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

1. Active Learning: Motivational, Cognitive and InstructionalPerspectives – Lessons from an Intervention Study and Theory Kim Jesper Herrmann

2. Outline • Background • Theories of learning • Student-centredteaching • Questions • Methods • Results • Quantitative • Qualitative • Discussion • Implications

3. Background

4. Challenge for modernuniversities • Elite university massuniversity • Active learners vs. passive spectators (Rocca, 2010) • To integratelessacademicallyorientated students •  Increasedfocus on ‘active’ learning in HE (Lea et al., 2003)

5. Constructivism 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). • Knowledge cannotbetransmitted … • but is individuallyconstructed… • and sociallynegotiated … • within a given (academic) discourse

6. Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) • ”Establishingconcepts or understandingideas … depends on making links with whatweknowalready and thatdemands … the consciousattempt to makesenseof topics for oneself” (Entwistle 2009:16, emphasisadded) • “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, emphasisadded) • Deep and surface approaches to learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Biggs, 1987)

7. fromBiggs (2012:40)

8. Student-centredinstructionalmethods Collaborative Learning • “… the process of learning involves active construction and, accordingly, learning should itself be active” (Stewart, 2012:30, emphasisadded) • Common principles of student-centredinstructionalmethods (Lea et al., 2003): • Emphasis on student activity • Focus on dialogue and interaction • Responsibility and independence • Cooperative learning  deep approaches to learning (Millis, 2010) ReciprocalTeaching Problem-Based Learning CooperativeLearning E-learning Blended Learning Discovery Learning Case-BasedLearning ConceptMapping

9. fromBiggs (2012:40)

10. Questions • What is the anatomy of approaches to learning in the context of tutorials? • To whatextentdoesstudent-centredteaching (cooperativelearning) affect the students’ approaches to learning? • How do students perceive student-centredteaching?

11. Methods

12. Intervention Pre-survey+ interviews Post-survey+ interviews Teaching as usual: Student presentations Intervention: Cooperativelearning

13. Quantitativemethods • R-SPQ-2F-DA (Lassesen, 2009; Biggs et al. 2001) • Deep approach scale • Surface approach to scale • Additionalquestions • In-classparticipationscale (Rocca, 2010) • n=142 (pretest-posttest) • Dependent samples t-test

14. Qualitativemethods • Data • 12x2 semi-structured interviews • 338 pages transcription • Coding in Nvivo • Validation • Inter-coderreliability (100 percent) • Intra-coderreliabiltiy (80-97 percent) • Coherence and confirmability • Quotes (saliency) • (Miles & Huberman, 2005) • Analyticalstrategies • Approaches • Deductive (predefinedcriteria) • 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. Quantitativeresults • 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. Approaches

19. Approaches 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) 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)

20. Approaches

21. Approaches … 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). … 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).

22. Perceptions Pedagogicalrole of tutor Role of peers Purpose of the tutorial

23. … 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) Perceptions Knowledgablechairman Expert authority Pedagogicalrole of tutor … 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) Role of peers Purpose of the tutorial

24. Perceptions 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) Knowledgablechairman Expert authority Pedagogicalrole of tutor 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) Fellow ignorants Academic colleagues Role of peers Purpose of the tutorial

25. Perceptions Knowledgablechairman Expert authority It’s all about going to class and getting the right answers. (Kate, SA) Pedagogicalrole of tutor 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). Fellow ignorants Academic colleagues Role of peers Small scale, interactivelecture Arena to apply and test understanding Purpose of the tutorial

26. Discussion

27. Questions • What is the anatomy of approaches to learning in the context of tutorials? • To whatextentdoesstudent-centredteaching (cooperativelearning) affect the students’ approaches to learning? • How do students perceive student-centredteaching?

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 organisedeffort (Entwistle, McCune & Hounsell, 2002)

29. Symbolic engagement / ‘technification’ fromBiggs (2012:40)

30. The efficacy of student-centredteaching Study • Impact of cooperativelearning • Congruence with deep approach ≠ stimulation of deep approaches Theory • Review of student-centredinstructionalmethods (Baetenet al., 2010) • Learning theory≠ teachingimperatives (Gergen, 2005) • Constructivistteachingfallacy (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 perceptions Study • Approachesto learningareresponses to instrucationalmethods as theyareperceived Theory • Structure  actions  outcome (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) • 3P-model (Biggs, 2002) • Experience of learning (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 2005) Context (teaching) Perception of context Learning outcome Approaches to learning

32. Student-centredteachingparadox • Premis: Meaningfulllearninginvolvesactiveknowledgeconstruction i.e. deepapproaches • Problem: Some students adoptingsurfaceapproaches to learning • Solution: Student-centredinstructionrequiring students to engage in learningactivities • Paradox: Students relying on surfaceapproaches to learningare the onesleastlikely to see the point in student-centredinstruction

33. Implications

34. Theoreticalimplication • Instructionalmethodsper se • Alignment (Biggs, 2012) • Congruence (ETL-project) • Balancedoptimism • Empiricaltesting of assumptions • Formalisedinstructionalmethods + • Experiential dimension + • Teachingapproaches

35. Practical implications • Teaching as intended ≠ teaching as perceived • Evidenceinformed trial-and-error • Feedback aboutteaching (Hattie, 2012) • Reachingcommonality of meaning(Hounsell, 2005)

36. Acknowledgements I am deeplyindebted to the teachers, tutors and students whoparticipated in mystudy. Especially, Dr. Søren Flinch Midtgaard and the tutors Kaare, Asbjørn, Lasse, Sara, and Rasmus. I wouldalsolike 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 valuablefeedback on papers. • The Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences for granting me a three-yearscholar-ship. • Professor Kirsten HofgaardLycke, professor Dai Hounsell, and professor Berit Eika for taking time to assessmy dissertation. • Finally, I wouldverymuchlike to thankfriends and family for muchneeded 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 UniversityTeaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary Finding (Rep. No. 1). EnhancingTeaching-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

38. References • Gergen, K. (1995). Social Construction and the EducationalProcess. 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’ ecologicalvalidity (Entwistle, 1984) • Collaborativelearning and social constructivism • Ways of thinking and practicing (ETL-project) • Situatedlearning, communities of practice (Lave and Wenger [1991] in Stewart, 2012)

42. Scope of intervention • Competition from othercourses (Anderson, 1997) • Assessment, SAQ’s (Entwistle, 2009) • Length of intervention  one semester (Kember, 2004) • ETL Final Report • ”… modest collaborativeinitiaties …” • ”… real world of messy, multifacetededucationalchange” (Fullan, 2002) • Sustainableincrementalisme • Constructivealignment (Biggs, 2012) Teaching-learningactivities Intendedlearningoutcome Assessment

43. Conceptions of learning • Conceptions of learning (Säljö, 1979 [in Marton and Säljö, 1984]; Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993) • Increase in knowledge • Memorizing • Aquiring facts for laterretrieval • Abstraction of meaning • Understanding reality • Changing as a person • Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning (van Rossum and Schenk, 1984)

44. Cooperativelearning • ”...offers students and faculty a structured, on-taskmeans to foster learneractivityand learnerinteraction” (Millis & Cottell, 1998:38, emphasisadded) • Claim: CL stimulatesdeepapproaches to learning • Ownership and control • Active ratherthan passive • Multiple sources of inspiration • Opportunity to connect with prior knowledge