Levels of Thinking about Learning and Teaching

Introduction

Most academics will agree that education is not just about acquisition of knowledge, but also the ability to apply that knowledge in the workplace and ideally throughout all aspects of life. As engineering academics we strive to impart real-world situations into our teaching and learning (e.g. through problem solving exercises). We also strive to impart to our students the skill of lifelong learning. Appropriate teaching will assist the student in this process, however to fully appreciate what is and what is not appropriate involves an appreciation that there are different levels of thinking about learning and teaching. This section attempts, without embarking on too much theory, to outline this concept.

Theory

The model tabulated below, adapted from Biggs (1999, Chapter 4), should be read from the bottom up. It describes four levels of thinking about learning and teaching. The levels range from the extremes of level 1, where the student is merely a “sponge” absorbing material without too much thought as to where the knowledge is taking them, to level 4 where the student is actively engaged in management of their own learning. In this model, levels of thinking about learning and teaching are defined in terms of what is focused upon. This gives us the teacher's focus on what the student does as a response to teaching.

Level	Emphasis	Description	Value
4	How the student manages what the student does	The ultimate aim of higher education - student takes control. The focus is on how the student can manage what they do, initially within frameworks created by the teacher, but ultimately negotiating or creating his or her own framework. This level links to PDP** and the idea of the independent learner. There is no shortcut from levels 1 or 2 straight to 4; a student can not operate effectively at level 4 without having experienced level 3 teaching or constructive alignment.	Active learning models linked to "Constructive Alignment"**
3	What the student does	Emphasis on learning through appropriate activity. The focus is on what the student does. "Level 3 sees teaching as support learning." It recognises that learning can only be effective if it is engaging in activity by the learner and the teacher's task, which may involve the deployment of a great many level 2 skills, is to set up an environment of learning activities and assessment from which it is very difficult for the student to escape without learning.	Active learning models linked to "Constructive Alignment"**
2	What the teacher does	Seeing teaching as a performance. This is the basis of much institutional assessment of teaching. The focus is on what the teacher does. "The teacher who operates at level 2 works at obtaining an armory of teaching skills." However "Level 2 is also a defect model, the 'blame' this time being on the teacher." Biggs argues "The focus should not be on the skills itself, but whether its deployment has the desired effect on student learning" and goes on to describe a desirable third level.	Deficit models
1	What the student is	Not the teacher's responsibility The focus is on what the student is: "A teacher's responsibility is to know the content well and to expound it clearly. Thereafter, it's up to the students. When students don't learn… it is due to something the students are lacking"	Deficit models

*The quotes are from Biggs (1999, chapter 4)
** See accompanying document on Constructive Alignment and PDP

Application of theory to teaching practice

Most engineering academics appreciate the first three levels (not necessarily with any knowledge of Biggs or his theory!). However it is the author's contention that as teachers we should strive to be engaging students at level 4, which is the level where the focus is on how the student manages his/her own learning. It can be argued that Level 4 is the ultimate in higher education, producing graduates who are autonomous individuals capable of advancing their own learning. A student cannot operate effectively at level 4 without having experienced level 3 teaching or constructive alignment. Level 4 is a step above that which many of us practice and it is important for us to appreciate its significance.

What we need to do is turn this around so that when we think about teaching, rather than concentrating on what we do, we think about how we engage the student. It is possible for a student to be engaged in extremely effective learning activities, with aligned assessment, without being consciously aware of the learning process. For a student to take responsibility for managing learning and for choosing how to learn requires a step beyond the teaching to which we usually subscribe. This can probably be seen most clearly in primary education, but it will still happen in higher education if the teacher designs the learning activities without explaining why the learning activities are designed as they are. Students can work very hard, actively and effectively, doing what they are told to do. This is not quite “spoon-feeding”. The students are doing the work, but they aren't taking responsibility for deciding what to do. They can learn a great deal, but not be able to learn independently when they leave university and do not have a teacher to tell them what to do. Managing one's own learning is therefore an important skill not necessarily covered by level 3.

Students operating at Level 4 are taking responsibility for their own learning and making good choices. However, they cannot be expected to make good choices unless they have experienced good and effective learning strategies and been encouraged to see their value through properly aligned assessment.

Moving students so they are operating at level 4 requires us to make changes to the engineering curriculum and the students' approach to learning. What we are trying to achieve is the ultimate aim of teaching in higher education in that we want the student to take control. We need to enable the student to manage what they do as part of their learning processes and this is best achieved by creating a learning framework within which the students can learn. The ideal type of framework is that provided by constructive alignment.

Paul Ramsden (1992) focused on improving teaching in higher education, and identified characteristics for improving the students' experience of higher education. The Course Experience Questionnaire developed a series of items to question particular factors associated with students' experiences. Table 1 lists attributes of good teaching and good teachers.

Ramsden's Principles of Effective teaching:

Interest and explanation;
Concern and respect for students and their learning;
Appropriate assessment and feedback;
Clear goals and intellectual challenge;
Independence, control and active engagement;
Learning from students.

Attributes of good teachers (adapted from Ramsden 1992, p96)

While this list is by no means exhaustive it is a useful focus for ourselves to reflect on our teaching practices. Although we will all recognise the characteristics of good teaching and look to attain them, often there are areas where we could look to enhance our performance. We can see also that these principles feed through to those we require for Constructive Alignment. Ramsden (1992, p175) also reports on the work of Peter Cawley (1989) who introduced problem-based learning into a third year engineering programme. The course aimed to develop students' skills in vibration analysis, and improve the students' abilities in applying diagnostic and problem-solving skills into the course. The course adopted a problem-based learning approach, using three pairs of problems typical to those engineers might encounter in practice. Ramsden notes how the teaching strategy mirrors the goals. The design of the course was as follows:

Figure derived from Ramsden's Report on Course Design 1992

Figure 1. Good teaching design. Peter Cawley's Problem Based Learning Course (1989) (Figure derived from Ramsden's report of the course design (Ramsden 1992, p175)

The course highlights many principles of good teaching, constructive alignment and facilitates good learning by ensuring that the teaching methods correspond to the widest range of approaches to learning. It is approaches like these that will facilitate student learning at the highest level, and this indicates the type of behaviours and methods that we can adopt to encourage this level of learning.

References

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

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

Cawley, P. (1989):Studies in Higher Education 14, 83-94

Source

The chapter above was taken from Houghton, Warren (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.

In this Section: