Active Learning: Motivational , Cognitive and Instructional Perspectives – Lessons from an Intervention S tudy and T heory

TATIONpRÆSEN

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

Active Learning: Motivational, Cognitive and Instructional Perspectives – Lessons from an Intervention Study and TheoryKim Jesper Herrmann

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

Centre for Teaching and LearningSCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCESAARHUS UNIVERSITET

2

Outline› Background

› Theories of learning› Student-centred teaching› Questions

› Methods› Results

› Quantitative› Qualitative

› Discussion› Implications



3

BACKGROUND



4

Challenge for modern universities› Elite university mass university

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

› To integrate less academically orientated students

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



5

Constructivism› Knowledge cannot be transmitted

…

› but is individually constructed …

› and socially negotiated …

› within a given (academic) discourse

Individualistic experiences, perceptions, and constructions do not mean that it is impossible for individuals to construct essentially the same understanding for any object or event in the external world. Common understandings regularly result from social negotiation of meaning which is supported by collaborative construction of knowledge. Understandings [...] can be negotiated between learners and teachers (Jonassen et al., 1993:234, emphasis added).



6

Student Approaches to Learning (SAL)› ”Establishing concepts or understanding ideas … depends on making links with

what we know already and that demands … the conscious attempt to make sense of topics for oneself” (Entwistle 2009:16, emphasis added)

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

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



7

from Biggs (2012:40)



8

Student-centred instructional methods› “… the process of learning involves

active construction and, accordingly, learning should itself be active” (Stewart, 2012:30, emphasis added)

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

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

Case-Based Learning

Cooperative Learning

Problem-Based Learning

Discovery Learning

Collaborative LearningReciprocal Teaching

E-learning

Blended Learning

Concept Mapping



9




10

Questions› What is the anatomy of

approaches to learning in the context of tutorials?

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

› How do students perceive student-centred teaching?



11

METHODS



12

Intervention

1234567891011…Teaching as usual: Student presentations

Intervention: Cooperative learning

Pre-survey+ interviews

Post-survey+ interviews



13

Quantitative methods› R-SPQ-2F-DA (Lassesen, 2009;

Biggs et al. 2001)› Deep approach scale› Surface approach to scale

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

2010)

› n=142 (pretest-posttest)

› Dependent samples t-test



14

Qualitative methods› Data

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

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

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

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

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



15

RESULTS



16

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

review’

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

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



17

Quantitative results› n=142

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

› DA (t[140]=-0.930, p>0.05, r=0.08)

› SA (t[140]=-0.553, p>0.05, r=0.05)

› Partial conclusion



18

ApproachesDeep approach Surface approach

Taking notesSummarises in own words Writes notes in order to understandTakes notes of main points

Reproduces verbatin what was saidWrites notes in order to pass exameNotes as many facts as possible

Listening

Notices what is said (content)Looks for underlying meaningFocuses on what is not understoodCompares to own understanding

Notices who says it (tutor vs. peers)Looks for correct answersFocuses on what is supposed to be ‘the point’Disengages when solution is found

Engaging in dialogue

Judges the plausibility of statementsWonders and asks questionsComes with questions in mind

Labels statements as right or wrongAccepts answers without furhter reflectionEmpty bucket ready to be filled



19




Listening






I definitely take quite a lot of notes myself, because what other people have written isn’t normally enough. It might mean something to them but it doesn’t mean exactly the same thing to me (Kirsten, DA)

So I listen to what they say and try to write as much as possible … I spend a huge amount of time writing things down, yes. I really do. […] It’s also because we’re going to have to do an exam and we’re allowed to take our notes with us, so you can search for information in OneNote [a note-taking program] … and then you can find exactly what you need … I suppose I feel it’s really important to get everything written down … I’m afraid I won’t be able to remember it … actually I often feel that it’s hard to express things in my own words … That’s why I feel it’s better to listen to what people say and write it down in their words. Then I can understand what they said later on. (Claudia, SA)



20




Listening








21




Listening






… so I look at my [own] notes and like try to find out ‘What’s their answer to this question?’ … ‘Was I thinking the same thing?’, umm, and if I wasn’t … then I write it down and if I don’t feel I’ve understood what they said I might ask them at the end … ‘What do you mean? Is it this?’ (Arthur, DA).

… if you feel that the person giving a presentation isn’t 100 per cent on top of things, you might lose a bit of, umm, incentive to listen carefully to what they’re saying […] so you might as well wait until Susan [the tutor] takes over and says the important things //… people normally believe what they hear and then rely on it. (Michael, SA).



22

Pedagogical role of tutor

Role of peers

Purpose of the tutorial

Perceptions



23

Perceptions


Role of peers


… Susan [the tutor] she manages / I mean, I mean that we cover it all THOROUGHLY … // (IP: What is Susan good at?) She’s good at putting things clearly and saying ‘That’s wrong’ and ‘That’s right’ and that kind of thing. ‘And what I mean is this and that’ […] when a subject is a bit vague you need some pretty specific notes, after all […] we have got to do an exam. Umm … and she’s good at giving you them [notes]. (Kate, SA)

… where the tutor is like in control as far as that’s necessary and like keeps the teaching on track […] someone who’s in control but can easily pull back as well (James, DA)

Knowledgable chairman

Expert authority



24


Role of peers


It’s also because I feel that what Kurt [the tutor] says is right … or what the presenter says is right. If we reach our own conclusions, I tend to feel that they’re wrong. (Claudia, SA)

It’s interesting to hear other people’s interpretations and questions, and in many cases they have different points of focus which you might not have thought about yourself […] So I think it’s really interesting (John, DA)


Academic colleagues

Expert authority

Fellow ignorants

Perceptions



25

Expert authority

Fellow ignorants

Small scale, interactive lecture


Role of peers


It’s all about going to class and getting the right answers. (Kate, SA)


Academic colleagues

Arena to apply and test understanding

Perceptions

I suppose I also expect that in tutorials you work with the material in a slightly different way because you can discuss it […] you can play an active part in the discussions. (Victoria, DA).



26

DISCUSSION



27

Questions› What is the anatomy of

approaches to learning in the context of tutorials?

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

› How do students perceive student-centred teaching?



28

The meaning of ‘activity’Study

› Cognitive activity≠ behavioral activity

› Quantitative and qualitative aspects

› Quality as understanding

› Strategy coherent with intention

Theory

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

› Silence ≠ inactivity (Meyer, 2009)

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



29


Symbolic engagement /‘technification’



30

The efficacy of student-centred teachingStudy

› Impact of cooperative learning

› Congruence with deep approach ≠ stimulation of deep approaches

Theory

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

› Learning theory ≠ teaching imperatives (Gergen, 2005)

› Constructivist teaching fallacy (Mayer, 2004)

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



31

The role of perceptionsStudy› Approaches to learning are

responses to instrucational methods as they are perceived

Theory› Structure actions outcome

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009)

› 3P-model (Biggs, 2002)

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

Context (teaching)

Approaches to learning

Learning outcome

Perception of context



32

Student-centred teaching paradox› Premis: Meaningfull learning involves active knowledge construction

i.e. deep approaches

› Problem: Some students adopting surface approaches to learning

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

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



33

IMPLICATIONS



34

Theoretical implication› Instructional methods per se

› Alignment (Biggs, 2012)

› Congruence (ETL-project)

› Balanced optimism

› Empirical testing of assumptions

› Formalised instructional methods +

› Experiential dimension +› Teaching approaches



35

Practical implications› Teaching as intended ≠ teaching

as perceived

› Evidence informed trial-and-error

› Feedback about teaching (Hattie, 2012)

› Reaching commonality of meaning (Hounsell, 2005)



36

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

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

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

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

time to assess my dissertation.

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



37

References› Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to

stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243-260.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



38

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



40

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

Education. SRHE and Open University Press.

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

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



41

Alternative theories of learning in HE› Theories’ ecological validity (Entwistle,

1984)

› Collaborative learning and social constructivism

› Ways of thinking and practicing (ETL-project)

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



42

Scope of intervention› Competition from other courses

(Anderson, 1997)

› Assessment, SAQ’s (Entwistle, 2009)

› Length of intervention one semester (Kember, 2004)

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

educational change” (Fullan, 2002)› Sustainable incrementalisme

› Constructive alignment (Biggs, 2012)

Teaching-learning activities

AssessmentIntended learning outcome



43

Conceptions of learning› Conceptions of learning (Säljö, 1979

[in Marton and Säljö, 1984]; Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993)

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

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



44

Cooperative learning› ”...offers students and faculty a

structured, on-task means to foster learner activity and learner interaction” (Millis & Cottell, 1998:38, emphasis added)

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

knowledge

Active

learning

Collaborat

ive

learning

Cooperativ

e learning

Documents

Active Learning: Motivational , Cognitive and Instructional Perspectives – Lessons from an Intervention S tudy and T heory