Skip to content

The construction of learning and teaching

May 1, 2010

Image: rusty tool box

Reviewing: Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in HE, by OU Professor John Richardson, in Educational Psychology vol 25, no 6, 2005

John Richardon’s article describes the findings of a series of qualitative studies carried out mainly in UK and Swedish HE institutions between the late 1970s and the early 2000s, seeking to identify some of the determinants of student and teacher attitudes to the learning process, and their consequent behaviours as learners and teachers. Richardson’s conclusions are roughly as follows:

Different students have very different approaches to study, ranging from a focus on understanding concepts, through a strategy based on memorising material, to a concentration on optimising preparedness for tests. These differences seem to correspond closely to differences in the students’ underlying conceptions of learning – conceptions which can be grouped into:

1 Learning as an increase in knowledge
2 Learning as memorising
3 Learning as acquisition of procedures/facts
4 Learning as abstraction of meaning
5 Learning as an interpretative process aimed at understanding reality, and
6 Learning as personal growth or change

Students who subscribe to conceptions 1, 2 or 3 are more likely to have a ‘shallow’ approach focused on memorising or test preparation, and to see learning as something that happens to them; whereas students who subscribed to conceptions 4, 5 and 6 are much more likely to take a ‘deep’ approach focused on understanding, and to view their learning as something they are actively engaged in. What causes students to have these differing conceptions of learning, it’s suggested, has to do with contextual factors such as teaching style and institutional culture, as well as their previous experience of learning.

Turning to teachers, the studies cited by Richardson suggest a primary distinction in practice between a “teacher-focused approach” aiming at the transmission of information to students, and a “student-focused approach” aimed at bringing about conceptual change in learners. A student-focused approach was more likely to result in students adopting the ‘deep’ approach to study, and reporting a positive experience of their learning.

And as with students and learning, these two contrasting approaches to teaching are seen as reflecting a number of distinct underlying conceptions of what it means to teach. These conceptions can be grouped into:

1 Teaching as imparting information
2 Teaching as transmission of structured knowledge
3 Teaching as interaction between teacher and students
4 Teaching as facilitation of understanding, and
5 Teaching as triggering conceptual change & intellectual development

Teachers subscribing to conceptions 1 and 2 would tend to be teacher-focused in their practice, while those subscribing to conceptions 3, 4 or 5 would tend to be student-focused. Although Richardson acknowledges the importance of other factors such as perceptions of institutional context and culture, and specific features of the subject being taught, it is these underlying conceptions which are seen as the overriding determinants of teachers’ practice. Consequently,

If institutions want their teachers to adopt a more student-focused approach to teaching, they need to ensure that their teachers hold a commensurate conception of teaching – and a brief training course will not be sufficient to achieve this. (Richardson J, 2005)

Most of the above seems to me so obviously true as to hardly need 25 years of exhaustive research to demonstrate it. Did we not already know that some learning is active, deep and concepts-centred – some passive, shallow and test-centred? Or that some teaching is student focused, interactive and explorative, while some is one-way, transmissive and teacher-focused? Or indeed that these differences in practice correspond to some basic demarcations in underlying conceptions of learning and teaching, as well as being affected by the context in which the learning and teaching take place? I think we did!

But amid the truisms there’s a couple of unevidenced assumptions being made here which I want to challenge…

The first is that the ‘transmission of structured knowledge’ is a teacher-focused practice militating against student understanding, which I think does not always or necessarily follow. A brilliantly-delivered lecture, for example – while certainly not being all a learner needs – may well trigger exactly the kind of intellectual thirst and conceptual expansion implied by the phrase ‘deep learning’.

My second quarrel is with an assumption being made about the relationship between underlying conceptions about learning and teaching, and learners’ and teachers’ actual practice. On the basis of one or two ambiguous research references Richardson implies that this is a simple, one-way causation: that the concepts determine the practice. I think the relationship is more complex: that concepts also arise from practice, that practice and concepts are mutually generating and reinforcing.

In fact I think Richardson’s own account instantiates this two-way causation, for example when discussing “students who hold a reproductive conception of learning through exposure to a subject-based curriculum”, or in referring to a survey finding that “conceptions of teaching varied across different disciplines, but that teachers teaching the same disciplines at different institutions had relatively similar conceptions of teaching.”

I think Richardson does ultimately embrace this more complex, two-way view of causation when, discussing learning and teaching contexts, he concludes that “teachers constitute an important part of the learning context for the students, and the students in turn constitute an important part of the teaching environment for the teachers.”

Learners, in other words, construct their teachers just as surely as teachers construct their learners.

….

Richardson J, 2005. Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in HE. In Educational Psychology vol 25, no 6

Advertisements

From → H800

3 Comments
  1. Hey John,

    What a delightful feast for a sleepy Saturday afternoon. A surprising and welcome break from my mundane tasks of maintaining my blogs.

    I enjoyed your summary of the article by John Richardson. I was not familiar with the article and I agreed with most of his thoughts and was delighted you took exception on some of his points. I too think his description of the different types and levels of learning are perhaps too simplistic. In fact, I could probably build a case that effective teaching can involve all of these stages or steps or what have you.

    I teach online and it is probably not until students have been learning online for a while that they actually are ready to take on much more advanced responsibility for their own learning. It has been my experience that they need me to tell them this is okay and that they can follow their own path and not ask for permission. I have noticed that my presence is essential in the online course. For some, I provide information. For others, I provide critical questions. For others, I provide structure, support, guidance and encouragement. I play all of these roles at various levels throughout an online course. The best analogy I can think of is Collage. Online strategies and ways of learning are like a Collage or even a quilt…a patchwork of experiences that is all over the place and that finally culminates at some point in the great AHA moment when the work of art and learning rises to a high level. It is an exhilarating moment…nothing like it.

    Thanks for the inspiration!

    Diane Gregory
    http://www.onlinelearningcafe.com
    dianegregory@onlinelearningcafe.com

  2. The main conclusion of the article was that there is ‘interplay’ between teaching and learning. I would hazard the guess that students ultimately have the upper hand since they are in the majority…

  3. suneila permalink

    Gostei muito do resumo, e acredito que deve existir sim uma interaccao entre o ensino e a aprendizagem, o que implica a interaccao professor-aluno.
    a forma como o professor transmite o conhecimento (e a forma como este ve o ensino), influencia na aprendizagem do aluno
    e a forma como esse aluno ve a aprendizagem tambem vai influenciar na aprendizagem, por este e outros motivos e essencial que haja uma interaccao entre o professor e o aluno.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: