437

Higher Education 5 ( 19761437-456 0 l-lsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: RECENT TREN DS*

M A R C E L L. G O L D S C H M I D

Swiss Federal Institute o f Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

A B S T R A C T

In the last decade , the q u e s t i o n i n g of t r ad i t iona l t each ing and lea rn ing m e t h o d s and i n s t ruc t i ona l sys tems and the search for more ef fec t ive a l t e rna t ives have gained m o m e n - t um in h igher e d u c a t i o n . Recen t t r ends can be g rouped as fol lows: -- fac i l i t a t ion of s t u d e n t l ea rn ing wi th an emphas i s on ind iv idua l iz ing i n s t r u c t i o n , and

increased use of mul t i - inedia sys tems , l ea rn ing resource cen te rs , and peer t each ing : -- eva lua t ion of t each ing: the widespread and s y s t e m a t i c use of s t u d e n t eva lua t ions by means of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and grea ter use of these data for purposes of facul ty se lec t ion and p r o m o t i o n ; - un ive r s i t y - t eache r t r a in ing inc lud ing the c rea t ion of pedagogical service uni ts on many campuses , courses and w o r k s h o p s on i n s t r uc t i on for facu l ty and g radua te s t u d e n t s , and increased c o l l a b o r a t i o n be t w een c o n t e n t special is ts and i n s t r u c t i o n a l and media consul - t an t s in cur r icu la r r e fo rms : - new sys tems of h igher e d u c a t i o n , such as the Open Univers i ty or the Univers i ty Wi thou t Walls, designed to offer radical a l t e rna t ives to new as well as t r ad i t i ona l types of s t uden t s . These t rends , wh ich have been a c c o m p a n i e d by in tense research and eva lua t ion effor ts , will be descr ibed and assessed.

Introduction

111 the last decade, the traditional teaching and learning methods and current instructional systems have come under increased scrutiny. The search for more effective alternatives has been accompanied by intense research and evaluation efforts. An enormous number of books and articles, several new

* Based on an inv i ted Keyno te address p resen ted at the Thi rd I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on Higher E d u c a t i o n , " E x c e l l e n c e or Equa l i ty : a d i l emma for h igher e d u c a t i o n " , held at

the Univers i ty of Lancas ter , 1 5 S e p t e m b e r , 1975.

438

journals and ilumerotis ii lternational and national conferences and profes- sional associations are now specifically devoted to instructional concerns in the university.

The principal developnlents may be grouped in four categories:

1. Facilitation of student learning -- including a trend towarcl individu- alizing instruction, increased use of media and peer teaching.

2. Evaluation of teaching especially the systematic use of question- naires completed by students and gjeater consideration of these data for l)urposes of faculty selection and l~romotion.

3. Improving faculty teaching pcrforlnance - by establishing pedagogi- cal service units, courses on instruction for university teachers, and collabo- ration between content , instructional anti media specialists in curricular re- forms.

4. Creation of new educational systems to provide radical alternatives for new and traditional types of students.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and assess each of these trends in turn although it should be noted that they are all in terdependent and have influenced each other.

Facilitating Student Learning

As student numbers kept increasing ill the fifties and sixties, it became evident that the whole climate, and ill particular tile relation between students and professors, had undergone a profound change. Anonimity and mass education had become the halhnark of university instruction. Student dissatisfaction p e w correspondingly and, fuelled by a number of other concerns, finally erupted in explosive manifestations and demonstrat ions. The student revolt certainly represents one of the key factors underlying the questioning of traditional approaches and the search for alternatives.

Recent developments in educational research have also contr ibuted to this trend. There has been a realization that traditional approaches, sl, ich as the lecture, are not in line with the principles of modern learning theor)' which stresses the role of active involvement and feedback, nor do they

)

account for indiridual dilferences in" cognitive style, prior learning, and the rate of acquisition. Advances in educational technology, the media revolu- tion on one hand, and program development, on the other, have made it possible furtherlnore to design more adequate instruction, even for a large number of students.

All tl~ese factors have led to a major trend in higher education, namely that of individualizing instruction.

439

INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION

Many systems of individualizing instruction have evolved (Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1974). The major ones used in higher education today include the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) or Keller Plan (Born, 1971: Keller, 1968, 1974: Sherman, 1974), tile Audio-Tutorial Approach or ATA (Postlethwait et al., 1972), Modular Instruction or MI (Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1973), and Computer-Assisted Instruction (CALL They have more in common, especially the first three, than unique characteristics. They are all learner- rather than teacher-oriented, and emphasize clear goals, active s tudent participation in the learning process, feedback and evaluation, and individual pacing. In short, they seek to account for the principles of learning theories and at the same time adapt to individual differences.

In PSI, ATA, and MI, a course is generally divided into several units or modules each accompanied by a set of specific objectives, a s tudy guide, text, and exercises.

Multi-media programs (e.g., slide-tape presentations, TV, and film) are often used with individualized playback systems to illustrate visually one or the other aspect of the course. Students work through each unit, sometimes with the help of s tudent assistants or proctors (PSI), at their own pace. When they feel they have reached the objectives, they take the unit exam which usually requires mastery learning ( Bloom, 1968).

These approaches have encountered considerable success and can now be found on many American and some European campuses. Formal evalua- tion of these systems (e.g., of PSI, Kulik, 1975: see also Goldschmid and Goldschnfid, 1973: 1974) have pointed to a number of advantages over traditional instruction.

it is obvious that in individualized instruction the role of both faculty and students may change profoundly. The former no longer concentrate on oral presentations of information, but become course designers, managers and consultants to their students and assistants. The latter must shift from passive recipients of information to active partners in the learning process.

Many questions still remain unresolved, however, and await further exploration and research. For example, the integration of these individu- alized courses in the total curriculum, or the combinat ion of several of them into one program, the contradict ion between individual pacing and fixed course calendars, the preparation of students in terms of s tudy methods and skills to maximally profit from this approach, and above all the place of discussions and critique of the course content, i.e., the fostering of indepen- dent and creative thinking in individualized instruction.

It is highly likely that the trend towards individtmlizing instruction will continue and even be intensified. If so, instruction in higher education will be profoundly altered and may enter a promising future.

440

LEARNING RESOURCE CENTERS

Often in conjunction with individualized instruction, a number of universities are experimenting with instructional-resource or learning centers (Brick, 1971: Gunselman, 1971). These centers would ideally represent an extension of the library as advocated by the Carnegie Commission ( 1 9 7 2 ) o r be independent. A large number of programs in various media (e.g., video- and fihn cassettes, computer programs, etc.) in different subjects can be inade available to all students on a campus for individual use (for example, in carrels). Random access systems enabling students to dial or call any pro- ream they wish have already been developed (Nixon, 1970: Singer, 1970). Because of costly investments they have so far not known widespread applications. Another even more serious problem is the relative lack of high-quality educational programs: the hardware development has Far- outstripped that of software. It may be hoped that greater access to compu- ters and terminals and even more sophisticated audio-visual equipment, as well as the trend towards individualized instruction will accelerate the development of software. The potentials of this approach are staggering: Some day, any individual learner, anywhere, may, via satellite and cables, call for any existing p ro~am, at any time, on a global scale. The lichness and flexibility of such a system would not only make the financial investments and great efforts needed worthwhile, it would truly cater to the individual's personal interest, ability, and aspirations.

PEER TEACHING

More down to earth and much less costly has been a trend towards peer teaching. We have recently completed a review of this instructional strategy (Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1975) and found that although the concept alluded to is simple, i.e., students teach other students of approximately the same age and educational experience, many different models have evolved: For example, discussion groups or seminars which are led by undergraduate teaching assistants, s tudent proctors who assist their peers in PSI, student- learning groups which function without a teacher, the learning cell (Gold- schmid and Shore, 1974) where t ~ o students review and dialogue over questions they have prepared on aft assignment before hand, and "parrai- nage" (Goldschmid and Burckhardt, 1975) or counseling of freshmen by seniors who help them with general problems (e.g., housing, curriculum, relationships, etc.) and course work.

Several factors have contr ibuted to the recent interest in peer-teaching including socio-psychological (e.g,, lack of personal contacts with peers and faculty), pedagogical (e.g., desire to actively involve the students in the

441

learning process and assume responsibility for their own education), political (e.g., preventing student unrest) and especially economical factors (peer teaching is one of the few innovations in higher education which has not necessitated budget increases).

An extension of this approach would seem highly desirable for instruc- tional and social reasons. It can represent an element of individualized instruction (e.g., proctors in PSI) or a supplement to a more traditional approach (e.g., lecture). Research has shown that both student " teacher" and student "'leanaer" benefit from peer teaching both cognitivety and affectively, especially if students alternate between the two roles. Since it is economical, one could easily imagine a campus where all students are learners and teachers at different times and in different subjects, thus facilitating social interactions and enhancing learning.

PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Various explorations by learning psychologists and educational techno- logists have gradually led to some consensus as to the principles which underlie effective instruction (Entwistle, 1975: Goldschmid, 1970: Unesco- IAU Seminar, 1971). Although some divergence of opinion and differences in practical applications subsist, the essential steps may be summarized as follows:

a) analysis of the subject mat ter and student needs: b) specification of the objectives of the course: c) sequencing of the objectives in terms of subject mat ter coherence

and student ability; d) selection or development of apwopria te fiaethods and media to

achieve tile objectives: e) evaluation of the outcome of instruction; f) revision of objectives, content , instructional approach in light of the

evaluation results. Although this procedure is popular among instructional specialists, it

seems to be rarely applied systematically by professors, most o f whom find it too t ime-consuming or lack the necessary information and training to apply it, or both. We shall return to this problem when we discuss ways of improving faculty teaching performance. Here, we should note that at least an instructional model exists, which has considerable research support and has been designed to facilitate s tudent leanaing.

RELEVANCE OF CONTENT AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

Not too long ago, the "cry for relevance" resounded on most of our campuses. It seems to have largely subsided. Does that mean that the

442

students" demands have been met? I believe not, but rather that this turned out to be one of the most thorny issues which is and will be difficult to resolve. Relevant for whom? According to what criteria? one may ask. It is unreasonable to assume that professors strive for irrelevance in their course content - quite the contrary, but what is relevant to one may be irrelevant to another. Even content specialists have enormous difficulties agreeing with each other on what consti tutes relevant content. What is relevant, further- more, is subject to radical changes within short periods of time.

Economic pressures and lack of jobs have done their share in detracting the students ' a t tent ion from this problem. Yet, it remains a challenge to all educators to constantly evaluate the pertinence and usefulness of what they teach. Unfortunately, hardly any research has been carried out on this problem, for example, on how relevance is defined, perceived and inter- preted by different groups of people, on the evolution of what is relevant over a period of time, or on the effectiveness of various approaches to rellect relevance in a course.

Some instructors have, however, explored informally and on an indivi- dual basis ways of introducing "relevant" content in a curriculum. Most of them have tried some form of experiential learning, i.e. providing students with a learning experience in a realistic situation, for example in the communi ty , industry, or government.

The project method in one form or another has been a favorite strategy particularly in professional schools (e.g., engineering) and in Europe (e.g. in Germany: "Projekt S t u d i u m " in Denmark, at Roskilde University (1974), the entire curriculum is based on the project method). Advocates of this approach point to its potential in bringing students in contact with people off campus and "real" problems, learning professional and other skills (e.g., working in teams, establishing contacts with a variety of people, verbal and written expression), fostering creativity, and in contr ibuting solutions to society 's problems.

There is no doubt that this approach deserves greater recognition and wider applications. In' fact, every s tudent should have the oppor tun i ty to tackle at least once, for one semester or a year, a significant problem with some of his colleagues even during his undergraduate studies. The major drawback of the project method and experiential learning is that it is time consuming and requires a good deal of organization and supervision. How- ever, those who oppose it on these" or other grounds may forget that the objectives pursued by this type of learning represent the very essence and culmination of higher education as def ined by most universities in their course calendars and catalogues.

This leads us to another conclusion with respect to s tudent learning: No matter how eloquent, elegant, sophisticated, organized, structured, and ef- fective the instructor 's teaching method is, the content should remain a key

443

variable and never be relegated to secondary status. The opposite, however, is not true either: the instructor cannot and should not seek refuge behind his subject matter expertise, i.e., claim that if hc is competen t in his field or the subject he is teaching, he need not be concerned with the .lorm of instruction. All evidence suggests that if he is not, he may seriously short- change his students.

ROLl! OF INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCII

Several times already, research evidence has been mentioned in connec- tion with approaches to facilitate learning, l should like to discuss briefly some of the issues which concern me in this connection:

Educational research has not yet been fully adapted to these new trends. Traditional approaches (e.g., statistically comparing the results of using one teaching method with another) have yielded little useful data. Nor have the laboratory methods advanced us very much. Although they are more precise, they usually lack in practical significance. What we must look for, it seems to me, are strategies which will allow us to account for learning effects in different individuals with different methods and different con- ten ts.

Nor havc we sufficiently explored any teaching method in connect ion with the students ' s tudy habits and environment on and off campus. So much goes into a s tudent 's success in a particular course: content, teaching method, personality of the instructor, learning methods of the student as well as his interests, abilities, aspirations, knowledge, experience and pmson- ality, that it seems futile to only globally compare one teaching approach with another. Close observational methods, perhaps of an ahnost anthropo- logical nature, of a few learners in their total engironment may help us further. Designing an instructional system along the lines suggested above and observing the outcomes with respect to as many personal variables as possible may be a more promising approach.

The problem of tl~e "matclC' then remains: Wl:at instrt~ctionaI ap- proach serves what students in what course best? What is the optimal match between method and content and at least specific subgroups of learners, if not individuals? Apti tude Treatment Interaction (ATI) research has pointed in this direction (Cronbach and Snow, in press), so far with little success. Yet, at least theoretically, it remains a promising alternative.

Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

A very definite trend in higher education is the increasing practice of evaluating courses and professors. 111 parlicular, questionnaires which gener-

444

ally cover a wide range of domains are completed by students in order to arrive at an indication of teaching effectiveness.

In many cases these questionnaires have undergone intense evaluation and revision before they are used on a wider scale. Most are computer scored, thus providing faculty with an efficient tool for obtaining feedback from their students about their teaching. Many professors are still reluctant to accept s tudent evaluation as a valid approach to judge their performance. They fear that such ratings will turn teaching into a popularity contest. Some also feel that students are unable to rate their performance because they are not subject-matter specialists.

After a comprehensive review of student evaluation practices, Costin et al., (1971), however, have come to the following conclusion:

If teaching performance is to be evaluated, either for purposes of pay and promotion or for individual improvement, a systematic measure of student attitudes, opinions, and observations can hardly be ignored. The data which have been reviewed strongly suggest that the use of formal student ratings provides a reasonable way of measuring student reaction.

The increase in at tempts to assess teaching has been underscored by Seldin's (1975) nation-wide survey of faculty evaluation in 500 liberal arts colleges. Research as a major promotion factor cited by 32 per cent of college deans surveyed ill 1966 (for example) dropped to 22 per cent ill 1974: publication IYom 25 to 17 per cent. Formal s tudent participation ill faculty evaluation (written questionnaires, statistically validated, and distri- buted to all students) increased from 11 per cent in 1966 to 29 per cent in 1074 (Seldin and Wakin, 1975). Miller, who has devoted great efforts to assess faculty evaluation procedures (Miller, 1972)has also concluded that "students" evaluation is tile most valid, reliable and defensible" tool for faculty appraisal (Miller, 1975).

Although student evaluations of teaching effectiveness are on the in- crease, relatively few universities as yet use these data systematically for purposes of faculty selection and promotion. There are also significant differences in the actual practice of s tudent evaluation. For example, only on a few campuses is student evaluation mandatory in all courses (e.g., at Purdue University or the Technical University of Stockholm). In some cases, the data are available to the students, professors and the administration. In others, only the professors see the results. In still others, the evaluation is carried out and tile results published by the students.

The evaluation data should above all else serve the professor as valuable feedback on his performance as a classroom teacher. He can and should use the results as a basis for revising and improving his courses. This implies that he carry out repeated assessments in order to determine the success of his modifications. Perhaps a parallel to the evaluation of students can be drawn.

445

Just as we recently emphasized the role of Jbrmative evaluation of s tudent progress for tile purpose of guidance and improvement, we should under- score the formative evaluation of professors, as opposed to summative evaluation for classification and selection.

It should further be noted that s tudent evaluations of courses should in any case be complemented by assessments of s tudent learning. High ratings of faculty wi thout corresponding evidence of effective learning does not advance us any further.

Unfortunately, there is a striking lack of evidence in reviews of s tudent evaluations (e.g., Costin et al., 1971: Miller, 1975) that s tudent rating of college teaching does improve teaching (Perlberg, 1975). One might expect, for example, that universities which have carried out mandatory and formal student evaluations for years would be characterized by high-quality teach- ing. Apparently, no such evidence is available. It cannot, however, be concluded that therefore s tudent evaluation is invalid, rather that it is necessary, but not sufficient. Faculty must act upon the feedback they obtain: ideally before the menace that the ratings, if unfavorable, will be held against them when considering promotion. This action in turn depends on the faculty 's ability to revise their procedures, their knowledge of the instructional process in general, and of possible alternatives available to them. We shall deal with these issues in more detail in the next section.

Let us conclude this section by considering the alternatives to student evaluation, Unfor tunate ly , the picture here is dim. Professors are even more reluctant to have their peers, depar tment chairman or deans visit their classroom for purposes of evaluation, than to ask students to evaluate their courses. In any case, one wonders whether such an approach would be more adequate for a number of reasons, but primarily because it is the students who sit day in and day out in the classroom. Thel are the ones who stand to profit or lose most from the professor's performance. It is their learning we are concerned with. Their reactions therefore logically remain an essential criterion in any evaluation of teaching.

One further evaluation procedure should be mentioned: selgevaluation. Perlberg (1976) has pointed to videotape recordings of classroom behavior as a valuable tool in obtaining instant and accurate feedback. Instructors can view their performance alone or with others and thereby seek to correct deficiencies in their approach. A review of such self-confrontations and micro-teaching would go beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that these procedures may be valuable in orienting and correcting teaching performance. Their drawbacks inchlde the fact that they are time consuming, but especially that they are teacher-oriented:it is his behavior which is under scrutiny. Such a focus almost invariably limits it to traditional teaching methods (,e.g., the lecture or the seminar). The teacher becomes explicitly the main actor in the sense of communicat ing and discussing information.

446

Insofar as traditional methods still dominate on most campuses today, this approach is valid. It can improve, for example, the professor's traditional function as a lecturer. With respect to facilitating s tudent learning as we discussed it in the last section (e.g., by individualizing instruction, where instruction is student-centered), it would seem more relevant to turn tile camera on the students, thereby helping them to become more effective.

hnproving Teacher Performance

It has been said many times already that with respect to instruction professors are probably the only professionals who begin their teaching career with little or no training. Considering the importance of higher education in modern society and the complexity of the teaching function this is, to put it mildly, a paradoxical situation.

In most instances, it is assumed that a professor is qualified to teach because of his competence and expertise in a particular subject matter. This tendency at the time of his appointment is reinforced by the academic career structure which has and still emphasizes to a large extent the professor's research contribution. Without denying the crucial importance of research activities by academic teachers, one might wonder about this desequilibrium, especially given the fact that much of his time, perhaps as much as 50% or more, is devoted to teaching, at least on most campuses.

Only recently has there been some awakening to the notion that professors, just like other professionals, should benefit from training and practical experience prior to and during the exercise of their profession. One may distinguish three different trends in this direction all of which amount to an increasing professionalization of university teaching.

1. PEDAGOGICAL SERVICE UNITS

Many American and Australian and some European universities have recently created special services, units, centers or departments, designed to help faculty improve their teaching (Gagnon, 1976). They have approached this task in a variety of ways, but most have included the following activities (Alexander and Yelon, 1970):

- c o l l e c t i n g information oil- and off-campus about instruction in higher education and making it available to their colleagues through specialized libraries, newsletters, conferences and seminars: - -offer ing courses and workshops on instruction to faculty and teaching assistants (for more details, see 2 below); - consulting on or preparing and organizing procedures for the evaluation of courses:

447

-collaborating in the design or redesign of courses and programs (see 3 below): - consulting on instructional problems with individual professors or aca- demic units: - serving on campus, regional, national, and international commit tees rela- ted to instruction: and

experimenting with innovations ira learning and teaching, and doing inde- pendent research on instructional problems.

The personnel in these pedagogical units tends to be very small and is usually made up of psychologists, educational technologists, and sometimes subject- matter and media specialists. In some of the centers the professional staff have faculty appointments in an academic department. They seem to ffmc- tion best as independent and central units with a direct link to a top administrator (e.g., university president or vice-president).

It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these centers in the absence of agreed-upon criteria for such a judgment . In general, they seem to respond to a real need for faculty training and form a nucleus of concern, expertise, and research concerning instructional practices and problems in higher education. They have also made significant contr ibut ions to the search and evaluation of alternatives to traditional teaching and learning methods.

Needless to say these units have not been welcomed everywhere with open arms by the faculty who have long cherished their academic freedom and are weary of any intrusion into their classroom. Many professors, R~rthermore, are rather sceptical about the ability of any "outs ider" (i.e., someone who is not competen t in their fields) to help them with instruction- al matters. These centers have nevertheless found some acceptance and have spread to an increasing number of campuses. For example, all universities in Quebec, Sweden, and Holland have established such units, often with consid- erable support from campus administrators, state and national ministries of educat ion who are under pressures from some faculty and students and the public to update educational procedures.

As there is little incentive to improve teaching, the task of these centers is no doubt exceedingly difficult: They must avoid any "missionary zeal", yet assume leadership in demonstrat ing and advocating effective instruction- al approaches. They must avoid any role or function resembling that of an " inspector" of university teaching, yet emphasize the importance of evalua- tion and feedback.

Provided they enjoy the genuine and active support of the administra- tion and some senior professors, and if they succeed in convincing the faculty that their primary concern is to improve instruction ira cooperat ion with them, these centers may play an important role in the future in the reshaping of instructional practices ira higher education.

448

2. COURSES ON INSTRUCTION FOR FACULTY AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS

An increasing number of universities offer their faculty opportuni t ies to learn more about the instructional process. The formats vary somewhat and include short seminars on specific problems (e.g., methods of evaluating students and courses, formulation of objectives, improving the lecture, individualizing instruction, use of media, etc.), workshops with a more active participation of the instructors, and week-long off-campus retreats to deal with more far ranging issues or the instructional process in general.

In most cases the participants have to fit these courses into their regular activities, which may create difficulties and limits the enrolhnents. In a few instances (for example, in some Swedish universities) the faculty get " t ime of f" (and the departments get compensated) to enable them to take these courses. In most instances, these courses are not mandatory for instructors. In fact, a rather small percentage of the faculty on any given campus appears to enroll. Those who do, however, often get motivated to revise their teaching practices and may thereby stimulate their colleagues and affect changes in their departments indirectly. The workshops and seminars can also serve as a spark to initiate a collaborative curriculum project (see 3 below).

Finally, several books and self-instructional materials (e.g., Davis et al., 1974: Ericksen, 1974; Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974: Johnson and Johnson, 1972; MacKenzie et al., 1970: McKeachie, 1975: Yelon and Scott, 1970) have become available to faculty who wish to leanl more about the instructional process on their own.

3. COLLABORATIVE CURRICULUM PROJECTS

Perhaps one of the most promising developments in improving faculty effectiveness are the increasing at tempts at designing the curriculum in collaborative efforts. Groups of subject-matter specialists, instructional and media consultants have. begun on a few campuses to create instructional materials of high quality. At the Open University in England, this approach has been particularly successful and has become the rule for all new courses.

Several experts in one discipline can provide a critical framework for the establishment of the c o n t e n t and its sequence to be offered in a course.

)

The Jbrm of instruction is decided <upon with the help of educational technologists who offer advice, for example, on the formulation of objec- tives, the presentation of the materials and the instructional techniques to be employed, and assume some responsibility in the evaluation of the course.

Students at different levels can also play an important role during the design stage by relating their reactions and pinpointing difficulties in com- prehension or lack of relevance in the proposed materials. After try-outs on

449

small groups of s tudents and consultat ion with other concerned faculty, the materials and the procedures are modified in the light of the obtained feedback before they are used on a larger scale. The results of such joint efforts are often striking: not only are tile instructional procedures rethought and revised, tile content often undergoes radical changes too.

While the i lwestment of tieln by different professionals may be consider- able, the potential product, i.e., high-quality, empirically validated instruc- tion, makes it worthwhile especially in basic courses where large numbers of s tudents are involved. Even if an instructor works on his course design alone and can only benefit from occasional consultations, it would seem useful to view the instructional process in a research framework. The ultimate goal being to facilitate learning, tile professor would act much as he does when he conducts research in his subject matter: to simplify, he states his objectives as clearly as possible, seeks out or develops the appropriate methods to reach them and evaluates the results.

In such a framework, the question asked by the instructor would not be the typical "What should I teach" but rather "What are the procedures which will enhance subject-matter mastery by and interest of the greatest number of s tudents?"

A research orientation towards one's own instruction would not only promise to improve learning, but would offer the instructor a more excitifig approach to teaching than traditional procedures. Besides, it could make a valuable contr ibut ion to our understanding of the learning process.

The professionalization of university teaching reflected in the three trends described above requires commitment , time and resource allocations, as well as incentives such as "p romot ion and salary improvement to faculty who contr ibute to the advancement of instructional- technology" (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1972). Study leaves, as they have become routine for research purposes, should also become available for the purpose of improving one's instruction. Grants which are ahnost exclusively allocated for research work in one's field should also be at tr ibuted for work on teaching and learning and redesigning one's course. Credit for publications on one's teaching experiments should become just as usual as they are for subject-matter research.

E.qually important is the preparation of our future university teachers. Systematic courses and supervised practical experience could be made avail- able to graduate students (The Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974, Vattano, 1975) and upon demonstrat ion of competence and skill, they might even be given a special teaching certificate in addition to their academic degrees. Without a major shift in the institutions of higher learning towards a serious commi t tmen t to quality instruction, however, any facul ty-improvement programs will have a rocky and uncertain future.

450

Radical Alternatives

Another significant trend in teaching and learning has been the search for radical alternatives to traditional s y s t ems of higher education. Basically, there appear to be two reasons why such radical departures have occurred: oil the one hand, some innovators (administrators, faculty and students) often realized that major changes in instructional methods, grading practices, course content , etc. they proposed, either created serious strains in the existing structure or were diluted or relegated to insignificant portions of the curriculum. On the other, some institutions either because of declining enrolhnents or the wish to offer higher education to more or new types of students, had to create completely new systems to accommodate those students.

Perhaps the 0est known today are the University Without Walls (U.W.W., 1972), which originated in the United States, and tile Open University (O.U.) in Britain. In Gernlany, France, Quebec, and several American States, "teaching at a distance" by means of radio, television and correspondence is also being explored. Such new approaches, it is hoped, will eventually permit the reduction or even elimination of the h u m e r u s clausus (e.g., in Germany), reach students in remote areas who do not have easy access to higher education (e.g., in Quebec), offer a second oppor tuni ty for higher education to students who missed their first chance (e.g., in Britain) or achieve all of these.

Often the content of these programs is radically different from tradition- al university curricula. In the U.W.W., for example, students can get credit for participating in projects off-campus or working in communi ty agencies. Tile exclusive project approach of Roskilde University has already been mentioned. More of ten it is the form of instruction and the admission requirements which differ from traditional approaches. For example in the O.U., the only requirement to be admit ted is to have attained the age of 21.

Some of these radical alternatives have had a profound effect. They have demonstrated, for k.'xample in the case of the O.U., despite strong initial resistance, the possibility of attracting and meeting tile needs of students who could not otherwise obtain higher degrees. After a period of rapid expansion and considerably au tonomy, universities almost everywhere are now facing serious financial pressure~ and the challenge to accommodate new types of students. Adult education, long relegated to secondary status by most institutions of higher learning, is now being looked upon more favorably. After all, in only a few years, the O.U. has become the largest university in Britain with over 50,000 students! Several other countries (e.g., Spain, Japan, Belgium) are following the British model.

Besides opening up higher education to people who are traditionally "left out" , the new systems have brought the university closer to the

451

communi ty and a larger public. They have also indirectly influenced some traditional universities with respect to structure, admission and instruction. Despite the benefits which have already been derived from these innovative approaches, and which will likely accrue in the future as well, a note of caution is in order.

A number of experimental colleges and programs have unfor tunately also turned out to be "fly-by-night-operations", many - especially in the United States being designed without setting adequate standards. However radically different an approach may be, it serves little purpose if it does not engage students in serious work.

We need careI\fl analysis and evaluation of these new systems and of the process involved. Fortunately, such data are becoming available about the O.U. and other experiments. (An interesting evaluation project o f the experi- mental university of Roskilde in Denmark, for example, is in progress (Hohnstr6m, 1973).

Summary and Conclusions

Tile recent trends reviewed here demonstrate an increasing preoccupa- tion by institutions of higher education with the quality of instruction. T-he various efforts to facilitate s tudent learning, evaluate teaching effectiveness, improve faculty teaching, and develop radical alternatives all point in this

direction:

1. FACILITATING STUDENT LEARNING

Student dissatisfaction and external pressures on the one hand, and advances in psychological research and educational technology, on the other,

have resulted in:

1.1. a trend towards individualizing instruction: 1.2. greater use of multi-media systems and the computer : 1.3. the creation of s tudent learning or resource centers: and 1.4. the development of peer-teaching.

These trends are likely to be intensified in the near future.

1.5. Instructional specialists have reached some consensus with respect to tile principles of effective instruction. However, these are rarely applied systematically by professors m their daily teaching.

1.6. The strident debates of the sixties on the relevance of the university curriculum have now largely subsided. What content should be offered

452

1.7.

1.8.

remains a crucial issue, however, Unfortunately, there is a striking lack of research on the problem of relevance. Experiential learning and especially the "project me thod" have recently provoked considerable interest in higher education. Educational research might benefit from closer observations of indivi- dual s tudents ' behavior in their total learning environment and from consideration of the interactions between s tudent characteristics, curri- culum and instructional method. The optimal match between "'apti- tude" and " ' t reatment" remains an unresolved problem.

2. ASSESSING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

2.1. Formal assessments of teaching effectiveness by students are on the increase.

2.2. Although student ratings have been found valid and reliable, many academics remain sceptical and only a minority of universities use them systematically for purposes of faculty selection and promotion.

2.3. In any case, s tudent course-evaluations should have primarily a forma- tive function and, together with data on s tudent learning, help teachers improve their instruction.

2.4. Unless faculty are willing and able to act upon the feedback they receive from their students, assessments of teaching effectiveness will remain of limited useAtlness.

2.5. Alternatives to student evaluations, such as assessments by peers and administrators, have found little acceptance and are not promising.

2.6 Self-evaluations, by means of video-recordings, on the other hand, may be useful, especially for traditional, teacher-centered instruction (e.g., lecture or seminar).

3. IMPROVING TEACHER PERFORMANCE

Unlike other professionals, university professors, with respect to teach- ing, receive little or n o training prior to and during their career. Various efforts are now under way to remedy this situation. The following trends reflect an increasing professionalization of university teaching:

3.1. the creation of pedagogical servi~e units or instructional resource cen- ters designed primarily to inform and train faculty on educational procedures and develop more effective instructional strategies:

3.2. courses on instruction for professors and graduate assistants: and 3.3. curriculum-development projects which involve close cooperat ion

among content-matter specialists and instructional and media consul- tants.

4~ ~

Faculty development along those lines would appear to respond to a real need, but unless institutions of higher learning provide the necessary incen- tives, it faces an uncertain and difficult future.

4. RADICAL ALTERNATIVES

Radical alternatives to traditional university instruction, such as the Open University, the University Without Walls, and Roskilde University:

4.1. permit more far ranging experimentat ion than the more typical small- scale innovations, and/or

4.2. allow students, who previously lacked such opportuni t ies (for example, working adults), access to higher education.

The positive evolution reflected in these four trends should not lull us into complacency, however. On most campuses, the number of faculty who deeply care about their s tudents ' learning and the quality of instruction and who devote themselves to its advancement as much as to research in their own field appears to remain a minority. A careful analysis of resistance to change as well as an intensive exploration of strategies for change (Havelock, 1973: Ostergren, 1975), may now well prove to be among the most fruitI:ttl endeavors and highest priorities for those who desire an expansion of effective university instruction.

A substantial number of educators have in fact critically analyzed the entire system, purpose and functions of lligher education (for example, Ashby, 1974: Bereday, 1973: Berstecher et al., 1974: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1972: Eckstein, 1972: Gould, 1974: Group for the Development of Higher Education, 1974: Houle, 1974: Kourganoff, 1972: MacKenzie et al., 1970: Mayhew, 1973: Najman, 1974: Vermilye, 1972, etc.) and have found it seriously wanting. While their specific proposals diverge from each other to some extent, most agree that the universities have to undergo profound changes and in particular that they must devote much more energy to improving the quality of instruction.

A be~nning in the right direction, I believe, has nevertheless been made: Experimental evidence, models, principles, and examples of effective instruc'tion and lists of innovations (Change Magazine, 1074: Heiss, 1973) as well as viable and practical proposals for moving ahead now exist. What is still missing is the implementation of these recommendat ions on a wider scale. More profound changes are unlikely, however, before the universities make a real commit tment to high quality instruction by allocating to this purpose the necessary resources, incentives, and faculty time. The present career structure of the teaching staff in most universities does not fitvor such a commit tment . There is a danger, then, that reforms may be imposed on

454

institutions of higher learning trom without, a development that no-one in academy, which has long treasured its autonomy, would relish.

The Group for Human Development in Higher Educatioz~ (19741) after a host of concrete suggestions for the ilaaprovement of instruction concluded:

The next decade will not be easy for professors. Economic and social presst~res will require a new level of resourcefulness. Faculty will seek to protect their economic interests in a variety of ways, including group actions: but ultimately their well-being depends on support for higher education by taxpayers, potential students, and donors. Whatever self- defensive measures are required, faculty should place their main hope in programs for professional development. To the extent that faculty development thrives, colleges and universities will have more to offer the public and professors will at the same time find greater satisfaction in their work (p. 86).

References

Alexander, L~T. and Yelon, S. L. (eds.) (1972). Instructional Development Agencies in tligher Education. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Ashby, E. 11974). Adapting Universities to a Technological Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bereday, G. Z. F. (1973). Universities J))r All. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berstecher, D. et al. (1974). L'Universitc; de demain. Paris/Bruxelles/kausanne: Elsevier

Sequoia. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery," Evaluation Comment, 1:2. Born, D.G. (1971). Proctor Manual and Instructor Manual for Development o f a

Personalized Instruction Course. Salt Lake City: Center to hnprove Learning and Instruction, University of Utah.

Brick, E.M. (1971). "Learning centers: the key to personalized instruct ion." In: R. A. Weissgerber (ed.) Developmental eJforts in individual learning. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, pp. 192-202 .

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1972). The Fourth Revolution: Instructional Technology in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Change Magazine. (1974). The Yellow Pages or Undergraduate hmovations. New Rochelle: Change Magazine.

Costin, F. et al. (lC~7l). "Student ratings of college teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness," Review o f l:'ducational Research, 41 :511 - 5 3 5 .

Cronbach, L. J. and Snow, R. E. (in press~ ). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods. New York: Irvinston.

Davis, R. H. et al. (1974). Learning System Design: A n Approach to the Improvement o J Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Eckstein, B. ( 1972 ). Hochschuldidak tik und gesam tgesellschaftliche Konflikte. Frank furt a/Main: Suhrkamp.

Entwistle, N. (1975). "Approaches to teaching and learning: Guidelines from research." Paper prepared for the Council of Europe Symposium on Strategies for Research and

455

Development in Higher Education, G~Steborg, 7 - 1 2 September 1975. Ericksen, S. C. (19741. Motivation J~)r Learning. ,,1 Guide Jor the Teacher oJ the Young

Adult. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Gagnon, M. (1976). "La pedagogieai l'universit6?'" Pfdagogiques (Service P6dagogique de

l'Universit4 de Montreal), 1: 3 - 5 . Goldschmid, M. L. (1970). "Note on the taxonomy of teaching and learning situations."

Seminar on methods and programs for the improvement of university teaching, UNESCO-IAU, Amsterdam, 16 -20 November, 1970.

Goldschmid, M. L. and Burckbardt, C. (1976). "Exp6rience de Parrainage darts une Ecole Polytechnique." Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Engineers, 6 - 10 October, 1974, Barcelona, Spain, European Journal o.[ Engineering Education 1:108 112.

Goldschmid, B. and Goldschmid, M. L. ( 1973 ~. "'Modular instruction in higher education: a review," Higher Education. 2 : 15 32.

Goldschmid, B. and Goldschmid, M. L. (1974). "Individvalizing instruction in higher education: A review," Higher Education. 5 : 9 33.

Goldschmid, M. L. and Shore, B.M. (1974). "'The Learning Cell: a field test of an educational innovation." in Vereck, W. A. (Ed.), Methodological Problems in Research and Development in ltigher Education. Alnsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Gould, S. B. (1974). Diversity by Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gunselman, M. (ed.) (1971). What are we Learning about Learning Centers? Oklahoma

City: Eagle Media, Oklahoma Christian College. tlavelock, R.G. (1973). The Change Agent's Guide t~J Into)ration in Education. Engle-

wood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Heiss, A. (1973). An Inventory o.f Academic hmovation and Ref~)rm. The Carnegie

Foundat ion for the Advancement of Teaching. Hotmstr6m, G. L. (1973). "A short description of the Roskilde University Centre

Evaluation Project "(RUCEP)." Unpublished paper, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.

Houle, C. O. (1974). The External Degree. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, S.R. and Johnson, R.B. (1972). Developing Individualized Instructional

Material. Palo Alto, Calif.: Westinghouse Learning Press. Keller, F. S. (1968). "Goodbye teacher . . . . "" Journal o f Applied Behavioral Analysis. 1:

79 89. Kourganoff, V. (1972). La Jaee cachde de I'universit(. Paris: PUF. Kulik, J. (1975). "'PSI: A formative evaluation." Paper presented at the Second National

Conference on Personalized Instruction in Higher Education, Washington, D.C. MacKenzie, N., et al. (1970). Teaching and Learning: an Introduction to New Methods

and Resources in Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. Mayhew, L. B. (1973). The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass. McKeachie, W. J. ( 19751. Teaching Tips. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath & Co. Miller, R. I. (1972). Evaluating Faculty Perlormance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, R.I . (1975). "Faculty evaluation and development." Paper presented at the

international conference on Improving University Teaching, Heidelberg, ~,~-11 May. Najman, D. (1974). L 'ensiegnement sup6rieur pour quoi faire" Paris: Fayard. Nixon, L. D. (1970). "'Remote Access Instructional Learning System (RAILS)," Audio-

I'isual Instruction, 42 45. (~stergren, B. (1975). Planning J~)r Change in lltgher Education..-t Description oJInterim

Reports oJ a Swedish Study. Stockholm: Office of the Chancellor of the Swedish Universities.

4 5 6

Perlberg, A. (1976). "'Tile use of Laboratory Systems in Improving University Teaching," lligher Education. 5 : 135 - 15 l.

Postlethwait, S. N., et al. (1972 I. The ,,t udio-Tutorial Approach to Learning, Minneapolis:

Burgess. Roskilde University ( 'entre. I1t)74). R UC 74. Roskilde, Denmark. Seldin, P. and Wakin, E. (Iq75). "'Students now get to help decide the worth of their

professors," 772e New York Times. June 8. Sherman, J .G. (Ed.) (lq74~. PSI Personalized S.vstem o l lns truct ion. Menlo Park:

W. A. Benjamin, Inc. Singer, 1. J. (1970). "'At will and at once: The audio-video dial access information

retrieval system," in S . ( ; . T i c k t o n led.L To Improve Learning: an Evaluation of l~structi<:nal Technology. Vol. l. New York: Bowker.

Unesco .. IAU Seminar. (1~-)71), "'Seminaire sur les m6thodes et les programmesvisant~i l'am,,/lioration de l 'enseignement universitaire,'" Bulletin de I 'Association lnternationale des Universit&. 19: 56--63.

Llniversity Without Walls. (1972). The University Ir Walls: ,4 j)rst report. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, Antioch College.

Vattano, F. J. (1975). "A program to prepare graduate students for college teaching." Paper presented at the international conference on Improving University Teaching, Heidelberg, 9--11 May.

Vermilye, I). W. (Ig72). The Expanded Campus. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Yelon, S. A. and Scott, R. O. (1970)..4 S t ra t egy /m Writing Objectives. Dubuque, Iowa:

Kendall-Hunt.