, G. and R. Cox (2001). Assessing: student assessment. In Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education: The Reflective Practitioner. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Lonka, K. and K. Ahola (1995). Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in
Higher Education. European Journal of Psychology of Education 10, 351–368.

O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A Nambian case

study. International Journal of Educational Development. In Press.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Prosser, K. and M. Trigwell (2002). Experiences of teaching in Higher Education. In Understand-

ing Learning and Teaching: The Experience of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open
University Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1983a). As a teacher, can I be myself? In Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Ohio: Charles
E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Rogers, C. R. (1983b). The politics of education. In Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company.

Rogoff, B. (1999). Cognitive development through social interaction: Vgotsky and Piaget. In
P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment. London: Open University Press.

35
 S TUDENT- CENTRED LEARNING : W HAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STUDENTS AND LECTURERS ?

Simon, B. (1999). Why no pedagogy in England? In J. Leach and B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and
Pedagogy. London: Sage Publications.

Stevenson, K. and P. Sander (2002). Medical students are from Mars-business and psychology
students are from Venus-University teachers are from Pluto? Medical Teacher 24(1), 27–31.

Taylor, P. G. (2000). Changing Expectations: Preparing students for Flexible Learning. The Inter-
national Journal of Academic Development 5(2), 107–115.

Toohey, S. (2000). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University
Press.
UCD Centre for Teaching and Learning (2005). Course Design. http://www.ucd.ie/
teaching/good/cou3.htm

University of Glasgow (2004). Student Centred Learning. http://www.gla.ac.uk/

Otherdepts/TLS/Project/Reports

36
ACTIVE LEARNING — FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO
FIELD - WORK

Bettie Higgs1 and Marian McCarthy2

1
Geology Department, University College Cork
2
Education Department, University College Cork
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

KEYWORDS: active learning; lectures; fieldwork; higher education; science learning

Introduction
Much of the literature (Bligh 1998; Gibbs and Jenkins 1992; Ramsden 1992) on active and deep
learning – as opposed to passive and surface approaches to learning – suggests that most students
do not internalise and cannot understand nor apply learning, unless they are actively involved
in it. In the traditional approach to lectures, learning is seen as unproblematic: the lecturer’s role
is that of expert, the student’s that of passive note-taker. The authors find that fieldwork can be
an equally passive experience. Activity does not necessarily equate to learning. Fieldwork can
simply be a ‘lecture in the field’.
The lecture format is highly favoured by institutions. One lecturer teaches many students, and
this is seen as cost effective. From analysis of 91 studies by various investigators, Bligh (1998) con-
cludes that the lecture format is appropriate for information dissemination. Butler (1992) accepts
that the perceived efficiency of the lecture will result in the continuation of this mode of study, but
argues that educationalists must change their use of the lecture time in order to improve student
learning, and achieve learning objectives. The lecture must be used in conjunction with other
methods and techniques.
Occasionally a great speaker can expound, with very little class interaction, and we can all be
motivated and inspired. Although this is teacher-focused transmission (Approach A of Trigwell
et al. (1994)), great speakers may be student-focused in the sense that they are aware of passing
on enthusiasm – they want to motivate and inspire. In this situation students may be motivated
to read and reflect on the subject outside of class. Is this active learning, or ‘incitement’ to active
learning?
Taking mathematical education as an example, Bligh (1998) concludes that the function of the
lecture should be to guide students as to how to explore the problems later in private study. Copy-
ing equations from the board, two lines behind the lecturer, apart from introducing errors, causes
students to experience lack of confidence and despondency. This teacher-focused transmission of
information is still commonplace. Students can memorise the symbols of an equation without too
much difficulty, but this is not understanding. To understand such an equation you have to read
it with a flow of other words and symbols, as part of a whole framework of ideas. This is active
learning.
Research in the cognitive sciences indicates that knowledge gained through activity is more
useful than knowledge gained through memorisation (Moran 1997). Although teachers are aware
of this, teaching methods still encourage and reward rote-learning and algorithmic performance.
Why? Teachers may be constructivists at heart, but in the reality of the teaching session they

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 A CTIVE LEARNING – FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO FIELD - WORK

act like behaviourists. Practicalities mean that transmission is the most effective way of getting
through course content, and the reality of higher education is that many teachers have undevel-
oped or unexplored theories of teaching and learning.
Behaviourists view the mind as a static receptacle with its limits stamped on from conception.
The student listens and should ‘get it’ if they are good enough. This view, known as eugenics, is
very different from the theory of mind being developed by Greenfield (2000). Greenfield has stud-
ied the functioning of the brain, and introduces the notion of neuronal plasticity. The important
point to note is that Greenfield’s work suggests there is an intervening mental process between
the stimulus and response. To learn, connections between neurons are made. This raises one
dilemma. ‘Passive learner’ is a contradiction in terms. By definition, learning is an active process,
with the student playing a key role. The concern should be about the level of activity that takes
place. Greenfield says we do not receive signals passively as neuronal connections intercept what
is relayed, and ‘we see the world in terms of what we have already seen’. So a key implication
of Greenfield’s work is that ‘the understanding of the world will be different for each individual’.
Constructivist theories of learning, based on the belief that knowledge is built by the learner, and
is not transmitted from the teacher to the student, are supported by Greenfield’s work.
Our own view is that we are all born with high learning potential. Some of that potential is
developed through experience and stimuli. Much is not developed. We agree with Brown (1997)
whose work has provided evidence that problems in children’s learning are not related to a mental
capacity, but rather to children’s inability to make use of what capacity they have. Interestingly
Greenfield says ‘the more ramifying and multiple the associations, the more meaning or relevance
an object will have’. With more associations we can begin to see patterns, and themes, to relate
these things into ideas. So as teachers we must help students’ ‘capacity to learn’. This may
involve students learning how to learn (Hodson 1998). This suggests that teachers have a role in
metacognition, that is, helping the students to understand their own learning.
What do the students think of the lecture format? Given 5 different formats for teaching ses-
sions the students in Butler’s experiment decided that the didactic lecture was the least effective.
Other formats included students being set tasks and reporting back. In a study by Ross in 1989 (in
Bligh 1998) clarity, organisation and student involvement emerged as important stylistic factors
for students. However, these studies included only student perceptions of what was effective, and
student understanding was not assessed. The introduction of performances of understanding
(Wiske 1998) would enhance such studies.
In experiments carried out in UCC a short experiential task, introduced towards the end of
the lecture is used to encourage communication between pairs or small groups. Natural ‘buzz-
groups’ seem to form. The exercises are designed to encourage active review of notes just taken,
and to build concepts. In these experiments the students can ask the teacher any questions they
consider relevant. Work has to be handed in before the student leaves the class. Informed by this
work, the teacher holds a debriefing of the exercise at the beginning of the next session. Students
will usually have appropriate answers, but sometimes all members of a group will demonstrate
a misconception. For example, in one session I described sediment as poorly sorted, and later
discovered students had written ‘pearly-sorted’ in their notes. Students relate new information
to what they already know, and generate new meaning. What meaning were they constructing
in their minds to fit this description? Students may be influenced (or not) in intended or unin-
tended ways. However, students learn through the course not to take the word of someone in the
group but to think for themselves. They learn to question their peers, and eventually to produce
counter arguments. This is active learning, and leads from peer to independent mode of study
and articulation of ideas. This is important for student development. Interestingly this teaching
strategy has encouraged greater attendance at lectures, since contributions from non-attendees
are not accepted. This teaching method is similar to Bonwell and Eisson (1991) for improving
active learning within the lecture format.
We would agree with Butler’s conclusions that the traditional didactic lecture can be trans-
formed into an exciting mechanism for fulfilling the objectives of higher education. Butler stresses
that it is our duty as facilitators to make the lecture inspiring, exciting, provoking, and an effective

38
 Bettie Higgs and Marian McCarthy

learning mechanism. The benefits of the enhanced lecture as a teaching method are now recog-
nised. Teachers are encouraged to employ a range of teaching methods within the ’lecture’. This
provides a greater equality of learning opportunity. Carrying out learning style questionnaires
in UCC, and revealing the findings to the students, helps them to be more aware of their own
learning, and broaden their strategies. Multiple Intelligences theory (Gardner 1999b;a)is potent
in highlighting that students learn in different ways.
In science education a lecture may be linked to some practical activity, and act as a briefing, so
that the time for ‘activity’ focuses on what is important for conceptual development. Procedural
skills can be rehearsed so that they do not present a problem to distract from the understanding
taking place in, for example, the fieldwork learning time. Claims abound from staff and stu-
dents, regarding the learning that does take place in practical fieldwork (Sanders 2004). But is
this always true? Students enjoy the social dimension of fieldwork but is the learning effective?
Questioning students after a day in the field can indicate that their understanding of what they
have seen is not high. This often does not match with the claims of the teacher. Field trip lead-
ers often enjoy telling the story! They may pay little attention to what the students know at the
end of the session...except that they can tell the same story. The transmission model is certainly
alive and well in the geological field trip. We can transfer the learning site, but not necessarily
the mindset (Zilbersztain and Gilbert 1981). Undoubtedly some learning takes place, but what
is it? How can we release more of the learning potential of practical fieldwork? This natural
laboratory should maximise active learning, encouraging communities of learners and creating a
collaborative culture (Brown 1997). How can we achieve this?
In a study, one lecturer reported ‘Reflection on my own experiences in higher education led me
to realise that I learned because I had questions I wanted answered. My curiosity was heightened
during some practical activities, but not all. As a first year geology student, on my first field trip,
the teacher spoke ‘over my head’. I tried to write down everything he said. Only when I was
asked to do something did I become an active learner. Key to my learning was small group work,
and an assistant teacher who I could communicate with on my level. Now, I recognise the above
characteristics in my own students’.
Social constructivists, and socio-culturists believe that we learn by social and communal activ-
ities. All agree that learning is an active process of construction of meaning. Meaning is shaped,
and knowledge constructed, through discussion with peers and teachers, and through reflection.
This social constructivism is observed in groups of mature students, in UCC, who continuously
interact with each other as they learn. This demonstrates a link between the constructivist view
of learning, and the way we should teach. Teachers must be concerned with knowledge construc-
tion, and have well designed activities that appropriately challenge, and draw upon, student’s
prior learning. Allowing students to develop the narrative, as advocated by Bruner (1996), guided
by an expert, is a way of teaching, and appears to work well. The teacher has responsibility for
guiding students’ development of shared meaning. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the term ‘Zone
of Proximal Development’ to define the gap between the individual’s unaided achievement and
their potential achievement with the help of a skilled partner. For successful scaffolding, directing
students to significant and timely aspects of the task, teachers need to know when to give support
and when to withdraw it.
Teachers can engage with students in simple ways initially, taking account of students’ exist-
ing views and making the subject relevant to encourage engagement. They can introduce new
structures into the personal engagement as the need arises (Driver et al. 1994), and have on-going
performances of understanding, to find out what the student’s know and understand. An in-
terplay of social and personal experience should be fostered in the process of learning. Social
interaction and discourse can give effective feedback. This is feedback that learners can give to
each other as well as to the teacher.
A diverse group of mature students talked of a lecturer who was ‘very good in the field’. In
2001 I had the opportunity to assist in one of his field classes. The lecturer talked for two hours,
telling the students the geological history of the area. He pointed out some features, not all of

39
 A CTIVE LEARNING – FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO FIELD - WORK

which were correct. There was no opportunity for the students to question him. However, the
students were entertained, impressed with his knowledge, and had enjoyed the experience.
So, what learning went on in this activity? The lecturer did not demonstrate how a question
should be formulated in the field, or how he would go about answering it. Acceptance of infor-
mation by students, without argument, can contribute to learning helplessness. A more inclusive
session would have provided students with time to discover evidence and discuss this in groups.
This would allow students to pose questions, and to answer some of their own questions. Tobin
(2004) calls this a ‘co-participation model’. What is the role of the teacher in this situation? Tobin
(2004) believes students must be primed to look for certain types of evidence before they will
see it for themselves. Students can be shown a plant fossil in sandstone, but must be allowed
to discover examples for themselves. Tobin found that when students worked in groups, prior
knowledge was shared. Those who understood were able to explain to those that did not. He
observed that peer teaching was occurring and ‘all students had chances to co-participate in the
learning activities’. Increased inclusivity resulted.
During this field class, two experienced teaching assistants were available, but not called on
by the leader. Kuhn (1993 in Tobin 2004) sees science as a form of argument. When field assistants
are used well, students are able to listen to the discourse between teachers and assistants. If
assistants remain silent and are not invited to join in, opportunities to hear the discourse of science
are missed.
Practical fieldwork can help students to consolidate knowledge gained during the year in the
classroom. It can be used to feel how it is to be a scientist in the real world, and help to develop
practical and procedural understanding. In the work place accurate following of procedures are
necessary, so for authentic science procedural understanding is important (McGlinn and Roth
1999). This contradicts Hodson (1998) who would like students to have total ‘freedom’ to be
individuals in their investigations. We agree with Hodson that students appear to value cognitive
challenge, combined with a handover of control from teacher to student. Practical fieldwork can,
if correctly designed, offer these challenges and opportunities for learning, and lead to a deeper
understanding –as opposed to shallow learning. It can be an authentic experience. Real scientists
observe, discuss, persuade, negotiate, argue, disagree, and agree.
The context of learning is important. In fieldwork there is a unique opportunity to design
activities that communicate the nature of science itself. In the geosciences there is rarely only one
viewpoint. This is real, authentic, evidence-based science. Getting the right answer should be a
lesser goal, since very often the experts disagree, or the answer cannot be proved.
Students learn that science is about thinking, guessing, predicting, measuring, testing, de-
scribing, reporting, defending, in appropriate scientific language. Science does not always work,
or turn out as you expected. ‘Conjuring’ is unlikely to take place during fieldwork. It is difficult
to rig the investigation. Students feel the work is honest. They do not blame their lack of un-
derstanding on poor apparatus. What is there is what is there, and needs explanation. However
‘talking your way out of it’ (Hodson 1998) is frequently practiced, instead of saying ‘how could
we go about finding that out?’.

An example of practice
A field course for first year undergraduate students.
The learning activities form one day of a three-day field course. A carefully sequenced pro-
gramme of investigative activities has been constructed “ the event by which the teacher assists
students in learning science” (Leach and Scott 2000). The scientific story develops over the 3 days,
with students creating much of the narrative.
Student Learning Goals

• To carry out an investigation in the natural world.

• To view rocks as a 3-D physical entity, surface and subsurface.

40
 Bettie Higgs and Marian McCarthy

• To increase knowledge and understanding of strategies for scientific inquiry.

• To understand the role and status of evidence in scientific knowledge building.
• To think, plan and reflect, and oversee own learning.
Teacher Learning Goals
• To address the learning demand
• To encourage student-student communication, as well as student-teacher communication.
• To motivate, arouse curiosity, pose questions, be a role model, get students to think about how to
answer questions.
Learning outcomes:
• The student will be able to demonstrate geological understanding by drawing a vertical geological
cross-section through the area investigated.
• The student will be able to observe and record geological evidence, and discuss and defend their
interpretation of evidence.
• The student will have experience and understanding of different learning strategies.
This activity is informed by observation of a previous class, where the transmission method
was dominant. The structure of the subsurface was not emphasised. Students were assessed
on the day’s work, and asked to draw a vertical cross-section. None of the students showed
understanding of what was happening beneath the surface, and so failed in this activity. The
‘internalisation’ concept of Vygotsky (1978) suggests there is a difference between making the
story available, and having individual students make sense of the story.
Leach and Scott (2000) identify authoritative discourse (presenting ideas) and dialogic (mak-
ing meaning) discourse. These can be used to make the story intelligible to the students.
However, to do this the leaders needs to be aware of the existing understanding the students
are bringing with them, so that they can develop lines of argument to engage with their existing
understanding.
So, the teaching method has been modified to address the perceived ‘learning demand’. Learn-
ing goals are made explicit, and engaging in dialogue with students is encouraged, to identify
areas of confusion. Authoritative discourse is reduced, and more guidance given. The opportu-
nity for dialogic discourse is increased, to allow students to develop their own narrative, and to
improve scientific literacy (McGlinn and Roth 1999).
Activity (am).
The Fieldwork leader introduces the activity and briefly reminds students of the purpose and
relevance of this activity.
Groups: Work in 4s Resources: Expert learning facilitators are available
An introduction to important aspects of the task requires authoritative discourse. The way the
teacher approaches an investigation in the field is part of the authoritative discourse. A balance
with dialogic discourse must be achieved.
Instructions to students
From a vantage point, look at the rock outcrops on the foreshore. Note the layers of rock stacked
one on top of the other. Note the direction of the boundaries between these layers of rock. Make
an estimate of this direction, and indicate it on your map.
Go down to the foreshore and look closely. Using a handlens, note colour, texture, thick-
ness, and any special characteristics. Record this information systematically in your notebook.
Measure dip. Mark this information on your map. Discuss with your group what you think
happens to these rock layers beneath the ground, and make a 3-D sketch. (Essentially build a
hypothesis you can test). Discuss the economic potential of these rocks?

41
 A CTIVE LEARNING – FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO FIELD - WORK

Here instructions are a guide, scaffolding, not a recipe to follow. Work is doable, but with some
degree of independence. Challenge is at the core of motivational activities. If relevance to society
is signposted, it enhances any routine procedural tasks. Asking students ‘how would you extract
the coal?’ has students going through the same mental processes as ‘construct a cross-section’.

Activity (pm)
Groups: Work in 4s. Resources available: expert learning facilitators.
Instructions to students
Currently, in the literature, there are at least 2 differing views on what these rocks represent We
want you to investigate and come up with your own view on what the evidence is suggesting.
After 30 minutes the whole group will congregate; each group can report a piece of evidence
they think is significant.

The groups try to persuade each other of their case, creating a more authentic learning expe-
rience. Teachers act as facilitators of the discussion, guiding it if necessary. Students develop the
narrative. This is authentic science.

Activity (evening)
Follow-up: Debriefing with students negotiating, defending, discussing, persuading.

The resources available for this fieldwork are the whole group, the small working group, the
teacher, and assistants. Brown (1997) quoting Bruner calls this ‘ the mix of human beings in-
volved in teaching and learning’, a rich resource, uniquely available almost 24 hours a day in the
fieldwork environment! Students work in groups and are responsible for their own learning and
that of the group. The group reports and defends their findings, citing evidence, to the whole
class. Students develop their own narrative and share expertise with their classmates, so that
they may all have access to the entire topic. Their investigations lead to performances of con-
sequential tasks, such as debating and defending. This metacognitive environment encourages
‘do I understand?’ and ‘that doesn’t make sense!’. In this way Hodson (1998) says ‘conceptual
understanding is necessarily articulated, tested and challenged’, encouraging robust learning.
Reflection and discussion are essential and through time become the ‘norm’ for the group. Over
time it becomes second nature to appreciate good questions and to critically evaluate answers
that are themselves partially correct and in need of revision. What is important is that the stu-
dents have good reasons for their interpretations, and can establish a chain of arguments from
their current understanding to the interpretation (McNairy 1985; Hodson 1998). Teachers should
be open, and willing to accept a student’s point of view. Entirely authoritative discourse is not the
most effective for learning (Brown 1997). Teachers can then lead the class in setting new learning
goals. As the work progresses, the teacher can hand over control, in recognition of the student’s
increased capabilities for unassisted performance.
A key skill in fieldwork is observation, but the demarcation between objective observation and
theoretical inference depends on prior experience. Hodson (1998) points out that ‘where partic-
ular individuals ‘draw the line’ depends on their knowledge, level of experience, and familiarity
with the phenomena or events being studied.’ For example using terms such as bedding, cleav-
age, and joints all carry with them some prior theoretical framework. We need to be aware (and
the students need to be made aware) of the ways in which there own observational skills change
and develop as their theoretical understanding becomes more sophisticated. At the end of a field
course, a shift in the language employed since the start can be pointed out to students to demon-
strate their progress. Hodson (1998) calls this ‘the conceptual-linguistic shift that can be readily
demonstrated’. Shuell (1990) says ‘meaningful, cognitive, learning is an active constructive and
cumulative process that occurs gradually over a period of time’. On the residential field course it
is possible to introduce key topics ‘in a drip-feed fashion’ over several days.
We must avoid tasks that promote performance orientation, where maximum marks are gained
by reproducing material in exactly the form in which the teacher presented it. These tasks do not

42
 Bettie Higgs and Marian McCarthy

require the student to think very deeply about the material, or to re-order or re-structure any
ideas. We see this learning helplessness in the field. If a student does not realise how superficial
his/her understanding is, he/she will not take steps to improve it. Positive attitude/inclination
of students must be encouraged. Tasks should be a challenge not a threat.
Teachers who promote good habits assist students to become learning orientated. These stu-
dents will use feedback to progress their understanding and re-double their efforts. Without this
attitude students may believe they are unable to surmount negative outcomes. They view fail-
ure as predictive of their own potential, and discount any successes (‘I’m no good at sketching
what I see; I could never imagine structures in 3D’). Can we get the student beyond this condi-
tioned belief system? This can be done by judicious design and selection of learning activities to
maximise intrinsic motivation. Learning orientated students who do take steps to restructure in
order to personalise their understanding should be rewarded for having done so. Design of field
course assessment should take this into account. Self- directed effort should not be wasted as far
as tangible reward is concerned?

Conclusions
In this brief discussion we have questioned the traditional roles of teacher and learner in under-
graduate education. We, like others, have concluded that new models of teaching and learning
are needed to avoid didactic lectures and passive approaches to learning. All activity does not
equate to learning. Undeveloped and unexplored theories of learning in higher education must
be addressed so that the potential of the learning environment can be maximised. For the teacher
in UCC it can be unsettling to give up the ‘power’ of the lecturer, and become the facilitator.
For the students it can be uncomfortable to take responsibility and control of their own learning.
These are still relatively new roles, and constructivism is present more in discourse than in prac-
tice. However, experiments in UCC are helping teachers to find ways to transform the lecture
theatre into an active learning environment, and analysis of the ‘field lecture’ indicates that by
giving up some ‘control’ the teacher can facilitate a movement from activity to active learning.

References
Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? (5 ed.). Exeter: Intellect.

Bonwell, C. C. and J. A. Eisson (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC
noED340272.

Brown, A. (1997). Transforming Schools into Communities of thinking and learning about serious
matters. American Psychologist 52(4), 399–413.

Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. In Narratives of Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Butler, J. A. (1992). Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Medical teaching 14(1).

Driver, R., H. Asoko, J. Leach, E. Mortimer, and P. Scott (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge
in the classroom. Educational Researcher 23(7), 5–12.

Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.

Gardner, H. (1999b). The disciplined mind: what all students should understand. New York: Basic
Books.

Gibbs, G. and A. Jenkins (1992). Teaching large classes in Higher Education: how to maintain quality
with reduced resources. London: Kogan Page.

43
 A CTIVE LEARNING – FROM LECTURE THEATRE TO FIELD - WORK

Greenfield, S. (2000). The Child. In The Private Life of the Brain. John Wiley and Sons.

Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a personalised approach. Buckingham:
Open University Press.

Leach, J. and P. Scott (2000). Designing and evaluating Science teaching sequences: an approach
drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learn-
ing. Studies in Science Education 38(115–142).

McGlinn, M. K. and M. W. Roth (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice:
implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher 28(3),
14–24.

McNairy, M. R. (1985). Sciencing: science education for early childhood. School Science and Math-
ematics 85, 383–93.

Moran, A. (1997). Managing your own learning at University. A practical guide. University College
Dublin Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.

Sanders, M. (2004). Engaging with e-learning in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences.
Exchange (6), 19.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of educational research (60), 531–547.
Tobin, K. (2004). Cultural perspectives on the teaching and learning of science. In E. Scanlon,
P. Murphy, J. Thomas, and E. Whitelegg (Eds.), Reconsidering Science Learning, pp. 176–194. Lon-
don: Routledge.

Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and P. Taylor (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first
year University Science, Volume 27. Higher Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for Understanding : Linking research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass Publishers.

Zilbersztain, A. and J. Gilbert (1981). Does practice in the laboratory fit the spirit? Australian
Science Teachers Journal 27, 39–44.

44
T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES :
EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO SUPPORT STUDENT
LEARNING

Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

Quality Promotion, NUI, Maynooth
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

KEYWORDS: Teaching and Learning, Teaching Methods Repertoire, Learning pyramid, Higher
Education Teaching.

Introduction
This chapter reports on the use of a practical exercise to help lecturers to consider expanding the
repertoire of activities that they use in their teaching. It sets the discussion within the framework
of a particular set of assumptions about the nature of higher education and the characteristics of
teaching in a higher education context. It outlines the instrument and the exercises used with par-
ticipants in the workshops for academic staff from three higher education campuses. It includes
observations about the processes that occurred. The chapter concludes by outlining the value
of the exercise, suggesting practical ways it can be used at individual and group level, both by
lecturers and staff developers, and offering suggestions for further work.

Context and background

In setting out the rationale for this chapter a number of basic assumptions that create the frame-
work in which it is situated must be stated. The first is to declare some definitions. I declare
these as premises. They relate to a definition of teaching, a theoretical paradigm and a view on
the nature of the higher education endeavour. This is important to the individual teacher because
we work out of our theoretical paradigms, values and definitions, whether they are explicit or
implicit.

A definition of teaching
Ramsden says (Ramsden 1992:5) that “The aim of teaching is simple: it is to make student learning
possible.” For the purposes of this paper teaching is taken to mean a set of activities that makes
learning possible in students. While the aim is simple, the activity is complex because it involves
an array of understandings from discipline perspectives to which students are being introduced
and in which they are invited to operate. It is not a value free activity but is undertaken within one
or more possible paradigms or world views. This paradigm, defined as “an internally consistent
orientation from which a conceptual and operational approach to functioning in the world is
constructed” (Pearse 1983:158) influences the way it is conducted. Making explicit ones own
definitions and paradigm(s) can illuminate the choices made in teaching.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES : EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING

A theoretical paradigm
Two such paradigms of teaching are identified and discussed by Kolitch and Dean in their critique
of student ratings of instruction in the context of North American higher education (Kolitch and
Dean 1999). They describe a “transmission model of teaching” and an “engaged critical model of
teaching”. They acknowledge that the use of paradigms “to capture the complexity of teaching
and learning is widespread” and draw parallels with similar dichotomies in other writings (Barr
& Tagg 1995; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Kember and Gow, 1994).
The transmission model characterizes the activity of teaching as the imparting of knowledge
and the activity of learning as the absorbing of knowledge and, writing in 1999, Kolitch and Dean
considered that this remained the dominant model in classrooms in North America.
The engaged critical model of teaching, on the other hand, sees teaching and learning more
in terms of a dialogue. Students, each with a unique life experience, and the teacher, also with a
unique life experience, engage in a mutual and creative dialogue.
While a critical engaged model is often thought of in terms of a social change model of educa-
tion, one of its defining attributes is its focus on the work of learning, the need for the student to
engage with the object of study in order to achieve understanding and create knowledge.
This paper is written from the standpoint of the latter model. It rejects the transmission model
as a candidate for dominant paradigm of teaching in higher education but respects it as a tool,
among other tools, that can be brought into service when needed. The reasons will be apparent
from the assumptions about the nature of higher education set out below.
One of the key benefits of the learning pyramid exercise discussed below is that is allows
teachers, to access the models and definitions they are operating through dialogue about very
practical teaching and learning activities. This awareness can, in turn, assist them in seeing the
value of alternative paradigms as well as broader repertoires of methods and activities.

The idea of higher education

In a book entitled The Idea of Higher Education, Barnett endeavours to outline a theory of higher ed-
ucation (Barnett 1990). He searches thinkers from Plato through Newman to Jaspers finding some
important points of continuity in the evolving understanding of higher education and establishes
what he describes as “the minimal educational conditions for an educational process to justify
the title ‘higher education’”. These, he says, are logically necessary conditions an institution must
fulfil in order to be an institution of higher education. For our purposes they are what define the
teaching process in higher education. He says Higher educational processes promote:
1. A deep understanding by the student of some knowledge claims.
2. A radical critique by the same student of those knowledge claims.
3. A developing competence to conduct that critique in the company of others.
4. The student’s involvement in determining the shape and direction of that critique (i.e. some
form of independent inquiry).
5. The student’s self-reflection, with the student developing the capacity critically to evaluate
his or her own achievements, knowledge claims and performance.
6. The opportunity for the student to engage in that inquiry in a process of open dialogue and
cooperation (freed from unnecessary direction).
While Barnett argues that such a conception of higher education is being undermined from
various angles, it remains a working model for thinking about teaching and learning in higher
education and investigating ways of enhancing it.
In respect of the transmission model of teaching, it alone would seem inadequate to the chal-
lenge of bringing students to the later levels of learning required by Barnett’s concepts of higher
education, while the engaged critical model may well allow that possibility.

46
 Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

Teaching and Learning

The first section of the chapter set out the framework and assumptions. Working within this
framework of Barnett’s criteria, and on the basis that the goal of teaching is to promote student
knowledge this section explores the role of teaching in promoting learning. In the context of a
discussion about possible links between research and teaching, Lewis Elton offers some helpful
insights He distinguishes between learning (verb) and learning (noun) (Elton 2001) and goes on
to elaborate on how learning (noun) can be achieved.

Now, there is a very basic point of learning theory, namely that learning with under-
standing, so-called ‘deep’ learning, requires learners to integrate new knowledge with
existing knowledge . . . . For this to happen, students must be actively involved in the
learning process and come – at least in part – to own it. (Elton 2001:19)

Knowledge is achieved through learning (verb), and involves information or content, reflec-
tion and dialogue. Teaching is effective if it facilitates learning.
In an interesting paper on professional development in the use of ICT, Littlejohn makes two
interesting observations that are applicable more widely than in the ICT context in which they are
made (Littlejohn 2002).
The first observation is the identification of three levels at which online learning may operate.
These are transmitting information, encouraging reflection and finally dialogue. The parallel is
clear; in direct teaching too we need to ensure that these three levels are encompassed. The second
insight is that it is a mistake to decide on the medium before we have thought of the message. If
the messages are varied, it may be that the media need to be varied too.
While it is not clear that a varied repertoire of teaching methods is a reliable indicator of
teaching quality (Coffey and Gibbs 2002), it is probably safe to suggest that different activities
are appropriate to different objectives and to different learning styles. In a teaching development
context it is certainly worth offering colleagues an opportunity to reflect on the activities they
most often incorporate into their teaching and consider their effectiveness for the purposes for
which they employ them.

A wide array of activities

The array of possible teaching and learning activities and methods is extensive. Whether in hand-
books on teaching and learning in higher education, in courses, long and short, certificated and
otherwise, a wealth of advice is available to the beginning teacher and the experienced practi-
tioner seeking renewal. The volume of material is in itself a problem.
Educational developers often find that simple tools that provide a stimulus for reflection on
experience are valuable in helping colleagues to explore their approaches to teaching in order to
enhance their practice.
The remainder of the chapter describes a tool for reflection on some of the activities that are
included within the term ‘learning and teaching activities’. It reports on an exercise used in work-
shops for staff seeking to improve their teaching. While other activities were included in the
workshops, the Learning Pyramid provided a useful image of a comprehensive range of activi-
ties and offered a good basis for a practical exercise with groups.

What is the Learning Pyramid?

The learning pyramid is an image that maps a range of teaching methods and learning activities
onto a triangular image in proportion to their effectiveness in promoting student retention of the
material taught.
The research base for the pyramid is difficult to establish conclusively. It was developed and
used by the National Teaching Laboratory Institute at their Bethel, Maine campus in the early

47
 T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES : EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING

nineteen sixties, when that organization was part of the National Education Association’s Adult
Education Division. NTL believes it to be accurate but says that it can no longer trace the origi-
nal research that supports the numbers. NTL acknowledges that in 1954 a similar pyramid, with
slightly different numbers appeared on p. 43 of a book called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching,
by the Edgar Dale. The Learning Pyramid seems to have been modified but has always been
attributed to NTL Institute. NTL allows free use of the Pyramid and asks for it to be cited as de-
veloped by NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria,
VA 22314. 1-800-777-5227.
While there remains a level of discomfort around the use of an instrument with such a tenuous
research base, NTL is a reputable organization and is happy to have its name – and reputation –
associated with the pyramid. Moreover, it is used as a stimulus for reflection only. In the context
of our workshops, its purpose was to promote discussion and analysis, which it did with great
success.
The methods included in the pyramid are:

• Lecture

• Demonstration

• Group Discussion

• Practical activity by students

• Use of Audio-Visual aids

• Student Reading

• Student presentations

• Peer tutoring by students

In addition to the research base issue, thought was given to the clarity of the terms used.
Coffey and Gibbs have reported difficulty in regard to misinterpretation of terms in the context of
their repertoire of teaching methods (Coffey and Gibbs 2002). In the context of a practical exercise
in a workshop setting, the clarity issue seemed unlikely to cause problems. Indeed, the generic
nature of the items was likely to promote discussion and sharing of experience, a positive benefit
in the context.
Finally, in preparing to use the pyramid, there is an issue to be considered in relation to a
counter intuitive nature of its layout. We tend to see the pinnacle or apex as the most important.
As the pyramid places at the apex the method it holds to be least effective, the reader may expe-
rience a certain conceptual dissonance. This proved useful in the workshops because it provoked
thought. It looked right according to the transmission paradigm, until the figures were displayed.
Ultimately, in spite of these concerns, the pyramid proved extremely useful as a stimulus for
reflection and discussion of teaching methods, their uses and relative effectiveness, when used in
teaching development workshops with experienced staff and beginning teachers in higher educa-
tion institutions in Ireland. It was used in a series of workshops with staff in three institutions in
Ireland in the course of 2003 and this report is based on these workshops. The groups brought to-
gether staff with varying lengths of experience, from different disciplines, including Humanities,
Computer Science and Nursing.

The Exercise
The exercise was designed for use in developmental workshops and involved three stages. Fol-
lowing an opportunity to reflect individually, participants working in small groups were asked
to discuss the relative values of the teaching methods. Prepared cards of equal sizes were used
as stimuli. On each card, one item from the pyramid was written, and through their discussion

48
 Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

participants were asked to arrive at a consensus as to the order in which the pyramid should
be reconstructed. The groups then shared the reasons for their particular weighting and finally
compared whole group consensus with the pyramid as set out in Appendix 1
The primary purpose of the exercise was to support individual reflection on a range of ac-
tivities that might contribute to their students learning and to consider the effectiveness of these
methods in relation to the single dimension of how effectively it might promote retention by
learners of the material concerned The group negotiation in the exercise aimed at promoting a
discussion of the reasons behind the ranking of particular activities, thus accessing theoretical po-
sitions and value judgements which contributed to the deliberations. The theoretical aspect was
not cued or signalled in any way at the outset but arose naturally from the work of ranking the
items.

Observations on the exercise

The following observations are of a qualitative nature, reflections on the process of the exercise
and a sharing of the experience of the workshops. They are offered as insights from a staff de-
veloper’s viewpoint that may assist in colleagues own reflection on their teaching and learning
support activities and on the theoretical or value positions that underpin their choices.
In each of the groups the exercise was undertaken enthusiastically and the participants de-
bated energetically the relative value of each activity. Through the iterative process moving from
individual, through small group to larger group debate, consensus generally moved closer to
the model. More important however, was the quality of engagement in the discussions and the
openness of participants to learn from the experiences of their colleagues as that experience led
to insights into why one method might have more impact than others.
The relative weightings given in the model are set out in Table 1 below.

Tab. 1: Relative weightings given to activities in the learning pyramid

Activity Average Retention Rate
Lecture 5
Reading 10
Audio-Visual 20
Demonstration 30
Discussion Group 50
Practice by doing 75
Teach others / Immedate use of learning 90

In general, participants rated lecturing as more highly effective than the pyramid, although
not as highly as one might expect, given the dominance of the lecture in higher education. Col-
leagues were well aware of difficulties related to large numbers, attention span and problems
with interactivity. An important benefit came from the participants sharing ways of solving these
difficulties based on their own practice. Especially fruitful was the interaction of staff with differ-
ent levels of experience and from extremely diverse disciplines. The experienced participants had
practical solutions to contribute and alternative prespectives from diverse subject areas supplied
keys to issues for participants.
Unsurprisingly, reading was consistently rated as more highly effective by the participants
than in the pyramid. Discussions centred on whether reading was an active learning method,
and as such more effective than other methods. The placing of this item felt like an ambush. It
may be that in terms of learning styles, academic groups tend to favour the read/write dimension
and so were unaware that this preference is not universal. The centrality of the reading list is
already being challenged by internet resources, though this material is often text based and so it
remains in the reading domain. This appears to be an extremely important issue, especially in the

49
 T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES : EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING

context of widening participation and diversity of students. It is beyond the scope of this chapter
to investigate the issue but it would certainly merit further exploration.
There was also considerable debate about the ordering of ‘teaching others ‘ and ‘practice by
doing’. Generally, by the conclusion of exercise the consensus was that order given in the pyramid
model was correct. An appreciation of the clarity of understanding needed to teach material, the
interactivity and feedback from learners, were identified as important factors in arriving at this
view. This suggests that teachers need to think about providing opportunities for students to
undertake peer tutoring or to give presentations to their peers with greater frequency than is
currently the norm.
Participants felt it was an interesting exercise that helped them to reflect on their approaches
to teaching and consider whether they might broaden the range of activities they included in the
student learning experience. The visual image acted as an important stimulus, with participants
seeming to plot their experience onto it as onto a map and then finding ways of extending their
territory. Although the activities listed were practical, and the introduction to the exercise offered
no cue to a more theoretical discussion, the act of ranking the items as a group led the participants
into the areas of values and theory.
The practical nature of the exercise, where participants could physically move the items, dis-
cuss the order and change the placement was helpful. It was possible to try things out, see how it
looked without committing irrevocably to an answer. The physical movement also played a role
as the group members walked round their space and repositioning the cards until consensus was
achieved.
The workshop evaluations were extremely positive and participants clearly enjoyed the expe-
rience and felt they benefited from it. Benefits included the opportunity to share with colleagues
and hear practical suggestions for dealing with specific issues. The creation of networks was also
considered helpful as a focus for an ongoing dialogue and mutual support. While these might be
true of any developmental workshop, the specific benefit of the learning pyramid exercise was
that participants shared knowledge about actual teaching and learning activities in specific con-
texts. Thus it moved teaching more into the public domain and away from the privacy, often
isolation, that can affect teachers and it did this in a manner that linked theory with practice.
Perhaps this, above all is what made it so important.

Conclusions
This chapter is premised on the view that higher education needs to fulfil a particular set of crite-
ria. These criteria have appeared in many guises as institutions adapted to their societal contexts:
the version used here – Barnett’s – reflects many earlier iterations. These particular criteria centre
around knowledge. Teaching in all its diversity serves to promote knowledge in those who learn.
In helping students to learn, to inform themselves, to integrate their new knowledge, to engage
in critical reflection, evaluation and dialogue, teachers in higher education need to draw on a
diversity of activities and methods.
The chapter reports on the use of the learning pyramid in a practical exercise with groups of
staff and considers what benefits it offered to participants in understanding their teaching and in
expanding their repertoires. In passing, it is probably worth noting that the pyramid exercise itself
occupies the three base categories of the structure. Reflecting on observations of the exercise and
the in-depth and creative dialogue engaged in by participants, a number of general conclusions
are possible.

• Clearly the experience confirms that it is useful to reflect on practice and consider how broad
a range of activities are routinely included in the teaching repertoire.

• The practical stimulus offered a useful and safe opportunity to reflect on the potential of
various activities in teaching and on opportunities to move beyond a narrow segment of
those activities

50
 Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

• The exercise seemed particularly beneficial for experienced staff whose reflection on that
experience was helpful both for their own development and for less experienced colleagues.

• It worked well with groups that mixed staff with experience and those with less experience;
this situation can often present a challenge to educational developers and so the exercise is
particularly useful in these contexts.

• It worked well with groups that mixed staff from backgrounds as diverse as Computer Sci-
ence, Nursing and Outdoor Pursuits and allowed a creative interchange of ideas. Although
not all the elements were relevant to all, the selection was sufficiently comprehensive to
facilitate dialogue.

• The terms used in the pyramid were generic, but at the same time sufficiently precise to be
recognizable across a wide range of subject specialisms.

• The access the pyramid provided to a grounded dialogue around values, aims and theoret-
ical issues represents a major benefit

Given the positive response of participants to the exercise and the benefits that have been iden-
tified, it is worth considering what further work might be undertaken. These include applications
to practice and additional investigations that could be undertaken.
In considering implications for individual practice a number of practical applications suggest
themselves:

• The pyramid can be used as a stimulus for individual reflection and internal dialogue about
teaching and learning. The repertoire of activities can be plotted onto the image, offering an
opportunity to assess the strength of that repertoire

• The pyramid can act as a stimulus to reflection on theoretical paradigms, and allow consid-
eration of links between these and practice

• The results of an individual reflection can be written up for a teaching portfolio, and it may
be especially useful in this context because of its capacity to link theory and practice – often
a difficult issue for practitioners.
• Students may find the analysis interesting: it might well provide an added incentive to
students to participate in discussions, presentations and peer tutoring schemes.

• Colleagues working in course teams or on departmental planning groups may find it useful
as a support for implementing a varied diet of learning activities for students, especially in
more traditional environments.

As regards further investigations, activities to increase our knowledge of the impact of the
exercises offer one possibility. In future iterations with other staff groups a more structured ap-
proach to the responses of participants would support verification of the findings here. An in-
vestigation of impact in the longer term with those groups of staff who engaged in the workshop
offers another possibility. A wider study of the range of activities in use among academic staff,
based of the pyramid categories is a further possibility. Finally, the role of reading in student
learning is undoubtedly an area for investigation.
This chapter has set out with a view about what teaching in higher education seeks to achieve.
It has argued that theoretical paradigms, assumptions about, and definitions of teaching influence
our practice and the outcomes we, and our students, achieve. It has offered a practical way for
individuals and groups to explore their practice and the theoretical models that underpin it so
that they can make choices about changing, extending or refocusing their teaching repertoire to
achieve their educational aims and support students in achieving their potential.

51
 T EACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES : EXPANDING THE REPERTOIRE TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING

References
Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Coffey, M. and G. Gibbs (2002). Measuring Teachers’ Repertoire of Teaching Methods. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education 27(4), 383–390.

Elton, L. (2001). Teaching in Higher Education: conditions for a positive link [1]. Teaching in Higher
Education 6(1), 43–56.

Kolitch, E. and A. V. Dean (1999). Student Ratings of Instruction in the USA: Hidden assumptions
and missing conceptions about ’good’ teaching. Studies in Higher Education 24(1), 27–42.

Littlejohn, A. (2002). Improving continuing professional development in the ise of ICT. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 18, 166–174.

Pearse, H. (1983). Brother can you spare a paradigm? The theory beneath the practice. Studies in
Art Education 24, 158–163.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.

52
 Saranne Magennis and Alison Farrell

The Learning Pyramid?

Average
Retention Rate

Lecture 5%

Reading 10%

Audio-Visual 20%

Demonstration 30%

Discussion Group 50%

Practice by doing 75%

Teach others / Immediate use of learning 90%

Developed by NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. 1-800-
777-5227.

53
54
W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

Terry Barrett
Freelance education developer
E-mail: [email protected]

Problem–based learning has been the one of the most important recent developments in the
university education of the professions (Boud and Feletti 1977). It started with medical education
in North America and has spread across the globe and across most disciplines. Its potential to de-
velop student learning has not been exploited in higher education (Savin-Baden 2000). Students
report that problem–based learning is fun (The Irish Times 2002). So, what is problem–based
learning?
This introduction to problem–based learning will give an overview of problem–based learning
by answering some of the questions, which I am often asked when facilitating PBL staff develop-
ment initiatives. It aims to encourage you to explore the idea of using or not using PBL in your
teaching. It highlights areas of research you may be interested in considering.
I was course co-ordinator of the Postgraduate Diploma in Third Level Learning and Teaching
at the Dublin Institute of Technology. This course was a problem–based learning course. The
lecturers became problem–based learners for the year. I have worked as an education developer
in a number of universities facilitating academics to plan and implement PBL initiatives. I have
worked with staff across a range of disciplines including physics, computer science and speech
and language therapy.
Based on my experience as a PBL curriculum designer, programme leader, tutor, education
developer, consultant and researcher I will give a brief overview of some questions about PBL.
The following diagram gives you a visual overview of the structure of the chapter

What
1. What
about
is
PBL
problem—
and
based
creativity
learning?
and fun?

6.What 2.Why use

about PBL problem-
and fun? based
learning?

5. How do
you get 3. What are
started? the
arguments
against
PBL?

4.How do
you
research
PBL ?

Fig. 1: Questions about PBL that will be addressed in this chapter

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

What is problem–based learning? and What is not problem–based

learning?
Barrows defines it as follows:
The learning that results from the process of working towards the understanding of
a resolution of a problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process
(Barrows and Tamblyn 1980:1 my emphasis)

An operational definition of problem–based learning is as follows:

1. First students are presented with a problem

2. Students discuss the problem in a small group PBL tutorial. They clarify the facts of the case.
They define what the problem is. They brainstorm ideas based on the prior knowledge.
They identify what they need to learn to work on the problem, what they do not know
(learning issues). They reason through the problem. They specify an action plan for working
on the problem.

3. Students engage in independent study on their learning issues outside the tutorial. The
information sources they draw on include: library, databases, the web and resource people

4. They come back to the PBL tutorial (s) sharing information, peer teaching and working
together on the problem

5. They present and discuss their solution to the problem

6. They review what they have learnt from working on the problem. All who participated
in the process engage in self, peer and tutor review of the PBL process and each person’s
contribution to that process.

Problem–based learning is “Problem”......”based” ......”learning”. Let us look at each of these

words. A problem is something that is problematic to the student; something that cannot be
resolved with the current level of knowledge and/or way of thinking about the issues. The na-
ture of effective problems in problem–based learning is that they are ill-structured as opposed to
well structured. The characteristics of PBL ill-structured problems are that they are real-life and
authentic not teacher’s exercises, messy not tidy, incomplete in the sense of lacking information
needed for their resolution and iterative in the way that they produce further ideas,/hypotheses
and learning issues (Barrows 1989; Stephen and Pyke 1977; Margeston 2001). It is vital that the
problems are engaging, that they “smell real”, are interesting and challenging to students. This
engagement stimulates further learning and requires research, elaboration, further analysis and
synthesis together with decisions and action plans.
The word “problem” in problem based learning needs to be interrogated. Problems are not
always about something that is in difficulty that needs to be sorted out. An ill-structured design
brief for an artist or an architect can be a problem. A dilemma for a doctor or a challenge for an
engineer can be a problem. Problems are not always how to do something immediately practical
in professional practice. Problems can also be about how to understand something. Problems
can be presented to students in a variety of formats including: scenarios, puzzles, diagrams,
dialogues, quotations, cartoons, e-mails, posters, poems, physical objects, and video-clips
One of the most important points about problems in problem–based learning is that it is not
a question that first the students receive inputs of knowledge e.g. lectures, practicals, handouts
etc. and then “apply” this knowledge to a problem they are presented with later in the learning
process. This type of a situation is nor problem–based learning it is problem solving (Savin-
Baden 2000). It is like making a cake when you have already been given the recipe and all the
ingredients. One of the defining characteristics of the use of problems in problem–based learning
is is that students are deliberately presented with the problem at the start of the learning process.

56
 Terry Barrett

This is like getting the challenge of preparing a celebratory meal for a special occasion where no
recipes or ingredients are given.
Margeston argues that the view of traditional higher education where “bodies of knowledge”
have primacy over problems is flawed. He highlights the centrality of problems in knowledge
acquisition. He asserts that:

1. Students need not only to acquire knowledge- that is the solution to problems-
but also understand what the problems are that give rise to the knowledge in
question:
2. Students need to gain knowledge, understanding, and experience of how knowl-
edge is gained -essentially, that is the process through which problems are re-
solved:
3. Problems should be problematic for students, even though for many others (such
as teachers, lecturers, researchers, and scholars) who will already have the knowl-
edge constituting solutions to the problems these problems will no longer be
problematic.
4. The process of learning itself must model crucial aspects of (1), (2), and (3): effec-
tively, this means that students must pursue their study in a way which requires
that they gain a realistic sense of why certain problems are or can be, seen as suffi-
ciently important to justify inquiry into them, of how this enquiry proceeds, and
of how to evaluate the knowledge gained through inquiry (Margeston 2001:9)

Starting with problems can be very motivating for students who may not see why they should
be interested in inputs of bodies of knowledge but may become very engaged in researching these
bodies of knowledge to address the learning issue they have identified themselves from working
on the problem. Problem–based learning forces students to name what they need to learn to
work on the problem. Some forms of lecturing in contrast have been referred to as the process of
answering questions students never asked in the first place.

Fig. 2: I said that I taught him not that he had learned

Problem–based learning is problem–based learning not problem–based teaching. It fits into

the learning paradigm not the teaching paradigm and is part of a set of student–centred ap-
proaches which are discussed in another chapter. A lecturer using a PBL approach is not con-
cerned with what and how they are teaching. Rather they are observing, looking, listening, stimu-
lating and provoking student learning. The learning of the students is their focus not the teaching
of the teacher.
Problem–based learning is based on problems, which are discussed in PBL tutorials The PBL
tutorial is the pivotal discursive site for students working through problems. Research (Barrett
2004c) into the lived experience of students in PBL tutorials suggests that the PBL tutorial as a
genre contrasts with traditional committee meetings in that PBL tutorials are more democratic,
less hierarchical and having less social distance between participants.
PBL tutorials also contrast with individual research. Individual research was seen in terms of
my knowledge and control, whereas the PBL tutorial was seen in terms of our knowledge and
control. Two PBL students discuss this issue:

57
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

Philip: Well, my opinion on the idea of the PBL working in groups, if I was working
independently I couldn’t have been as creative as this group has been. And the number
of ideas that were thrown around and developed by the group is very, very, I think it
creates a whole new dynamic. Whereas if I work independently I am sure for everyone
here, independently, they wouldn’t have felt it was as creative a process or as interesting
a process, I think.

Betty: I think what that question is more addressing is control as opposed to the stan-
dard. As an individual you have control over the start and finish of a product whereas
you need to give this up as this is group knowledge and it’s a group process, you don’t
have control over it, what the finished piece is. That is different, . . . . (Barrett 2004a)

The nature of the dialogue in PBL tutorials is a process by which people together create and
recreate knowledge as “true dialogue unites subjects together in the cognition of the object that
mediates between them” (Freire 1985:49). Problem–based learning is an active process of access-
ing prior knowledge, making connections between old and new concepts and using the elabo-
ration of relationships to engage in theory construction (Schmidt 2004). The PBL tutorial is the
main discursive site for this elaboration. In PBL the learners are constructing their own knowl-
edge together. PBL thus has a constructivist view of learning as “it suggests that learning results
from a learner’s actions and instruction plays a role only to the extent that it enables and fosters
constructivist activities” (Gijselaers 1966:13). Constructivism is explored further in the chapter on
learning theories in this book.
Problem–based learning is based on the problem that is reasoned through in the PBL tutorial.
However this does not mean that there are not other elements to the curricula, than the PBL
tutorial where a team of students are working on a problem. The tutorial is the heart of the PBL
around which other curriculum elements (practicals, information seeking skills workshops, etc.)
are based and timetabled. It doesn’t mean necessarily that there are no lectures in PBL curricula,
but they usually take a different format. The fixed resource session is a popular format, which
happens after the teams have been working on the problem for a while. Here if the resource
person gives a presentation it is short. Most of the time is spent with students asking questions
relevant to the problem they are working on and the general subject area with the resource person
answering questions. All discuss the emerging issues. Some people use a wrap up lecture at the
end of a series of problems to explore the links between different concepts. Research seminars on
related topics are integrated into some curricula. Curricula where there is PBL and substantial
traditional lectures are referred to as “hybrid”.
Problem–based learning is not a mere technique or fashionable fad. It is a total approach to
higher education. It involves designing a curriculum whose core is a set of problems. The PBL
tutorial is the heart of the process where students and a tutor reason through a problem. Assess-
ment drives learning and therefore it is vital to design assessments that will drive the desired
learning, be compatible with the PBL process and match learning outcomes. If you are preoccu-
pied with the spray of the wave you fail to realise its underlying swell, which in the case of PBL
is the philosophy of problem–based learning. Discussing the philosophy of PBL encourages us
to revisit what we mean be the concepts of “learning “ and “teaching “ in “higher education “.
It bring us back to basic questions like “What is PBL?”, “Why are we using PBL?” It provokes
us into reviewing the roles of lecturer, PBL tutor, student and librarian, where there is a focus on
learning not teaching. There are many ways to explore the philosophy of PBL including reflect-
ing on your practice as a PBL tutor, observing PBL in action in another institution and going to
PBL conferences. Interrogating writings on the philosophy of PBL e.g. Margeston (2001), Bar-
rett (2001) can help us to understand more deeply what problem–based learning is and is not. I
would also assert that research is a key element in PBL. Curriculum designers and tutors can base
their work on the evidence of research. Students can develop research skills through working on
problems. Curricula can improve through local evaluation and national/international research

58
 Terry Barrett

Curriculum
Design
(problems)

Research Tutorial

PBL
compatible
Evaluation assessment

Philosophy

Fig. 3: Problem–based learning a total approach to learning: Turning the wheel of PBL

projects. Academics (and students!) can publish not only on specific research topics in their dis-
cipline but also on emerging issues of facilitating PBL in their discipline.
The following definition of PBL draws together the points about PBL in the most comprehen-
sive definition of PBL I have come across:

PBL is both a curriculum and a process. The curriculum consists of carefully selected
and designed problems that demand from the learner acquisition of critical knowl-
edge, problem-solving proficiency, self –directed learning strategies and team par-
ticipation skills. The process replicates the commonly used systematic approach to
resolving problems or meeting challenges that are encountered in life and career.
(Maricopa Community College, Center for Learning and Instruction
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info.html)

However it would be a contradiction in terms not to treat problem–based learning itself as a

problem. We all need to continually ask ourselves what is problem–based learning in our con-
texts, in relation to our students, our disciplines, our cultures, our philosophies and our creativity.
Problems and PBL tutorials are essential characteristic of PBL so what are they like in practice?
The exploration of what problem–based learning is will continue by discussing what PBL is
in practice. If problems are so important in PBL what does a PBL problem look like? Here is a
sample problem This problem was used in a management of sales module in a masters course in
marketing

The Job of My Dreams

Mary had been feeling somewhat plateau-ed in her current job as National Accounts
Manager in the Irish drinks industry. With an honours B.Sc. in Business Studies, Grad-
uateship of the Marketing Institute of Ireland, and seven years sales experience rising
to her present position, she is anxious to prove her worth and potential in next weeks
final interview for the post of Marketing and Sales Manager in an existing successful
business which intends to move in to the healthcare market.
Specifically the successful applicant is to be responsible for:

• The refinement and execution of the marketing and sales strategy

59
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

• The identification, appointment and management of a network of distribution

partners for the preventative foot care line in Ireland
• Building, leading and motivating a marketing and sales team as the health care
business grows.

(Laura Cuddihy Senior Lecturer, Dublin Institute of Technology)

To see examples of other PBL problems link to www.udel.edu/pbl/problems One of the key
roles for academics in PBL is writing high quality problems. Research has shown that the quality
of problems affects the interest in the subject matter, the time spent in independent study and the
functioning of the tutorial group (Schmidt and Moust 2000). Problem-writing and tutor facilita-
tion are two important roles for academics in PBL curricula. So what does a PBL tutorial look
like?
Problem based learning is the learning that takes place when a small group of students (usu-
ally 5-8) work together in a PBL tutorial on a real life ill-structured problem. There is usually a
student chairperson, scribe and reader of the problem. The role of the PBL tutor is not to teach or
give information but rather to facilitate students reasoning through the problem. If the students
are using Barrows’s model (1989) they may have two shared whiteboards in the room. On one
whiteboard they will record a summary of their discussion under the following headings:

Ideas/ Hypotheses Facts Learning issues Action Plan

Fig. 4: The shared learning environment of the whiteboard in problem–based learning

Students use another whiteboard/flipchart to record other work on the problem e.g. diagrams
or flowcharts. Having given an overview of what problem–based learning is the next issue to
explore is the rationale for using problem–based learning

Why use problem–based learning?

Problem–based learning is introduced and continued for many reasons including:

1. Acquiring subject matter knowledge

2. Motivating students to learn

3. Helping student retention

4. Developing students thinking skills

5. Developing students key skills relevant to employment e.g. interpersonal communication

skills, information seeking skills and presentation skills

6. Fostering professional competence and confidence together with professional identity

7. Mirroring the interdisciplinary team process graduates will be using in work and research
8. Facilitating students learning how to learn

9. Encouraging students to integrate knowledge from different subjects, disciplines and sources

10. Linking theory and practice

11. Having a sense of belonging and friendship

60
 Terry Barrett

12. Having fun

13. Expressing in operational form a philosophy of learning that is student-centred and problem-
focused
14. Responding to research evidence on the benefits of PBL
15. Increasing competitiveness in the higher education market
16. Producing graduates that can hit the floor running at work after graduation

These are some of the positive reasons for using PBL but a balanced view must also look at
the arguments against PBL.

What about the arguments against PBL?

A meta-analysis of medical students in PBL curricula and traditional curricula (Norman and
Schmidt 1993) indicates that the retention of knowledge over a long period was increased and
the transfer of concepts into clinical situations was enhanced for the PBL students. In addition
self-directed study skills improved for the PBL students. However in the same study traditional
methods of education produced higher scores on knowledge of basic sciences than problem–
based learning methods. So there are some things that PBL is more effective for and other things
that traditional methods are more effective for.
Another argument against PBL is that it can be very difficult to change to PBL when some
or most of the students and /or staff are products of didactic teaching methods (Walton and
Mathews 1989). Trigger and Prosser (1996) compared approaches to teaching and conceptions
of teaching in their 24 teachers of courses in first year chemistry and physics. They found that
teachers who had a particular conception of teaching tended to adopt a commensurate approach
to teaching. The teachers with a student centred and learning oriented conception of teaching
tended to adopt a commensurate approach to teaching. So the argument is that if you want
teachers to adopt a student-focused approach to teaching such as PBL, you need to ensure that
they have a commensurate conception of teaching. If this is not already present a short staff
development programme will not be sufficient, but substantial appropriate staff development is
needed to work at this level of attitudes, not just at the level of hints and tips about PBL. Also an
effective student induction programme needs to be designed to introduce students to PBL. For
any school of a university changing to PBL is a major change management initiative. Jarvis et al.
(2001:118) stresses that this is not to be underestimated:

Such an approach makes demands of the organisation of educational institutions and

on curriculum planning. Within universities, colleges and schools for instance, author-
ity must shift away from disciplines toward inter-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary
groupings of staff. But curricula still need to be designed, and students’ educational
progression monitored. Structures (committees, working groups and the like) are nec-
essary for this.

For problem–based learning to be successful you need some enthusiastic lecturers,, manage-
ment support and an effective working group. Sometimes this can prove to be difficult and hard
work. Having considered some of the arguments for and against PBL you can engage in your
own research about PBL.

How do you research PBL?

For getting introductory information about PBL generally and your discipline in particular, I
would recommend three websites; www.adelaide.edu.au/ltdu/leap, www.udel.edu/pbl/, and
www.hss.coventry.ac.uk/pbl/ . In terms of books I would suggest the following two for an

61
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

overview; Boud and Feletti (1977) The Challenge of Problem–based Learning and Savin-Baden (2003)
Facilitating Problem–based Learning: Illuminative perspectives. If you are doing a search for research
papers about specific aspects of PBL or about PBL in your discipline the following three databases
PBL Clearinghouse, Academic Search Premier and Eric are among the many useful ones. An in-
teresting collection of research papers on PBL can be found in Savin-Baden and Wilkie (2004)
Challenging Research into Problem–based Learning. If you want to discuss PBL with others JISC PBL
Mailing List1 is useful.
When I was talking to Helen Fallon about her chapter I highlighted that two of the most useful
resources I have found were other people and bibliographies of PBL. The people that really helped
were other academics who are implementing and/or researching PBL, international contacts, PBL
consultants, librarians, and PBL students who are refreshingly honest about their experiences of
PBL. Getting information about PBL is part of the process of starting a PBL initiative. For further
information see the chapter in this book entitled “Finding information for your teaching and
research work in teaching and learning”.

How do you get started?

In addition to gathering information, strategies academics have found effective include attending
staff development workshops in their own institution or at a major PBL university such as Maas-
tericht or MacMaster, visiting a university that is implementing PBL in a particular discipline and
working with an internal/external PBL consultant to plan, implement and evaluate a specific PBL
initiative. When starting a PBL initiative it is very important to be aware of the success factors
that are well documented in the literature and to make plans using this awareness.
Implementing PBL is introducing major curriculum change. Research indicates that the suc-
cess factors in PBL include:

• An understanding of the philosophy of PBL

• A commitment to the philosophy of PBL

• High quality problems

• A major acceptance of the role change

• An ability to model process skills

• Assessment compatible with PBL

• Substantial appropriate staff development

• A pragmatic and realistic approach

• Institutional and management support

(Little in Boud and Feletti 1977; Murray and Savin-Baden 2000; Schmidt and Moust 2000).
Whether a PBL initiative is starting with one module or a whole course it is important to be
mindful of these success factors. The opposite factors are barriers to implementing PBL. That
sounds like a lot of work and it is in the first years. However there is fun in PBL too!

What about PBL and fun?

As effective PBL problems are personally and socially engaging, PBL can be fun for students and
tutors. The following is a quote about a PBL first year physics course at the Dublin Institute of
Technology: “The students have already judged PBL: “It’s not so boring. It’s fun. It’s easier to
1 http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/pbl.html

62
 Terry Barrett

learn.” (The Irish Times 2002) Who said learning couldn’t be fun? Who said learning has to be
always heavy?
I view PBL as “hard fun” (Papert 1996). I would argue that the fun in PBL is not a superficial
or frivolous fun or a gimmicky by-product of doing PBL. Rather PBL is fun because it is hard as
it presents students with a problem that they cannot solve with their current level of knowledge
and/or way of thinking.
Play can be viewed, not as something separate from work and learning but as a media for
both. Kane (2004) explains that play is about engagement and that the Indo-European root behind
the old English plegian is found in Celtic, German, Slavic dtegh meaning to engage oneself. If
PBL problems are well written to be engaging for students they will enjoy playing with them. I
agree with Feyerabend (1999) about the importance of initial playful activity with ideas in moving
towards understanding.

Concluding comments
Some academics adopt PBL because it corresponds to their own philosophical and epistemolog-
ical stances. For others, adopting PBL has meant a shift in their beliefs about how we learn. I
would like to finish with a poem that a team of lecturers who became problem–based learners for
a PBL staff development module wrote, which was part of a paper about lecturers as problem–
based learners (Barrett 2004b). They are talking about how their thinking about learning has
changed. Each student wrote one or more verses. There was great laughter, energy and fun when
they did a team presentation of this poem. I hope you enjoy it!

I used to believe . . . and then I learned some more

I used to believe
that I was the lead, and what the students need was to follow
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that my teaching style gave cause to smile
and I enjoyed my delivery style
and then I learned some more

I used to believe that students learned according to my notes

would give me cause to gloat
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that students will always be bright and white
and all would be enabled and not disabled
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that the knowledge learnt in college
gave lifelong sources for my courses
and then I learned some more

I used to believe with all my might and height [she is short]

I could shelter students from the mess of real life
and .then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that I’d be beholden

63
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

to the curriculum of olden

and then I learned some more

I used to believe
that there were new learning and teaching methodology
and they were a load of codology
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that talk of process
was all hocus-pocus
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that their workload was vicious
and that their assessment was not pernicious
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe that education of the visceral should be peripheral

and stirring emotion would cause commotion
and then I learned some more.

I used to believe
that the role of assessor was not an oppressor
that lecturers grades need not to be explained
and then I learned some more

I used to believe
that you can start new courses
with promises of resources
and then I learned some more

I used to believe
that Heads where there to fear
I’d better watch out and steer well clear
and then I learned some more.

Now we are going to ask for ear

Its time we got everything out in the clear.

I argue that problem–based learning puts problems, challenges, creativity and fun into learn-
ing. It provokes us in to revisiting our conceptions of both learning and teaching in higher educa-
tion. But what about you, what are the questions you are now asking about PBL? What are your
learning issues, the questions you want to know more about?

Online resources

Websites
Coventry website. Very good list of resources including: web resources, books, research papers ,
PBL consultants and PBL conferences. http://www.hss.coventry.ac.uk/pbl/
McMaster University where PBL began. http://www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/mhsi/problem-.
htm

64
 Terry Barrett

PBL Clearinghouse. http://www.mis4.udel.edu/Pbl/index.jsp

University of Adelaide’s Advisory Centre for University Education: hosts the ‘Leap into PBL’
website. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ltdu/leap This is a very informative site and
is a good staring point for lecturers who are new to PBL and are considering implementing it.

University of Delaware site on PBL: Comprehensive introduction to PBL with lots of sample prob-
lems. http://www.udel.edu/pbl/

University of Maastricht: A European Centre for PBL. http://www.unimaas.nl/pbl/

mission/mission001.htm Runs staff development workshops and producing a range of
resources including videos.

Discussion List
JISC PBL Mailing List. New members can join by visiting the following website: http://www.
jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=pbl&A=1

Databases (available on subscription in libraries)

Academic Services Premier. ERIC.

Recommended Books
Boud, D. and G. Feletti (1977). The Challenge of Problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating Problem-based Learning: Illuminative perspectives. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Savin-Baden, M. and K. Wilkie (2004). Challenging Research into Problem-based learning. Bucking-
ham: Open University Press.

Other References
Barrett, T. (2001). Philosophical Principles for Problem-based Learning: Freire’s concepts of per-
sonal development and social empowerment. In L. P. and K. P. (Eds.), The Power of Problem-based
Learning. Refereed proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on PBl, 9–12 December, Callaghan,
Australia. PROBLARC.

Barrett, T. (2004a). My knowledge and my control versus Our knowledge and Our control: Lec-
turers as problem-based learners talking about the PBL tutorial. In Problem-Based Learning 2004:
A Quality experience? 15–17 September The University of Salford.

Barrett, T. (2004b). Poetry and Fun; The Discourse of Learning in a PBL staff development module.
In Mapping the Landscape of Higher Education in Ireland. AISHE Inaugural Conference. 2nd and 3rd
September Trinity College Dublin.

Barrett, T. (2004c). Researching the dialogue of PBL tutorials: a critical discourse analysis ap-
proach. In M. Savin-Baden and K. Wilkie (Eds.), Challenging Research into Problem-based learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

Barrows, H. (1989). The Tutorial Process. Springfield, Illinois: Southern Illinois University School
of Medicine.

Barrows, H. and R. Tamblyn (1980). Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education.

New York, NY: Springer Pub Co.

65
 W HAT IS PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING ?

Boud, D. and G. Feletti (1977). Changing-problem learning. Introduction to the Second Edition.
In D. Boud and G. Feletti (Eds.), The Challenge of Problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.

Feyerabend, P. (1999). The Conquest of Abundance: A tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Freire, P. (1985). The Politics of Education. London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd.

Gijselaers, W. (1966). Connecting Problem-based Practices with Educational Theory. New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning (68 Winter), 13–21.

Jarvis, P., J. Holford, and C. Griffin (2001). The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: Kogan
Page.

Kane, P. (2004). The Play Ethic : A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. London: Macmillan.

Margeston, D. (2001, 29 September). Can all education be problem-based: can it afford not to be?
Problem-based Learning Forum, Hong Kong Centre for Problem-Based Learning.

Murray, I. and M. Savin-Baden (2000). Staff Development in Problem–based learning. Teaching in

Higher Education 5(1), 107–126.

Norman, G. and H. Schmidt (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of

evaluative research. Academic Medicine (68), 557–565.

Papert, S. (1996). The Connected Family : Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, Georgia:
Longstreet Press.

Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. Buckingham:

SRHE and Open University.

Schmidt, H. (2004, 15-17 September). The Current State of Problem-based Learning. Problem-
Based Learning 2004: A Quality experience? The University of Salford.

Schmidt, H. and J. Moust (2000). Factors Affecting Small-Group Tutorial Learning : A Review
of Research. In Problem-based Learning : a Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stephen, W. and S. Pyke (1977). Designing Problem-based Learning Units. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted 20(4), 380–400.

The Irish Times (2002, April 23rd). Education and Living. 15.

Trigger, K. and M. Prosser (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university sci-
ence teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education 32, 77–87.

Walton, H. and M. Mathews (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning. Medical Education 23,
542–558.

66
P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING
TECHNOLOGY

Barry McMullin
Dublin City University
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
The story of technology and teaching in higher education has generally been one of successive
false dawns. Each major technological advance has been ritually hailed as heralding a revolution
in either the quality or cost of education (or both). Large sums of money have been expended on
foot of such predictions - but, in each case, the long term impact has been found to be, at best,
modest (at worst, actually negative). The application of Internet technologies in education has fol-
lowed this pattern quite consistently - from hyperbolic claim, through commitment of sometimes
extraordinary amounts of resource (admittedly, in this case, at the irrational height of “dot.com”
fever), to both public and not-so-public failure to deliver any recognisable revolution (“no signifi-
cant difference” - again). So what might we learn from this? A common factor, already recognised
in earlier iterations, seems to be preoccupation with technology per se, and neglect of pedagogi-
cal theory. Indeed, many recent innovations, though technologically dazzling, seem to have been
premised on the most naive and primitive theories of knowledge and learning. Yet beneath the
technological hype and dazzle, the Internet may yet have something genuinely profound to bring
to education. From a social constructionist view of learning (and teaching) there are signs of a
slower, quieter - and much cheaper - Internet revolution, under such unlikely rallying cries as
“open content”, “wikiwiki”, “blogging” and “moodling”. In this paper we will review these
developments, relate them to each other and to theoretical foundations, and finally risk some
continuing optimism about the ultimate role of the Internet in enhancing higher education.

Introduction
Over the past half century or more, there have been repeated claims that a new technological
innovation will dramatically alter and enhance the learning process. By turns, radio, television,
video tape, interactive video disk, computer based training, and no doubt many others, have
all been ritually hailed as revolutionary contributions which will radically transform the practice
and effectiveness of teaching and learning. By 1992, Ramsden was ready to summarise the resultant
experiences, briefly but accurately:

Computers and video in higher education have so far rarely lived up to the promises
made for them ... No medium, however useful, can solve fundamental educational
problems. (Ramsden 1992:159–161)

Then came the Internet and World Wide Web. “eLearning” became the next great thing, and
technology was poised, again, to radically change the way people learn. Governments, compa-
nies, educational institutions (both ancient and modern) were all equally dazzled by the promise

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

of vast new revenues - and the threat that somebody else might get them first! Partnerships
formed, projects were launched, veritable armies of programmers, “content designers”, “subject
experts” were all put to work.
Of course, it couldn’t last. The Internet “boom” turned out to be an Internet “bubble” - and
duly burst.
Though eLearning was not, after all, a panacea, it has nonetheless shaken things up. Ramsden
was right in observing that technology in inself is unlikely to solve “fundamental educational
problems”, but it might still allow us to see them in a new light.
My fundamental premise is that there has been at least one consistent and repeated motif in the
(so far) failed promises of successive waves of learning technologies: namely that they have been
driven by technology rather than by learning. I start with a general statement of pedagogical com-
mitment: to the view that learning, especially “higher order” learning, is at once personal, social
and constructivist. Knowledge cannot be “transmitted” (electronically or otherwise!), but must
be constructed anew. Yet this constructive process can be greatly facilitated, especially by social
interaction - with teachers and with other learners. This is the pedagogy of social constructivism . I
will not elaborate the theory itself here - it is treated extensively elsewhere in this collection, and
especially in Carlile and Jordan (2005) and Higgs and McCarthy (2005). My task here assumes
this theory as a starting point, and uses it as a “searchlight” on the technological landscape.
My contribution will then be the modest one of presenting a selection of just four recent tech-
nological innovations which, it seems to me, have significant potential to support and enhance
social constructivist learning. The first three are generic, and not specifically designed for educa-
tional use, but I suggest that they can nonetheless be effectively co-opted for this purpose. The
last (moodle) serves, in part, to do just that - to package and tailor generic innovations and place
them easily in the hands of teachers and learners; but it also goes further in its own right, as we
shall see.
In conclusion, I will take the risk of once again being optimistic about the potential of technol-
ogy to enhance learning: not in itself, but as an instrument of pedagogical change.

Open Content/Free Culture?

What is it?
One of earliest Internet facilities was the development of so-called “anonymous ftp servers” - the
precursors of modern Web sites - where electronic documents could be made available for down-
load to any computer with an Internet connection. These were quickly adopted as a mechanism
for academics (then the primary users of the Internet) to share their scholarly work. In some ways,
this was merely a new form of a long-standing academic tradition - namely, the free exchange of
“preprints” and “offprints”. Yet it also marked a radical change, in that access was now much
faster (reduced from weeks to minutes), and a much wider diversity of materials became readily
available to anyone with an interest.
The World Wide Web was originally born as an enhanced version of this facility (Berners-Lee
1996)1 , and was still largely directed at the same specific purpose of facilitating exchange of schol-
arly work. It introduced several new features, but, perhaps most critically, the idea of “hypertext”
linkage - direct electronic links between networked documents. At one level this was merely a
more efficient version of the traditional academic devices of cross-referencing and citation. But, at
another level, it permitted the spontaneous, bottom-up, emergence of a global network of densely
interconnected digital resources, which was easily and freely browsable, indexable and search-
able.
Of course, the Web rapidly transcended these beginnings in academic practice. It is now a
primary medium for public discourse, for trading of goods and services, for government and po-
litical activism, and for a myriad of other new forms of human communication and interaction.
1 http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html

68
 Barry McMullin

But it is worth emphasizing here that this dramatic innovation, which appears overtly technolog-
ical, has been parasitic upon a much older cultural innovation, namely the tradition of “open”
content and the “free” exchange of human ideas. The Web, as we now know it, simply could not
have arisen in what Lawrence Lessig has called a “permission culture”2 : a culture in which, before
accessing any particular knowledge or idea, one would have to somehow negotiate, individually
and repeatedly, specific terms - rights, permissions, charges - to enable that access.

What has this got to do with learning?

At a basic level, it is clear that learning - in the sense of academic, reflective, “higher order”
learning - absolutely requires access to learning “resources”, such as books, journals, abstracts,
commentaries, annotations etc. Indeed, a traditional mark of the quality or stature of a university
institution was precisely the size and scope of its “learning object repository” - that is to say, its
library . The web has radically altered this by making it possible, in principle at least, for students
anywhere to access a shared global repository of learning resources - a repository which could far
exceed the holdings of any traditional library. But the realization of this potential depends, in
turn, on:

• the original creation of such content;

• its (open) publication on the web;

• and its location or identification by relevant learners.

I have already noted that the very origin of the Web was as a device for the sharing of origi-
nal scholarly content. Even as the Web has exploded and diversified into popular or mainsteam
culture, this original usage has still been steadily, if more quietly, thriving. Many academics con-
tinue to use personal web sites to informally publish preprints (or, indeed, much larger bodies
of work)3 , but there has also been a sustained growth in more systematic and larger scale initia-
tives. This includes the now global network of scholarly “eprint archives” which are indexed and
searchable through the Open Archives initiative4 , and the emergence of peer-reviewed, but open
access, online electronic journals, such as First Monday5 , BioMed Central6 and others. Moreover,
a large number of “classic” texts (where copyright has expired) have been republished on the Web
(e.g. Project Gutenberg7 ); and it is progressively becoming normal practice for all “public sector”
documents, reports and resources to be freely published through the web ( e.g., all new, and much
historical, Irish legislation is now available online8 ).
These resources are certainly of some educational value, but they are generally what would
be traditionally described as “primary sources”—which are not regarded as most suitable or ef-
fective for the purposes of learners . Rather, at least for “established” domains of knowledge, one
generally expects learners to engage first with “secondary” treatments, which have been specif-
ically organized, designed and distilled to facilitate learning. It is useful here to distinguish at
least two categories of such overtly “educational” resource:

• lecture notes/commentary/critique;

• textbooks (and/or its digital equivalent, known as “courseware”).

Roughly speaking, “lecture notes” and similar materials, are relatively informal resources,
specifically tailored to suit some local need - one specific course or class - and usually authored
2 http://free-culture.org/
3 http://www.williamcalvin.com/
4 http://www.openarchives.org/
5 http://www.firstmonday.org/
6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/
7 http://www.gutenberg.org/
8 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

69
 P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

by the individual academic/teacher responsible for that class. They might typically select, sum-
marize, and critique a range of more comprehensive or generic resources - primary sources, text-
books, etc. The provision of such resources is a long standing academic practice; but the Web has
also brought significant changes and new opportunities:

• From the early days of the Web, individual teachers have used personal web sites (and, lat-
terly, “virtual learning environments”) as a convenient mechanism for disseminating these
resources. This has rather modest (if any) pedagogical significance in itself; but to the ex-
tent that it streamlines or reduces the administrative burden on teachers, it correspondingly
increases their ability to invest more effort in teaching.

• Much more significantly, the growing availability of pedagogically useful and relevant re-
sources on the Web, means that “lecture notes” can increasingly be structured in the form of
hypertext commentary or annotation. This can be particularly efficient to create, and allows
for highly selective and targeted linkage to primary sources, with immediate and seam-
less access by learners. This was much more difficult, in not impossible, in traditional me-
dia. A local library was unlikely to stock the necessary range or quantity of holdings. This
was commonly compensated for by the practice of aggregating selected extracts in “reading
packs” for students; but the burden of evaluating and/or clearing copyright for such packs
has become progressively much more onerous. Of course, the Web based alternative there-
fore relies on referencing Web content which is either public domain or explicitly licenced
for open use (e.g., via Creative Commons9 or Free for Education10 licences); but, as already
described, there is a growing body of at least primary resources, in many domains, which
are indeed free to use in this way.

Of course, if lecture notes are structured as hypertext overlay on primary sources, they must
themselves be authored and disseminated in a suitable online format; this is potentially a signifi-
cant technological barrier, to which I will return in subsequent sections.
In any case, between primary sources on the one hand, and lecture notes on the other, fall
the traditional educational resources of textbooks and courseware. These still exist, of course;
but have not generally migrated into online, open access, forms. Traditional publishers are still
experimenting with effective “business models” for online publishing. The Internet has raised
difficult and complex issues here, which extend far beyond textbook publishing, raising funda-
mental questions about the nature of “intellectual property” in the digital age. Exploring these
further is beyond my scope here, but I shall suggest avenues for further exploration in the con-
clusion.

wikiwiki, wikipedia

What is it?
“Wiki” (from the Hawawian “wikiwiki” meaning “quickly”) is a generic name for a family of Web
based collaborative authoring systems. Wiki based web pages are usually immediately recogniz-
able by the appearance of a button or link labelled “edit this page”. For many users, when they
first encounter it, this seems disconcerting, if not unbelievable, as it is so different from the typical
“read only” or “consumption” model of using the web. Nonetheless, it is a serious and mean-
ingful invitation for readers to immediately and freely modify the content - deleting, revising,
annotating or augmenting, as they see fit.
Of course, some controls are necessary. The details vary between implementations. While
some wiki systems are completely public, even permitting page editing by unidentified or “anony-
mous” users, others require at least some form of user registration before editing, and others again
may be limited to closed groups of pre-authorized users. Perhaps more importantly, wikis now
9 http://creativecommons.org/
10 http://www.aesharenet.com.au/FfE/

70
 Barry McMullin

generally have facilities to record and track modifications and - if necessary - allow them to be
easily reversed. If appropriate, specific modifications can also be associated with the particular
person who carries them out; this can be useful even in systems allowing anonymous editing,
where those users who want to be identified (or credited!) with a particular contribution can still
do so. Mechanisms are also necessary for reconciling or resolving conflicting “concurrent” modi-
fications of the same page by different users. A final, and critical, feature is that wikis incorporate
“notification” or “alert” facilities, whereby users can elect to receive (by email or otherwise) au-
tomatic reports when certain kinds of change are made (e.g., when certain articles are modified,
or when new articles are created in certain topic areas etc.). This allows users to very efficiently
monitor, and respond to, each other’s interventions - which is of the essence of effective collabo-
ration.
At face value, it may seem like a wiki is simply a form of Web-based “Content Management
System” (CMS). Yet, although there is much conceptual overlap, wikis are quite distinctive, both
technologically and culturally (and the two are intertwined).
Technologically, wikis are much more lightweight compared to typical CMS systems. Firstly,
they make absolutely minimal demands on the user or “client side” computer system. The user is
not required to install any special software or plugin: a quite basic Web browser (which, virtually
by definition, any prospective user already has available) is all that is required. Secondly, all
users of a given wiki are required to rely on “plain text” editing, within simple browser forms;
but where this “plain text” is enriched with a very simple and intuitive “mark up” to indicate
common textual structures such as emphasis, headings, lists, and most importantly, hypertext
links. This is in contrast to systems which either require all users to install (and master) some
more or less complex new authoring tools; or permit users to rely on their own idiosyncratic tools,
but then somehow have to reconcile the resulting zoo of incompatible and conflicting document
formats. Finally - and implicit in the above - wikis are specifically tailored and optimized for
authoring Web-based materials, where the primary usage mode is reading from screen; whereas
CMS systems are still typically oriented to authoring “typeset” materials whose primary usage
mode is reading from paper. The two are subtly, but significantly, different.
These technological characteristics of wikis then give rise to a distinctive culture of usage. The
“barriers” to entry are extremely low. Almost any web browser will work. One needs to famil-
iarize oneself with the wiki “mark up” (which may vary somewhat from one wiki to another),
but because this is kept simple and intuitive, most users can begin editing wiki pages within 5-10
minutes of first being introduced to them. The consequence is that a user’s focus and effort is
quickly applied to the editing or authoring task, rather than to overcoming technological obsta-
cles or learning complex new tools.

An example: the strange case of the wikipedia . . .

Perhaps the best known example of a public wiki is the wikipedia11 . This is, in effect, a collabora-
tively authored, Web-based, encylopedia. By definition, it is dynamic, and continuously chang-
ing; but in the space of only four years since its inception, and relying entirely on voluntary effort
in contributing (and, of course, revising) its content, it has already grown to have over 470,000 ar-
ticles, covering a very wide variety of subject areas. In contrast to a conventional, centrally edited
and directed, encylopedia, the development of wikipedia is organic and driven by the diverse in-
terests and skills of whoever happens to contribute to it. This means that both breadth and depth
of coverage is highly variable; but that is not necessarily a disadvantage, as it allows a very flexible
and adaptive development process.
For example, the original, English language, version of wikipedia has already diversified to
support translations into a wide, and growing, variety of other languages. Uniquely, these in-
clude minority languages, such as Irish. It would be almost unthinkable that a “mainstream”
encylopedia would be translated into Irish, as it would imply an impractical commitment both to
be complete and to be maintained up-to-date. By contrast, the wikipedia - because of its dynamic
11 http://www.wikipedia.org/

71
 P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

and flexible (or chaotic?) development model, implies no automatic commitments either to com-
pleteness or currency; which therefore permits incremental and continuous improvement. No
doubt, the Irish version of wikipedia will never be as complete or current as the English version;
but for those users who need it, it will be much better than having no Irish language encylopedia
at all! Moreover, the Irish wikipedia will probably evolve to contain the primary or definitive
versions of articles in certain specific topic areas. Of course, mutatis mutandis, similar comments
could be made for other language versions of wikipedia.
A common reaction of many people, on first encountering wikipedia, is to respond that surely,
if there is an editing “free for all”, the quality of the articles must therefore be completely unreli-
able; whereas the very notion of a traditional “encyclopedia” is that it should be authoritative. This
is a very interesting critique, and probably deserves an entire article in its own right.12 In brief,
however, there are both theoretical reasons, and sound empirical evidence, that the wikipedia
model can and does yield very high quality materials - no matter how counter-intuitive this may
seem. The theoretical basis is essentially the core academic premise of peer review; wiki technology,
combined with potentially global communities of peers, allows the most extreme and immediate
form of such review. The empirical evidence is an experiment in which a number of wikipedia
articles were deliberated corrupted, introducing a variety of errors, ranging from gross to sub-
tle13 . In all cases these were corrected “... within a couple of hours”, revealing an extraordinary
capacity for self-repair – which no conventional, centrally controlled, encyclopedia can possibly
deliver.

What has this got to do with learning?

The emergence of wiki technology has one obvious potential for use in education. Collaboratively
authored, open access, projects such as wikipedia clearly give rise to materials that teachers may
exploit. This can be at the immediate and simple level of including links to such materials in
tailored, hypertext linked, course notes. Of course, in this simple respect, wiki materials are no
different from any other public web resource. But wikis also introduce a quite new and distinctive
additional possibility. Suppose a teacher locates a wiki-based page (say in the wikipedia) that is
very relevant to a course, but yet is not quite exactly what is wanted. This is a very common
scenario. A traditional response might be to provide a separate annotation, or clarification. But
in the wikipedia the teacher can literally reach in and edit the original. Of course, this would
still need to be done with an eye to the generic audience (otherwise the change will probably
be quickly revoked!), but this is often still perfectly compatible with better meeting the needs of
one’s own particular class; and can be a good deal simpler and faster, both for a teacher to write
and a learner to read. Further, that enhancement now represents an additional contribution to a
globally shared resource, rather than only ever being available to one isolated class group. Even
very small individual enhancements can, if aggregated on a global basis, give rise to large scale
developments. Thus the contributions of individuals can mutually support and re-inforce each
other in a “virtuous circle”.
However, that said, even this is not the most important potential for wiki technology in learn-
ing. The much more profound opportunity is to invite learners to participate in collaboratively
building resources through a wiki themselves. An essential part of relective, constructivist, learn-
ing is that learners should be invited to reflect on their knowledge and make it explicit. This, of
course, is the role of the traditional essay, worked problem, project report etc. However, the wiki
allows this reflection and progressive articulation to be done collaboratively – moving us to a fully
social constructivist mode of learning. In theory, of course, this can be achieved without the tech-
nological support of a wiki; students have long been required to (sometimes) work in groups, and
(sometimes) review or critique each others’ work. But the practical difficulties and barriers are
significant, to the extent that this tends to be an exceptional rather than typical mode of learning.
By contrast, wikis, with their very low technological barriers, yet very rich and flexible function-
12 http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
13 http://alex.halavais.net/news/index.php?p=794

72
 Barry McMullin

ality, offer the opportunity to embed collaborative, constructive, learning much more extensively
in our educational environments.

bloggers and blogging

What is it?
Though “blogging” has become one of the most visible (and hyped) phenomena of the online
world in recent years, there is no single definition of what constitutes a “blog” (or “web-log”).
In general, the term refers to something like an online journal or diary, but with a number of
distinctive new characteristics arising from the Web medium:

• A blog is most usually published by a single person, with, perhaps, occasional “guest”
bloggers;

• It consists of a series of individual “postings” issued frequently, and fairly regularly. To

properly deserve the name blog, the frequency should probably be no less than one post
every two or three days - and might be as high as nine or ten in a single day.

• Postings rely heavily on hypertext linkage; these can be links to arbitrary Web resources,
but links to other blog postings are especially common.

• Arising from the heavy use of linkage, individual postings are typically brief - perhaps one
to three paragraphs of text (but sometimes as short as a single - hyperlinked - phrase!).

• Blogs may be simply browsed on the web, in the manner of normal web pages. However,
because they are relatively dynamic, this imposes a burden on a reader to regularly check
for new postings. To overcome this, blogs usually also offer a “syndication” service. This
means a reader can use a tool called an “aggregator” to “subscribe” to one or more blogs -
and will then automatically receive new postings to those blogs as they are generated.

• Blogs usually provide for readers to post reactions or commentary, attached to an original
blog post and archived along with it.
• The technology for blog publishing - as with wikis - presents very low barriers to entry.
Again, a user normally needs no tools beyond a basic browser, and can quickly master the
requisite simple, plain text, authoring format. (Indeed, in some cases, one can use very
similar or identical authoring formats for both blog and wiki publishing.)
• Consequently ... blog content is highly variable, idiosyncratic, and personal to the particu-
lar blogger. Bloggers are somewhat reminiscent of the traditional newspaper or magazine
columnist - yet also very different. Anybody can start a blog, open to the world. Given the
wide availability of free and low-cost blog servers, a novice blogger can begin publishing to
a global audience in as little as 10-15 minutes!

What has this got to do with learning ?

Public blogging has an obvious and immediate application in any education for “public writing”
- journalism, communications, etc. It provides an immediate opportunity for such students to
engage in authentic publishing from the earliest stages of their studies. Of course, there is no
guarantee that they will garner an authentic readership; but the very act of exposing their writing
to an unconstrained, public, audience will certainly feel much more meaningful (and challeng-
ing) than merely writing for their teacher or classmates, as would more traditionally have been
the case. And, of course, because of the vast scale, and dense interconnection, of the so-called “bl-
ogosphere”, they may attract at least some interested readers, from whom they will surely learn
valuable lessons.

73
 P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

These are opportunities that simply did not exist before the infrastructure of the Internet and
the Web, and more recent arrival of the low barrier publishing tools of modern blogging servers.
But there are much more general opportunities for the use of blog-like technologies, outside
of these specific domains. In particular, while blogs can be completely public, they need not be,
and this opens up a variety of other possibilities.
Thus, blogs might be shared among a single class group, or even small groups within a class.
In the same manner as a wiki, this then allows very dynamic and flexible social interaction in
constructing and responding to each others’ postings. Yet, in contrast to the wiki mechanism,
in blogging, the individual postings clearly remain the property of their individual authors, and
are - deliberately - frozen once posted, rather than continuously re-edited. At its simplest level,
blogging is therefore immediately useful for students of any discipline to develop their personal
writing skills - in a social, yet still private, space. But it also opens up potential for much deeper
peer-to-peer, and teacher-mediated, critique and discourse. Of course, other Internet technolo-
gies, such as shared mailing lists and Web discussion forums, might also be employed in this
way; but the particular architecture of personal ownership in blogging provides a distinctively
structured and nuanced discussion framework.
Taking this to its extreme form, essentially the same technology can support classic “learning
diaries” - where individual students are invited to regularly reflect upon and document their own
learning experiences - but these are private to each individual student and the teacher. Of course,
the idea of a learning diary is not new in itself; but the technology of the blog can make it much
more practical to implement. With minimal administrative or bureacratic overhead, both learner
and teacher can then efficiently concentrate on substantive learning issues.

moodling through

What is it?
From moodle.org:

Moodle is a software package for producing internet-based courses and web sites. It’s
an ongoing development project designed to support a social constructionist frame-
work of education. Moodle is provided freely as Open Source14 software (under the
GNU Public License15 ).

On one level, moodle is simply an example of (yet another) “Virtual Learning Environment”
(VLE), in the same genre as the more widely known Blackboard16 and WebCT17 systems. That is,
it comprises a web based platform supporting a more or less integrated suite of tools to support
“online learning”. At its most basic level, it offers easy “transmission” of electronic resources
to (only) the authorised and authenticated members of each class group. It also implements a
variety of other typical VLE functionalities such as class-based threaded discussion forums, online
assignment submission and simple online “quizzes”. Of course, seen in this way, it is hardly
particularly distinctive.
But the quotation above signals two much more radical aspects of the moodle project:

• It is explicitly inspired by, and committed to, a particular pedagogical framework, namely
social constructivism.

• It is distributed under an “open source” software licence.

First then, although moodle does support a naive “transmission” oriented pedagogy, it is pri-
marily designed to facilitate and encourage social interaction and collaborative construction of
14 http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition plain.html
15 http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
16 http://www.blackboard.com/
17 http://www.webct.com/

74
 Barry McMullin

knowledge. To this end, it already incorporates a number of the distinct facilities already de-
scribed in previous sections, and provides additional variations or enhancements:

• Option of “open content”. A typical VLE is specifically designed to prevent uncontrolled

access to the resources provided within. Moodle can operate in that mode; but it can equally
operate in a mode where such resources are browsable, indexable and searchable without
special permission or authentication. This is very flexible, can be set at the discretion of
individual teachers, and, in any case, still protects the privacy of individual participant
interactions and communications. Alternatively, teachers can export fully designed and
packaged course materials through moodle.org; this is a feasible and practical way of shar-
ing course content precisely because the required supporting software - moodle itself - is
available without any licencing cost barrier.

• wiki activity. A wiki activity is integrated within moodle, making it easy to create wikis for
individual courses, class groups, or even smaller groups or projects within a class or course.

• blog activity. Moodle forums can be configured in the generic threaded discussion format;
but can also be flexibly configured to function as individual learning journals (private to a
teacher and student) or as blogs (private to a class group, or public to the world).

• Survey instruments, such as COLLES18 , specifically designed to facilitate and promote social
constructivist learning, have been built in to moodle. Use of such instruments serves both to
inform and sensitize students to their learning styles and approches and to inform teachers
as to the effectiveness of the particular learning activities they are facilitating.

The second distinctive feature of moodle is its “open source” licencing. I have already men-
tioned an immediate implication of this - the manner in which this open availability of the soft-
ware platform facilitates open availability of content or resources to use with this platform. But
the open source licence has a deeper significance: it means that - in principle at least - individual
teachers, and even learners, can directly participate in and contribute to the ongoing development
of this learning platform. It is early days, and it remains to be seen what the full implications of
this may be. However, one immediate effect is that - as in the case of the wikipedia - this open
content model has facilitated very early adaption and localization of the system for different lan-
guage users (including minority languages, such as Irish). It is very difficult to see how this rapid
adaptation could be practically achieved using any closed licencing approach.

Conclusion: Where to next?

The focus of this chapter has been on presenting a number of recent technological and cultural
innovations, and attempting to relate these to challenges of improving learning in higher educa-
tion. Clearly, all of these technologies overlap and interact, but I have suggested that, together,
they offer a powerful set of tools for social reflection, collaboration, and construction of knowl-
edge.
The discussion here has necessarily been brief. Hopefully, you have already noted the embed-
ded opportunities for wider exploration (hyperlinked, of course, in the online version!). I close
with some final, overarching, pointers to more comprehensive resources:

• Dougiamas (1998) concisely reviews the overall history and development of constructivism,
and includes an excellent bibliography. This can also be read as the intellectual foundation
for the design of moodle.

• The issues of intellectual property and copyright in the digital world are excellently analysed
by Lessig (2004), including a concrete suggestion of one possible, radically new, digital pub-
lishing paradigm. Appropriately, the book itself is used as an exemplar: it has been made
18 http://surveylearning.com/colles/

75
 P UTTING THE LEARNING BACK INTO LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

available as a traditional, commercially published, “rights reserved”, hardcopy book, but

also as an open access, online work, with a licence specifically permitting independent pro-
duction of derivative works (provided these carry attribution, are “non-commerical”, and
are released on the same terms). Among the interesting effects of this has been the rapid,
spontaneous, appearance of alternative online versions, of independent translations into
different languages, and of transpositions into other media (audio books).

• Downes (2004) provides a comprehensive, and constructively critical, review of the history,
nature, and future prospects for the use of blogging in education. Alternatively, Ferdig and
Trammell (2004) is a gentle introductory discussion, including some specific strategies for
using blogs in the classroom.

• moodle.org is, of course, the primary source for information on moodle. It is also host to an
extremely active and diverse community of moodle users from around the world.

References
Berners-Lee, T. (1996). The World Wide Web: Past, Present and Future. http://www.w3.org/
People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html

Carlile, O. and A. Jordan (2005). It Works in Practice But Will it Work in Theory? In S. Moore,
G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and
Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Dougiamas, M. (1998). A Journey into Constructivism. http://dougiamas.com/writing/

constructivism.html

Downes, S. (2004, September/October). Educational Blogging. EDUCAUSE Review 39(5), 14–26.

http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0450.asp

Ferdig, R. E. and K. D. Trammell (2004). Content Delivery in the ’Blogosphere’. T.H.E. Journal
(Technological Horizons in Education). http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/
A4677A.cfm

Higgs, B. and M. McCarthy (2005). Active Learning — from Lecture Theatre to Field-work. In
S. Moore, G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning
and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and
Control Creativity. New York: The Penguin Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

76
D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ?
(A ND DO YOU CARE ?)
Diana Kelly
E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction
In higher education we sometimes pause at the end of a lecture and ask “Any questions?” or
“Is everything clear?” Usually there are no responses, and as students leave we are satisfied that
we did allow students the opportunity to ask questions. As there were no questions, they must
have understood, or so we think. However, how do we really know what students are actually
learning when they are in the process of learning something new for the first time? As lecturers
we are not mind readers. We need to check in with our students to find out what they are learning
and what they don’t understand fully.
Lecturers who care about what students are actually learning have often found informal ways
to ask students what they have learned. However, by systematically and thoughtfully asking stu-
dents about their learning as a normal integrated part of a lecture, we can gain valuable feedback
about any gaps in their understanding of a particular topic. The goal for lecturers is to gain an
understanding of what students know (and don’t know) in order to make responsive changes
in teaching and learning (Boston 2002). This is a very specific set of strategies which use the
principles of student-centred learning as described in a previous chapter.
This chapter will provide strategies that will help lecturers to determine what students have
learned in any in-class situation: lecture, lab, tutorial, etc. Using these in-class strategies, lecturers
can monitor the learning progress of a group of students and address or review difficult topics.
In this process, students become more skilled at evaluating their own learning progress, an
essential skill for lifelong learning. Lecturers learn whether or not the teaching and learning
strategies are actually helping students to learn. This can stimulate greater creativity in teach-
ing and greater responsiveness to learners as lecturers seek to find new ways to help students
understand particularly challenging concepts.
This chapter will provide background on the use of strategies to check on student learning in
higher education, examples of six practical ways to implement these strategies in teaching, and a
discussion of how student feedback on their learning can help lecturers to improve their teaching.

Background

Terminology
These strategies to check on student learning have been called “Classroom Assessment Tech-
niques” (CATs) in the literature of North American higher education. However, this name might
be interpreted differently by those in Irish universities. “Assessment” in this case does not mean
graded exams, but rather a set of teaching strategies aimed at improving the quality of student
learning. And “Classroom” does not refer to secondary school but rather to in-class sessions
(lectures, labs, tutorials) in higher education.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU CARE ?)

The literature of assessment includes distinctions between “summative” and “formative” as-
sessments. “Summative” assessments include any assessments occurring after the learning has
taken place, such as end of year exams or projects that are graded to make a judgement about the
extent and quality of learning that is demonstrated. “Formative” assessments generally involve
providing feedback to students on work in progress, such as an essay or a project, after students
have learned enough about a topic to work on an essay or project. Although usually not graded,
the formative feedback from the lecturer or from peers (other students) is usually a critique of the
work which is advisory or evaluative.
In contrast, Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) are used at a very early stage in the
learning process, when students are first learning about a new topic. The CATs are anonymous
and non-graded, and mainly aimed at gathering feedback from a group of students about what
they have learned and what they find confusing about a topic. You can use them to help students
in the process of learning a new subject.

Research
The origins of “Classroom Assessment Techniques” were in the late 1980s in two well-respected
American universities: Harvard University (Mosteller 1989; Light 1990; Roueche, S. (ed.) 1993)
and University of California at Berkeley (Cross 1987; Cross and Angelo 1988; 1993a; Cross and
Steadman 1996; Davis 1999). Since the beginning, “Classroom Research” has been done in the
way that K. Patricia Cross originally envisioned (1987): lecturers use “Classroom Assessment
Techniques” to systematically find out what and how well their students are learning and then
use the results to improve their teaching practice. This fits with the notion of “The Scholarship of
Teaching” (Boyer 1990) in encouraging lecturers in higher education to research the teaching and
learning of their subjects.
More comprehensive research studies have examined the larger effects of CATs on student
learning (Ang 1991; 1998; Kelly 1991; 1993; Cross and Steadman 1996). Results of these studies in-
dicate that overall, Classroom Assessment Techniques have a positive impact on student learning,
including deeper learning and greater involvement in the learning process. However, the impact
of these strategies would probably be greater if used in a cohort group in which students travelled
through a programme together and all lecturers on the course were using CATs routinely (Kelly
1991; 1993).
The use of CATs has also had a strong positive impact on the professional development of
lecturers as teachers Kelly (1991; 1993). There is no question that Classroom Assessment has
helped many lecturers to re-think how they teach their classes (Cross and Steadman 1996; Kelly
1991; 1993; College of Marin 1990). This can result in rejuvenation among long-term lecturers and
more confidence among new lecturers.

Learning Theory
The notion of checking on student learning using CATs supports Constructivist theory, Adult
Learning Theories, Experiential Learning, and Deep Learning. CATs encourage students to think
about what and how they are learning, construct their own knowledge, link their learning with
their experiences, and move toward a more self-directed approach to learning. As Jarvis et al.
points out (1998), learning is regarded as constructed by the learner rather than received from
the teacher. When learning something new, students try to understand the new information as it
relates to other things they already know. For this reason, the individual learner’s role is central.
By asking students about what they have learned in the very early stages, they have the oppor-
tunity to reflect upon their understanding of the new thing they have just learned. It’s possible
that misunderstandings can occur or there might be some confusion in the minds of the learners
because what they have just learn doesn’t “fit” with their prior experience. Using CATs, a lecturer
can quickly see how students have interpreted what they have learned and can take any needed
corrective action to help students to learn.

78
 Diana Kelly

Students go through developmental stages as they become more confident as learners in the
subject area. As students gain confidence they should be less dependent on the lecturer and more
dependent on their own abilities as learners, so that ultimately they become self-directed lifelong
learners. One of the purposes of using CATs is to help students to develop their ability to self-
assess their own learning, monitoring their learning progress. They also actively construct their
own learning in their responses to the CATs and in the discussion of feedback from the lecturer. As
a result, it is not surprising that research into the use of CATs has indicated that these strategies
help students to become more reflective and confident as learners (Cross and Steadman 1996;
Angelo 1999).

“Best Practice” in Teaching and Learning

In the 1980’s a research project was set up by the American Association for Higher Education
(AAHE) to summarize best practices in teaching and learning in higher education. The results of
that research project were summarised into “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education” (Chickering and Gamson 1987). This publication was based on results from many
research projects into teaching and learning in higher education. Several years later, the AAHE
Assessment Forum developed “Nine Principles of Good Practice for the Assessment of Student
Learning” (Astin et al. 1995). More recently, the Higher Education Academy Generic Centre in
the UK has published the following seven principles for good feedback practice:

1. Facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning.

2. Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning.

3. Helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, standards expected).

4. Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance.

5. Delivers high quality information to students about their learning.

6. Encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem.

7. Provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape the teaching.

(Juwah et al. 2004)

Professional Development
Most lecturers start using CATs because they want to find out what their students are learning.
However, most continue to use these strategies because it stimulates greater creativity in teach-
ing and helps them to find ways to improve their own teaching. The feedback from students
often provides lecturers with a stimulus to try new teaching methods aimed at enhancing student
learning. These strategies provide valuable input to all lecturers about what is working and what
needs to be changed in their teaching in order to enhance student learning.

Implementing classroom assessment techniques

Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) are systematic on-going strategies for collecting stu-
dent feedback about their learning which answer these questions:

1. What are students actually learning in my lecture/lab/tutorial?

2. How are the students progressing toward the learning objectives?

3. Where are they having difficulties in learning?

79
 D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU CARE ?)

CATs allow lecturers to determine the learning progress of a group of students through anony-
mous written responses to questions posed by the lecturer. The emphasis is on what students are
learning rather than on feedback about the lecturer. Some lecturers gather feedback by using stu-
dent surveys at the end of the year. Although this may be helpful in planning next year’s class,
it does not directly benefit those who are currently in the course. However, using CATs the lec-
turer may obtain feedback from the students as often as every session, or at critical points in the
term. In this way, it is immediately apparent if students are having problems understanding a
concept or if they have missed an important point. It is possible to take corrective action at the
next class session rather than waiting for an exam to find out what students did not understand.
These strategies help lecturers to focus on student learning rather than on their own teaching. By
finding out what students have learned and what is unclear, lecturers can focus the class more
effectively to meet the learning needs of that group. This may mean reviewing some areas, or
spending less time in other areas.
Before starting to use Classroom Assessment Techniques, it is important for lecturers to clarify
their own teaching goals, using the Teaching Goals Inventory (Cross and Angelo 1993b). Learning
objectives will flow from the teaching goals, and should be clearly communicated to students
(Sadler 1989).

Examples of Classroom Assessment Techniques

CATs may be used in any type of class session: traditional lectures, laboratories, tutorials, sem-
inars, etc. Some CATs are for individual students, others are for use in small groups. Some
are designed to check students’ immediate understanding, others are for application and criti-
cal thinking. The following are several examples of CATs that may be used to enhance student
learning (Cross and Angelo 1993a).

The Minute Paper

This is often used at the end of a lecture to give students the opportunity to reflect upon what
they had learned. Their anonymous responses provide valuable feedback to the lecturer that may
be used in planning the next class session. There are six main steps for a lecturer:

Step 1: About five minutes before the end of a lecture, lab or tutorial, hand out small cards or
half-sheets of paper to students and explain that you would like some anonymous feedback
about what they have learned today so you may help them with their learning.

Step 2: On one side of the card, ask them to answer a question about the session, such as, ”What
was the most important thing you learned today about ?” or ”List three new things
you learned today about .” A specific content-centred question is most effective to
provide a focus for students.

Step 3: On the other side of the card, ask them to write any new questions they have as a result
of the lecture/tutorial, or write questions about any areas they didn’t understand fully.

Step 4: Keep silent for at least two or three minutes while students are writing, allowing them
time to think and formulate their responses. Then collect the cards.

Step 5: Tally and analyse the responses. This usually takes about 30 seconds per card. The cards
may be arranged into categories by types of answers. In very large lectures it is possible to
get a good sense of the group by sampling rather than reading every response.

Step 6: Plan to spend about five minutes at the beginning of the next session briefly summarising
the feedback, and address the areas which were not fully understood.

The Minute Paper may also be used at the beginning of a class session to ask students ques-
tions about a reading assignment or a project they are working on. Minute Papers have also been

80
 Diana Kelly

used in the middle of a lecture to encourage students to reflect on a particular point that has
been raised, or to check on their comprehension of a new concept. In these cases it may be more
expedient to get immediate feedback by combining the Minute Paper with a “Think-Pair-Share”
activity in which students first write briefly, then they pair up and share what they have written
for about two or three minutes, and then the lecturer calls on a few students to get a variety of
responses to the Minute Paper. The lecturer may also choose to collect the cards for review after
class. This is an efficient way to gather quick feedback from students, even in very large lectures.

Background Knowledge Probe

The “Background Knowledge Probe” allows lecturers to learn about students’ prior knowledge
or experience in the subject. It may sometimes take the form of a survey at the beginning of
the course, but could also be used as new topics are introduced. This strategy is useful for the
lecturer to know the variation in background of that particular group of students. The responses
may also be used in measuring the overall learning progress of the group at a later stage in the
course. A Background Knowledge Probe is usually in the form of a survey which might include
the following areas:

• Educational or work-related background experience in the subject

• Motivations/reasons for studying the subject

• Expectations for this subject – what they hope to learn, and how it will help them to be
successful in the course or programme.

• Concerns or apprehensions about studying this subject (eg: memorization, exam anxiety,
essay writing, previous negative experiences in this subject, etc.)

Although asking about apprehensions may appear to be negative, in reality, addressing these
fears from the beginning is actually helpful to students (Kelly 1993), particularly when they find
out they are not the only one with this concern. This also lets students know that the lecturer
wants to help students to overcome these fears.

Focused Listing
A Focused Listing exercise may be used at any time to ask students to recall a set of terms, facts,
or concepts that they should know. Although this strategy might appear to be at the lowest
level of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), it can be used to check on recall as well as understanding of
terms if they are particularly important for the topic of a lecture. Some lecturers have used a
focused listing exercise at the beginning of a class session to measure students’ recall of a reading
assignment, and again at the end of the class session to see the extent to which their recall and
understanding of terms has improved.

Directed Paraphrase
This strategy is particularly useful in measuring students’ level of understanding of a particular
set of procedures or methods to be followed, although it can also be used to check for students
understanding of a complex concept or theory. This assessment may be given as an assignment
to be completed outside of class, or it may be done during a class session individually, in pairs or
in small groups. Students are asked to write an explanation of a concept or a set of instructions in
their own words as if writing for someone who is not on the course. This paraphrase provides a
way for the student and the lecturer to assess the degree to which students have understood an
important concept or procedure and if there are any gaps in their understanding.

81
 D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU CARE ?)

Memory Matrix
The Memory Matrix is particularly helpful if students will be asked to compare and contrast
various items for a higher level analysis. A listing of items is provided by the lecturer down
the left side of the matrix, and several key characteristics are listed across the top of the matrix.
The students then fill in the blank boxes with their understanding of how the items are different.
This method could be used to help improve students’ analysis of different types of cells in biology,
different types of government structures, different types of economic theories, or different authors
of a particular literary genre. It helps students to construct their own knowledge for a deeper
level of understanding. The following Memory Matrix shows how students might use this CAT
to analyze the writing styles of several different authors of short stories.

Authors characters plot perspective setting

author 1
author 2
author 3
author 4

Process Self-Analysis
Students are asked to write down all of the actual steps they take in carrying out an assignment
or project, and the length of time it takes them to complete each part of the project. They then
analyze how they have done the work, and which areas they found most difficult or most time
consuming. This helps students to pinpoint the areas in which they may need more work to
develop the skills needed to improve the process of completing this type of project. Process Self-
Analysis could be used with any type of assignment, including project work, individual essay
writing, or research work.

Common Questions about implementation

Lecturers who want to begin using Classroom Assessments often have questions regarding the
details of implementation. Concerns are expressed in the following areas:

How much time does it take?

The most common barrier to the implementation of these strategies is the perception among lec-
turers that they will take too much time (Juwah et al. 2004; Cross and Angelo 1993a). Lecture
sessions are short, and lecturers are concerned that it is already difficult to find sufficient time
to “cover the content” without adding Classroom Assessments. However, those who have used
CATs find that they actually save time in lectures by focusing the lecture on areas of greatest im-
portance for student understanding. In addition, students take on more responsibility for their
own self-assessment of learning which also saves time (Boud 1986). By linking the learning ob-
jectives to what students are actually learning, it is possible to direct the teaching sessions to the
areas in which students need more help rather than attempting to “cover the content.” Different
CATs take differing amounts of time during a lecture, from very few minutes at the beginning
and ending of a class session for the “Minute Paper” to perhaps 15 or 20 minutes for a complex
CAT such as the Memory Matrix. Some CATs, such as Process Self-Analysis are more effective if
they are done outside of the class session and discussed in the next session. The most important
thing to remember in using these strategies is that they are actually integrated into the learning
process rather than an “add-on” activity.

82
 Diana Kelly

Why use these strategies at all? Is this “hand-holding” necessary in higher education?
Classroom Assessment Techniques provide opportunities to check on student learning before a
critical stage: before the final exam, before a major project, or before a transition to a new subject
upon which knowledge of a prior topic is crucial. Some lecturers might consider this “hand-
holding.” However, as Jarvis points out, “Involving the student in judging what he or she has
learnt encourages a more positive attitude to learning and increases the degree of student direc-
tion of the learning process.” (Jarvis et al. 1998:144) In other words, these strategies for checking
on student learning are actually more rigorous for students because they put greater responsibil-
ity on the students for monitoring and constructing their own learning.

How do lecturers convince students that checking on their learning is worthwhile?

Lecturers have found that in the beginning students may be sceptical or may not take these strate-
gies seriously because they are not graded. For this reason it is important to explain what you are
doing and why you are doing it: their responses to the CATs will allow you to help them to learn.
If a significant number of the students clearly did not understand a key concept, the fact that the
lecturer spends more time on it or approaches it in a different way will convince students that the
CATs are important and will help them to do well later on the graded assessments.
Students also appreciate having opportunities to provide anonymous feedback to lecturers
about what they are learning and what is confusing. Often students are hesitant to ask questions
during a lecture. Studies on the use of Classroom Assessment Techniques (Kelly 1993; Cross and
Steadman 1996) indicate that students feel that the teacher ”really cares” about whether or not
they are actually learning. This often makes them more motivated to learn. Students also believe
that the CATs made them more involved in learning because they were forced to think about what
they had learned. In addition, CATs encourage students to reflect on their learning, taking a deep
(rather than a surface) approach to their learning during lectures.

Is it necessary to always give feedback to students about their responses to the CATs?
It is essential! Closing the feedback loop with students as quickly as possible is the most important
part of the process. When students get feedback from the lecturer, they know that the lecturer is
paying attention to their responses. As the lecturer reviews the student feedback, usually at the
beginning of the next lecture, students often find that others had similar questions. This can
be comforting and can raise self-confidence among students who are having difficulties. Some
lecturers base the entire next class session on the feedback to the students. This works particularly
well for review/revision sessions. However, even taking five minutes at the beginning of a class
session is beneficial to the learning process. The most important thing is to ensure that students
understand the feedback from the lecturer, and that they know what to do with it (Sadler 1989).

How often should these strategies be used?

Some lecturers ask students to respond to a question at the end of every class session, and others
use CATs at the most critical points in the course or before a major exam or project. Most lecturers
integrate the CATs as regular class activities. Others use these strategies to evaluate the effective-
ness of class activities or tests. And some use CATs to encourage students to evaluate their own
learning progress. The frequency and type of Classroom Assessment Techniques depends upon
the group of students, the lecturer, the subject, the learning objectives, and the reasons for asking
students about their learning.

Do the student responses have to be anonymous?

Anonymous feedback results in responses that are more candid. However, if the assessments are
used in the form of homework assignments or small group activities within the class, anonymity

83
 D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU CARE ?)

is not possible, and may not be necessary. Research on the use of these strategies (Kelly 1993)
indicates that students generally feel more comfortable if their responses are anonymous.

What kind of questions should I ask?

It is best to ask students learner-centred questions (“What have you learned?”) rather than teacher-
centred questions (“How do you like my teaching?”). The learner-centred questions will show
clearly whether or not the teaching is effective. Thoughtful, reflective questions are better than
simple, factual ones. Questions should be asked only if you really want to know the answer and
are willing to respond to the feedback to meet student needs.

Is it necessary to undertake professional development before using these strategies?

Many lecturers have started using Classroom Assessment Techniques on their own by reading
the Cross and Angelo handbook (1993a) and selecting and adapting a few CATs for their lectures.
However, CATs are even more effective for students if they are undertaken by a department or a
course team. In this way, students have opportunities to respond to questions about their learning
as they go through different lectures, seminars, tutorials, and labs. Lecturers working together to
integrate CATs into the curriculum find it very rewarding to share their experiences and work
collaboratively as a group to improve teaching and learning. The “Teaching Goals Inventory” is
a particularly useful exercise for a group of lecturers who plan to implement CATs (Cross and
Angelo 1993b). This inventory helps to clarify teaching goals and learning objectives for individ-
ual lecturers or a group of lecturers working together in a department or course team. It can be
an advantage to undergo some professional development as a group to learn about the various
forms of CATs and which ones might be most appropriate and most useful to enhance learning in
the course.

Conclusion
Using Classroom Assessment Techniques has benefits for both the students and the lecturers.
Students appreciate being asked what they are learning and what they don’t understand. Using
these strategies demonstrates to students that we care about their learning and want to help to
facilitate their learning. However, lecturers using CATs also experience clear benefits. It is easy
to begin using these strategies in a small way, starting with a simple “Minute Paper” at the end
of a lecture. By asking students about their learning, lecturers find out about their own teaching
and become more interested in the teaching and learning process in their own subject. This often
leads to more discourse and enthusiasm about teaching and learning in departments and course
teams and can ultimately result in enhanced teaching and learning.

References
(1991). Classroom Research: Early Lessons from Success. In T. Angelo (Ed.), New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, Number 46. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

(1998). Classroom Assessment and Research: An Update on Uses, Approaches, and Research
Findings. In T. Angelo (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 75. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Angelo, T. (1999, May). Doing Assessment as if Learning Matters Most. AAHE Bulletin.

Astin, A. et al. (1995). Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning. Assess-
ment Forum, American Association of Higher Education (AAHE). http://www.aahe.org/
assessment/principl.htm

84
 Diana Kelly

Bloom, D. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives — Book 1, the Cognitive Domain. London:
Longman.

Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment, ERIC Digest. College Park, Mary-
land: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ED 470 206). http://www.
ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC Digests/ed470206.html

Boud, D. (1986). Implementing Student Self-Assessment. Higher Education Research and Devel-
opment Society of Australia (HERSDA), Kensington, New South Wales.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, New Jersey:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Chickering, A. and Z. Gamson (1987, March). Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education. AAHE Bulletin (39), 3–7. Washington D.C.: American Association of Higher Educa-
tion (AAHE), http://aahebulletin.com/public/archive/sevenprinciples1987.
asp

College of Marin (1990). Teacher Directed Classroom Research. (Videotape) College of Marin,
California.

Cross, K. P. (1987). The Need for Classroom Research. In J. K. Kurfiss (Ed.), To Improve the Academy.
Stillwater, OK: POD Network in Higher Education and New Forums Press Inc.

Cross, K. P. and T. Angelo (1988). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty. Ann
Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Uni-
versity of Michigan.

Cross, K. P. and T. Angelo (1993a). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers
(second ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cross, K. P. and T. Angelo (1993b). Teaching Goals Inventory. Available online at University of
Iowa, Teaching Center. http://www.uiowa.edu/∼centeach/tgi/index.html

Cross, K. P. and M. Steadman (1996). Classroom Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Davis, B. (1999). Fast Feedback. In Tools for Teaching. Berkeley, California: University of California,
Berkeley.

Jarvis, P., J. Holford, and C. Griffin (1998). The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: Kogan
Page.

Juwah, C., D. Macfarlane-Dick, B. Matthew, D. Nicol, D. Ross, and B. Smith (2004). Enhancing
Student Learning through Effective Formative Feedback. U.K.: The Higher Education Academy
Generic Centre.

Kelly, D. K. (1991). The Effects of Classroom Research by Part-time Faculty upon the Retention of Adult
Learners. Saratoga Springs, N.Y.: National Center on Adult Learning, Empire State College,
SUNY.

Kelly, D. K. (1993). Classroom Research and Interactive Learning: Assessing the Impact on Adult
Learners and Faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University.
Light, R. (1990). The Harvard Assessment Seminars, First Report. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Har-
vard University Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.

Mosteller, F. (1989). The “Muddiest Point in the Lecture” as a Feedback Device. On Teaching and
Learning 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, Derek Bok Center for Teaching and
Learning, http://bokcenter.fas.harvard.edu/docs/mosteller.html

85
 D O YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ? (A ND DO YOU CARE ?)

Roueche, S. (ed.) (1993). What I learned about quality in the classroom from a Harvard Business
School professor and a group of freshman students. Innovation Abstracts XV(22). Austin, Texas:
National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD), College of Education,
The University of Texas at Austin.
Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science 18, 119–144.

Websites on Classroom Assessment Techniques

American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) Assessment Forum]
http://www.aahe.org/assessment/assess links.htm

National Teaching & Learning Forum (NTLF)

http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/bib/assess.htm

Technology applied to Classroom Assessments

http://www.ntlf.com/html/sf/vc75.htm

Classroom Assessment Techniques designed for Technology

http://www.mtsu.edu/∼itconf/Proceed99/Martin.htm

University websites on Classroom Assessment Techniques

Southern Illinois University
http://www.siue.edu/∼deder/assess/catmain.html

Hawaii Community College

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/
assess-1.htm
http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/
assess-2.htm

Indiana University
http://www.iub.edu/∼teaching/feedback.html#sfcats

Iowa State University

http://www.cte.iastate.edu/tips/cat.html

Pennsylvania State University

http://www.psu.edu/celt/CATs.html

Portland State University

http://www.fd.pdx.edu/workshops/cat/examples.html

Syracuse University
http://cstl.syr.edu/cstl/t-l/cls asmt.htm

University of New Orleans

http://ss.uno.edu/ss/TeachDevel/Asses/AssemTechMenu.html

University of Washington
http://depts.washington.edu/cidrweb/CATools.htm

86
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND
PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN
LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Learning and Teaching Centre
Dublin Institute of Technology
14 Upper Mount Street
Dublin 2
Ireland
Tel: 00 3531 402 7886/7861
Fax: 00 3531 6767243
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

KEYWORDS: Collaborative Project–based Learning, Problem–based Learning, Facilitation.

Introduction
The aim of this chapter is twofold. Firstly to support academic staff from a variety of subject
disciplines in higher education in the clarification between two different learner focused strate-
gies, namely collaborative project-based (CPBL) and problem-based learning (PBL). Secondly, to
provide practical advice to them to assist in the making of informed decisions as to when which
strategy is most appropriate to use to support learning. These decisions will be based on a sound
understanding of each strategy and a consideration of when each is most appropriate to use in
enhancing the learning of their students.
Section One explores what is meant by group learning. Students have knowledge, views and
experiences to share that are valuable and worthy of consideration. Opening up our classes to
the voices of our students is sending a very powerful message to them as it is through dialogue
with others, articulation of viewpoints and identification of concerns that students are enabled to
make sense of new information.
Definitions of the two learner-focused strategies will be provided in specific contexts within
higher education. Collaborative project-based Learning will consider the learning afforded by the
involvement of students in a collaborative group project. Problem-based learning will explore the
importance of placing students in control of their own learning.
Section Two details each strategy under the key headings: the role of tutor and students.

Group Learning
Lecturing is without doubt effective for transmitting information but if we wish to develop think-
ing skills, problem solving abilities and lifelong learning skills a more student-centered approach

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

must be taken. This involves a change in the role of the lecturer from presenting information
to students to facilitating and guiding learning. Palmer (1998) talks about preparing a learning
space so that students can learn with and from each other and the there can be no doubting the
potential of the group to learn from each other. According to Race (2001) ‘learning from other people
is the most instinctive and natural of all the learning contexts we experience’. Group discussion allows
students to attend more clearly to meaning as they interact with the language of the discipline
and put into their own words the issues arising from a particular topic. It also gives students an
opportunity to direct and take responsibility for their own learning. It has been argued that in
higher education today students must be supported to develop specific expertise and knowledge
in their chosen discipline and also facilitated to develop ‘the skills necessary for employment and for
life as a responsibility citizen’ (Fallows and Steve 2000). In a group learning context students are fa-
cilitated to develop key skills such as communication and teamwork. Students can only become
proficient in a skill by practicing it and in a group learning context the students have to learn
how to work within a group and listen and negotiate with others in order to resolve dilemmas or
conflicts. These are important skills for students to develop as research indicates that employers
worldwide want graduates who have well developed communication, teamwork and problem
solving skills. The realization of this type of learning environment depends to a large extent on
the skill of the tutor to lead and facilitate group discussion but many tutors find this task ‘difficult
to perform satisfactorily and too readily fall back in frustration on their reserve position of authority, expert
and prime talker’ (Jaques 2000). Also, many students will want to be given the solutions to prob-
lems rather than taking responsibility for finding information and discussing it together and so
there is a need for induction and tutor training and support; this will be discussed in more detail
later in the chapter. There is a real potential to promote a deeper engagement with the subject
matter and enhance the student experience by creating opportunities for group learning but this
does require the tutor to focus more on the design and development of the learning experience
and less on transmission of content. In further sections, we will look more closely at the role of
tutor and students in project-based and problem-based learning. Firstly, we will define the terms,
as each are each used to describe a range of instructional strategies. The breadth of their respec-
tive definitions, their conceptual similarity, and the use of the shorthand term PBL result in has
previously resulted in some confusion in the literature.

Definitions
Project-Based Learning is an individual or group activity that goes on over a period of time,
resulting in a product, presentation, or performance. It typically has a time line and milestones,
and other aspects of formative evaluation as the project proceeds. For the purposes of this chapter,
we are considering the group activity involved in collaborative project-based learning.
Problem-based learning is both a curriculum and a process. The curriculum consists of care-
fully selected and designed problems that demand from the learner acquisition of critical knowl-
edge, problem solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies, and team participation skills.
The process replicates the commonly used systemic approach to resolving problems or meeting
challenges that are encountered in life and career.
As defined in the literature, project-based learning and problem-based learning share several
characteristics. Both are instructional strategies that are intended to engage students in authentic,
“real world” tasks to enhance learning. Students are given open-ended projects or problems with
more than one approach or answer, intended to simulate professional situations. Both learning
approaches are defined as student-centered, and include the teacher in the role of facilitator or
coach. Students engaged in project- or problem-based learning generally work in cooperative
groups for extended periods of time, and are encouraged to seek out multiple sources of informa-
tion. Often these approaches include an emphasis on authentic, performance-based assessment.
Despite these many similarities, project- and problem-based learning are not identical ap-
proaches. Project-based learning tends to be associated with engineering and science instruction.

88
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Problem-based learning is also used in these disciplines, but has its origins in medical training
and other professional preparation practices (Ryan and Koschmann 1994).
In practice, it is likely that the line between project- and problem-based learning is frequently
blurred and that the two are used in combination and play complementary roles. Fundamentally,
problem- and project-based learning have the same orientation: both are authentic, constructivist
approaches to learning. The differences between the two approaches may lie in the subtle varia-
tions. There are at least two possible continua of variation in these type of learning approaches.
One is the extent to which the end product is the organizing center of the project. On one end
of this continuum, end products are elaborate and shape the production process, such as a CAD
engineering piece which requires extensive planning and effort. On the other end, end products
are simpler and more summative, such as a group’s report on their research findings. The former
example is best described as project-based learning, where the end product drives the planning,
production, and evaluation process. The latter example, where the inquiry and research (rather
than the end product) is the primary focus of the learning process, is a better example of problem-
based learning.
A second continuum of variation is the extent to which a problem is the organizing centre
of the project. On one end of this continuum are projects in which it is implicitly assumed that
any number of problems will arise and students will require problem-solving skills to overcome
them. On the other end of this continuum are projects that begin with a clearly stated problem or
problems and require a set of conclusions or a solution in direct response, where the problematic
situation is the organizing centre for the curriculum. Here again, the former example typifies
project-based learning, where the latter is best described as problem-based learning.

Clarification Between Strategies

Project-based learning typically begins with an end product or “artifact” in mind, the production
of which requires specific content knowledge or skills and typically raises one or more problems
which students must solve together. Projects vary widely in scope and time frame, and end prod-
ucts vary widely in level of technology used and sophistication. The collaborative project-based
learning approach uses a production model: first, students define the purpose for creating the end
product and identify their audience. They research their topic, design their product, and create a
plan for project management. Students then begin the project, resolve problems and issues that
arise in production, and finish their product. Students may use or present the product they have
created, and ideally are given time to reflect on and evaluate their work (Blumenfeld et al. 1991).
The entire process is meant to be authentic, mirroring real world production activities and utiliz-
ing students’ own ideas and approaches to accomplish the tasks at hand. Though the end product
is the driving force in collaborative project-based learning, it is the content knowledge and skills
acquired during the production process that are important to the success of the approach.
Collaborative project-based learning adopts a multidisciplinary, project-based approach using
real world problems to bringing together knowledge and skills. Designing the appropriate course
materials provide the flexibility for a move away from transmission teaching in large lecture halls
to a more student-centred teaching and learning environment. The term learning environment
can be used to distinguish it from approaches based primarily on a sequence of questions, answers
and feedback. A learning environment places greater emphasis on problem solving situations and
mechanisms to assist the learner in their tasks and monitor learning.
Problem-based learning, as the name implies, begins with a problem for students to solve or
learn more about. Often these problems are framed in a scenario or case study format. Prob-
lems are designed to be “ill-structured” and to imitate the complexity of real life cases. As with
project-based learning, problem-based learning assignments vary widely in scope and sophisti-
cation. The approach uses an inquiry model: students are presented with a problem and they
begin by organizing any previous knowledge on the subject, posing any additional questions,
and identifying areas they need more information.

89
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

In acknowledgement of this existing blurring between the strategies, and in seeking clarifica-
tion, we find it helpful to look at each strategy in terms of the role of the tutor and students.

Role of the Tutor in CPBL

Collaborative project-based work is well established as a component of many courses in Arts,
Social Sciences, Science, and Technology in higher education. The argument for the strategy prin-
cipally rests upon the assumption that it is a means of developing a more active and motivated
student-centred approach to learning.
A reason for introducing this form of learner-focus strategy is that students may have rela-
tively little understanding of the real world examples that lecturers use in illustrating concepts in
lectures.
In conventional face-to-face teaching, the introduction of project-based methods entails recog-
nizing that there will be less tutor control over the learning processes, that students must accept
more responsibility for organizing their own learning experience, and that assessment is more
complex because the piece of work that results from each student project will be unique. This va-
riety is usually accommodated within the “conventional” learning framework by laying greater
emphasis on providing opportunities for tutor supervision and guidance at appropriate stages
during the course of the project. In a traditional setting of face-to-face teaching, frequent tu-
tor/student contact means that adjusting the balance of supervision and guidance is a relatively
flexible process. Knowledge of the project, built up by that tutor/student contact, can make as-
sessment of it easier.
Biggs (1999:93) outlines the features of rich teaching and learning environments and empha-
sises that ’knowledge is constructed through learner activity and interaction’. He goes on to point out
that this kind of environment is created through a variety of teaching and learning activities di-
rected by teachers, learners and peers because these each serve different purposes.
Collaborative project work often goes on for a considerable length of time, though the time
span may range from a single afternoon to several years. Advantages of project-based learn-
ing include the encouragement of student initiative, self-directiveness, inventiveness, and inde-
pendence. However, a project-based course demands from students a heightened level of self-
confidence, motivation, and ability to organize their own work plans. A number of the issues are
also present for the tutor: related to project time allocation, project scope delineation, and tutorial
responsibility.
There may be extra involvement and time commitment that collaborative project-based work
entails for tutors. This emerges from extra workload, on the extra resources that may need to be
allocated to compensate for it, and on the more complex task of project assessment.
The tutor’s role is very important at the design stage:
• Strong guidance is needed on how to tackle project work at the outset in order to reduce the
likelihood of students attempting to undertake overly ambitious projects;
• Project specifications should be more detailed than they would be in “face-to-face” teaching;
• Careful piloting and testing of proposed projects should be undertaken in advance of the
first presentation of the relevant course in order to establish reasonable estimates of time
required for successful student completion;
• Sample projects should be provided to indicate to students the scope of project expected, in
order to help students form a realistic picture of what they are expected to achieve;
• Course teams should be aware of the importance of a Project Guide (a document containing
guidelines for undertaking the relevant project) and strive to make it as clear and as helpful
as possible;
• It should be recognized that extra demands are made upon tutors both in terms of personal
involvement and of time commitment in evaluating or assessing projects.

90
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Collaborative project-based methods also imply more tutor involvement in terms of reassur-
ance and guidance. Assessment will also be more demanding, and more resources may need to
be allocated for assessment than would be required on “teacher-directed” courses (Crooks et al.
1976). They also need guidance on the extent to which they should allow students to follow an in-
dependent path and at which point they should intervene if a student’s chosen direction seems to
be going badly off-course. The flexibility of tutorial contact makes it easier to remedy the problem
of students taking a “wrong” direction.
From an academic point of view, tutors also need to be clear about the rewards and penal-
ties that students may incur by pursuing an unconventional solution to their project problem.
They need to know the balance that the course aims to achieve between encouraging students to
produce unique solutions and rewarding a successful arrival at the “end goal.”

The Role of the Student in CPBL

This is a student centred learning strategy and as such the role of the student must be considered.
In the section which follows, we will outline and develop the important issues for students who
are undertaking a project in higher education.
Throughout your studies at college you will be given a variety of opportunities to develop
your skills as an independent learner and doing a project is a real example of this. A project takes
you beyond what you already know about a topic and therefore requires research from a variety
of sources including books, research papers and the world wide web. What you include in your
project and how you present it will vary according to your discipline and the specific purpose of
the project. However doing a collaborative project will require you to put into practice a range
of important skills such as searching literature, collecting information from a wide variety of
sources, analysing data and working as part of team. In addition skills of communication and
time management will be important.

Managing the Project

Doing a collaborative project requires that you identify key learning issues and take assume re-
sponsibility for your own learning as you undertake an extended piece of work and time man-
agement is a key area. Begin the project as soon as possible once you have the brief and plan your
time to ensure that you make steady progress and build in regular project team meetings.

Producing a successful project

A project brief can be daunting but it can help greatly if the task is broken down into a series of
stages and then the group can logically work through each stage until your task is completed. A
diagram of the main stages involved in doing a project is presented in Figure 1 below.

91
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

Planning

Researching

First draft

Rewriting

Submitting the Project

Fig. 1:

Stage 1 — Planning
At this stage it is essential to make sure that you understand what the project requires. Read the
brief carefully several times and write down initial thoughts and any questions that you might
have. Then, at this stage, it will be essential to discuss the project brief with other students in your
group but if you are unsure it is very important that you arrange to meet with the academic tutor
involved with the project to avoid completing a task only to realise you misunderstood it. Once
you have clarified the project brief you are now ready to begin researching.

Stage 2 — Researching
This stage involves the group deciding on areas of responsibility for each individual. Then it will
be necessary to locate relevant literature taking into account your aims and purposes, so that the
information you gather is relevant. The amount of research will depend on the nature and length
of the project and the time available to complete the work.
A large amount of information is available electronically and you will need to be able to use
the library catalogues, databases and internet search engines. It is best to start with a visit to the
library and librarians will give advice and guidance. It is very easy at this point to branch off in a
variety of directions and spend a lot of time researching literature that is not directly relevant. In
order to avoid this possibility it is good practice to keep in front of you the project title and this will
support you to search through the literature using key words and thereby locate relevant material.
Having located the literature it is important to take notes and record the main ideas gleamed from
the text and think about how these relate to what you already know. It will be necessary to think
critically and form conclusions based on a systematic evaluation of the available evidence.
Also take care to record your references sources correctly as failure to do this will mean that
at a later stage you have to revisit all the literature consulted in order to check references and
this can be very time consuming. It is expected in academic work that sources are correctly refer-
enced and always avoid plagiarism, which is presenting somebody’s work as your own without
acknowledging it.

Stage 3 — First Draft

Having located and evaluated the relevant information you can now move logically to the next
stage, which is to write a first draft of your section of the project. All good writers produce a

92
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

draft, which they revise and edit to produce a final version. Once you begin to write you will
find that you will begin to clarify your thinking. Try to get all your ideas down on paper first
and you can reorganise later to ensure that there is logic to the draft and that your writing is clear
and coherent and meets academic expectations. You must be very careful to reference the work
of other people so as there is no plagiarism in the finished work. In producing a collaborative
project, there will be a need to decide as a group how best to synthesise the individual elements
into a coherent whole. A number of approaches can be taken to this but it will be essential that
the final document is logical and consistent.
There is a common formula for writing an assignment at college level that may appear sim-
plistic but does provide a good structure for a project:
• Introduction: Provide the reader with a clear outline of what you are going to do in the
project and relate it to the project title.

• Main Body: Draw on relevant material and present your arguments in a structured way.

• Conclusion: Bring everything together so that there is a sense of completion. This involves
summarising the main points, making recommendations and highlighting issues for further
investigation.

Stage 4 — Rewriting
It is important to understand that all writing involves rewriting and that even the most gifted
writers will revisit work and edit and revise. Pay attention to the following as you make annota-
tions and amendments:

• The document clearly adheres to the project brief

• The objectives are achieved and there are no gaps in the work

• There is a logical flow to the document

• Formal academic language is used

• The conclusions are clear to the reader

• The document is clear and well presented and adheres to the conventions laid down in the
assignment brief.

Role of the Tutor in PBL

As the amount of direct instruction is reduced in problem based learning, students assume greater
responsibility for their own learning (Bridges and Hallinger 1991). The tutor’s role becomes one
of subject matter expert, resource guide, and facilitator of learning in the group. This arrangement
promotes group processing of information rather than an imparting of information by tutors (Ver-
non and Blake 1993). The tutor’s role is to encourage student participation, provide appropriate
information to keep students on track, avoid negative feedback, and assume the role of fellow
learner (Aspy et al. 1993). In essence, tutors should be more concerned with the process of learn-
ing of students than with the content of their learning. To do this properly requires many skills
from the tutor, most of them in the field of social-pedagogy.
Fundamentally, the tutor is an educator who leads a task-oriented group to successfully achieve
the outcomes of a teaching programme. In doing this, the tutor has to fulfil several responsibili-
ties and is accountable to the teaching programme for the satisfactory completion of them. These
responsibilities require abilities and skills relevant to the principles and practice of problem-based
learning, group dynamics, the assessment of student learning, the use of learning resources and
managerial skills.

93
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

The role of the tutor is very different from the usual teacher’s role. Rather than being a “con-
tent expert” who provides the facts, the tutor is a facilitator, responsible for guiding students
to identify the key issues in each problem and to find ways to learn those areas in appropriate
breadth and depth. Tutors in a problem based learning curriculum need to alter their traditional
teaching methods of lectures, discussions, and asking students to memorize materials for tests.
As such, tutors focus their attention on questioning student logic and beliefs, providing hints to
correct erroneous student reasoning, providing resources for student research, and keeping stu-
dents on task. Because this role will be new to some teachers, they may have concern moving
away from their past practice.
Considerable debate has occurred in higher education about the merits and demerits of tutors
being selected for their content expertise. The early literature on PBL tutoring, exemplified by
Barrows (1988), has emphasized the need for tutors to possess “facilitatory teaching skills during
a small group learning process”, these skills being the major determinant of the quality of the PBL
learning process.
Other studies of tutor roles and behaviours by Schmidt et al. (1993), Schmidt and Moust (1995),
have found that subject matter expertise of tutors enhanced both student learning and the learn-
ing process. With respect to tutor behaviours, Schmidt et al. (1993) found that subject matter
expert tutors were able to employ more effective process facilitative behaviours such as asking
stimulating questions, offering counter examples or seeking clarification, and that these behav-
iours were related to achievement, the latter referring to written test scores. Schmidt and Moust
conclude that to be effective, tutors must possess both facilitatory teaching skills and content ex-
pertise, with content expertise a pre-condition to effectively perform the behaviours suggested by
Barrows (1988).
Although students have much more responsibility in PBL than in most conventional approaches
to teaching, the tutor is not just a passive observer. He or she must be active and directive about
the learning process to assure that the group stays on target and makes reasonable choices on
what issues are key to study. Teachers also have considerable influence on what is learned by
selecting the problems in the first place, and by creating tutor guides and specific outcomes for
each phase of the curriculum.

Role of Students in PBL

As problem-based learning is a student-centred process, it is the responsibility of the individual
student to participate fully, not only for his or her own learning, but also to aid the learning of
others in the group. Although a significant proportion of time is spent alone in the library or at
the computer, the full benefits of PBL cannot be realized in isolation.
In PBL, students devise a plan for gathering more information, then do the necessary research
and reconvene to share and summarize their new knowledge in the group. Students may present
their conclusions, and there may or may not be an end product. Again, students ideally have
adequate time for reflection and self-evaluation (Duch 1995; Delisle 1997; Hoffman and Ritchie
1997; Stepien and Gallagher 1993). All problem-based learning approaches rely on a problem as
their driving forces, but may focus on the solution to varying degrees. Some problem-based ap-
proaches intend for students to clearly define the problem, develop hypotheses, gather informa-
tion, and arrive at clearly stated solutions (Allen 1998). Others design the problems as learning-
embedded cases which may have no solution but are meant to engage students in learning and
information gathering (Wang 1998).
An unanticipated issue with problem based learning is the traditional assumptions of the stu-
dent. Most students have spent their previous years assuming their teacher was the main dissem-
inator of knowledge. Due to this orientation towards the subject-matter expertise of their tutor
and the traditional memorization of facts required of students, many students appear to have lost
the ability to “simply wonder about something” (Reithlingshoefer 1992). This is especially seen in
first year students who often express difficulties with self directed learning (Schmidt et al. 1992).

94
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Although students generally prefer problem based learning courses, and their ability to solve
real-life problems appears to increase over traditional instruction, there are issues to be aware of
in moving towards this type of learning. Contributing to this divergence is the time requirement
placed upon academic staff to assess student learning (Delafuente et al. 1994), prepare course
materials, and allow students to complete the reduction in coverage of course material.
Students all seek approval from their tutors. They need guidance and role models whom they
can respect and trust. It is essential for tutors to be honest with students. Even though effective
tutors avoid the ‘expert’ role, they can have a powerful impact on students. Figure 2 depicts the
possible levels of independence that students can achieve in a PBL group, where the tutor adopts
differing roles.

Level of independence of the students

Low moderate high

Strong: tutor as ‘example’ moderate: tutor as ‘coach’ low: tutor as ‘adviser’

The support by the tutor

Fig. 2:

Induction Process
Arguably, induction to both strategies is very important for both students and staff. Student in-
duction must have a group work session, and include more support for those without group
work experience. Through a series of team-building and problem-solving group activities, stu-
dents need to become exposed to the problem-based and project-based way of thinking in an
enjoyable way.
Considering problem-based learning, before students go into the curriculum proper, a PBL
Orientation is essential to prepare students for PBL and enables them to make full use of the PBL
process for life-long learning. Such an orientation can cover the following:

• Knowing and using PBL;

• Guest speakers from graduates on their views of PBL;

• Guest speakers from clients/employers on their views of the type of employees that they
are looking for and their experience with students who learnt via PBL approach;

• Coping with change;

• PBL Small Group Tutorial Process;

• Assessment for PBL;

• Concept mapping.

Within the orientation, a specific focus on teamwork is vital, in particular, it can include
problem-challenging and self-esteem games alongside how effective feedback in group situations
is going to be constructed and conveyed.

95
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

Academic achievement
Few academics doubt the ability of students prepared in problem based learning to exhibit strong
reasoning and team building skills. Concern has been raised, however, over the breadth of con-
tent covered. As the focus of problem based learning centres on a specific problem, academic
achievement scores often favour traditional teaching methods when standardized tests are used,
but favour neither method when non-standardized forms of assessment are employed (Vernon
and Blake 1993). These measures include problem-solving ability, interpersonal skills, peer-tutor
relationships, the ability to reason, and self-motivated learning. In contrast, traditional instruction
is judged better in the coverage of science content areas (Albanese and Mitchell 1993; Vernon and
Blake 1993) and in evaluating students’ knowledge content. Although problem based learning
tends to reduce initial levels of learning, it can improve long-term retention (Farnsworth 1994).

Resources
A continuing challenge for CPBL and PBL groups is “How much detail is enough?” Students
should be encouraged to bring books and previous class notes and use them in the tutorial, if
necessary, to clarify concepts and terminology. To obtain additional information, the tutor may
direct students to a specific resource (journal article, book, expert, web site etc.). It is important for
students to avoid wasting time tracking down an obscure reference. However, on the other hand,
it is important for them to develop skill in finding good information and taking responsibility for
the self-evaluation and development of personal study skills.
Generally, there is not a specific list of references developed for each problem considered. Part
of the overall learning experience implicit in CPBL and PBL is the development of skills that will
facilitate access to learning resources throughout students’ future professional career.
Tutors should encourage students to discuss matters of interest pertaining to specific problems
with their peers and with more senior students. Similarly, by virtue of the multidisciplinary
nature of many of the learning issues that will evolve from individual problems, it is important
to guide them towards discussions with professionals in the field.
In CPBL and PBL, resources need to be allocated to take specific factors into account. More
generous tutorial support needs to be allocated than is provided for “traditional” courses. Ad-
ditional tutor time needed to assess a final project report and for double marking of that report
needs also to be included.

Conclusion
It could be argued that the skill of the twenty first century graduate will be to articulate the right
questions and to understand where and how they can search for knowledge, not remember the
answers. Thus the importance for lecturers in higher education to adopt teaching strategies which
cultivate and develop in students the processes of thinking, learning how to learn, problem solv-
ing and team-working, within a context of self-directed learning. We believe that well designed
collaborative project-based and problem-based learning strategies have the potential to support
the development of academic knowledge and skills and combine these in a way that enhances the
student learning experience.

References
Albanese, M. and S. Mitchell (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68(1), 52–81.

Allen, D. (1998). Bringing Problem–Based Learning to the Introductory Biology Classroom.

In A. McNeal and C. D’Avanzo (Eds.), Student Active Science. Available: http://www.
saunderscollege.com/lifesci/studact/chapters/ch15.html

96
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Aspy, D. N., C. B. Aspy, and P. M. Quimby (1993). What doctors can teach teachers about problem-
based learning. Educational Leadership 50(7), 22–24.
Barrows, H. S. (1988). The Tutorial Process. Springfield, Illinois: Southern Illinois University School
of Medicine.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Edu-
cation and Open University Press.
Blumenfeld, P., E. Soloway, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, M. Guzdial, and A. Palincsar (1991). Moti-
vating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psy-
chologist 26, 369–398.
Bridges, E. M. and P. Hallinger (1991, September). Problem-based learning in medical and man-
agerial education. In Paper presented for the Cognition and School Leadership Conference of the Na-
tional Center for Educational Leadership and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Nashville,
TN.
Crooks, B., J. Henry, and A. Morgan (1976). Project memo 7: Assessment procedures in project courses
(Project memo series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.

Delafuente, J. C., T. O. Munyer, D. M. Angaran, and P. L. Doering (1994). A problem solving active
learning course in pharmacotherapy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 58(1), 61–64.
Delisle, R. (1997). How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Duch, B. (Ed.) (1995, January). What is Problem–Based Learning? In ABOUT TEACHING: A Newslet-
ter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, Volume 47. Available: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/
cte/jan95-what.html
Fallows, S. and C. Steve (2000). Integrating key skills in higher education: employability, transferable
skills and learning for life. London: Kogan Page.
Farnsworth, C. C. (1994). Using computer simulations in problem-based learning. In M. Orey
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth ADCIS Conference, Nashville, TN, pp. 137–140. Omni Press.

Hoffman, B. and D. Ritchie (1997, March). Using Multimedia to Overcome the Problems with
Problem Based Learning. Instructional Science 25(2), 97–115.
Jaques, D. (2000). Learning in Groups (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Palmer, J. (1998). The Courage To Teach. California: Jossey–Bass Inc. Publishers.
Race, P. (2001). The Lecturer’s Toolkit: a practical guide to learning, teaching and assessment (2nd ed.).
London: Kogan Page.
Reithlingshoefer, S. J. (Ed.) (1992). The future of Nontraditional/Interdisciplinary Programs: Margin or
mainstream?, Virginia Beach, VA. Selected Papers from the Tenth Annual Conference on Non-
traditional and Interdisciplinary Programs.
Ryan, C. and T. Koschmann (1994). The Collaborative Learning Laboratory: A Technology-
Enriched Environment to Support Problem-Based Learning.
Schmidt, H. G., P. A. Henny, and M. de Vries (1992). Comparing problem-based with conven-
tional education: A review of the University of Limburg medical school experiment. Annals of
Community-Oriented Education (5), 193–198.
Schmidt, H. G. and J. H. Moust (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations
modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine 70(8), 708–714.

97
C OLLABORATIVE PROJECT– BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION : A
CONSIDERATION OF TUTOR AND STUDENT ROLES IN LEARNER - FOCUSED STRATEGIES

Schmidt, H. G., A. van der Arend, J. H. Moust, I. Kokx, and L. Boon (1993). Influence of tutors’
subject-matter expertise on student effort and achievement in problem-based learning. Acad-
emic Medicine 68, 784–791.

Stepien, W. and S. Gallagher (1993). Problem-based Learning: As Authentic as it Gets. Educational

Leadership 50(7), 25–28.

Vernon, D. T. and R. L. Blake (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of

evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68(7), 550–563.

Wang, H. (1998, August 8). Research Associate. CCMB-USC. On AERA listserve on-line discus-
sion.

98
D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Learning and Teaching Centre
Dublin Institute of Technology
14 Upper Mount Street
Dublin 2
Ireland
Tel: 00 3531 402 7886/7861
Fax: 00 3531 6767243
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

KEYWORDS: Curriculum design, modularization, constructive alignment.

Introduction
During the past fifty years third level education has expanded and diversified and the demands
and expectations being placed on Higher Education Institutions are now formidable, with changes
in the student body and increased pressure from government on costs, procedures and results. For
academic staff, there are increased pressures through increased teaching loads, growing reporting
and administrative requirements and pressure to develop and strengthen their research profile.
Amongst academic staff surveys consistently report that teaching is a source of reward but staff
say that they are working longer hours and dealing with a more diverse student group (McIn-
nis 2000). At the same time, they still wish to improve and innovate their practice by designing
and delivering effective courses and modules. The increased size and diversity of the student
group has impacted on the process of course design. Biggs (1999) offers valuable suggestions for
course design strategies in the context of a growing student population and Knight (2002) argues
for courses in higher education to be designed in order to maximize the chance that learners will
experience coherence, progression and deep learning.
Barnett et al. (2004) argue that the curriculum receives scant regard in current debates about
teaching and learning in higher education but suggest that this may change in the context of qual-
ity assurance mechanisms and benchmarking. Knight (2002) points out that material on design
work for teachers planning programmes in higher education is insubstantial. He suggests that
there is a need for advice on programme design and argues for texts to be developed to target
specific national markets. Thus, this chapter has been written to guide teachers in higher edu-
cation who are currently involved in module design and would benefit from a practical manual
that will steer them through the process of designing a module for the first time. It will also be
of benefit to teachers who are redesigning existing modules, and wish to bring an awareness of
current thinking to the task.
The focus of this chapter is the design of modules which form part of programmes in higher
education. In the context of this chapter, we are taking a module to be a self contained, formally
structured learning experience with a coherent and explicit set of learning outcomes and assess-
ment.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

Modules are not developed in isolation, but within a course or programme structure, and
the process is informed by the external national qualifications framework and where relevant,
professional body requirements. Thus, internal and external factors must be taken into account
at the planning stage. In terms of designing modules, we would argue that there is a need for
a planned integrated approach to the process with the focus on the learning of the student. We
would suggest that academic staff can begin the process not by focusing on the content of the
module and how they intend to teach it, rather by focusing on the quality of learning that can be
achieved by their students.
The aim of the chapter is to support the reader in becoming a logical module planner, aware of
the important decisions to be made, and the variety of possibilities available. Planning a module is
a process that requires time, commitment and a thoughtful, systematic approach. We guide you
through the process of structuring learning into modules and by working through the chapter,
you will be facilitated to design a module that supports your students’ learning. We would intend
that the material presented would be adapted and modified to suit your professional context.
The chapter will bridge theory and practice in module design and deepen your understand-
ing of the process, regardless of subject matter or institutional setting. The focus is on higher
education, although much of what is suggested has application in other areas of education. Key
issues in the process of module design will be explored and the relationship between educational
philosophy, learner needs and the module design process itself will be analysed to ensure that
they work in harmony and maximize the learning.
The chapter is structured in a number of sections, each including a practical activity entitled
‘Action Trigger’ for you to complete. The aim of these activities is to provide you with a hands-on
opportunity to work through the design of your module of choice and to ensure that the time you
invest will be productive in terms of the process and product.

Context
The traditional curriculum focused on the teacher rather than the learner. However, in recent
years there has been a paradigm shift taking place, moving the emphasis from teaching to learn-
ing and a more student-centred curriculum. This change has impacted on the curriculum design
process with a greater emphasis on the learning in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies
within courses and modules. The focus is on how learners learn and the design of effective learn-
ing environments. Alongside this change in pedagogy, the Bologna Agreement has emphasized
the need for reform to modernise European higher education.
This chapter recognizes that many countries have national qualifications frameworks and that
each institution has its own realities of quality assurance procedures with which to engage. How-
ever, we will outline a generic model of module design that academic staff can take and adapt
within the realities of their own institutional and national contexts.
The standpoint is taken that although modularity is ‘a good thing’, it does not come without
problems and whilst being cognizant of these, the focus of this work is to help teachers to gain
educationally sound ideas and strategies for improving learning, teaching and assessment in a
modularised context.

The module design process

There are a variety of models for the design of courses in higher education (Toohey 1999; Biggs
1999) and many of the same issues are relevant in the context of designing modules. In the process
of devising a module, the key is to forge educationally sound and logical links between learner
needs, aims, learning outcomes, resources, learning and teaching strategies, assessment criteria
and evaluation.

100
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Framework towards Designing Modules for Learning

In Figure 1 a Framework for Module Design and Development is outlined. This provides an
overview of the process, highlighting the important variables in module design and illustrating
the relationships between them; however it is important to stress that it is not a linear process.
Figure 1

Learner Teacher Institution Professional

Needs Needs Needs Body Needs

Stakeholders

Evaluation
Mechanisms

Module Design Process Areas of Theory

Module
Module
Aim(s) Learning Underpinning Deep
Rationale
Outcomes Learning Approach to
Theory Learning

Learner
Support Constructive
Subject
Alignment Content

Assessment Teaching
Strategies Strategies

Fig. 1: Framework for Module Design and Development

A place to start
Any systematic approach to module design must be considered within the context of a theoretical
framework.

Applying Relevant Theory

The question remains when designing modules for learning, why is it important to be aware of
the theories that underpin learning? We would argue that a theory should make explicit the un-
derlying psychological dynamics of events related to learning. Each one is based on different
assumptions about the nature of learning and we are suggesting that you identify your own the-
ory of learning because the strategies one might use to enhance learning will direct follow from
one’s orientation.
It could be argued that teachers bring to the classroom or lecture theatre an inbuilt informal
theory of teaching. This theory, which may be either consciously stated or implicit in what the
teachers do, has implications for the way in which students learn. It is outside the scope of this

101
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

chapter to go into depth on learning theories. Further discussion of these theories can be found
in Carlile and Jordan (2005).
In addition to taking cognizance of different learning theories, it is also important o take into
account that there is no universal way of learning. Brown and Atkins (1991) state that differing
students will use different strategies on different tasks. They stress the importance of ‘learning-
for-understanding’ and ‘learning-for-knowledge’ orientations, with learning being a continuous
process of development back and forth between the two.
When designing modules, we would argue that it is important for teachers to be aware of con-
cepts of deep and surface approaches to learning. Much research has previously been conducted
on the relationship between courses and the approach students take to learning (Marton and Saljo
1976; Entwistle 1981; Gibbs 1992; Ramsden 1992; Biggs 1999). Arising from these studies, there
are implications in terms of module design. Seeking to incorporate the following to your module
design can offer a greater likelihood of fostering a deep approach to learning:

• sustained interaction with content and others;

• relating new ideas to previous knowledge;
• providing explicit explanations and a clear knowledge base to students;
• structuring in a reasonable student workload;
• providing opportunities for students to pursue topics in depth so that they can understand
the material for themselves;
• ensuring an appropriate formative and summative assessment strategy.

These ideas resonate with teachers in today’s higher education environment and have impli-
cations both for our choice of learning and teaching strategies and how we assess learning. An
awareness of these approaches to learning is fundamental to the entire module design process.

Constructive Alignment: the Importance of Coherence

Constructive alignment is an approach to curriculum design that maximises the conditions for
quality learning by ensuring alignment throughout the process, from the forming of learning
outcomes, to the choice of teaching methods to assessment.

“The fundamental principle of constructive alignment is that a good teaching system aligns
teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives so that all
aspects of this system are in accord in supporting appropriate student learning.”

(Biggs 1999:25)

There are three elements involved in the process of constructively aligning your module:
1. Defining the learning outcomes;
2. Choosing the learning and teaching methods that can lead to attainment of outcomes;
3. Assessing student learning outcomes.
This is a design for learning which is most likely to encourage deep engagement from students
but setting up an aligned system requires time and some thought on the part of the academic.
However, we argue that a well designed module depends for its success on the interrelationship
between these elements and should inform your thinking at all stages as you work through the
process.
We now begin by identifying the areas that need to be addressed as this gives a clear focus to
the design activity. We are not suggesting an approach in which each step needs to be completed

102
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

before the next is begun. Rather, one can move back and forth as required. It is often easier to
think productively about abstract topics such as values only after thinking about more concrete
issues such as curriculum content and learning and teaching strategies. A series of steps are now
outlined to take you through the module design process and in the forthcoming sections of the
chapter, each will be dealt with in some detail.

• Thinking through a rationale for your module

• Deciding on aims and learning outcomes for the module

• Thinking about the module content

• Exploring learning and teaching strategies and the appropriate learner support

• Focusing on assessment

• Considering learner support

• Planning a module evaluation strategy

Developing a Module Rationale

The purpose of a rationale is to serve as a broad value system for the learning in your module.
However, seldom will a module be designed in isolation but rather it is more likely to form part
of a programme of study and it is important to give consideration to the underlying values and
beliefs about the purposes of education. The opportunity to think through and discuss such
issues through the process of module design can support teachers to highlight the values that they
hold as educators. We would content that your module should do more than add information to
students’ stock of knowledge but should be seeking to encourage a deep approach to learning.
The activity below can assist you in developing a coherent rationale statement for your mod-
ule.

Action Trigger

• What are the educational goals for your module?

• What conceptions do you have of your learners?

• Why is the subject matter important?

• What are your beliefs and values about learning and teaching?

Aims and Learning Outcomes

The aim of your module indicates the general direction or orientation of a module in terms of its
content and sometimes its context within a programme. An aim tends to be written in terms of
the teaching intentions:

• The aim of the module is to provide an introduction to the application of statistical theory
in general insurance.

• The module aims to provide an effective and common grounding in written and interper-
sonal skills.

103
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

The traditional way of describing modules and programmes in Higher Education has been to
write in terms of the content with academics defining courses in terms of what is taught. How-
ever, recent development have encouraged a move to an outcomes based approach to course
design with learning being defined in terms of what the students can do at the end of a module
or programme. There is continuing debate in the literature about the value of defining learning in
terms of outcomes and the effect that this may have on student learning but it is not the purpose
of this chapter to enter into the debate. Although many academics have misgivings about the
outcomes based approach, many of us are now required to define modules and courses in these
terms. The use of learning outcomes is a means of describing the contents of a module or course
in terms of the learning that is intended to happen.
A learning outcome is a statement of what the learner is expected to know, understand and /
or be able to do at the end of a period of learning. Learning outcomes focus on learning rather than
teaching and are not about what the teacher can provide but what the learner can demonstrate
at the end of a module or course. Learning outcomes should be written taking into account level
descriptors relevant to the level of study, and if relevant professional body requirements. They
can support students to better understand what they can expect to know and be able to do at the
end of a module. Some examples of learning outcomes follow:

On completion of the module the learner will be expected to able to:

explain the role of accounting information in organisations

Successful students will typically be able to:

identify and critically evaluate the strategic options available to enterprises

The phrases used to start the sentence lead to the use of action verbs and to a focus on how
students will demonstrate their learning. You need to think about how you will ask your students
to demonstrate their understanding. When they are being assessed students may be asked to
discuss a concept, analyse a situation, describe a process or evaluate some data. These are the
tasks the student actually does in order to demonstrate understanding and so these terms can be
used to express the learning outcome. Bloom’s Taxonomy developed in 1956 still remains one of
the best aids to writing good learning outcomes There are no rules on how many outcomes per
module or course but some guidelines have been given on the literature in learning outcomes
in the U.K. It has been suggested that a module should have between four and eight learning
outcomes and an entire programme should have up to twenty five (Moon 2002).

Teaching for Learning

In this section, we are going to explore a range of teaching methods and will focus on the meth-
ods and combinations of methods that can best realize the sort of constructive engagement with
learning activities that leads to understanding (Ramsden 1992). Even the best designed modules,
with very worthwhile defined learning outcomes, can fail if the teaching strategies employed are
inappropriate to encourage and support the learners towards meeting the desired learning out-
comes. It is useful to reflect on what we mean by a teaching strategy? Toohey (1999:152) offers
the following definition:

“A teaching strategy is . . . a plan for someone else’s learning, and it encompasses the pre-
sentations which the teacher might make, the exercises and activities designed for students,
materials which will be supplied or suggested for students to work with, and ways in which
evidence of their growing understanding and capability will be collected.”

This definition is very helpful as it emphasizes that a teaching strategy is fundamentally about
supporting your student’s learning. In giving consideration to how, as academics, we can teach in
order to ensure that our students are engaging with the learning process, it is necessary to focus
on the type of teaching strategies we can employ to achieve this end.

104
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

The following approach will help you to think through and decide on appropriate teaching
strategies for your module. First, take time to read over your module aims, learning outcomes
and content material. Then, focus on how best you can involve students in making sense of the
material through active engagement and application.

Action Trigger

• Who are your learners? E.g. undergraduate, postgraduate, adult, in-

ternational students

• What kinds of learning are you trying to achieve? E.g. knowledge,

skills, attitudes.

• How are you going to deliver the content? E.g. lectures, tutorials,
seminars, practicals

• What learning activities can be organized to meet the learning out-

comes? E.g case studies, problem-solving, role play, group discus-
sions

• What resources are available to you? E.g. handouts, worksheets,

OHPs, visuals

• Does your teaching strategy support the learner to meet the desired
learning outcomes? The matrix in Table 1 provides an opportunity for
you to review a range of popular teaching strategies in higher educa-
tion and the type of learning which each strategy best supports.

105
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

Tab. 1:
Learning Outcomes Teaching Strategy Learner Activity Assessing for Learning
Knowledge Transmit / Lecture Reproduce learning Essay exam
Inform Reading Linking to theory Assignment; Open
Book exam
Tutorial Clarify and expand Reflective Journal
Researching Self-directed Assignment
learning
Engage Discussion Interpreting Interview; Presentation;
knowledge Viva
Question & Answer Clarify knowledge Quiz
Peer Teaching & Providing multiple Self and peer
Learning perspectives; self assessment; Portfolio;
insight Project
Web-based Exploring learning; Computer Assisted
Skills Teaching Providing multiple Assessment
perspectives;
Practice Seminar Clarify knowledge Presentation; Project
Class Presentation Presentation skills Presentation
Field Trip Experiential Project
Application Laboratory Apply theory to Practical Assessment;
practice Lab Reports
Demonstration Deepen
understanding Practical Assessment
Games Exploring learning
Problem solving Transform
knowledge Set problems in Exam
Case Study Appraising;
synthesing Case Study Assessment
Group work Transform
knowledge Group Project

The table above is not a comprehensive summary of all possible teaching strategies and more
detail can be found in Higgs and McCarthy (2005). The reality is that there is no shortage of
teaching strategies. However, the key issue for module designers is selecting the strategies that
are most likely to support the achievement of learning outcomes and are suitable for use in your
teaching context taking into account the resources available to you.

Assessing your Learners

In relation to assessment, we would suggest that the fundamental principles are that the assess-
ment methods should be in accord with the learning outcomes of the module and should foster a
deep approach to learning.
Assessment is generally considered in terms of either being Formative and/or Summative.
Formative assessment is used to inform both student and teacher as to how the learner is pro-
gressing. Integral to this process is the feedback that students receive from the teacher and this
should be used to improve both the learning of students and the teaching practice. Summative
assessment is used to grade students at the end of a module or to accredit them at the end of a
programme.
Formative assessment may be used to contribute to continuous assessment but we would
argue that in order for students to have the maximum opportunities to learn in a module, then
there must be some option for a formative assessment which does not contribute to the final grade.
Students can then obtain feedback which will allow them to address any gaps in their knowledge
or skills.

106
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Action Trigger

• What knowledge do you want to assess? Refer to your learning out-

comes.

• What skills do you want to test?

• Have you built in provision for formative and summative assessment?

• What weighting do you want to give to the final exam and other forms
of continuous assessment?

Despite the fact that there are a variety of assessment methods available, Brown (1999:8) notes
‘that the range of ways that students are assessed is extremely limited with around 80% of assess-
ments being in the form of exams, essays and reports of some kind.’ We would encourage you to
give consideration to a wide range of possible assessment methods.
Table 2 will outline a range of assessment methods to assist you in choosing an appropriate
assessment taking into account the link between learning outcomes and assessment, within the
context of modularity.

Tab. 2:
Learning Outcomes Teaching Strategy Learner Activity Assessing for Learning
Knowledge Transmit / Lecture Reproduce learning Essay exam
Inform Reading Linking to theory Assignment; Open
Book exam
Tutorial Clarify and expand Reflective Journal
Researching Self-directed Assignment
learning
Engage Discussion Interpreting Interview; Presentation;
knowledge Viva
Question & Answer Clarify knowledge Quiz
Peer Teaching & Providing multiple Self and peer
Learning perspectives; self assessment; Portfolio;
insight Project
Web-based Exploring learning; Computer Assisted
Skills Teaching Providing multiple Assessment
perspectives;
Practice Seminar Clarify knowledge Presentation; Project
Class Presentation Presentation skills Presentation
Field Trip Experiential Project
Application Laboratory Apply theory to Practical Assessment;
practice Lab Reports
Demonstration Deepen
understanding Practical Assessment
Games Exploring learning
Problem solving Transform
knowledge Set problems in Exam
Case Study Appraising;
synthesing Case Study Assessment
Group work Transform
knowledge Group Project

Assessment should be given serious consideration and reflection and the choice of assessment
methods should clearly relate to the learning outcomes. There will rarely be one method of as-
sessment which satisfies all learning outcomes for a module and we would recommend that in
devising your assessment strategy, a variety of methods is included.

107
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

It is also important for module designers to think about how modularity may impact upon
assessment practices and give consideration to some of the pitfalls associated with assessment
within modular structures. In designing or redesigning modules, it is vital to bear in mind which
parameters of assessment do you need to agree on as a group, and which can be left to indi-
vidual teachers or subject coordinators. In a modular system, it is important to guard against
over-assessing students based on the unit of study. Also there is a tendency in a modular curricu-
lum to crowd the assessments with the result that students are handing in multiple assessments
at the mid way point and at the end. This is an unacceptable burden for students and it is there-
fore vitally important that within a programme of study, the timetable of assessment is planned
thoroughly in advance so the students do not face this problem.

Supporting your Learners

In designing modules consideration should be given to the type of learner support which will be
required for the achievement of the learning outcomes. There are administrative issues around
module design: scheduling of teachers, students, teaching activities, assessment time and module
resources. Many modules are over ambitious and require more time on the part of students for
their completion than is reasonable. Modules depend for their success on the careful allocation of
resources, whether this is teaching rooms, laboratories, library facilities and equipment.
Whether you are teaching a module alone, or are adopting a team-teaching approach, you will
find a need for support, whether it be technically subject-specific, audio-visual, information skills
or information technology, and it is important to think through the issues around support.

Action Trigger

• Have you considered the implications of the likely background, qual-

ifications and
experience of students?

• Have you considered a learner support policy?

• Have you ideas for producing a student guide for the module?

Evaluation Mechanisms
Module design and development is an ongoing process and this section will look at the kind
of evaluation mechanisms that might be used to elicit meaningful information to assist you in
reviewing and improving your module. This should be based upon criteria that are co-operatively
developed and concerned with gathering information about the quality and effectiveness of the
module. Evaluation is not just a retrospective process, but can be an integral part of the module
development, informing you before, during and after the process.
When designing your evaluation strategy it is important to consider the following:

108
 Roisin Donnelly and Marian Fitzmaurice

Action Trigger

• Are you designing into the module opportunities for feedback and
evaluation?

• Are you using feedback and evaluative processes throughout the year
not just as part of annual monitoring and review?

• Who is the evaluation for?

• Why are you carrying out the evaluation?

• What will your evaluation do?

• What kind of information do you want to collect?

• What do you plan to do with the information once collected?

Before selecting your evaluation methods within the strategy, the key thing to consider is your
evaluation question i.e. what do you want to know? Your selection of methods will be determined
by considering, for example, who the evaluation is for, the scale of your evaluation, the necessity
for authenticity within the data collection and levels of resources available to you. A range of
methods can be employed and further reading is available (Neary 2002; Posner and Rudnitsky
2001).
When designing your evaluation strategy it is important to consider when you will collect
your data and how you will select your student and/or stakeholder sample. It is also recom-
mended that something is done with any data collected and if students have been involved in the
data collection, try and feedback any data and make changes as appropriate.

Conclusion
This chapter has demonstrated that the creation of a constructive learning environment requires
thoughtful planning at module level. The purpose of the chapter has been to enable teachers to
explore the factors that impact on the curriculum design process and to use learning outcomes
as an organizing principle for module design. The focus of the chapter has been on developing
coherence in the curriculum through the use of learning outcomes, teaching methods, materials
and activities, and assessment. The main question to be asked is what do students need to learn
and how best can they be facilitated to learn it.
We hope that you have found working through this chapter has helped to clarify the module
design process and has provided you with a useful starting point to begin this journey. This brings
to an end the design and plan of your module, but in a sense there is never a close, but rather it is
a continuing process of reflection and review.

References
Barnett, R., G. Parry, and K. Coate (2004). Conceptualising Curriculum Change. In M. Tight (Ed.),
The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Higher Education. RoutledgeFalmer.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE/OU Press.

Brown, G. and M. Atkins (1991). Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Brown, S. (1999). Institutional Strategies for Assessment. In S. Brown and A. Glasner (Eds.),
Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

109
 D ESIGNING MODULES FOR LEARNING

Carlile, O. and A. Jordan (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical
underpinnings of pedagogy. In S. Moore, G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues
in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of Teaching and Learning. Chistester: Wiley.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Bristol: Oxford Centre for Staff Devel-
opment.

Higgs, B. and M. McCarthy (2005). Active Learning — from Lecture Theatre to Field-work. In
S. Moore, G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning
and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a Teacher in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/OU Press.

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

McInnis, C. (2000). Changing academic work roles: the everyday realities challenging quality in
teaching. Quality in Higher Education 6(2), 143–52.

Moon, J. (2002). The Module and Programme Development Handbook. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Neary, M. (2002). Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult Education. Cheltenham: Nelson
Thornes Ltd.
Posner, G. J. and A. N. Rudnitsky (2001). Course Design: A Guide to Curriculum Development for
Teachers. New York: Longman.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.

110
N EW TRENDS IN ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT :
REFLECTIVE JOURNALS , TEACHING PORTFOLIOS ,
ACCREDITATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Iain MacLaren
National University of Ireland, Galway
E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction
A renewed professionalism has taken seed in higher education in Ireland and elsewhere, with a
long overdue acceptance of the need to provide teaching staff with frameworks for professional
development in the area of teaching practice. The professional scholar, but amateur teacher model
of the past is increasingly untenable in an era of widening diversity, greater public accountability
and technological and institutional transformation. In this chapter, we will explore a range of
relatively recent developments (in Irish terms) in the field of academic staff development, sur-
veying the current landscape and reflecting on evolving international trends. We will explore
the concept of the reflective practitioner, which is increasingly emerging as the dominant para-
digm in many professional development programmes in higher education, through discussion
of reflective writing and teaching portofolios. In addition, the new trend towards the provision of
accredited, post-graduate level qualifications will be discussed through comparison between the
UK and Ireland.

Teaching Portfolios
Boyer’s concept of the “scholarships of higher education” (Boyer 1990), which sought a new ap-
proach to the traditional research vs teaching debate, has been strongly influential in the US and
has made gradual progress elsewhere. Coupled with Schön’s work on reflective practice (Schön
1983; 1987), it has helped fuel the acceptance of teaching portfolios as a means of documenting
teaching practice and encouraging critical self-reflection. As Shulman states:

My argument is that until we find ways of publicly displaying, examining, archiving,

and referencing teaching as a form of scholarship and investigation, our pedagogical
knowledge and know-how will never serve us as scholars in the ways our research
does. The archival functions of research scaffold our frailties of memory, and we need
something comparable for the scholarship of teaching

(Shulman (1998) as quoted in Lyons et al. (2002))

Teaching portfolios have thus emerged as the dominant form of such “archiving” and are now
very well established, with over 2,000 colleges and universities in the US currently supporting or
developing teaching portfolio schemes, as discussed in Seldin (2004) review - which also provides
large numbers of example portfolios from across a range of disciplines and institutions.

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 N EW TRENDS IN ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT: REFLECTIVE JOURNALS , TEACHING PORTFOLIOS ,
ACCREDITATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The use of Teaching Portfolios in Irish universities was pioneered at UCC (University College,
Cork), driven at Vice-Presidential level and nurtured by links with US expertise, primarily by sup-
porting a distinguished visiting scholar. In this particular model, teaching portfolios have been
explicitly linked with the promotion of the “scholarship of teaching.” A pilot portfolio scheme
was structured around a seminar series, with participation by staff from a range of academic dis-
ciplines (Lyons et al. 2002). The emphasis, as can clearly be seen in this publication, has been
strongly placed on the development of a statement of personal, individual teaching philosophy
(e.g. McCarthy 2002). In many ways, it is this aspect of portfolio writing that poses the greatest
challenge, highlighting the lack of tradition and familiarity both with reflective writing itself and
in discussion of teaching-related issues from an academic perspective. The UCC model is com-
mendable in establishing a local community of practice and a network for peer-support amongst
at least the first cohort of portfolio writers. Now that portfolios are becoming required “artefacts”
in evidence of teaching excellence for promotion applications, however, this model may face some
challenges. One would suspect, that a new cohort of participants with this more explicit, more
instrumental focus, may prove less tolerant of wide ranging, open discussion on philosophical
matters and keener to relate to a more standardised portfolio format.
Indeed, if one compares the examples presented in Lyons et al., with those included in Seldin’s
recent volume (and many other examples, which are increasingly available on the internet) a
distinction becomes apparent between two groupings of portfolio types. The first is those which,
as in the UCC experience, have emerged from a mutual, collaborative exploration of fundamental
issues and principles in teaching and learning (e.g. McCarthy 2002). Such writing documents a
process of conceptual change or a transformation of perspective. The second grouping, is rather
more “pragmatic” in style and provides some minimal level of critical reflection, including a
rather brief statement of teaching philosophy (e.g. Mues and Sorcinelli 2000). It is this second type,
however, that appears dominant, driven, no doubt, by its primary use as evidence in support of a
case for promotion (or tenure), but also by its relative ease of construction (3–7 Mues and Sorcinelli
2000).
Indeed, the acceptance of portfolios by university administration as a legitimate (and in some
cases, compulsory) means of evidencing “excellence” in teaching, has arguably been the primary
factor in boosting portfolio uptake (e.g. Hyland 2002). Within Ireland, this approach has also
taken hold, and while to be welcomed by the advocates of “the scholarship of teaching”, there
should be no delusions about the instrumentalist rationale and the consequent limitations of such
documents. The issue now, for academic staff developers, becomes one of taking existing portfo-
lios, produced for promotion applications, and turning these into living documents that play a key
role in informing and transforming day-to-day teaching practice.
It is not sufficient in such a context to simply require the inclusion of “evidence of reflection”.
The question of review, comparison and ultimately, of grading portfolios is of key importance.
Promotions panels, awards committees and other potential recipients of portfolio submissions
need to be adequately trained and experienced in recognising what makes an effective portfolio.
If evidence of reflective practice is sought, then clear examples and explanations require to be
offered in such training and this can prove difficult. But these are the same problems faced by
academic staff that seek to encourage their students to be more reflective and demonstrate critical
thinking. How is it possible to measure reflection? What are the hallmarks of reflective writing
and how can one measure the “depth” of any discussion or critique?

Reflective Writing in Journals and Portfolios

A number of approaches to examining reflective writing are discussed in detail in Moon’s work
(1999; 2000). One such approach, which we have used in a major study on the continuing profes-
sional development of high school teachers (Susilowati et al. 2004; Mac Labhrainn et al. 2004) is to
build on van Mannen’s (1995) “levels of reflection.” A simple scheme identifying 4 or 5 apparent
levels of reflective analysis, or depth of critique, has been shown to have strong inter-grader relia-

112
 Iain MacLaren

bility and to provide a close relationship with levels of performance, particularly at postgraduate
level. These levels and their characteristics are described in table 1.

Tab. 1: A coding scheme for reflective journals based on van Mannen’s levels of reflection.
Level Description Indicators
0 Non reflective. The entry in the learning journal/reflective portfo-
lio is either irrelevant to the question or no entry
is written for the question.

1 Everyday The entry states common sense thinking and act-

thinking and ing which was derived from habitual or routine
acting action. It is intuitive and pre-reflective. No fur-
ther reasoning or explanation is given to the entry.

2 Reflection on Further reasoning or explanation is given to the

incidental and entry. The reasoning or explanation given shows
a limited way limited insight related to practical principles, “dos
on practical and don’ts” or rules of thumb.
experiences in
everyday life.
3 More system- The reasoning or explanation given is more struc-
atic reflection tured, based on existing theories or others’ ac-
on own expe- cepted perspectives and experiences. The entry
rience and that shows indication of theoretical understanding or
of others. critical insight into the
matter.

4 Reflect on the The entry demonstrates a more self-reflective

way we reflect grasp of the nature of the knowledge, how knowl-
on the form of edge functions in action and how it can be ap-
our theorising. plied to the active understanding of the practical
action. It could also show the transformation of
the writer’s thinking or belief.

Sources: Van Mannen (1995); Susilowati et al. (2004)

Indeed, in this and related work, the concept of a reflective learning journal structured around
guiding questions and peer discussion, has proven highly effective. This reflective journal can be
used as a means of developing an individual narrative through the content of a professional level
course and tackling directly higher order intended learning outcomes. In essence, such journals
form a mediated dialogue between writer and tutor/mentor.
Laurillard (2002) has argued that such a dialogue or “conversational framework” is a charac-
teristic hallmark of academic learning. Although much of her writing has focussed on the poten-
tial roles of technology in contemporary higher education, this seminal volume takes a far wider
brief and explores a number of possible theoretical groundings for higher education studies, rais-
ing interesting questions about the extent to which critical thinking and active learner engagement
is taking place in mainstream higher education degree programmes, not just those supported by
technology. The theoretical and ideological context in which portfolio assessment is situated is
also something which has received only fairly limited attention to date. Moon (2000), of course,
provides an excellent overview and a critique of many of the standpoints regarding the act of
reflection itself. Johnston (2003), highlights the issue of developing approaches to assessment and

113
 N EW TRENDS IN ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT: REFLECTIVE JOURNALS , TEACHING PORTFOLIOS ,
ACCREDITATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

measuring outcomes and how these relate to a number of possible different theoretical/cultural
positions.
One of the difficulties of simple self-reflection, is the danger that it becomes too introspective,
unchallenged, ego-centric and self-limiting (Bleakley 2000; Land 2003; Moon 2000). In the case
of the teaching philosophy statements found in all teaching portfolios, for example, there is the
distinct possibility that such statements are essentially constructed as post-hoc justifications for the
teaching methods used, which were most probably adopted through custom and tradition, rather
than through a process of critical investigation or through a desire for “constructive alignment”
(Biggs 2003). The role of a mentor, tutor or “critical friend” able to challenge statements and
question assumptions therefore becomes central to any attempt to shift from the instrumental
approach to a scholarship orientation.

Professional Qualifications in Teaching & Learning

Whilst Teaching Portfolios have served as the principal means of promoting the idea of the schol-
arship of teaching and laying the foundations for a more formalised basis for the continuing
professional development of academic staff (or “faculty”) in US universities, the situation else-
where is somewhat different. In the UK, for example, the major focus of attention has been on
the development and delivery of postgraduate level qualifications in teaching and learning. It
is now compulsory in most UK institutions for new academic staff to complete at least a post-
graduate certificate in this field. Opportunities also exist in many cases to pursue such studies
to postgraduate diploma or masters’ levels. However, certificate level programmes are the most
“popular.”
The timescale over which such programmes have moved from piloting to compulsory, proba-
tionary requirements has been remarkably short, driven strongly by government focus on quality
issues in higher education, and triggered by the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into
Higher Education (NCIHE 1997). This rapid development has not been without criticism and
dispute, but should not be portrayed as simply a struggle between the forces of change and tra-
ditional vested interests. There have been serious, legitimate concerns about the nature of higher
education and the appropriateness of the proposed frameworks. Indeed, the theoretical under-
pinnings of many such programmes have also been challenged. For example, Schön’s reflective
practice (Schön 1983) approach is particularly popular, but in truth, whilst there are many exam-
ples of small scale studies in specific academic subject areas, there are as of yet no major, robust
studies indicating that reflective practitioners actually make “better teachers.” Of course, how
one interprets or measures good teaching is itself problematic. But, combined with internal con-
tradictions in some of Schön’s writings (see Moon 2000:46–53, for a detailed discussion) about
specific aspects of the processes of reflection, the issue is worth further research.
Gibbs and Coffey (2004) have investigated the effectiveness of formal training programmes
for university teachers in twenty-two institutions (in eight countries). This study is of particular
value because it examined the impact of the training on the approaches to learning adopted by
students in the classes of the participating teachers. They concluded that there was indeed some
evidence that students were less likely to adopt surface learning approaches as a result of staff
undertaking year long training programmes.
Haggis (2003) has drawn attention to the almost unchallenged assumptions upon which much
of the ‘standard texts’ in this field are based, in particular the dominant “deep/surface” learning
model. Through probing interviews with students she reveals some of the limitations and dangers
of interpreting such research in over-simplistic terms and raises a number of interesting questions.
The current picture in the UK, then, is one where there are large numbers of postgraduate
certificate programmes for academic staff (almost as many as there are institutions). Most, if
not all, however, have been accredited by the Institute for Learning & Teaching in Higher Education
(ILTHE), now the Higher Education Academy. This accreditation process (Brown 2000), whilst con-
ferring official recognition and approval, does not require the adoption of a standard, national
curriculum, but rather, requires programmes to explore commonly identified key areas. There is,

114
 Iain MacLaren

consequently, a wide range of programmes available, from formal classroom based taught mod-
ules with a range of assessment instruments, to more flexible portfolio-oriented programmes.
However, the history of the ILTHE’s growth and development has revealed tensions within
the community, its relationship with other long standing organisations, such as SEDA (Staff and
Educational Developer’s Association) and the university unions (most notably, the AUT), its ac-
celerated membership programme (based on a very abbreviated “portfolio of evidence”) and the
extent to which it has been accepted (or not) by management and academic communities in old
and new universities have all helped generate a (healthy) debate over the past several years. Now
in a merger with other, hitherto autonomous, organisations and projects (e.g. the LTSN – Learning
& Teaching Support Network) it has been recast as the HEA (resulting in an interesting acronym
conflict with Ireland’s Higher Education Authority!) which has been viewed with suspicion by
some as being far more an instrument of government control. Although this point is contested
by virtue of its retention of “mass” membership and elements of democratic/representative gov-
ernance, there is no doubt that it is an instrument through which government higher education
priorities can be pursued. Interestingly, particularly given the devolution settlement of recent
years, the new Academy is closely allied with the Higher Education Funding Council for England
and there seems at least an incomplete appreciation, amongst some members at any rate, that
higher education policy is now devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

The Irish Context

For Ireland, as a near (and conjoined) neighbour, these developments are important, given at-
tempts to strengthen links between institutions in the North and the Republic (for example through
AISHE – the All Ireland Society for Higher Education, and Universities Ireland). The ILTHE, as was,
attempted to open its membership to academic staff in the Republic, with some limited success,
but was still viewed very much as UK – centric. Accreditation of courses offered by universities
in the Republic, however, has not been pursued since there is a view that, not only is there not a
requirement for such accreditation nor any perception of conferred advantage, but that there is
value in maintaining a distinctively Irish quality to the programmes on offer.
Outwith the UK, such programmes are not as developed or firmly embedded in preparation
for higher education teaching careers (especially at university level in those countries where the
“binary divide” has been maintained), although a number of European countries have long estab-
lished schemes more akin to “apprenticeship”, but also which include, increasingly, formalised
certificated courses. There are significant cultural variations across Europe, but these issues are
being explored through a variety of projects and organisations (for example the EUA). Given
moves towards greater European harmonisation through, for example, the Bologna process (see,
for example, Reichert and Tauch 2003), it is likely that the issue of staff training and development
will become increasingly prominent in the next few years.
In Ireland, such courses are (at the time of writing) available to academic staff in DIT, UCC,
NUI Galway and UCD, with indications that others are ready either to develop their own or to
share those of partner institutions. Issues currently being debated are similar to those in the UK,
and also focus on the value of Masters and Diploma courses as opposed to Certificate level. The
latter, of course, are likely to receive a higher uptake, but the challenge is in encouraging longer
term, continuing professional development and opportunities may exist through modular structures
and incorporating wider areas of “academic practice”, such as postgraduate student supervision,
research strategy, etc.

Conclusions
These are exciting times in academic staff development. We are witnessing a renewed interest
at the highest levels in issues relating to teaching practice, career progression and the role of the
sector in the wider society. Teaching itself is beginning to develop a greater legitimacy within
the academy (see for example Becher and Trowler (2001) for the definitive study of these cultural

115
 N EW TRENDS IN ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT: REFLECTIVE JOURNALS , TEACHING PORTFOLIOS ,
ACCREDITATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

aspects): acquiring the attributes of scholarly activity, building a research literature and growing
international communities of practice. This is only, however, the beginning of the journey and a
great number of challenges lie ahead, not least of which is the extent to which developments are
driven by government policy or the academic community themselves.
The initiatives in Teaching Portfolios and formal postgraduate, professional certificate pro-
grammes are becoming increasingly important as a demonstration of the community’s desire to
professionalise the teaching role. An issue which still requires to be explored in some depth,
however, is the cultural, political, ethical and institutional context in which such programmes are
offered. Prosser and Trigwell (1997) have demonstrated that the context in which teachers teach
shapes their approach to teaching, mirroring the contextual influences on students’ approaches
to learning. However, a similar argument could be made that the context in which these profes-
sional teaching programmes and portfolio initiatives are developed and delivered is likely to have
a strong influence on their content, format, impact and value (Trowler and Cooper 2002; O’Neill
and Mac Labhrainn 2004).
It is also, for example, no use denying that developing a strong research profile is still of
central importance for a career plan in most universities and the positioning of teaching vis-à-vis
research is still problematic, even given the widespread adoption of courses and, increasingly,
portfolios. There is considerable opportunity for seeking synergy between these two roles, not
just in following Boyer’s scholarship approach, but also more overtly in directly linking aspects
of the two as central, defining attributes of a modern academic.
Indeed, it is to be hoped that looking from this perspective there might also be a greater reali-
sation of the need to widen our view of the role of higher education in society, breaking out of the
somewhat sterile contemporary discussions around the “knowledge economy” and acknowledg-
ing the political, economic, cultural and sociological reality in which we are all daily immersed.

References
Becher, T. and P. R. Trowler (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK:
SRHE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and
Open University Press.

Bleakley, A. (2000). Writing with invisible ink: narrative, confessionalism and reflective practice.
Reflective Practice 1(1), 11–24.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Ad-
vancement of Teaching.

Brown, S. (2000). The Institute for Learning and Teaching and UK approaches to accrediting
teaching: looking to the future. Medical Teacher 22(5), 513–516.

Gibbs, G. and M. Coffey (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teachin
skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning
in Higher Education 5, 87–100.

Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to

learning’ research in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology 29, 143–169.

Hyland, A. (2002). Recognising and Rewarding Teaching Within a University: The University
College Cork Experience. In N. Lyons, A. Hyland, and N. Ryan (Eds.), Advancing the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning Through a Reflective Portfolio Process. UCC, Cork.

Johnston, B. (2003). Summative assessment of portfolios: an examination of different approaches

to agreement over outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 29(3), 395–412.

116
 Iain MacLaren

Land, R. (2003). Orientations to Academic Development. In H. Eggins and R. Macdonald (Eds.),

The Scholarship of Academic Development. Buckingham, UK: SRHE, Open University Press.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use
of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Lyons, N., A. Hyland, and N. Ryan (2002). Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Through a Reflective Portfolio Process: The University College Cork Experience. UCC, Cork.
Mac Labhrainn, I., K. Susilowati, and E. Boyle (2004, 14th -16th September). CPD by e-Learning:
the challenge of Reflective Practice and Assessment. In Association for Learning Technology Con-
ference, Exeter, UK.
McCarthy, M. (2002). Where Finbarr Taught, Let Munster Learn. In N. Lyons, A. Hyland, and
N. Ryan (Eds.), Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Through a Reflective Portfolio
Process: The University College Cork Experience. UCC, Cork.
Moon, J. (1999). Learning Journals: A Handbook for Academics, Students and Professional Development.
London: Kogan Page.
Moon, J. (2000). Reflection in Learning & Professional Development: Theory and Practice. London:
Kogan Page.
Mues, F. and M. D. Sorcinelli (2000). Preparing a Teaching Portfolio. Amherst: Center for Teaching,
University of Massachusetts.
NCIHE (1997). Higher Education in the learning society. Technical report, National Committee
of Inquiry into Higher Education, Norwich: The Stationery Office.
O’Neill, G. and I. Mac Labhrainn (2004, September 2nd -3rd ). Frameworks for qualifications in
teaching and learning in higher education. In paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of the
All Ireland Society for Higher Education, Dublin. [Available online at http://www.aishe.org/
conf2004/proceedings/paper35.doc].
Prosser, M. and K. Trigwell (1997). Perceptions of the teaching environment and its relationship
to approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1(67), 25–35.
Reichert, S. and R. Tauch (2003). Trends 2003: Progress towards the European Higher Education Area.
Brussels: European University Association.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating The Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seldin, P. (2004). The Teaching Portfolio (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Shulman, L. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teach-
ing. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The Course Portfolio. Washington, DC: The American Association for
Higher Education.
Susilowati, K., E. Boyle, and I. Mac Labhrainn (2004, September 14th -16th ). An Investigation into
Students’ Reflective Thinking in Online Discussion Fora. In Association for Learning Technology
Conference, Exeter, UK.
Trowler, P. and A. Cooper (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories and recur-
rent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development
programmes. Higher Education Research and Development 21(3), 221–240.
Van Mannen, M. (1995). On the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice 1(1), 33–50.

117
118
W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT
THE INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC

Margaret O’Flanagan∗
Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland
E-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS: Institutional Research, Quantitative Approaches, Educational Development,

Higher Education, Ireland, Academic Teaching

Introduction
All academic practitioners need information to help them decide what to do next from time to
time. Information sources vary according to the issue at hand. In terms of learning development,
reflective practitioners have numerous potential resources available to help them to understand
the factors affecting student learning. Many qualitative methods exist to evaluate the learning
process and experience (e.g. Light and Cox 2001). While qualitative approaches provide an excel-
lent and rich resource, it is important to consider all resources, including those often dismissively
referred to as ‘bean counting’, or more accurately, quantitative methods.
Quantitative methods are a central plank of the practice of Institutional Research and provide
information that can speed up assessment of an issue while also providing context. Starting off
with quantitative analysis can support the speedy identification of the existence, or otherwise,
of patterns; leaving more resources and time available to explore and understand phenomena.
While quantitative methods may not always support detailed insight into the working of new
learning methodologies, they can shed light on the impact they have on students, and the inter-
secting impact of other factors operating to influence the experience of a given cohort.

What is Institutional Research?

Institutional Research is the practice whereby an institution assesses itself, its activities and its
position within a given milieu. Higher Education Institutional Research facilities, where they
exist, conduct these assessments with the objective of serving ‘as a comprehensive resource for
information about the institution’ (University of Florida, Office of Institutional Research, Mission
Statement). The data resources employed usually comprise information derived from surveys,
student record and other internal record systems, sectoral and national databases and reports and
published research. The actual assessments, analyses and hypotheses tested cover issues requir-
ing ongoing monitoring as well as the exploration of emerging issues to inform an institution’s
decision-making with regard to its own development.
Institutional Research is a relatively new concept in the Irish context in particular, and devel-
opment of the practice is so far limited and very uneven. The type of work done by Institutional
Research Units in other countries is, in Ireland, generally done across a number of disparate units
and services. Some elements of Institutional Research are not currently undertaken, or are not
easily available, in most Irish institutions.
∗ Institutional Analysis and Awards Officer, Registry, Dublin City University, at the time of writing

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC

Institutional Research and Formal Evaluation in Higher Education

The term “Institutional Research” may be more familiar to academics and education profession-
als in North America and Australia than it is to those in Ireland and some parts of Europe. Where
Institutional Research is well-developed, and even in Ireland where the practice is only now
emerging in a recognisable form, common databases and comparative analyses based on shared
methodologies allow institutions to compare themselves, or benchmark, against other institu-
tions and agreed standards (e.g. US Common Data Set; UK Higher Education Statistics Agency
(HESA), Irish Higher Education Authority (HEA)).
A good starting point for developing an understanding of the scope of Institutional Research
is the US based Association for Institutional Research (AIR). AIR hosts a website (http://www.
airweb.org) which reflects a vibrant and creative network of Institutional Researchers. The
association has been incorporated since 1965 and has over 3,000 US based members as well as
international affiliated associations including:
• Southern African Association for Institutional Research (SAAIR)
• South East Asia Association for Institutional Research (SEAAIR)
• Australasian Association for Institutional Research (AAIR)
• European Higher Education Society (EAIR)
• Canadian Institutional Researchers and Planners Association (CIRPA)
The Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) at The University of Melbourne, while
not restricted to Institutional Research, is an invaluable resource for the tools and principles avail-
able for use in the study of Higher Education, be that within an institution or on a much broader
basis. Operating now for 35 years the CSHE undertakes work within the University of Melbourne
as well as nationally and internationally. The Centre’s website (http://www.cshe.unimelb.
edu.au/) includes a section on academic development outlining services ‘available on request
to assist departments in the evaluation, review and planning of strategies to improve the quality
of teaching and learning’ which form an excellent basis on which to develop a local strategy for
evaluation and development.
In recent years the international drive to improve quality and assess quality improvements in a
manner supporting transparent comparison and benchmarking across national Higher Education
sectors has been one trigger for improved Institutional Research. The old paradigm whereby it
was believed that Universities were the only bodies capable of assessing University activities has
undergone a seismic shift in recent decades. Now, Higher Education institutions all over the
world, including Universities, are required to open themselves to performance evaluation. Like
the UK in the 1980s (Johnes and Taylor 1990b) Ireland, particularly since the implementation of
the Universities Act 1997, and in line with an increased demand for accountability in all publicly
funded bodies, is moving towards a situation similar to the UK’s ‘evaluative state’ (Henkel 1991).
While Irish quality review systems are based on peer review of a self-assessment, and formal
league tables have been avoided thus far, external review is becoming more common with the
EUA review of Irish Universities and the recently published OECD report (OECD 2004) while the
print media in particular are moving towards the generation of informal league tables such as
the Sunday Times University of the Year Award. The Irish Higher Education Authority has also
published numerous reports on various aspects of the University system in particular (e.g. Mor-
gan et al. 2001; Skilbeck 2001) in addition to regular reporting on First Destinations and Annual
Reports in paper and electronic formats.

Institutional Research and the individual academic

Our focus here is local information, what the Institutional Research resource or it’s equivalent in
your institution, can provide in terms of data and analyses to support your teaching and develop-
ment. Institutional Research offices do not always exist, in some cases there is no such resource,

120
 Margaret O’Flanagan

in others there is a full or partial resource which can be located within a variety of structures
including the student records section or its equivalent, the President’s Office, Registry or Learn-
ing Development facility in centralised institutional structures. In Dublin City University’s case
the ‘Institutional Analysis Office’ (http://www.dcu.ie/registry/emao/index.shtml) is
currently located within the Registry’s Awards’ Team, although it has developed through numer-
ous identities and continues to do so, reflecting the early evolutionary nature of this activity at
present.
Analyses of data drawn from electronic student records systems and surveying, while not
comprising the entire gamut of Institutional Research resources and techniques, are the most
obviously applicable to the needs of academics seeking to better understand student learning.
Individual academics, as well as departments, have always carried out analyses using available
data to assess student performance. The differences with the current situation; with the growing
interest in Institutional Research, the advent of integrated computerised records systems and the
emphasis on reliable data production methods for quality review in particular, are:
• The huge expansion in the breadth of data available providing the critical mass necessary
for effective statistical analyses
• The improved quality of the data available
• The increasing availability of sufficient data for longitudinal analyses, and
• The greater availability of dedicated staff within HE structures with the skills, tools and
expertise to undertake meaningful and reliable analyses.
This piece does not recommend or promote reliance on empirical statistical analyses alone
to inform understanding and promote learning development. Rather, it suggests that the con-
siderable body of data and analyses developed for Institutional Research purposes represent an
invaluable resource for academic practitioners seeking context and information to support indi-
vidual understanding and decision-making.
Institutional Research; based as it is on expert knowledge of available data, the skills to manip-
ulate that data for targeted analyses and the use of student record data in particular, can provide
insights on visible and invisible characteristics in increasingly large and diverse student cohorts
without the need to carry out surveys to test hypotheses. In essence, from the individual acad-
emic’s perspective, Institutional Research can often provide a shortcut to a level of initial under-
standing, releasing time and resources for well-founded qualitative investigation.

Institutional Research and You

Introduction
This section outlines the types of questions Institutional Research facilities can address to support
the individual academic as well as providing an example of an Institutional Research project and
examples of the queries often made to the Institutional Analysis Office in Dublin City University.
The most commonly requested analyses in DCU, where a substantial number of staff have
engaged with Institutional Research as an additional tool available to support their decision-
making, include:
• Marks ranges applied in particular subjects over time and correlation with changing char-
acteristics in student cohorts with regard to prior attainment
• The impact of separate components (e.g. modules) on overall award classifications over
time
• The effect of the size of continuous assessment components on overall marks awarded
• The entry standard below which students have a substantially increased risk of failure

121
 W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC

• The importance of mathematical ability in overall performance in Science and Engineering

• Application, acceptance, registration and withdrawal figures for programmes reflecting de-
mand, perception and experience.

Many of these types of queries subsequently lead to requests for comparative information. In
general, once the internal situation is understood there is a desire to deepen understanding by
comparing local activities with practice elsewhere within the institution, or in a similar discipline
externally. In Ireland in particular, self-assessment and external assessment have become more
widespread. Benchmarking, however, has not.

Questions Institutional Research May Help You to Answer

From the academic’s perspective, one of the greatest benefits of an Institutional Research facility
is knowledge of the information available and knowledge of other analyses underway. Having
a central resource means that individual academics do not need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when an
issue requiring investigation arises. Those in the Institutional Research facility will probably have
done a similar analysis in the past and be in a position to undertake the desired piece of research
quickly and efficiently. Knowing what information is available is equally as important as the abil-
ity to manipulate it. Johnes and Taylor (1990a) found, when developing an indicator for standard
of degrees awarded across institutions, that the indicator had to be tempered with explanatory
variables, some of which related to student characteristics. These explanatory variables, which
were used to develop an expected value against which the actual value could be rated, included
A level scores and the proportion of the student cohort living at home as well as library expen-
diture among the six items used. While library expenditure is not a student related variable, it is
also not one that each individual academic might be expected to include in an assessment aimed
at explaining why the standard of awards made in their own institution differ to those made to
students in the same discipline elsewhere. The same is true for the impact of the proportion of a
student cohort living at home.
The following questions and possible analyses illustrate two sample queries likely to benefit
from the support of Institutional Research:

122
 Margaret O’Flanagan

Question: Failure rates have risen dramatically in one of my modules, but

I have not changed my methods and I can’t see why this has happened.
Possible analyses and items for correlation with performance in the mod-
ule:

• Changes in entry requirements

• Changes in actual pre-entry educational attainment (e.g. CAO

points (ROI), A Level score (UK)) of the cohort.

• Standards achieved pre-entry in core subjects such as mathematics.

• Changes in size of class group

• Changes in origins of class group (are all native speakers of the lan-
guage of delivery?)

• Gender, Age, Educational and Social characteristics, Entry route

and attendance type profiles1

• Range of marks used over time in assessing the module

Question: Student retention in my field is poor, I understand some of the

reasons why but I want to address the problem and need a comprehen-
sive picture of what is happening.
Possible analyses and items for correlation with performance in the sub-
ject:

• What is the student profile now, how has it changed and how is it
likely to change in the future?

• What are the particular programme elements contributing most

consistently to non-completion.

• What do the students think?

• Are student expectations of the programme realistic prior to entry?

• Do entry requirements need to be recalibrated based on changes in

standards or curricula outside the Institution?

• Would a change in programme content, providing extra support in

problem areas, help students to progress?

1 Note: this type of analysis would be aimed at identifying if the pedagogical approach is appropriate to the students’

prior experience. For example, it might indicate that the cohort profile has shifted towards older learners to whom the
existing pedagogical approach may not be appropriate.

123
 W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC

This second example, relating to factors that may affect student retention, is of key impor-
tance and an excellent example of how different data resources can be readily drawn together by
Institutional Researchers in a manner that may be very difficult for individual academics.
Undertaking a project to assess factors affecting student retention is a daunting task, not least
because of the breadth of factors that may or may not be included in the research. The first task
is to get a general understanding of the institution, the subject area and the departmental and
broader environments in which students are operating. The following case study illustrates just
such a project and how it might work, based on a current Institutional Research project in DCU.

Case Study/Sample Project: Attitudes, experiences and characteristics influencing

student progression – A DCU pilot for assessing the impact of diverse factors through the
first year of study
This project is a good example of how the combined skills and resources of a dedicated Institu-
tional Research facility, working with other experts in the institution, can contribute to an under-
standing of the dynamics affecting student progression and completion. While initially aimed at
the institutional level, the methods as well as the results can be applied and employed according
to the needs of the individual academic. Jointly run by the Institutional Analysis Officer and the
First Year Student Support Facilitator in DCU, the project draws together information held on the
central student record system and information derived from a series of three student surveys.
The surveys, run at the beginning, mid-point and end of the academic year, are not anony-
mous. This is made clear to the students at the point when they agree to participate in the study
and sign an agreement in line with the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 having been furnished
with an outline of the project. The surveys track changing attitudes as well as academic progress
through the first year. In addition to identifying key factors impacting on progression, the study
is intended to weed out factors that do not actually have any significant effect on student progres-
sion so that remedies and initiatives can be focussed on the most significant influencing factors.
The study, while not focussed on a specific programme, has the input of a number of acad-
emics and is intended to provide guidelines for identifying and addressing emerging retention
problems within programmes of study.
The aims of the project, in brief, are as follows:

1. To explore a wide range of aspects of the experience of undergraduate students with the
specific purpose of identifying factors that may influence programme completion.
2. To ascertain the factors and relationships determining the qualitative nature of the student
experience while in DCU.

3. To explore the interrelationship between pre-entry expectations and experienced reality of

the university experience.

4. To refine understanding of the relevance of different factors affecting student retention, with
a view to focussing efforts and resources on the most potent influencing factors.

(O’Flanagan and Crehan 2004)

Data Used for the Study:

The first survey, taken at point of registration includes the following core elements:

1. Biographical Detail,

2. Self evaluation of personal characteristics; including tenacity, mathematical and writing

ability, ambition, academic ability and self-confidence,

3. Factors affecting the decision to study at University,

124
 Margaret O’Flanagan

4. Level of prior understanding of the programme,

5. Anticipated time spent on specified work, study and social activities,
6. Difficulties anticipated,
7. Perceived locus of responsibility for learning and the role of the lecturer,
8. Priorities while at University, academic ambitions and career goals,
9. Family educational background,
10. Financial concerns,
11. Perception of the experience of studying at Higher level in practical terms, and
12. The anticipated best and worst elements of the experience of study at University.
The second survey reviews issues assessed in the first including:
1. Self evaluation of characteristics,
2. Level of prior understanding of the programme,
3. Actual time spent on specific activities,
4. Difficulties encountered,
5. Perceived locus of responsibility for learning and the role of the lecturer,
6. Priorities while at University, academic ambitions and career goals,
7. Financial concerns, and
8. The best and worst elements of the experience thus far.
New issues covered in the second survey include:
1. Self identified changes in perception of study at Higher level having spent six months in the
University,
2. Support services accessed, and
3. Integration into campus life/sense of belonging.
The final survey revisits the items covered in the second survey and includes a sub-module
addressed to those who have chosen to change programmes, defer or withdraw from the institu-
tion.
A key element of the study is the combination of the data gathered through the surveys with
information stored on the student record system. In addition to aggregate completion rates, indi-
vidual level data elements are taken from the official record and include:
1. Academic history including second level results (Leaving Certificate (ROI), A-Levels (UK)
or other national equivalents), institution attended, and level of preference for the course
onto which participants were accepted,
2. Entry route (central clearing house (Central Applications Office in ROI) or direct entry on
the basis of age or other specified characteristics),
3. Modular exam results achieved through the year, including continuous assessment marks,
4. End-of year results,
5. Other official items of record including withdrawal and reasons for withdrawal, changes in
optional programme elements and transfer, and
6. Completion rates at the institutional and discipline level.

125
 W HAT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC

Approach and Outcomes

Using a paper based OMR readable questionnaire in the first instance, followed up with online
surveys, the data were collected and stored in an SPSS database. Using the student number pro-
vided by respondents, records drawn from the University’s student records database (MIS) were
linked and matched to these records to create a master file combining both datasets. The MIS data
in this master file were updated throughout the year following registration and examinations.
The files in which the data are stored and linked are maintained only on a single hard drive
and are not accessible via the University’s networks. The data collected in the surveys cannot
be accessed by anyone other than the researcher and cannot be linked back into the University’s
MIS.
Based on the responses to the survey in the first pilot year, the study is being repeated in
2004/05 using new versions of the questionnaires based on the responses, and analysis of same,
in the first year. The objective, based on the implementation phase as well as analysis of the
available data, is to refine the tool down to a shorter questionnaire and database tool that can be
used to quickly approach and assess factors affecting emerging student retention.
So far, the data have been analysed at Institution, Faculty and Programme levels where there
was sufficient information to do so and the results communicated, in summary form, to the rele-
vant managers. Further analysis was made available on request, including the use of additional
data from the MIS if testing of additional hypotheses was warranted.

Conclusions

Using Institutional Research

Evaluation based on statistical techniques can be daunting at first and, when unfamiliar, even
frightening. Quantitative analysis has languished in the cold, to some extent, because it has been
seen to be ‘incomplete’ and lacking in perspective. There is no doubt that statistics need to be
interpreted, however, in an increasingly evaluative culture, as is the case in Ireland at present,
avoiding quantitative approaches is not only blinkered, but also counter-productive as it means
losing out on high quality support tools that can contribute greatly to reflection, understanding
and development.
There are a host of analyses that can be done using modern databases, computerised tech-
niques and skilled researchers that were unavailable to academics in the past, or at least much
more difficult to undertake or access. Before embarking on any form of quantitative analysis it is
important to consider the origin and quality of the data to be used. If you have an Institutional
Research facility available to you, or a student records or comparable office, it is worth exploring
with colleagues in those services exactly what data are available, where the data came from, what
legal restrictions or implications may pertain to use of the data, what comparable analyses are
available for benchmarking purposes should you require that and what level of reliability testing
may be required. If benchmarking, it is important to ensure that data from external sources is of
the same standards of quality and accuracy as the data sourced within your institution.
Reports produced internally, for internal or external purposes, are a good starting point when
familiarising yourself with your institutional research function, if your institution has developed
one already, and will generally suggest analyses available according to the types of data included
in the reports. In the case of DCU, the provision of such reports generally results in further, more
detailed, queries specific to individual programmes, modules or student cohorts. This is where
the value of Institutional Research to the individual academic comes into it own.

References
Henkel, M. (1991). Government, Evaluation and Change. London: Jessica Kingsley.

126
 Margaret O’Flanagan

Johnes, J. and J. Taylor (1990a). Degree Results: Differences between Universities. Performance
Indicators in Higher Education, 109–118.

Johnes, J. and J. Taylor (1990b). The clamour for performance indicators. Performance Indicators in
Higher Education, 1.

Light, G. and R. Cox (2001). Evaluating: Teaching and course evaluation. Learning and teaching
in Higher Education: The reflective professional, 195–216. Mission statement, Office of Institutional
Research, University of Florida.

Morgan, M., R. Flanagan, and T. Kellaghan (2001). A Study of Non-Completion in Undergraduate

University Courses. Higher Education Authority, Dublin.

OECD (2004). Review of Higher Education in Ireland.

O’Flanagan, M. and M. Crehan (2004). Attitudes, experiences and characteristics influencing

student progression – A DCU pilot for assessing the impact of diverse factors through the first
year of study. In S. Moore (Ed.), Proceedings of the Irish Retention Network Colloquium, Ireland,
pp. 1. forthcoming.

Skilbeck, M. (2001). The University Challenged - A Review of International Trends and Issues
with particular reference to Ireland. Higher Education Authority, Dublin.

127
128
F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND
RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Helen Fallon
National University of Ireland Maynooth,
E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction
While most academics will be aware of the key people and information sources in their specific
discipline they may be unaware of the people who are writing about teaching and learning in
these disciplines. This chapter is aimed at those involved in exploring the topic of teaching and
learning in various disciplines. Librarians will also find it useful in identifying key resources for
collection development.
The chapter is divided into three sections.
Section “Planning a literature search” describes the process of doing a literature search. There
are common steps in executing a literature search across disciplines. However, researching the
literature of teaching and learning may necessitate a review of a much broader range of literature
than that which academics are familiar with in their own discipline. It can be argued that teach-
ing and learning is in itself a discipline. A body of research relating to teaching and learning has
grown up and much of the applications and findings can be applied across disciplines. For exam-
ple articles in the “Journal of Chemical Education”, may be relevant for research in other science or
indeed in the social sciences or humanities.
Section “Directory of Resources” is a directory of resources. This gives details of resources, in-
cluding books, journals, websites, conference papers and databases in the area of learning and
teaching. The directory is selective rather than exhaustive and draws on a survey of the infor-
mation needs of education developers carried out by the author in Summer 2004. It is aimed
primarily at education developers, new academic staff and experienced academic staff who wish
to develop their teaching and learning.
Section “Publishing your findings/research on your teaching” gives brief guidelines on publishing
your research are included in this section.
The chapter emphasises the vital link between the new lecturer, the experienced lecturer who
wants to improve his/her teaching practice and the Librarian.

Planning a literature search

The points may by summarised as follows:

1. Clarify the purpose of your research

2. Define the topic

3. Discuss with your subject librarian and identify information sources of potential use

4. Break your topic into keywords

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

5. Consider alternative spelling

6. Identify key people in the area

7. Identify key journals

8. Begin searching

The following case study illustrates a structured approach to finding information. The reader
might like to parallel this when sourcing information.
The author – a librarian – engaged in detailed discussion with an education developer who
wanted information on the topic of student-centered learning.

Clarifying purpose
The purpose of your research will significantly influence the range and type of information sources
used. The range of information consulted for a PhD thesis will greatly exceed that needed for a
book chapter.

Define the topic

After establishing the purpose begin to define the topic. It can be useful, when you are defining
your topic, to write it as a question.

Discuss with a Subject Librarian and identify information sources of

potential use.
While there are increasing moves towards consortium purchasing particularly in the area of jour-
nal databases, different libraries have different resources. It is useful to discuss your topic with a
Librarian in order to identify:

1. what resources are available in your library

2. what resources you can access via other libraries and through other methods e.g. inter-
library loans

Break your topic into keywords

Keywords are concepts which describe topics and are sometimes assigned by the authors of ar-
ticles, or in the case of large databases, there may be a thesaurus of terms using for indexing
articles.
While academics will have built up an expertise in the keywords of their particular research
area, the keywords and vocabulary of teaching and learning may be new. Generally, if you can
find one very useful article it is useful to look at the keywords assigned to it as this can lead to
further articles.
While the process of defining search terms as keywords may take some thought and time, the
investment of time defining very specifically what you are looking for, will save time in the long
run.
When selecting keywords consider alternative spelling and whether the term might be hy-
phenated e.g.,

Student-centered learning

Student-centred learning

Student centered learning

130
 Helen Fallon

Student centred learning

Databases and library catalogues have variant indexing practices. The term might or might
not be hyphenated.
A library catalogue will always list a book under the exact title as it appears on the title page of
the book. Each book in the catalogue is assigned subject headings. Most Irish university libraries
use the U.S. Library of Congress subject headings. Therefore, a keyword or subject search under
student centred learning would only yield those books which had these words, with this spelling,
in the title. Some library catalogues offer “see also” links which are useful.
To have gone with only one of these options for example the first which is British spelling,
would exclude useful articles which used American spelling.

Consider alternative terms

In addition to considering if there are alternative spellings consider if there are alternative terms
by which a topic may be known. For example student-centered learning is sometimes referred to
as client-centered learning and learner-centered learning.

Key people
If you know of a key person working in a particular area, in addition to being able to identify
papers by this person, you can also check who is citing the work of this person. Much of the
philosophical base of student-centered learning came from the 1970s work of the psychologist
Carl Rogers. Using the “Social Science Citation Index” it is possible to check who cited the work
of Carl Rogers in subsequent articles and this may be useful in identifying current perspectives
on Carl Rogers’ work.

Key journals
A list of journals in the area of teaching and learning is given in the resource guide. In addition to
this, journals in other subject disciplines may carry articles on applying the principles of student-
centered learning in those disciplines. A search across a large multidisciplinary database such as
the Web of Science, which encompasses the social sciences, the sciences and arts and humanities,
will retrieve journal articles relating to teaching and learning in different disciplines.”

Where to begin
Start by discussing your topic with a librarian.
The nature of the topic being researched will to a large extent, influence where you begin your
search. If you want a few current articles on thinking in a particular area, a search of a database
such as “Web of Science” by keyword may rapidly yield some useful results. A search by keyword
on a major search engine such as Google may also yield useful current information and identify
places where research on the topic is being carried out.
For more detailed in-depth research on a topic the library catalogue is generally a useful start-
ing point.

Information Sources
Books

Journals and journal articles

Databases

Websites

131
 F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Conference Papers

Finding books
Books as information sources, were identified as slightly more important than journals, in the
questionnaire survey I carried out earlier in the year. This is in keeping with trends across the
social sciences. In the sciences, journals are rated as more important than books.
Check the library catalogue using the various keywords you have identified.

Student-centered learning

Student-centred learning

Student centered learning

Student centred learning

When you retrieve a useful record check if the record includes the subject headings assigned
to the book. Entries in library catalogues are assigned broad subject headings. Keyword searches
only search the subject headings and the details given such as title and author. At present, cat-
alogue records generally do not have a breakdown of individual chapters. Thus a book on new
methods of teaching and learning might well have a chapter on student-centred learning but
might not have added this as a subject heading. If the term were not in the body of the catalogue
record i.e. the title of the book, it would not be retrieved.
Going to the Library and looking at the contents pages and indexes of books on education
methodologies is a useful way of identifying relevant chapters in books. Within the Dewey Deci-
mal Classification system (used by most Irish and UK university libraries) 378 is the Dewey num-
ber for higher education. Within that 378.17 is the number for methods of instruction and study.
This number is further lengthened to reflect individual methodologies, for example discussion as
a method of instruction and study is classified at 378.1795. Most automated library catalogues
allow searching by classification number, so it is possible to select the classification search option,
enter 371.17 and get a listing of books at that number in the Library. Doing this on the UCD cata-
logue, I retrieved 47 titles. Interestingly the title “Teaching students to Learn: a student-centered
approach” by Graham Gibbs was retrieved in this way, while it had not been retrieved using a
keyword search using the keywords “student-centred learning” or “student-centered learning.”
Going back and using the keyword “student-centred approach” retrieved one more book that had
not been identified earlier.
While knowing the classification number for a subject area is useful, particularly if you want
to browse the shelves, it is important you know that books on related topics are often scattered
through the library collection and the application of classification numbers can vary between
libraries.
Information on how to identify books not held in the Library is given in the directory section
of this chapter.

Finding journal articles

While no university library will carry all the journal titles any researcher would like, those in-
volved in the study of teaching and learning may face additional challenges in that most libraries
allocate funding for journals to departments or faculties. Many education developers may be
attached to a centre rather than a faculty or department and this centre may not be allocated a
budget for the purchase of books and journals. Because of the recurrent nature of journal pur-
chasing i.e. subscriptions must be maintained and paid annually, getting relevant journals may
prove to be particularly challenging.
Individual journal titles are listed in the library catalogue. It is well worth going to the shelves
and browsing through titles.

132
 Helen Fallon

The key journal publishers in the area of innovations and developments in teaching and learn-
ing are Carfax, who are part of the Taylor and Francis publishing group.
A list of key titles with details is given in section II.
Tables of contents - generally with abstracts – for all Taylor & Francis titles are available online
free of charge from their website at www.taylorandfrancisgroup.com
It is possible to buy individual articles and to subscribe to a free contents alerting service,
SARA (Scholarly Articles Research Alerting) via the website. The requestor indicates the key-
words he/she wants searched. As new issues of Taylor & Francis journals are produced, they are
searched for occurrences of these words in the title or abstract of articles. Bibliographic details of
the articles are then e-mailed to the person who signed up for the alert. If the fulltext of the article
is not available in print or electronic form in the Library, it can be obtained via inter-library loan
or ordered – via credit card payment - from the Taylor and Francis website.

Databases of journal articles

While institutions may take out subscriptions to individual electronic versions of journals, titles
are also increasingly becoming available as part of larger packages of fulltext electronic journals
known as databases. Databases generally contain either the abstract or fulltext of journal arti-
cles. Individual databases such as “Academic Search Premier,” may offer access to thousands of
journals. Databases are expensive and generally libraries or groups of libraries take out annual
subscriptions to particular databases. To ensure libraries do not cancel their subscriptions to in-
dividual print titles, there is often an embargo or time restriction placed on when the database
can release the fulltext of an article. While many of the Carfax titles are available in fulltext via
the database “Academic Search Premier” most of these do not have the fulltext posted until six
months to a year after publication. The contents of most of the Carfax journals are available full-
text from 1990 forward with a six to twelve month embargo. This is a very useful way of doing a
retrospective search. The ability to search individual journal titles by subject over a ten or more
year period in a single search is extremely useful.
Details of a number of databases of potential use to education developers, are given in the
directory section. These include “Academic Search Premier” “ERIC,” “Research into Higher Ed-
ucation Abstracts,” “Professional Development Collection,” and “Education Complete.”
In addition to these databases, for information relating to teaching and learning in specific
disciplines, the databases and journals of that discipline should be consulted and the multidisci-
plinary Web of Science which includes science, social sciences and arts and humanities.
The above databases are available on subscription (generally via libraries because of the costs
involved).

Websites
A number of very useful websites dealing with teaching and learning have been created by ed-
ucation developers and their associations. These generally provide notification of forthcoming
conferences, address issues of concern to education developers, including integrating informa-
tion technology tools into teaching and managing educational organisations, promote innovation
and best practice, give useful contacts and provide links to additional web resources.
A listing of useful websites is provided in the directory.

Conference Papers
Websites, meetings, and electronic discussion lists are useful sources of information on forthcom-
ing conferences. Details of past conference papers are available via the database Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI) Proceedings. See the directory for further details.

133
 F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Directory of Resources
The material listed here has been identified in consultation with education developers.
The directory is selective rather than exhaustive. Individual libraries have different collections
and have access to different resources electronically. It is best to discuss your information needs
with your local librarian, who may suggest additional resources.

Books
The books listed below are a mixture of types reflecting different traditions and different concerns.

• Bates, A. & Poole, G (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass
Considers the appropriate use of technology within the curriculum and examines the dif-
ferences between face-to-face teaching and teaching through technology from a pedagogical
perspective.

• Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University.
2nd edition.
This revised edition of Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student does in-
cludes a variety of new material including a chapter on how electronic technology can be
used to enhance learning.

• Brown, G., Pendlebury, M. & Bull, J (1997) Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education.
London: Routledge.
Provides background information on different aspects of assessment including methods and
strategies, assessing oral communication and issues relating to quality and standards.

• Brown, G. & Atkins, M (1990) Effective Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London:
Routledge.

• Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: A conversational framework for the effective
use of learning technologies. New York: (Routledge) Falmer. 2nd ed.
Includes information on traditional and technological learning methods.

• Newble, D. & Cannon, R (2000) A Handbook for teachers in universities and colleges: A guide to
improving teaching methods. London: Kogan Page. 4th ed.
Covers a variety of topics including group teaching, curriculum planning, assessment, prob-
lem based learning and preparing class material.

• Race, P. (2001) The Lecturer’s Toolkit: a Practical Guide to Learning, Teaching & Assessment.
London: Kogan Page. 2nd ed.
Offers practical suggestions and guidelines on issues such as using handouts, working with
small groups and self-care and management.

• Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. New York: Routledge Falmer. 2nd
ed.
Reflects the changing education environment and addresses issues such as quality and pro-
fessional development. It includes case studies.

• Sue Habeshaw & Graham Gibbs have written a number of practical books

• The Staff and Educational Development (SEDA) Association has a useful series of pub-
lications. Details are available from its website at http://www.seda.ac.uk. Click on
publications.

134
 Helen Fallon

Ways to identify more books:

• Publishers catalogues and websites (including Taylor & Francis, Kogan Page, Routledge
Falmer, Kluwer)

• Library catalogues including merged catalogues (union catalogues) COPAC (catalogues of

24 major university libraries, includes TCD, plus the British Library and the National Li-
brary of Scotland) http://www.copac.ac.uk

• IRIS (project to develop a combined catalogue of Irish university library catalogues) http:
//www.iris.ie

• Library of Congress Online Catalog (12 million records)

http://catalog.loc.gov

Most academic libraries in Ireland and the UK have joined SCONUL Research Extra which
allows access with borrowing to the collections of participating libraries. For further information
and to get a list of participating libraries consult http://www.sconul.ac.uk/use lib/srx/
The above library catalogues are available free of charge via the Internet. Major libraries will
also subscribe to commercial databases of book in print. These include “Libweb” which gives
publication details of English-language books in print. Resources such as “Libweb” can be useful
for checking information for ordering books and verifying the latest edition of a book. However,
they give no indication of the quality of a title.

Journals
As mentioned in Section I, the tables of contents with abstracts, for journals in the Taylor &
Francis Group, are available free of charge from the Taylor & Francis website at http://www.
taylorandfrancisgroup.com
It possible to buy individual articles and to subscribe to a free contents alerting service.
It should be noted that many journal publishers are now making their titles available electron-
ically and more will in the coming years. Therefore it is worth checking if your Library has access
to electronic versions of these journals on a periodic basis.

• Active Learning in Higher Education, 2000-, 3 times a year

Sage

• Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1976-, Bimonthly

Carfax
Available fulltext from 1991 (with a six month embargo) from “Academic Search Premier”
database.

• British Journal of Educational Technology, 1970-, Quarterly

Blackwell

• Higher Education: the international journal of higher education and educational planning,
1971-, 8 times a year
Kluwer

• Higher Education Quarterly 1946-, Quarterly

Blackwell

• Higher Education Review 1968-, 3 times a year

Tyrrell Burgess Associates

135
 F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

• International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD) 1996-, Semi-annually

Routledge
• Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 1964-, Quarterly
Routledge
Fulltext available from 1998 to present, with a twelve month embargo, from “Academic
Search Premier” database
• Reflective Practice, 2000-, 3 times a year
Carfax
Available fulltext from 2000 (with a twelve month embargo) from “Academic Search Pre-
mier” database
• Studies in Higher Education, 1976-, Bimonthly
Carfax
Available fulltext from1990 (with a six month embargo) from from “Academic Search Pre-
mier” database
• Teaching in Higher Education
Carfax
Available fulltext from1996 (with a six month embargo) from from “Academic Search Pre-
mier” database

Discipline specific journals include

• Journal of Chemical Education, 1924-, Monthly
American Chemical Society
• European Journal of Engineering Education, 1975, Quarterly
Taylor & Francis
Finding out about more journal titles
Websites (see below) & publishers catalogues
• Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory (subscription based, enquire from your librar-
ian)

Databases
Check with your library to find out if they have a subscription to any of the following databases.

• Academic Search Premier (EBSCO)

Fulltext of a wide range of titles of interest to education developers.
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
Produced by the US Department of Education, this database abstracts journal and non-
journal education literature from 1966 forward.
• Research into Higher Education Abstracts (Carfax)
• Professional Development Collection (EBSCO)
Designed for professional educators, this database gives the fulltext of 500
peer-reviewed journals

136
 Helen Fallon

• Education Complete (Proquest)

Contains more than 500 journals on education, including primary, secondary and university.
300 of the titles are fulltext.

• Web of Science (Institute for Scientific Information)

Provides abstracts of articles across all disciplines

• ISI Proceedings (Institute for Scientific Information)

Gives abstracts of conference papers and publication details.

Websites
• All Ireland Society for Higher Education
http://www.aishe.org
Promotes the professional recognition and enhancement of teaching and learning in Higher
Education through a range of activities including seminars, conferences, publications, and
provision of online community forums and services.

• ESCalate (Education Subject Centre: Advancing Learning and Teaching in Education)

http://www.escalate.ac.uk
ESCalate is a for staff working in Higher Education and Further Education who teach Ed-
ucation and Continuing Education. It is involved in a wide range of staff development
activities related to promoting high quality learning and teaching in Higher Education.

• The Higher Education Academy

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk
Formed from a merger of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
(ILTHE), the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), and the TQEF National Co-
ordination Team (NCT), the Higher Education Academy is a UK-wide organisation, set up
to support quality enhancement in teaching and the student experience in higher education.
Provides a large range of useful information including subject centres.

• Horizon
http://horizon.unc.edu
Grew out of a 1992 publication On the Horizon which informed educational leaders of the
implications of change and made recommendations on how to address these changes. It
provides notification of forthcoming conferences, online workshops and seminars. It pro-
duces Innovate, an online peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the creative use of informa-
tion tools to enhance active learning and The Technology Source, a peer-reviewed bimonthly
periodical that gives full text of articles that aim to help address the issue of integrating
information technology tools into teaching and managing educational organisations.

• Learning and Teaching Support Network

http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/home.asp

• Staff and Educational Development Association

http://www.seda.ac.uk
Professional association for staff and educational developers in the UK which promotes
innovation and good practice in higher education.
Catalogue of SEDA publications, links to a range of education-related organisations

137
 F INDING INFORMATION FOR YOUR TEACHING AND RESEARCH WORK IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

• UCD Centre for Teaching and Learning

http://www.ucd.ie/teaching
Provides information on good practices in teaching and learning, teaching portfolio prac-
tices, teaching and course evaluations, teaching and learning research methodologies.

Publishing your findings/research on your teaching

Presenting papers at conferences is a useful method of getting feedback on your research and can
be a useful precursor to publishing a journal article. Consider targeting papers at conferences
outside the ones you normally attend. Consider presenting a paper on teaching and learning at
your discipline based conference.
Consider collaborating with a colleague from an education development unit or centre when
writing a journal article. They will know the literature of teaching and learning.
When considering a journal for possible submission of a manuscript, study the style of the
journal in some detail. What is the average length of article? Are articles generally descriptive,
evidence-based or reviews?
Consider two journals in some depth as possible outlets for your research. Study a recent
issue. Examine back-issues and see if your topic has been covered recently. If it has, is there
new information in your article which will add to the knowledge on the topic? If it has not been
covered is there a particular reason, for example, is it something which would not fit into the
scope of the journal.
Submission guidelines are given in the inside front cover of most journals and on the journal
website, study these guidelines before submitting.
Two journals you might consider are

• British Journal of Educational Technology

• Active Learning in Higher Education

These have short papers and do not require a rigorous evidence base.
Before submitting a paper to a journal, it is useful to send a query e-mail.
Murray (2004) suggests the following in relation to query e-mails.

This enquiry should be short, should state what you are researching
“I am writing a paper about. . . ”
It should give some indication of your approach
“I’m making a case that. . . ”
It should state why you think it should appear in this particular journal.
“I think readers of [journal name] would be interested in this topic because. . .
It should ask if the editor is interested in seeing a copy of the article.

If the editor expresses interest, after you submit the article it will be passed to referees just as
would be the case in your own discipline. They are likely to suggest changes. Make these changes
as quickly as possible and resubmit the article.

Conclusion
The range of information available in both print and electronic formats may seem quite daunting.
The availability of these sources vary from institution to institution. It is best to use the resources
listed in this chapter in conjunction with discussions with a Librarian who will be able to advise
you as to their availability and also help you identify additional sources.

138
 Helen Fallon

References
Murray, R. (2004). Writing for Academic Journals. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw
Hill.

139
140
A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE
RESOURCE ? U SING STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO
ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING

Sarah Moore and Nyiel Kuol

University of Limerick
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
This chapter will explore specific ways in which academic faculty can participate in, use and
interpret student evaluations of their teaching. It begins with a critical review of the literature on
student evaluations of teaching (SET’s), and it uses evidence based data to demonstrate that there
are different categories of typical reactions to both positive and negative student evaluations,
some (but not all) of which have a helpful effect on subsequent teaching activity and orientations.
It explores Johnson’s (2000) important censure of SET’s exploring to what extent and under what
circumstances such systems play into the hands of a bureaucratic, mechanistic climate for which
higher educational contexts have been increasingly criticised. It also demonstrates Perry’s (1988)
observations that different worlds can exist within the same classroom setting and shows how
SET’s can be used to explore and to understand these different worlds in more meaningful ways.
The following discussion explores some of the natural defence mechanisms that operate when
we review our students’ evaluations of our teaching. Based on extensive experience with the
design, development and implementation of a student evaluation of teaching system, it highlights
optimum criteria for using SET’s in order to produce positive teaching and learning outcomes.
The chapter concludes with a range of practical strategies that academics can adopt in order to
use SET’s as a valuable professional development resource.

Introduction
In the educational literature, thousands of research papers have focused on the value and nature
of student evaluations of teaching (e.g. Cashin 1988) (e.g. Cashin 1988; Feldman, 1990). In the
light of this it is extraordinary that very few of these studies have examined the nature of teacher
reaction to such feedback, least of all the impact of such reaction on subsequent efforts to improve
the teaching and learning environment in higher educational contexts. With all of the controversy
surrounding the application of SET systems in university settings, it seems that the dialogue has
been excessively focused on the nature and validity of student feedback without looking at the
equally important impact that faculty reaction to that feedback has on subsequent teaching and
learning contexts (e.g. Marsh 2000).
This chapter presents a theoretical framework of faculty reaction to student evaluations of
teaching. It argues that understanding the range of possible reactions to which SET’s may give
rise, can equip institutions and individuals with important perspectives allowing them to use
SET-based feedback more effectively than might otherwise be the case. The following discussion
presents a brief overview of the SET controversy, outlines a feedback reaction matrix proposed by

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE ? U SING STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO
ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING

Moore and Kuol (2005) and sets out a range of pragmatic and research based recommendations
associated with the effective, appropriate and culturally sensitive use of SET systems in university
settings. The following discussion aims to ensure that institutions and faculty that avail of SET
systems within their own work contexts will ensure that they do so with a view to improving the
teaching component of their professional lives, notwithstanding the fact that such systems rarely
if ever give rise to perfect (or indeed easily interpreted) data.

The SET controversy in academic settings

Whether SET’s give rise to any enhancement of teaching and learning within higher educational
settings is a highly contested question. In the context of an environment in which independent
action and academic freedom is fiercely protected, the perceived value and validity of student
evaluations of teaching (SETs) is at least mixed, and has been the focus of much divisive debate
within the last three decades.
Notwithstanding the criticisms and debates surrounding SET’s, the developing focus on qual-
ity, accountability and the importance of ‘reflective practice’ in university teaching have driven
the increased use of student surveys to evaluate or provide feedback on teacher performance.
SET’s are an established part of university feedback systems in the USA, UK, Australia and many
European countries. In the Irish context, implementation of this form of feedback has been slower
than elsewhere. Most Irish universities either do not have formal, centralised systems for student
evaluation of teaching or have only recently introduced them. However, the pressure to estab-
lish and mainstream such systems is increasing. This pressure comes from emerging legislative,
policy and quality oriented perspectives, and also from some individual and groups of faculty
members, many of who have requested or are seeking more structured and objective feedback
from their students. This is consistent with the observations that Ashford and Cummings (1983)
and others have made about the tendency in many organisational settings for people to seek out
performance information from sources other than their immediate superiors.
Given that other countries have been engaged in efforts to moderate or improve SET systems,
the analysis of their introduction in a setting in which they have not been previously part of
established practice, may yield important and fresh insights that could give rise to better systems
in a whole range of environments.

The case against student evaluations of teaching

Some commentators argue that students are not an appropriate or effective source of teacher
evaluation. Cashin (1988) proposed that such factors as student motivation and expected grades
could bias student evaluations. Tomasco (1980) has argued that student evaluations of teaching
are more likely to be ‘personality contests’ rather than valid measures of teaching effectiveness.
Others have outlined that student evaluations of teaching can lead to ‘grade inflation’ and a low-
ering of standards. Calderon et al. (1996) and Green, Calderon, and Reider (1998) highlight that
some SET’s require students to respond to performance issues that are beyond or outside their
own knowledge and experience bases. For example, asking students to rate their teachers’ level
of knowledge will yield only impressions of expertise that may be inaccurate and likely to be
moderated by stereotypical associations often found to be linked to demographic features such
as age, gender and physical appearance.
Some of the criticisms directed at SET’s as a source of performance information is based then
on the idea that students are simply not in a position to evaluate their teachers’ performance. In
addition, student perspectives and motivations may give rise to their evaluating lecturers on the
basis of their own sense of comfort and satisfaction, thus implicitly encouraging the teaching of
less challenging material and the avoidance by teachers of processes that may give rise to high
level learning (Murphy 1999). Carey (1993) has presented evidence that points to the risks that
SET’s pose in terms of catalysing an increase in standard grading (grade inflation) along with a
decrease in course demands (competence deflation). Some commentators have suggested that

142
 Sarah Moore and Nyiel Kuol

the costs of introducing SET systems that are effective and efficient may outweigh the benefits
to which they are said to give rise, while others suggest that they are only justifiable precisely
because they provide low cost alternatives to other forms of evaluation and feedback (Greenwald
and Gilmore 1997). But possibly the most serious attack on the use of SET’s in higher educational
environments comes from commentators such as Johnson (2000) and Wilson, Lizzo, and Ramsden
(1997) who highlight that the motives for installing SET systems in educational contexts are nei-
ther educationally sound nor focused on the fulfilment of the goals of either teachers or students.
Rather, as Johnson argues, they exist primarily to serve the needs of the bureaucracy in which the
systematic reporting of feedback can be conducted on an organisation-wide basis in order to fulfil
relatively shallow notions of what teaching quality represents.
Where SET’s have been introduced, they are often rubbished as invalid or damaging, or at best
accepted as a necessary evil (C. 1991). Where they have not been introduced, persistent efforts to
avoid their introduction are often made (e.g. Whitworth, Price, and Randall 2002). What is clear is
that student evaluations of teaching that have any influence on the subsequent rewards received
by individual teachers represent a new source of authority that has changed the balance of power
within academic institutions. This may indeed be the reason why so many arguments against
their introduction have reached both public and scholarly arenas.

The case for student evaluations of teaching

Despite the criticisms and concerns surrounding the implementation of SET’s, student evalua-
tions have also been welcomed and endorsed by a range of commentators. There is plenty of
evidence to suggest that students can provide useful information about the effectiveness of teach-
ing methods, equity in the evaluation/teaching process, faculty focus on the student, and faculty
enthusiasm and interest in the content of the course or subject (e.g. Stockham and Amann 1994).
Much of the debate under-emphasises the important developmental opportunities that student
feedback can provide (Hand and Rowe 2001). Furthermore, it is possible that SETs can avoid the
proliferation of unrepresentative information and feedback about teaching relying on hearsay and
anecdote. Moreover, without a student evaluation of teaching system, feedback from informal,
serendipitous sources is likely to be based on individual students’ unequal abilities or opportu-
nities to bring teaching-related issues to the attention of the system (see Murphy 1999). Student
evaluation systems that avail of responses from a representative sample of students in a specific
class setting, can help to identify the ‘size’ of teaching related problems or issues. And, particu-
larly in large or diverse classroom settings, SET’s that include key demographic information, can
identify subsets of students who may be encountering certain difficulties.
Added to these factors are the more general benefits that having and using a teaching-related
measurement instrument. SET’s can bestow on the teaching dimension of an academic’s profes-
sional role. Given that it is an almost universal phenomenon that research activity reaps more
individual rewards than those associated with teaching, efforts to measure the teaching related
dimensions of their performance, and to pay attention to those measures in the context of an in-
dividual’s professional development helps to create more parity of esteem between the teaching
and research components of the academic role. Such a measurement system can, by virtue of
its existence, give rise to significant improvements in the undergraduate experience, something
that has been the subject of explicit concern at both institutional and policy levels for over two
decades (e.g. Radmacher and Martin 2001). Brookfield (1995) has helped to focus the debate by
implying that good feedback systems should be formative rather than summative, should recog-
nise that a ‘perfect score’ does not always reflect teaching quality or learning impact, and should
be implemented in a context of trust and development rather than fear or censure. Many of these
features could be more effectively introduced if we understood more about the nature and impact
of faculty reaction to student feedback.

143
 A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE ? U SING STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO
ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING

The feedback reaction matrix

Previous research by these authors (see Moore and Kuol 2005) has provided a tentative framework
for understanding the variety of orientations that evaluated faculty may adopt with respect to
the feedback they receive from their students. Understanding different categories of feedback
reaction can provide a useful picture about the likely impact of feedback on a group of participants
in a SET system.
The proposed reaction matrix identified the extent to which there exists a match or a mis-
match between a faculty members own subjective evaluation of their own teaching and that of
the student feedback provided via a SET system. A positive subjective evaluation that is matched
with broadly positive feedback from students can be hypothesised to lead to reactions charac-
terised by endorsement and reinforcement with a possible risk of complacency in terms of future
performance.
A subjectively negative emphasis combined with broadly positive objective feedback may in-
dicate that individuals in this quadrant are committed to addressing specific aspects of under-
performance. This orientation may also be accompanied by the risk that individuals will become
‘fixated’ on relatively unimportant problems, at the expense of otherwise good performance.
The match between a negative focus of both faculty and his/her students can be hypothe-
sised to lead to reactions characterised by a realistic commitment to improvement, but which also
risk being accompanied by dismay, dejection and withdrawal from a commitment to developing
teaching effectiveness.
Finally, broadly negative student evaluations accompanied by a positive subjective focus on
one’s own teaching may provide important indicators about the different value positions adopted
by teachers and students within the same classroom setting, invoking Perry’s (1988) descriptions
of different worlds at play in the same learning setting. Another possible explanation of negative
feedback accompanied by a positive focus could indicate a form of denial. This may be the kind
of reaction that is most difficult to address. Alternatively, this reaction may represent a functional
strategy which can serve to protect an individual’s self esteem in the face of student dissatisfaction
over which the individual teacher perceives that he/she has little or no control.

Tab. 1: Theoretical orientations towards feedback based on the interactions between subjective and objective
evaluative emphasis
Positive SETs Negative SETs
Positive Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2
self- Endorsement of performance. Ego – protection
evaluation Reinforcement of current Maintenance of sense of effi-
practice. cacy
Identification of a difference
of value position between
teacher and students
Risk: complacency and focus Risk: Intransigent denial of
on other areas of professional real problems
development
Negative Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4
self- Commitment to addressing Realistic analysis of and com-
evaluation minor problem areas mitment to improvement and
or repair strategy
Risk: Excessive fixation on Risk: Dismay, dejection, dis-
small teaching problems at couragement and possible
the expense of other areas of withdrawal
established competence

144
 Sarah Moore and Nyiel Kuol

Thus, according to this empirically derived framework, student feedback of any kind can give
rise to both positive and negative responses from faculty. These reactions may be contingent on
the extent to which teachers’ own self-evaluations match those of their students. Reactions of
endorsement, ego-protection, problem solving and repair can all contribute to a more positive
learning environment, but the risks that faculty will respond with complacency, denial, fixation
or dismay are possibilities that haunt every academic setting, and ones that threaten to have a
detrimental impact on a wide variety of teaching and learning experiences.
An institutional and individual awareness of the possible range of reactions to student feed-
back can empower those in educational settings to use SETs in more sensitive, appropriate and
effective ways. Based on an analysis of the qualitative responses of SET participants and on a
review of the current literature exploring the validity of SETs the second part of this chapter high-
lights the features of good SET systems. It proposes a range of individual guidelines that can help
faculty members to manage their reactions in a way that will be more likely to give rise to genuine
professional development.
Individual strategies for analysing student feedback:
1. Control your defence mechanisms. Ask yourself: What kinds of reactions am I having to
this feedback and what is it likely to make me do in future? Make explicit the implicit
emotions to which the feedback is giving rise.
2. Analyse the source of your students’ reactions in a way that sheds light on any issues and prob-
lems that have been identified. Ask yourself: What are the reasons behind both the positive
and negative feedback provided by the students? Whether or not you can answer these
questions easily, try to pursue information via other methodologies (e.g. focus groups; one-
to-one interviews, facilitated by objective information gatherers). Remember to focus just as
assiduously on the reasons behind positive as well as negative feedback, keeping in mind
that it can be just as professionally damaging not to know why students think you have
done well, as it is not to know why they think you have done badly.
3. Work hard not to under-react or over-react to information that you receive via SET feedback. Ask
yourself: What are the changes that would enhance student learning, versus the ones
that would have neutral or negative impact on learning? Try to differentiate between the
implications of different changes implied by the feedback.
4. Divide the issues raised by students into actionable and non-actionable categories. Ask yourself:
What aspects of this feedback can I do something about? What aspects of this feedback
require a wider institutional, administrative or resource based reaction? Integrate these cat-
egories into your teaching enhancement strategy. Simply put, it’s important that you don’t
justify anything identified by your students that that is unjustifiable about your current
teaching approaches, but equally that you don’t allow yourself to become the scapegoat for
issues that clearly need to be tackled at an institutional level.
5. Communicate with students before and after their provision of feedback. Ask yourself: how can I
use the SET system to improve communication and to create constructive dialogue with
my students ? Do not appear to ignore students’ participation in the SET system. Register
with them that you are aware of their impending participation in the feedback system and
encourage them to take part as honestly and constructively as possible. And when the
results come in, devote a short session of one of your lectures to presenting the summary
data and explaining to your students what you will and will not be doing as a result of the
feedback they have provided. Student satisfaction levels can be significantly increased via
this kind of non- defensive, honest and reasonable communication. Ensure that they know
that no negative or recriminatory outcomes will be associated with their participation.
6. Do not make the simplistic assumption that all positive responses are related to good teaching and
all negative responses are related to bad teaching. Ask yourself: What parts of this feedback
most robustly indicate where my teaching strengths and weaknesses lie? As outlined

145
 A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE ? U SING STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO
ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING

earlier in this chapter, much of the literature on SET’s cautions against the risk of giving
rise to negative learning outcomes in the pursuit of positive ratings. Some negative student
reactions to your teaching may be related to a vital part of their learning journey. This
negative feedback can provide the basis for an enhanced dialogue to help secure higher
levels of student motivation and commitment. Also be strict about assuming that positive
ratings are always related to good teaching. As outlined earlier, the literature shows that
there are moderators of student satisfaction that relate to other factors such as disciplinary
background, class size, student demographics and timing of feedback.

7. Remember that small changes can have big effects. Ask yourself: What initial small changes can
I make based on the feedback that I have received that might have immediate and pos-
itive effects on my students’ learning experiences in this learning setting? While not all
changes implied by the feedback will be easy or short term, it’s a good idea to identify some
‘low lying fruit’. Most participants in a SET system can identify one or two small changes
that are relatively easy to effect and that can indicate to students that you have heard their
voices and are registering their feedback through immediate action. This can create pos-
itive momentum for more fundamental or strategic changes to your teaching styles and
approaches.

8. Develop a teaching enhancement strategy that takes into account the SET feedback. Ask yourself:
what are my long term teaching goals and how can this feedback help me to achieve
them? Within a short time of receiving the feedback, allocate a dedicated period of time in
your schedule to develop a longer term teaching enhancement strategy. This strategy might
include plans to receive more feedback later in the semester or year, specific professional
development interventions that you’d like to avail of, more communication with other key
members of your teaching network (heads of department, IT specialists, researchers in your
field, librarians, student advisers, study skills experts and so on), and enhanced student
assessment strategies.

Institutional issues for the design of a student evaluation system

Individual teachers can achieve enormous advances in their own teaching strategies if they re-
solve to engage in a functional and positive way with the feedback that they receive through
Student Evaluation of Teaching Systems. However, functional, healthy and emotionally intelli-
gent responses to SET’s can be significantly facilitated or prohibited by the institutional approach
to managing a SET system. Based on an analysis of the literature that has been outlined ear-
lier, and on gathering the opinions of participating students and teachers, we recommend that
standardised SET systems should be characterised by the following important features:
SETs should be:

• Voluntary (both for teachers and students);

• Confidential and controlled (i.e. feedback information only made available to a limited
group),

• Comparable with meaningful data (i.e. feedback should compared within discipline and
class size, and take account of important student demographics);

• Supported by training, mentoring and other professional development help (that can be
availed of in order to help construct and implement individual teaching enhancement strate-
gies);

• Conducted in a high trust, non recriminatory setting (in order to ensure active and positive
participation in the process, to secure positive responses to both negative and positive infor-
mation and to minimise the risk of reactions that are characterised by complacency, denial,
fixation or dismay);

146
 Sarah Moore and Nyiel Kuol

• Part of a wider and integrated set of teaching quality interventions and supports (so that
SET’s are never the only source of information available about the nature and quality of
teaching and learning);

• Centrally stored and objectively gathered using standard practices (so that the SET system
is carried out in a way that maximises comparability with other similar courses and class
sizes);

• Appropriately resourced (so that growing databases of student ratings can be subjected
to effective and informed analysis, and so that resources are in place to help individuals
and groups of faculty to derive continuous value from the data generated through the SET
system).

Conclusions
Too often, SET systems have been compulsory, publicly displayed, uncontextualised, unsup-
ported, simplistic and interpreted in isolated ways, features which render SET’s punitive bureau-
cratic tools rather than supportive mechanisms through which enhanced learning environments
can be created and sustained. Furthermore these characteristics are particularly inappropriate
in academic environments, the very contexts in which people are encouraged to adopt critical
stances to one-dimensional or naive approaches to data gathering. In order for a SET system to
become a positive, value added and effective mechanism, it must help teachers and learners to
enhance the complex dynamics that occur in higher level educational settings. It should avoid
unsophisticated, knee-jerk analysis and it should promote trust and positive dialogue between
student and teacher in a way that gives rise to a better learning culture. This chapter has pro-
vided a set of recommendations that we hope will help to prevent SET’s from acting as punitive,
bureaucratic instruments of control but rather to ensure that they are more likely to act as a valu-
able resource for teachers and their students in the ongoing journey of professional development.

References
Ashford, S. J. and L. L. Cummings (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies
for creating information. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance 32, 370–398.

Brookfield, S. (1995). On becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

C., O. J. (1991). Changes in evaluating teaching in higher education. Theory into practice 30(1),
30–36.

Calderon, T. G., Gabbin, A. L., and B. P. Green (1996). Report of the committee on promoting and
evaluating effective teaching. Virginia, U.S.A.: James Madison University Press.

Carey, G. (1993). Thoughts on the lesser evil: student evaluations. Perspectives on political sci-
ence 22(1), 17–20.

Cashin, W. E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: a summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20.
Manhatten: Kansas State University, Centre for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Green, B. P., T. G. Calderon, and B. P. Reider (1998, February). A content analysis of teaching
evaluation instruments used in accounting departments. Issues in Accounting Education, 15–30.

Greenwald, A. and G. Gilmore (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student

ratings. American psychologist 52(11), 1209–1217.

Hand, L. and M. Rowe (2001). Evaluation of student feedback. Accounting Education 10(2), 147–
160.

147
 A PUNITIVE BUREAUCRATIC TOOL OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE ? U SING STUDENT EVALUATIONS TO
ENHANCE YOUR TEACHING

Johnson, R. (2000). The authority of the student evaluation questionnaire. Teaching in Higher
Education 5(4), 419–434.

Moore, S. and N. Kuol (2005). Students evaluating teachers: exploring the importance of faculty
reaction to feedback on teaching. Teaching in Higher Education 10(1).

Murphy, A. (1999). Enhancing the motivation for good teaching with an improved system of
evaluation. Financial Practice and Education Fall/Winter, 100–104.

Perry, W. G. (1988). Different worlds in the same classroom. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving
learning: new perspectives. New Jersey: Nichols.
Radmacher, S. A. and D. J. Martin (2001). Identifying significant predictors of student evaluations
of faculty through hierarchical regression analysis. The Journal of Psychology 135(3), 259–268.

Stockham, S. L. and J. F. Amann (1994). Facilitated student feedback to improve teaching and
learning. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 21(2).

Tomasco, A. T. (1980). Student perceptions of instructional and personality characteristics of fac-

ulty: A canonical analysis. Teaching of Psychology 7, 79–82.

Whitworth, J. E., B. A. Price, and C. H. Randall (2002). Factors that affect business student opinion
of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business (May/June), 282–289.

Wilson, K. L., A. Lizzo, and P. Ramsden (1997). The development, validation and application of
the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education 22(1), 33–54.

148
T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING
ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR TEACHING

Ciara O’Farrell
Trinity College Dublin
E-mail: [email protected]

There is a belief among students that assessment of student writing ability takes place only in
courses in the English department. However, as lecturers we expect our undergraduate students
to write for assessment in most disciplines, most likely a research paper, report, or an examina-
tion essay. And no matter how bright their ideas, how well-researched their information or how
analytic their thoughts, their grade will suffer if these thoughts aren’t communicated in a clear,
accessible, well-organised, and competently-written fashion. Academic writing is a skill that all
disciplines demand so, at the very least, we need to offer our students strategies to help them deal
with the challenges of writing effectively.
I studied English in university, eventually completing an MA and a PhD. Yet during all this
time – and I was there many years – I was never, never once, offered a formal or indeed, informal,
class on how to write academically. And never once was I asked do any writing activities in
lectures or tutorials other than perfunctory note-taking, despite being expected to submit written
assignments all the time.
As an academic, writing is a key skill I use every day; however, it is also a competency that
many other professions value highly. Writing skills thus need to be actively cultivated in under-
graduates across all disciplines, as not only will the ability to write clearly and persuasively stand
to our students in their professional life, but the act of learning through writing will also help
them become more effective critical thinkers. Since thinking is an essential component of mean-
ing construction, classrooms that actively cultivate that construction of meaning through writing
will produce not only better writers, but also better thinkers (Tierney and Shanahan 1991).
This chapter will argue that writing should form an integral part of teaching in all disciplines.
While it is beyond its scope to fully elucidate the practices of writing across the curriculum, this
chapter is more than just a reflection on the various principles of academic writing; underpinned
by theory, its objective is to delineate realistic, feasible and immediate strategies to integrate writ-
ing activities into the classroom or lecture hall.

Why should we care about writing in subjects outside of English?

As academics, most of us would react with some worry if we had to submit written assessments in
order to apply for positions at third level. Indeed, often one of the greatest professional challenges
we face as academics is our academic writing. For many of us the simple fact is, good quality
academic writing is difficult. And though academia may be content-driven we are aware that, at
the end of the day, no amount of intelligence or mastery of a particular discipline can guarantee
good written communication skills.
According to the social constructivists, writing is always conditioned by social context (Baz-
erman 1981; Bizzell 1982; Myers 1985). In university, writing takes place within the context of an
academic discipline and is the means by which our students can extend their thinking and explore

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR TEACHING

meaning. Writing brokers learning; it plays a crucial role in developing critical thinking skills and
can help students amalgamate, evaluate and apply course content. By combining content instruc-
tion with writing activities, learners can achieve better reasoning and higher-level thinking than
is normally achieved through either process alone (McGinley and Tierney 1989). Therefore, as
is the case with reading, writing should be an integral part of all content disciplines, not just a
means for students to express what they have been taught, but to demonstrate their responses to
this knowledge, and ultimately to apply it.
Writing is also a lifelong skill, an essential tool for graduates across all disciplines to commu-
nicate effectively in the working world. This may seem like an obvious point, but it’s one that
often needs to be more suitably applied in our disciplines. How often do you get your students
to write essays? And how often do you get them to write other forms of written communication
that they may use in future discipline-related careers? My guess is that the prevailing way you as-
sess content is through the essay – by far the most dominant form of writing within the academic
context, but far less so (at least in its pure state) in life outside university.
Sometimes we need to be reminded that there are writing forms other than the traditional es-
say, so if your subject discipline requires your graduates to write prescriptions, reports, memos,
emails, proposals, policy manuals, business analyses, plans, or strategies, to name but a few, then
surely it’s a good idea to get your students to practice writing these forms, and assess them ac-
cordingly? Similarly, by designing writing activities that allow room for students to incorporate
their experiences into their writing, the level of clarity and depth in their writing will not only in-
crease, but they will be more likely to engage in their work if they can connect it to the experience
they bring to the classroom.

But how can I teach something I’ve never been taught?

The very real concern for many lecturers is that if we ourselves have never been taught explicitly
how to write academically, either within or outside our own curricular areas, then how can we be
expected to teach writing? However, I am not suggesting that we teach our students how to write;
rather that we teach content partially through writing.
What we must also remember is that, as lecturers, most of us have learnt to write academi-
cally primarily through years of academic-related reading, coupled with acquired knowledge of
discipline-related spoken discourse which we learn to translate into text. In short we know what
being critical or being analytic looks like as text in our field of study – and that’s an awful lot more
than most of our undergraduate students know when they first attend university.
A metaphor often applied to learning academic writing is that it is like being initiated into a
conversation, before eventually finding a personal voice. As lecturers, we form part of a disci-
plinary community. We possess both content knowledge and discourse knowledge, having long
since learnt our community’s specialised language and conventions; and most of us have found a
personal voice – though this is arguably an ongoing, dynamic process. Therefore, we are actually
in a good position to pass on these skills to our students, to teach them the rules of discourse,
both generic and content-specific, and to show them how to become a critical writer: to move
from merely quoting experts to eventually using these experts’ ideas as springboards from which
to launch their own theories.
As an expert in your field, you are often in the best position to teach the particular rules of
discourse within that discipline. Knowledge is encoded in the language and communication fo-
rum your community members use. Graduates need to learn the rules of discourse, not only to
recognise and use appropriate linguistic communication conventions within this forum, but to
decipher the expectations of the discipline underpinning the language. There are obvious ped-
agogical advantages to this approach when a specialist teacher is the immediate audience, or
indeed emulates the immediate audience, for students’ writing can be as technical as it needs
to be without having to be translated into conventional lay language. Of course, the correlative
disadvantage of this approach is when you allow your students slip into a language that is in-
appropriately jargon-filled, or that makes no attempt to speak outside the discourse community

150
 Ciara O’Farrell

when it should. As one critic notes, ‘training those future professionals to write only in expository
prose is training them to ignore their political and ethical responsibilities.’ (Kinleavy 1983)
As academic writers, knowledge of writing practices outside our discipline is also essential if
we want to communicate to and become part of a broader university community, and in so doing
move from an isolated plura-versity to a linguistically unified uni-versity1 .

Suggested Activity
To encourage writing activities that not only analyse our own discourse community, but that
recognise other discourse communities also, divide students into small groups and give them
an appropriate research article in their field. They must read the article and generate a list of
discipline-specific discursive conventions (writing style, organization patterns, specialized termi-
nologies etc). Next, ask them to generate a list of discourse conventions that could be transferred
to other disciplines or to more generic writing.
Another version of this activity is to ask students to rewrite parts of the research article using a
different voice, persona, or point of view, or indeed to rewrite any published piece in a new genre
(eg. turn a lab report into a poem; turn a poem into an essay)
As educators, we need to become more aware of what constitutes ‘good writing’, as well
as recognising that characteristics of ‘good writing’ vary from discipline to discipline. When
McQueeney and Jones (1996) and Zerger and McQueeney (1998) asked university lecturers to
describe ‘good’ writing, the spectrum ranged from interesting and bold at one end to precise, suc-
cinct, and accurate in punctuation and grammar at the other. Zerger and McQueeney’s study (1998)
confirmed the hypothesis that words used to describe good writing could be categorised by dis-
cipline. For example, humanities used the terms eloquent, vivacious, and aesthetically satisfying,
whereas social scientists preferred non-trivial, relevant, and plausible. Arts favoured creative, imagi-
native and persuasive, whereas natural science used theory-driven and analytic2 .

Suggested writing activity

This research only becomes relevant in this context if we can make our students aware of what
constitutes good writing within a particular discipline/genre. One way to approach this is to
create a table, such as the one below, and ask your students to circle the relevant adjectives to
describe the sort of writing that is acceptable for your particular subject/discipline. They then
have five minutes to choose which one they think is the most relevant and to write down why.

Clever Creative Structured Persuasive

Vivacious Thoughtful Insightful Accurate
Eloquent Bold Well reasoned Theory-driven
Clear Imaginative Reflective Understandable
Precise Succinct Analytical Inquiring

A group/class discussion can then ensue where students have the opportunity to express their
reasons for their choices, and you, as lecturer, have the opportunity to put forward the discipline’s
writing expectations to an active and hopefully engaged audience.
1 For a further analysis of this idea see James L. Kinleavy’s article, ‘Writing Across the Curriculum’, ADE Bulletin, 076

(winter 1983): 14-21

2 However, despite the seeming differences in attitude to what constitutes ‘good’ writing, there were some generic

words chosen by all disciplines, including clear, precise and succinct, organized, accurate in punctuation and grammar, cohesive,
and understandable. These characteristics are generic to all good writing, and should not be forgotten when teaching
writing in a discipline-specific context.

151
 T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR TEACHING

Can’t I send my students to the English Department for training?

Well perhaps, but that’s assuming that writing is always transferable; in fact, though some of
the principles remain the same, writing differs by discipline, so while it is important to learn the
generic principles of writing and grammar, your students also need to learn to write as a chemist,
or an engineer, or a literary critic, as the case may be.
Embedding writing activities within your discipline can not only initiate your students into
your specific discourse community, but it can help them demystify and master what that com-
munity’s particular conventions are. Charles Bazerman (1981) compared articles published in
professional journals in the fields of biology, sociology, and literary criticism, and deduced that
there exists a large difference in what constituted acceptable evidence: biologists favoured ex-
perimental results, sociologists trusted statistics and theoretic models, while literary critics cited
evidence from texts. Likewise, the types of writing expected by students within a university will
vary from discipline to discipline. For example, the term ‘essay’ is used broadly across disci-
plines, but there are differences between a literary analysis, a research paper, an evaluative essay,
a term assignment, a literature review, a research report, or a book review. Further, writing in the
sciences might favour lab reports, journal article critiques, or abstracts, and some of its particular
characteristics might include clarity, objectivity and formality. Writing in the Arts, on the other
hand, may favour essays, literary analysis or book reviews, and encourage secondary research,
literary analysis, and eloquence of expression.

Suggested writing activity

Students need to know what is expected of their writing within the discipline, that’s obvious; but
as their lecturer you also need to ensure that they understand what is expected of them. One way
to do this is, for each assignment or task, is to give students a few minutes in class to freewrite
what they understand by its genre, its methodology, or any other of its characteristics. Suggested
writing prompts can be as broad or as specific as you want them to be. For example:
• What is the purpose of a lap report?
• What should an abstract set out to do?
• What does the word ‘analyse’ mean in this context?
• What should the title of a proposal indicate?
• What makes a good introduction to an essay?
• What are some of the dangers of email writing?
• What should a conclusion include and what should it not include?
• What are the differences between conclusions and recommendations?
After ten minutes writing, students will have formulated their thoughts, and some brief ex-
planations by you to the group will act to reinforce or modify their approaches as appropriate.
Not only will students be more confident starting their written task, but they are also likely to be
motivated to actually begin writing it.

How do I know what writing activities to use?

Luckily there is a wealth of resources specific to multi-discipline writing3 . Just type in ‘WAC’
(Writing Across the Curriculum) to your search engine and you will be directed to numerous
3 Purdue has one of the largest online writing laboratories, with many printable handouts on research and writing,

categorised by subject. See http://owl.english.ourdue.edu/handouts/index2.html

See also The University of Guelph for advice on academic writing: http://www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca

152
 Ciara O’Farrell

pedagogical practices in this area. A movement begun in the United States in the mid-1970s,
WAC is premised on the theory that writing is a valuable learning tool. Many institutions began
by offering workshops that showed faculty how to productively incorporate writing exercises
into their courses, and it is now common to see college-led WAC programs both advocating and
supporting third level adoption of writing as an important component of all courses in all disci-
plines4 . Some universities have set up writing centres to offer training, consultations, workshops
and other resources5 . Here in Ireland, WAC centres or departments are not common but the meth-
ods, principles and pedagogy they espouse can be borrowed and adapted, both cognitively and
rhetorically, in the lecture hall or classroom.
It’s never to late to introduce activity writing into your classroom, but the earlier you get your
students writing, the better the results will be. How about trying something like the following in
your first lecture of the academic year:

Suggested writing activity

Ask your students to write anonymously an answer to the following question: ‘What concerns
do you have about the essays you will have to write this year?’
After five minutes writing, collect your students’ answers.
This activity works particularly well because students tend to focus on what they’re going to
be assessed on, and because their responses are anonymous, the variety of concerns is broad and
honest. Previous responses to my employment of this activity have included:

• What exactly is a university essay?

• How will these essays differ to ones I had to write in school?

• What does my lecturer/tutor expect from my academic writing?

• What does critical reading/writing mean?

• How do I structure my writing?

• Are there any resources to help me out?

• How do I begin to write?

• If I fail, will I get the chance to re-write my essays?

I normally collect the sheets, take them away with me, and the following lecture spend ten
minutes answering both some of the general, and some of the more specific concerns.
You can introduce writing into your course through a variety of means. You can use ‘formal’
writing assignments such as research papers, essay exams, lab reports etc. However, you can also
assign more, ‘informal’ ‘freewriting’ assignments such as brief, in-class writing prompts, reflec-
tions, or journal entries, to name but a few. First introduced in Peter Elbow’s Writing Without
Teachers (1985), freewriting is where you write whatever comes into your head. Focused freewrit-
ing, on the other hand, is writing about a particular subject or question which has been posed.
Here are some ideas for some informal in-class writing activities:
4 The Writing Center at Colorado State University is a good starting point to explore a university that ‘supports writers

and teachers of writing inside and outside the CSU community’. See http://writing.colostate.edu Georgia State
University
5 For example, the WAC program at Georgia State University was established in direct response to one of the Univer-

sity’s strategic plan’s goals to ‘. . . emphasise the importance of writing skills in all disciplines, [and] initiate a Writing
Across the Curriculum Program, in which all students will take at least one course designated as writing intensive in their
major department.’ See: http://wac.gsu.edu for their WAC website.

153
 T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR TEACHING

Activity: What I know about. . .

Ask students write down what they know about a topic before you introduce it into your lecture
or discussion. This will help focus them on the topic and since they will have something written
in front of them before class begins, it should contribute to student participation.

Activity: The Problem Statement

If you introduce a new concept into your course, ask students to write out a practical (or theo-
retical) problem that the concept just explained will help to solve. Students can work in pairs or
alone, and can exchange problems and/or solutions as you wish.
Another version is for students to write a problem statement and pass it to the student beside
them who must solve it. This works particularly well in large classes.

Activity: Summary writing

Tell students they will have to write a brief summary at the end of the class. This technique will
help students concentrate on the class/lecture, and if you collect the summaries you can ascertain
what they remembered from class and if they identified the main issues covered.

Activity: Focus questions

Compose specific questions for your students and get them to freewrite accordingly e.g.
Q: What points in the article you read for today’s tutorial are the most (or least) convincing?

Q: Of what value is the knowledge you learned in today’s lecture?

Q: How does what we studied today apply to the world around you?

Activity: ‘The center of gravity’

Ask students to compose a single sentence that summarizes the main point of the lecture/discussion.
Collect or discuss to ensure that your students grasped the main points of the discussion/lecture.
Informal in-class writing activities like these can present more latitude than formal writing
assignments. Because they are unedited and unrevised, they are generally best used to promote
student reflection and engagement with the content, and can be a useful tool for generating ideas
and discovering attitudes.

But I just don’t have the time!

From the lecturer’s point of view, integrating writing into the classroom may sound reasonable
and even desirable, but the concern is often a time-related one: how can one cover the curricu-
lum and meet curriculum requirements within time if one adds another component to classroom
instruction? However, proponents of WAC agree that when teachers incorporate regular writ-
ing activities into their classes, the need for revision and re-teaching after testing is significantly
reduced (Hightshue et al 1988; Worsley and Mayer 1989).
Certainly, some writing activities can be formal, but critical thinking, organization/synthesis
skills, summarizing and reflective skills (among others) can be equally taught through informal,
formative, five-minute class exercises that are both feasible and effective. Diane Miller Miller, in
her article, ‘Begin Mathematics Class with Writing’ (1991), gives many samples of succinct yet
effective writing assignments. Two follow here:

154
 Ciara O’Farrell

Activities for mathematics

• General mathematics: You have studied the commutative property for addition and multi-
plication of real numbers. Not all operators are commutative. If you were asked to explain
to a friend why division is not commutative, what would you say?
• Algebra: Suppose a friend asks you to check your answers to some homework problems.
Would you mark the following problem correct or incorrect. Explain why . . .
(a + b)2 = a2 + b2

Obviously, timely feedback is an important factor when setting writing tasks, especially those
that are less ‘reflective’6 , as one of the purposes of feedback is to ensure students have grasped
what you are trying to teach them, and to enable them improve their performance. One way for
both student and lecturer to assess the degree to which students have understood an important
concept or procedure is by using ‘directed paraphrasing’, like the maths example above does,
where students write an explanation of a concept or a set of instructions in their own words as if
writing for someone who is not on the course7 .
As well as imparting such skills as focus, organization and support, asking students to work
together can also be time efficient. For example, you could divide a lecture into small groups
to revise a document that has already been written. Either have them sit down together cold in
class, or to be more time efficient, get them to work individually on the document before class
and then pool their suggested changes. By assigning a group writing project, you can cut back on
the amount of papers you have to grade.

Suggested activity:
Instructors in sociology, speech communication and political science might divide their classes
into 5 or 6 groups in order to investigate local problems or issues. Some students do the back-
ground research while others conduct interviews or surveys. Each student prepares a draft of his
or her results for the group. Then the group as a whole must synthesize the information, organize,
and prepare a report for presentation to the entire class8 .
Using class time to promote writing activities, and offering feedback on them can be highly
effective and efficient given the benefits it can bring. Writing in small groups promotes a class-
room community; and if writing is emphasised correctly, a myriad of other skills and abilities are
gained, such as the ability to think clearly, to pose worthwhile questions, to articulate a complex
thought simply, to evaluate the adequacy of an argument, and to give and receive criticism.

Will my students want to write in a lecture? It’s not what they’re used to.
A recent study found that student engagement with the subject matter being taught increased
dramatically when students were frequently asked to write about that subject9 . In-class writ-
ing activities can certainly pull students from their passivity. Had any of my lecturers regularly
paused and asked us to write for five minutes on our reactions to key arguments, I for one would
have not only leant more quickly how to formulate my own ideas, but would also have been
roused from the type of concentration stupor I often fell into in the latter part of a lecture – and
often sooner depending on the lecturer.
6 Tools such as peer and self assessment can be effectively used to promote feedback, and though it is beyond the scope

of this chapter to discuss these tools in any detail, a quick web search should guide you to the benefits of this kind of
formative assessment.
7 I would like to thank Dr. Diana Kelly for pointing me to this strategy.
8 Activity quoted from the Center for Instruction Development and Research at University of Washington at Seattle,

see the following website for more information: http://writing2.richmond.edu/wac/grpwrite.html

9 Richard J. Light. ‘Writing and Students’ Engagement ‘ Peer Review 6.1 (Fall 2003): 28-31. Rpt. of ‘The Most Effective

Classes’ in Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds by Richard J. Light. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2001. 54-62.

155
 T HE WRITE APPROACH : INTEGRATING WRITING ACTIVITIES INTO YOUR TEACHING

In-class writing activities encourage active learning – after all one cannot write without think-
ing, and developing critical thinking is key to students being active rather than passive partic-
ipants in their education. If you spend your hour’s lecture trying to jam facts and figures into
your student’s heads, their learning will stagnate at lower level or ‘surface’ learning. However,
if you encourage them to try a variety of thought processes in class, they will move to a ‘deeper’
learning, and develop critical thinking skills. As Bina Shah writes:

Writing is just such a way to develop these critical thinking skills, because when you
have to put your ideas down on paper and support them with evidence and argu-
ment, you sharpen your ability to reason, to extrapolate, and to draw conclusions from
the information presented to you. Writing exercises challenge students to go beyond
what is presented to them, and encourage them to come back with their own ideas
and thoughts, which they will then develop into well thought out and well reasoned
arguments.10

Conclusion
Writing within an academic context is much more than an exclusive concern with correct gram-
mar and should go beyond the technicalities of stylistic accuracy. This chapter has shown you
how to help your students enter writing through content, and has delineated strategies to facili-
tate your learners developing their own writing voices within their particular academic discipline
and context – voices that are certainly grammatically accurate and stylistically proficient, but also
cogent, engaging and suitably analytic.
We have seen that writing and learning are inextricably linked, that writing is different in
different disciplines and contexts, and that as lecturers we should guide the writing process, not
merely judge the written product. Finally, by integrating writing into our teaching, we have seen
how we can afford our learners not just generic writing skills, but also the tool to become higher
level thinkers, a lifelong skill of indeterminable value.

References
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, 361–387.

Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing.
PreText 3, 213–243.

Elbow, P. (1985). Writing Without Teachers. Oxford University Press.

Hightshue et al, D. (1988, June). Writing in Junior and Senior High Schools. Phi Delta Kap-
pan 69(10), 725–728. EJ 379 988.

Kinleavy, J. L. (1983). Writing Across the Curriculum. ADE Bulletin 076, 14–21.

McGinley, W. and R. J. Tierney (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as
ways of knowing. Written Communications 6, 243–269.
McQueeney, P. and A. Jones (1996). An academic writing glossary: A sampling of Terms used to assign
writing at the University of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

Miller, D. L. (1991, June). Begin Mathematics with Class Writing. The Mathematics Teacher 85,
129–136.
10 Shah, Bina, ‘The need for Writing Across the Curriculum’, see website: http://www.chowk.com/show article.

cgi?aid=00003629

156
 Ciara O’Farrell

Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written Communication 2,
219–245.

Tierney, R. J. and T. Shanahan (1991). Research on the Reading-Writing Relationship: Interactions,

Transactions, and Outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 2. New York: Longman.

Worsley, D. and B. Mayer (1989). The Art of Science Writing. New York: Teachers and Writers
Collaborative. ED 304 702.

Zerger, S. and P. McQueeney (1998). This is chemistry, not English literature: Supporting writing
across campus. In C. Shireen (Ed.), Travels with the Midwest Writing Centers Association 1996-
1997. Conference Proceedings. Midwest Writing Centers Association.

157
158
V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT

David Jennings
University College Dublin
E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction
This chapter examines the preliminary findings of a recent user survey of the staff use of the
virtual learning environment (VLE) Blackboard™ in University College Dublin (UCD), Ireland.
Many Higher Education Institutes (HEI) are in the early stages of adoption and implementation of
such systems. The results from this small survey serve to reflect a portion of the current dilemmas
facing the individual academic and institute.
One of the key aims of the UCD survey was to quantify the level of usage of Blackboard within
faculty and to attempt to qualify its usage as a means to aiding student learning. Further issues
considered what particular ‘drivers’, both institutional and personal were behind the uptake of
e-learning, what types of teaching materials were being employed and how were these integrated
within the traditional face to face teaching environment, also considered were the effects on orga-
nizational change that the presence of a VLE might bring to faculty.
The results of the user survey are the first part of an overall strategy aimed at evaluating the
effectiveness of Blackboard within the university and to develop a means by which to offer an
evaluation tool to our users so that they may measure and develop their own usage of the VLE.
This paper does not propose to evaluate the technological merits of a VLE but instead offers a
means by which we may assess its impact and allow us to improve on our own interactions and
methodologies of usage.

What is a virtual learning environment?

“VLE’s are learning management software systems that synthesise the functionality
of computer-mediated communications software and on-line methods of delivering
course materials.”1

They allow the academic (often referred to as the facilitator) and learner a means by which
to participate in online interactions using an array of tools such as email, databases, discussion
threads, web resources etc. Ideally they offer an all in one system where a single interface al-
lows access to a range of learning materials and communication tools. The academic may use the
system to provide enhanced resources (bibliographies with live links to electronic journals, simu-
lations expanding practice) or initiate online collaborative projects to stimulate and develop ideas
and theories beyond their face to face meetings A student may access these learning materials
and engage in online interactions (via email or chat tools) with peers and facilitators at a time and
location that suits their personal needs.
1 JTAP Report -041 A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of VLE’S

Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin:AISHE, 2005. Released
under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/
 V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

From an administrative point of view a VLE offers the opportunity of integrating with a dedi-
cated management information system (MIS) that may be responsible for student enrolment, reg-
istration and exams. Once again the idea of an all in one system allows for mass communications
to be immediately effective and the possibility of tracking student progress and results.
The current market place for VLEs in HEIs is dominated by two products Blackboard™(http:
//www.blackboard.com/) and WebCT™ (http://www.webct.com/), each offering a vari-
ety of tools and functionality. Many other products are available and in wide use such as First-
Class™ (http://www.firstclass.com/) (the VLE of choice for the Open University) and
LearnWise™ (http://www.learnwise.com). More recently the advent of open source has of-
fered the academic community Moodle (http://moodle.org/). This VLE is fast superceding
the proprietary products as being the most popular and easy to use system of choice (see Mc-
Mullin 2005).

Pedagogical Context:
One of the fundamental issues of engagement with any new educational technology is the need to
place pedagogy first, using this as the catalyst and choosing the product/s that best suit individ-
ual requirements. Best practice indicates that this is key to establishing the effective integration
of any technology into the core curriculum.
Current practice is trying to adapt and transform ready-made curricula to ‘fit into’ the VLEs
that are being established throughout the academic world. In the traditional education system
currently employed, students learn by a means of transmission (Ramsden 1992) ‘interacting with
and transforming received knowledge so as to own it and make it personally meaningful.’ They
do this ‘. . . by actively constructing or reconstructing information.’ (Nicol et al. 2002). What a
VLE can do is to encourage and place a greater emphasis on the active engagement of the material
rather than the predominantly adoptive delivery approach. A VLE should act as a facilitator for
both student and teacher, providing them with a set of tools to accommodate a wide range of
learning styles and goals, to encourage collaborative, inclusive and student centred learning, and
to act as a resource for shared experience.
The first step on engaging a VLE is to adopt an approach for course integration that will allow
academics to present their current working practices sympathetically and inclusively. Each dis-
cipline will have to be handled subjectively as each will have its own distinctive pedagogies,
involving characteristic learning activities, teaching and assessment methods. It follows that
though there may well be a campus ‘digital signature’, as part of an ICT strategy, each faculty
and department will still maintain its academic independence.
With current student numbers ever increasing, the labour intensive support once provided by
academics has been greatly reduced. Through the use of a managed learning environment (MLE)
[often seen as the combination of a VLE and MIS] a more flexible teaching and learning situation
can be adopted to facilitate these student requirements, with both mentoring and tutoring services
provided online.
All of this requires that a pedagogically sound model must be used to develop curricula for
e-learning, a programme must activate and stimulate the cognitive and reflective component of
the students psyche to promote a deeper research led path of learning. Furthermore academics
should be encouraged to build research-based courses in an effort to facilitate the latter and to
maintain their own field of excellence. This will fall in line with the mission statements of HEIs
in ‘. . . achieving scholarly excellence through research, publication and excellence of teaching.’
(UCD Staff Manual 2001)

The Survey Design:

The Chickering and Gamson (1983) guiding principles for effective learning were integrated into
the design of the survey as a means to consider if effective practice was taking place and being en-
couraged within the context of the VLE. These principles offer a premise from which to consider

160
 David Jennings

ones own pedagogy in practice and may act as a check list that one can apply to any area of cur-
riculum design. It was hoped to prove that the use of a VLE offers a means by which to reconsider
and improve ones own fundamental pedagogical beliefs. The use of any educational technology
often invites a close examination of how best one might choose to implement new methodologies
into day to day practice. Can the use of a VLE stir the need for pedagogical enlightenment?

Guiding Principles for Effective Learning:

• Establish clear learning objectives and learning outcomes

• Provide learning grounded in effective, i.e. contextual, authentic,

case-based examples

• Provide a manageable workload

• Emphasize time on task

• Encourage contact between students and faculty

• Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students

• Encourage active learning

• Encourage deep learning

• Make the assessment relevant to the task

• Reward critical thinking in the assessment process

• Provide prompt feedback

• Provide feedback commensurate with performance

• Respect and accommodate diverse ways of learning

• Communicate high expectations

Background to the Survey:

Many institutes over the last number of years have chosen a proprietary VLE that has been li-
censed and released over their local area network (LAN) for use amongst the academic commu-
nity. Training and various levels of support are available to those wishing to develop an online
presence within the framework of this dedicated VLE. Most institutes are now in their third to
forth year of such schemes and a great deal of feedback has already come to light in relation to
initial best practice and implementation (Browne and Jenkins 2003; Tearle and Prosse 2004).
Blackboard™ has been in use at UCD for over two years replacing the former online envi-
ronment of TopClass™ and more recently the Online Classes system. UCD currently has two
live Blackboard servers in production running version 5 (and one test server for staff training).
Version 6 of Blackboard will be released campus wide in September 2005. The primary server
is housed by Computing Services and is open to all faculty, this currently holds in the region of
400 courses run by c.300 instructors. Another production server dedicated to the Michael Smurfit
Graduate School of Business is also in operation.
The user survey was jointly developed by the Centre For Teaching and Learning (CTL) and
the Computing Services Department. The Centre is responsible for the promotion of excellence
and innovation in teaching and learning within UCD. The Computing Services Department is

161
 V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

responsible for the IT infrastructure of the entire college and also manages and administers the
Blackboard system.
New users of Blackboard are provided with a half day induction to familiarize them with the
main functionality and to set them up on the test server so that they may engage with the system
in their own time. All staff are recommended to take part in a two day induction course which
is jointly run by the Audio Visual Centre, the Centre For Teaching and Learning, Computing
Services and the Library and provided through the system itself. This course covers a breadth
of material including basic HTML and image manipulation, promoting active and deep learning,
key tools in Blackboard and copyright issues. The majority of current Blackboard users would
have undertaken both these courses.

Results from the Survey:

The key cohort of c.300 registered instructors were notified by means of an internal ListServe and
by notices published in the University’s E-Learning Forum and within Blackboard itself shortly
after the 2004 summer exam period. A 15% response rate was achieved, an open forum will follow
and individual interviews have yet to take place.
Those that responded were across the breadth of user experience, representing both the novice
and advanced adopter. From this small cohort of users who replied it is important to note the
number of issues and concerns raised that are mirrored in many other HEI.
A broad range of usage occurs throughout faculty with a core element residing in the Sciences
(19%) and Medicine (37%). The types of courses in place are primarily undergraduate and range
from Archaeology and Accountancy to Veterinarian Pathology.
In relation to who is using the system the majority are academic members of staff (76%) but a
key cohort of administrative members (16%) are being drawn in to maintain courses, post notices
and in one department act as a ‘gate-keeper’ to all content postings. Thereby providing a consis-
tent and harmonious structure to both the design and layout in the content and communications.
Part of the survey asked ‘why’ individuals decided to engage with Blackboard to ascertain
what personal or institutional drivers may be at play. Fundamental to this question was the ‘per-
ception’ of what the VLE was and therefore how it might be used. Was it a seen as a content
delivery mechanism (acting as a resource for student notes, bibliographies etc.). Or was it recog-
nized as a multi functional tool with which to offer an array of opportunities to both learner and
teacher?
A sizable cohort (28%) are utilizing the VLE as a means for providing supplemental materials
to face to face (f2f) sessions. This is integrated with the day-to-day activities by providing learning
materials (such as slides) prior to and after traditional lectures, practicals and tutorials. This is
often seen as a first step in the use of a VLE, allowing individuals a means with which to distribute
content effectively. What is not noted is that a subtle change may occur in the interactions at the f2f
level. For example by providing content online prior to a session the learner may be more likely
to move beyond the didactic intake to a deeper level of learning by engaging more in discussion
and reflection.
A number of responses (23%) cited that the reason why they engaged with the VLE was to
offer the opportunity for student centred learning (see O’Neill and McMahon 2005). This shows
an awareness of the potential laid out by the many tools within the VLE. By using these, one may
offer the learner the choice of how it is they engage with the content, and allow them to self direct
their own learning.
The promotion of scholarly intent and development of teaching portfolios within HEI acts as
a driver for many individual academics who continuously strive to develop their own teaching.
The use of educational technology such as a VLE, offers the opportunity to develop new method-
ologies and practices. It is rewarding to note that many (23%) engaged with the VLE as way to
improve their teaching and be personally innovative.
Within UCD the use of Blackboard has been offered as means by which to utilize e-learning
methodology within the traditional curriculum, although integrated in the ICT strategy, it is not a

162
 David Jennings

fundamental requirement. 15% of the users however have a departmental or faculty policy with
which to promote the use of the VLE within their teaching.
Other reasons cited for using the VLE included the need to place student notices, to enhance
the use of existing websites and one reason in particular found resonance ‘. . . no other choice was
provided by the academic institution’. We will return to this later.
An interesting by product noted by the survey occured when users were asked what further
training they might like to undertake. As expected there were a number of requests for devel-
oping quizzes and multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs) not a strong feature of the Blackboard
VLE and a series of requests for management style themed training. These consisted of general
site management, project management and online time management skills – all of which are being
developed in response to this.
What was particularly interesting was the amount of requests for fundamental training in
the area of Blackboard itself, particular reference was made to the tools such as the group func-
tions, communications, surveys, the electric blackboard etc. One of the key reasons UCD acquired
Blackboard was for its ease of use and yet here we have a cohort of users, some familiar enough
with Blackboard to be running courses for over two years, that are unable to use some of its basic
functions.
Why is this? Basic training has been provided through the induction courses. Perhaps an
underlying reason for this is quite simple. Although these tools appear easy to use, the way in
which they are designed is often un-necessarily complicated. This makes it harder for the novice
user to structure and plan how it might best be integrated into their day to day practice.
Other training requests included courses to aid in the development of interactive resources,
such as Flash animations, digital video clips, audio files etc.
In UCD, although training and basic support are provided pro grata there is no specific e–
learning support team provided to those who wish to develop e–learning materials (e.g. digital
video, Flash, MCQs etc). Such resources can only be developed with additional finance (e.g.
Teaching Grants and Awards), departmental initiatives and the release of time enabling the end
user to develop the framework upon which such content will sit.

0% es 6%
Audio ed Fil
press
Com
)
r (4% 5%)
Othe es (1
s1 % Imag
ation
Anim
3%
Video

10%
PDFs

)
(26%
files
%) Text
L (1 0
HTM

)
t (25%
rPoin
Powe

Fig. 1: Current ‘File Type’ usage within Blackboard.

Analysing the material content within the VLE (see fig. 1) one was immediately presented
with the dominance of the use of Microsoft (MS) Office tools. This was noted in the majority
of text files used online. Further analysis found that these are almost all Microsoft Word Docu-
ments, and despite guidelines very few have been saved in either Rich Text Format (.rtf) or plain
text (.txt). Although MS Office is almost ubiquitous in its use in HEI one must realize that the

163
 V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

end user, the learner, may not be able to afford such an application and be looking towards low
cost or open source examples such as Star Office (http//:www.staroffice.com). Although
MS Office files may be opened in alternate packages, formatting and layout often goes astray.
Furthermore assistive technologies may encounter difficulties with reading the additional coding
often placed in MS Word .html files.
It has been noted that there is a wide divergence of the ICT skills base within the UCD Black-
board community, a certain cohort are akin to web and Flash designers and the majority are at an
introductionary level of providing supplemental materials online. This case of extremes needs to
be remedied. The presence of champions (those who have pioneered and/or developed method-
ologies and content of an exceptional or innovative nature) offers an insight into how the VLE may
best be used, but unless their endeavours are transferable and scalable across the whole commu-
nity it may represent to the novice user a stark reminder of the burgeoning gap in their own VLE
usage. It is interesting to note that where collaboration occurred in developing course materials
particular technological innovations were often required. Thus it is here that a ‘champion’ might
best share their expertise and experience.

30

25

20

15

10

0
Personally Departmentally Collaboratively Bought in Bought in
individual skills finished
materials

Fig. 2: How materials/content was developed for implementation into Blackboard

Analysis:
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) has required all HEI in the UK to have
a Teaching and Learning closely aligned with an Information Strategy demonstrably in place,
together these attempt to ensure that the use of ICT is appropriately embedded in an institution’s
core running.
The Dearing Report (NCIHE 1997) has amongst its recommendations some key areas that
HEI needs to address in the implementation of ICT strategies for the immediate future. A key
element is to ensure that staff and students receive appropriate training and support to enable
them to realise the full potential of any ICT initiatives2 . The change in future student interactions
recognises the need for all students to have access to their own portable computers.3
A major barrier in instigating e-learning has been the lack of coherent institute wide strategies.
This has been compounded, where strategies exist, by the conspicuous absence of support at
management level in attaining this end goal. A recent report (Studies in the Context of the E-
learning Initiative: Virtual Models of European Universities, (2004)) identified a cluster approach
to the integration of e-learning in European universities. Four clusters prevail with the first cluster
‘The Front-Runners’ far in advance of the other groupings providing a fully integrated approach,
2 Recommendation 9
3 Recommendation 46

164
 David Jennings

self-financed, with an explicit ICT strategy, and a leader in co-operative development across the
community. A worrying trend occurs that can be seen repeating itself at the academic level.
Although cluster two ‘The Co-operating Universities’ are not that far removed in many areas, full
integration of e-learning in the university itself does not exist. The lack of an internal strategy
suggests that it will not be possible to catch up with the front runners in the near future.
The student perception of online learning is often problematic. In a traditional face to face
environment there may well be a misinterpretation of its purpose if not appropriately delivered,
the students may see the online content as a mere collection of revision aids. Laurillard (1993)
offers a series of guidelines for the effective use of the internet that apply equally to the VLE
concept.

Is it clear to the students why they are using this new way of learning?

Is any prerequisite knowledge needed to use the material?

Is there sufficient support (eg hardware and software; training; access
to experts)?

Has the assessment for the course being redesigned in the light of the
introduction of Internet-based materials?

Have the students been made fully aware of the importance of the
course: eg is it essential, important, or simple optional?”

Source: (Laurillard 1993)

These questions provide a valuable prompt with which to begin the consideration of imple-
menting an elearning initiative. If complied with they should ensure that an appropriate structure
is in place to allow for student engagement with the content of a VLE course.

The Evaluation Tool

A key element of the survey was to present an opportunity for the CTL and Computing Services
to gain an insight into how users were engaging with Blackboard and to provide them with a way
in which to assess and develop their own methodologies and interactions with the system.
A basic premise has been developed for an evaluation tool that allows the user to create a
systematic development plan that will enhance the use of Blackboard from both the learners point
of view and the academic (or administrative) facilitator who wishes to increase and promote the
active engagement with the online content.
The evaluation tool will be developed for use within Blackboard and will utilize the ‘Survey
Tool’ function. This will allow all users access to the tool and the ability to apply it to their own
particular courses.
A three step approach has been taken in an attempt to capture a snapshot at key phases in the
life cycle of an online course (Mason 1998) and to lay down milestones that will act as a guide and
point to resources for future growth.
The first Phase will concentrate on the students point of view and ascertain what their level of
experience is with ILTs and ICTs in general. It will then enquire as to what the learners expectation
of the online course may be.
Phase two focuses on highlighting what additions to the online environment may be added
during the lifetime of a course, akin to a Mid-Term Evaluation this model offers an insight into
when and how best one might attempt to increase the online activity and enhance the learning
experience.

165
 V IRTUALLY EFFECTIVE : THE MEASURE OF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The final phase is to assess the course on the merit of its achieved learning outcomes and
ascertain if these may have been better served by further student interactions and the promotion
of active and deeper levels of learning.

Evaluation Model:
• Formative Phase
– Used prior to a course to establish levels of learner expectation and experience
• Diagnostic Phase
– Used during the course to ascertain necessary developmental changes
• Summative
– Used after course to measure effectiveness (on learning outcomes and interaction) and
prepare for future developments/revisements

Discussion
The use of ICT to support teaching and learning has increased dramatically over the last decade
(Conole 2002; Browne and Jenkins 2003). This use has been seen as a catalyst to revisit funda-
mental teaching and learning issues. With a wealth of technological resources at hand one is
prompted to question how best these tools may add to the learning experience. Is it possible to
enhance particular elements of the curriculum by the use of ICTs or can we develop the social and
communications skills of our learners. Has ICT enabled us to once again look at the prospect of
HEI offering a genuine holistic development for our learners?
The title of this chapter hoped to capture the virtual element of learning environments and
assess their true effectiveness but on reflection it appears a pun has been created. Is the VLE
Blackboard proving to be virtually (almost) effective rather than wholly effective?
It is apparent that the majority of Blackboard users in UCD are only just beginning to tap into
the potential on offer, and are using the system as an effective means of delivering and managing
an array of multimedia content. Our VLE has become a CMS (Course Management System). As
time goes on users will become more familiar with the tools and attempt to blend them into the
day to day process of teaching and learning. However, those that are already familiar have begun
to look elsewhere to enhance the environment by including outside sources of interactivity in the
guise of digital video or Flash files (Thakore and McMahon 2004). This anomaly only further
raises the question of the true effectiveness of the VLE in being the answer to all our e-learning
needs. It is clear that there is no overarching solution, and more often than not new technologies
on the world wide web (www) fast supercede what any company can produce and develop under
strict market requirements.

Concluding Statement
Tim Berniers-Lee (considered by many as the father of the www) considered that the basic con-
cept of the Web was “. . . that it is an information space through which people can communi-
cate. . . communicate by sharing their knowledge in a pool. . . The idea was that everybody
would be putting their ideas in, as well as taking them out.” (http://www.w3.org/People/
Berners-Lee) This evocative statement provides hope for a new dawn in the use of ICT in ed-
ucation. What fast became a consumer market place has only now just begun to offer a way to
claim back the www for what it was originally intended – to share information (particularly with
the advent of tools such as VLEs and innovative collaborative tools such as wikis and bloggs (see
McMullin 2005)). We as academics have a wonderful opportunity to bring this to fruition. Tem-
pered with the foresight to heighten our pedagogic needs we can begin to use the VLE as yet
another tool among many in forwarding teaching and learning.

166
 David Jennings

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Brendan Dixon (UCD, Computing Services) for his invaluable
contribution in designing and delivering the questionnaire. And to thank all those staff members
who contributed to the findings.

References
Browne, T. and M. Jenkins (2003). VLE Surveys, A Longitudinal Perspective between March 2001
and March 2003 for Higher Education in the United Kingdom. UCISA, http://www.ucisa.
ac.uk/group/tlig/vle/vle2003.pdf

Chickering, A. W. and Z. F. Gamson (1983). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergrad-
uate Education. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/
guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm.

Conole, G. (2002). Review of JTAP Projects: Perspectives on teaching and learning. University of
Southhampton.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational
technology. London: Routledge.

Mason, R. (1998). Models of Online Courses. ALN Magazine 2(2). Accessed 09.03 http://www.
aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n2/mason.asp

McMullin, B. (2005). Putting the learning back into learning technology. In S. Moore, G. O’Neill,
and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin:
AISHE.

NCIHE (1997). National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Edication - the Dearing Report. Higher
Education in the Learning Society, HMSO/NCIHE.

Nicol, D., N. Kay, G. Gordon, and M. Coen (2002). INSIGHT: A Model for Evaluation the Costs
and Benefits of ICT in Teaching and Learning. University of Strathclyde.

O’Neill, G. and T. McMahon (2005). Student-Centred Learning: What does it mean for students
and lecturers? In S. Moore, G. O’Neill, and B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of
University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

PLS RAMBOLL Management A/S (2004). Studies in the Context of the E-learning Initiative:
Virtual Models of European Universities (Lot 1). Draft Final Report to the EU Commission, DG
Education & Culture.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.

Tearle, P. and D. Prosse (2004). Use of Virtual Learning Environments for teaching and learning
in higher education: Pedagogic models. Paper at ALT-C 2004, Exeter University.

Thakore, H. and T. McMahon (2004, 6–8 September). Developing a Pilot Web-based Interactive
Tutorial System for Medical Students. Association for Medical Education in Europe Annual Confer-
ence.

UCD Staff Manual (2001). Mission and Vision Statement. http://www.ucd.ie/personl/

html/manual/index acc.htm

167
168
Biographies of Authors (alphabetically)
Anne Jordan
Dr. Anne Jordan is the Manager of the Educational Development Centre in the Waterford Insti-
tute of Technology. She is also the Course Co-ordinator of WIT’s newly developed Postgraduate
Diploma/ Masters in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Publications in 2004 include:
Carlile, Jordan and Stack, Learning by Design, BBC Online Curriculum
Jordan, A. ed. MI Resource Book for Teachers, EU Finvoc Project
Jordan. A. Chapter on ‘Accelerated Learning’.in Latvian Publication Zinatniskie Ratsti, Riga,
Latvia.

Barry McMullin
Barry McMullin is a senior lecturer in the School of Electronic Engineering at Dublin City Uni-
versity. As well as extensive teaching experience at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels,
he has research interests in the development and application of Internet technologies to support
users with disabilities, and in foundational problems in complexity and the evolutionary growth
of knowledge. He has recently completed a five year term as DCU Dean of Teaching and Learning,
including responsibility for institutional adoption of the ”social constructionist” virtual learning
environment ”Moodle”.

Bettie Higgs
Bettie Higgs is an academic staff member in the Geology Department, University College Cork,
and teaches undergraduate and postgraduate level. She is also the coordinator of the Support
for Teaching and Learning programme in the university. As well as organizing over 100 sem-
inars during the past two years, to facilitate sharing of innovative practice, she is carrying out
research on issues of teaching and learning in science. She has been an Associate Lecturer with
the Open University for the past 12 years, as well as a learning advisor since 2002. She has full
membership of the ILThe and Higher Education Academy, and holds a Postgraduate Certificate
in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education from the Open University. http://www.ucc.
ie/Teaching and Learning/

Ciara O’Farrell
Dr. Ciara O’Farrell is an academic developer in Trinity College’s Centre of Academic Practice
and Student Learning (CAPSL) which supports the enhancement of learning and teaching within
the university. She holds a PhD in English from University College Dublin, and her most recent
publication is a biography of Abbey Theatre playwright Louis D’Alton, published by Four Courts
Press in October 2004. Her current educational research and teaching interests focus on writing
skills, assessment, academic mentoring, e-Learning, and postgraduate research supervision.

David Jennings
David Jennings joined UCD’s Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) in January 2004 as a Lec-
turer in Educational Development, with an emphasis in the area of Educational Technology. In
this area, he promotes the use of technology in teaching and learning. David was previously a
member of the UCD Archaeology Department and part of the IAWU national research survey.
David provides one to one advice and support, he facilitates workshops and seminars to those
in the academic community wishing to integrate educational technology into the curriculum.
His knowledge covers a wide range of areas, such as the use of virtual learning environments,
integrating digital video and photography, computer aided assessment etc.His special areas of
interest include:
Interactive Teaching Technologies

169
 B IOGRAPHIES

Collaborative Techniques in Teaching Online

E-Moderating

Dearbhla Ni Charthaigh

Dr Dearbhal Ni Chartaigh is Director of the Programme in Academic Practice, in the Centre for
Teaching and Learning in the National University of Ireland, Limerick.

Diana Kelly

Dr. Diana Kelly has been facilitating educational development workshops since 1989. From 2000
-2003 she was responsible for the Dublin Institute of Technology’s Learning and Teaching Centre
which provides workshops, consultations, and conferences for academic staff. Currently she is
providing consultancy services for higher education. Dr. Kelly earned her doctorate in Higher
Education at the Claremont Graduate University in California, studying the impact of formative
assessments on the professional development of academics.”

Geraldine O’Neill

Dr. Geraldine O’Neill is Head of the Centre for Teaching and Learning in National University of
Ireland, University College Dublin (UCD). She joined the Centre for Teaching and Learning) in
September 2001. Prior to joining UCD, she was the Head of the School of Occupational Therapy
in Trinity College Dublin and was an academic staff member of Trinity College for 12 years. The
Centre is a relatively new academic Centre and has developed recent post-graduate courses in
teaching and learning in Higher Education. Geraldine’s past educational publication have been
in the area of assessment of clinical practice and in the area of interdisciplinary education. Her
current educational research is in the area of student-centered approaches to teaching/learning,
peer observation of teaching, the reflective practitioner and problem–based learning.

Helen Fallon

Helen is Deputy Librarian at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. One of her areas of
responsibility is the provision of information services to the staff and students of the Centre for
Adult and Continuing Education at Maynooth. Her research interests include changing patterns
of scholarly communication and gender and technology. She spent two years lecturing in librari-
anship at the University of Sierra Leone and has a keen interest in African women writers.

Iain MacLaren

Dr. Iain MacLaren (Mac Labhrainn) is Director of the Centre for Excellence in Learning & Teaching
(CELT) at NUI, Galway. CELT’s remit spans academic staff development, learning technologies
and teaching & learning policy. He has participated in, and led, a number of national (in Scotland
& UK!) and international projects in educational evaluation and technology implementation and
is currently a lead partner in a European project on academic staff development and eLearning.
He is a member of the Institute for Learning and Teaching and the American Association for
Higher Education and, through his “past life” was elected to a Fellowship of the Institute of
Physics. Ongoing research activities include (a) the use of reflective journaling techniques in
continuing professional development; (b) institutional and educational approaches to student
diversity; and (c) civic engagement, service learning and the “democratic intellect”; all of which
are externally funded projects employing a number of research staff.

170
 Biographies

Margaret O’Flanagan
Margaret O’Flanagan, at the time of writing, was Institutional Analysis and Awards Officer at
Dublin City University, a role she held, under different guises, from 1997 to 2005. Margaret grad-
uated from Trinity College Dublin (The University of Dublin) in 1993 with an M.Litt. in human
geography having completed her B.A. in University College Dublin. Following graduation Mar-
garet spent four years as a research analyst with a leading economic consultancy before taking
up her role at Dublin City University. Margaret is now Assistant Education Director at the Royal
Institute of the Architects of Ireland.

Marian Fitzmaurice
Marian is currently a Learning Development Officer in the Learning and Teaching Centre in the
Dublin Institute of Technology. She is lecturing on the postgraduate programme in learning and
teaching and coordinates the postgraduate diploma in third level teaching and learning. In more
recent years Marian has been a contributor to research and thinking about teachers’ professional
development needs and she is particularly interested in this area. Marian’s teaching and research
interests include curriculum design, portfolios for learning and assessment, reflective practice,
presentation and communication skills and project based learning. She is currently doing re-
search on professional development in higher education and is working towards a SEDA Fellow-
ship.

Marian McCarthy
Marian is currently a Lecturer in Education, Department of Education, UCC. She has been in-
volved in recent years in the development of teaching and learning in UCC through a series of
teaching portfolio seminars for staff. She is carrying out research into teaching and learning prac-
tices.
Other positions:
1994-1999: Presenter of the National In-service Programme of the Department of Education
and Science in Civic, Social and Political Education.
1980-1990: Founder / Director Crosshaven School of Speech and Drama, designed to meet the
needs of the local community in the areas of drama, theatre and speech .
1977-1995: Teacher of English and Drama in Coláiste an Phiarsaigh, Gleann Maghair, Co. Chorcaı́.
Posts of responsibility: Transition Year Co-ordinator, Debates Officer, Drama Director, Librarian.

Orison Carlile
Dr Orison Carlile is an educational consultant assisting the School of Education in Waterford
Institute of Technology to develop and deliver Masters courses. He also lectures for the Open
University on its Masters programme in Educational Leadership and for Mater Dei Institute on
Research Methods. He presents professional development seminars for staff and management of
Primary, Secondary and Vocational Schools. His research interests include teaching competence
and incompetence, learning theory, reflective practice and educational leadership. His most re-
cent publication was Carlile, O., Jordan, A. and Stack, A. (2004) Learning by Design:Learning Theory
for the Designer of Multimedia Eductional Materials, BBC Online Curriculum

Roisin Donnelly
Roisin has been working for the past 5 years in the Learning and Teaching Centre in DIT, where
she has been involved from the outset in designing, co-ordinating and delivering the Postgrad-
uate Certificate, Diploma and Masters (MA) in Third Level Learning and Teaching. She has also
been involved in design and delivery of E-Learning Pedagogy training and consultations for Aca-
demic Staff Development in DIT. In 2003, Roisin became a full member of the professional body

171
 B IOGRAPHIES

The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, now the Higher Education Acad-
emy (HEA). She has a range of publications to date, reflecting her teaching and research interests,
including curriculum design, collaborative learning, e-problem–based and project–based learn-
ing, e-learning design and collaboration, active learning approaches, and teaching portfolio de-
velopment and support. She is continuing her research in higher education through the Doctorate
of Education Degree (EdD) from Queen’s University Belfast, where her research specialism is the
role of the tutor in blended problem–based learning.

Saranne Magennis

Saranne is currently Head of Quality at National University of Ireland, Maynooth. She is com-
mitted to a multi-layered approach to the promotion of quality in higher education, designed to
empower and enable individual academics to achieve their full potential, and in doing so support
their students in a similar endeavour.

Sarah Moore

Dr Sarah Moore is Dean of Teaching and Learning at the University of Limerick. She has designed
and implemented a range of teaching and learning innovations and regularly writes in the areas
of both organisational behaviour and educational development in higher educational contexts.
She is a member of Ireland’s Higher Education Authority, chair of the inter-university retention
network and a regular facilitator of the University of Limerick writers’ retreats designed to help
academics to manage the contested intersection between teaching and research. Recent publi-
cations include an undergraduate textbook on organisational behaviour (with Morley, Heraty,
MacCurtain and Linehan), a study skills handbook for higher educational students and a range
of papers focusing on the impact of classroom innovations in university settings.

Tim McMahon

Dr Tim McMahon has worked for the Centre for Teaching and Learning in University College
Dublin – part of the National University of Ireland – since May 2002. Previously he was Princi-
pal Lecturer in Educational Development at Anglia Polytechnic University in the UK. Tim’s main
areas of research include developing web–based tutorials for medical students, exploring the con-
cepts of validity and legitimacy in action-research and developing quality improvements systems
that are genuinely controlled by the professionals involved.

Terry Barrett

Terry Barrett is an education development consultant. She is currently finishing writing up her
doctoral thesis which is entitled “ Lecturers as problem–based learners: a critical discourse analy-
sis of the dialogue of a PBL staff development module. ”
She was Programme Leader of the Postgraduate Programme in Third Level Learning and
Teaching at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Previous to this she was a lecturer at the School of
Education Studies, Dublin City University. She has published in the areas of community develop-
ment, guidance counselling, academic development and problem–based learning. She currently
works as an education development consultant and her specialisms include curriculum design
and problem–based learning.

172
 Biographies

Contact addresses of all authors:

Geraldine O’Neill [email protected]
University College
Tim McMahon Dublin [email protected]
David Jennings [email protected]
Sarah Moore [email protected]
University of Limerick
Dearbhal Ni Charthaigh [email protected]
Barry McMullin Dublin City University [email protected]
Margaret O’Flanagan Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland [email protected]
Roisin Donnelly [email protected]
Dublin Institute of Technology
Marian Fitzmaurice [email protected]
Helen Fallon [email protected]
Saranne Magennis National University of Ireland, Maynooth [email protected]
Alison Farrell [email protected]
Diana K. Kelly Consultant [email protected]
Marian McCarthy [email protected]
National University of Ireland, Cork
Bettie Higgs [email protected]
Terry Barrett Freelance education developer [email protected]
Anne Jordan [email protected]
Waterford Institute of Technology
Orison Carlile [email protected]
Ciara O’Farrell Trinity College Dublin [email protected]

173