Two recent articles by John Tagg (2004a, 2004b) challenged me to wonder
about the state of learning in the human sciences. His first article
in About Campus raised the question, "Why Learn?,"
and his second one focused on "Alignment for Learning."
It seems to me that Tagg's concern that higher education is encouraging
grade-grubbing careerism is one that Kappa Omicron Nu should be concerned
about. Our members have the grades, or they wouldn't be members. So,
what is our responsibility to make sure that serious scholarship is
a deep approach to learning-studying for life? The difference may
be that the learning task is approached in two different ways: performance
goals vs. learning goals. The one way shows positive judgment about
learning, and the other way seeks increased competence.
Surface vs. Deep Processing
A deep approach to learning requires that the learner engage in deep-level
processing. This approach focuses on meaning-grasping the message,
engaging with the underlying ideas. In contrast, surface-level processing
concentrates on remembering as much as possible about the material
and the strategies described. The performance goal is an A, and the
learning goal is understanding.
Marton and Booth (1997) studied the conceptions of learning and found
that students that have performance goals defined learning in these
ways:
In this same study, students that had learning goals defined learning
in these ways:
-
Learning as understanding
-
Learning as seeing something in a different way
-
Learning as changing as a person
Thus a person's perspective, what is believed, manifests itself in
the goals. Learning goals are about change. When one achieves the
performance, the learning can go away. The course is finished-on to
the next. Dweck (2000) theorized that learners who have little faith
in their own capacity do not set learning goals. They aim for easy,
low-effort successes, and outperforming other students. Those with
learning goals believe that their abilities are not fixed and that
they are subject to development or decline. Thus effort, difficulty,
and setbacks will be experienced even with high confidence in their
intelligence.
What to Do?
Although it would be easy to place the blame on learners, they are
reflecting developmental stages in realization of themselves as learners.
The design of the learning environment has much to do with whether
the learner gets "stuck" in the stage where performance
goals are sought. If assessment places a value only on student work
as quantifiable points, students will remain dedicated to performance
goals. Students respond to the incentives in their environment, and
education in this mode will continue to produce transcripts. Tagg
(2004a) uses an interesting analogy: "Kellogg makes cereal; colleges
make transcripts" (p. 3).
If the learning environment supports student development, institutions
need to stop sending mixed messages-the need to think critically and
develop own ideas but assessment with bubble sheets and graduate schools/employers
mainly looking at grades. What the institutions say and do are not
aligned. When persons select their own goals, they are important and
valuable and worthy of hard work. The goals of personal significance
indicate intrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation, according to
Wenger (1998) emerges from practice: "Practice is first and foremost,
a process by which we can experience the world and our engagement
with it as meaningful" (p. 51). His Communities of Practice:
Learning, Meaning, and Identity explores how to construct and
revise meaning through practice. Wenger proposes communities of practice
as a means for negotiation of meaning. The tools consist of give-and-take
with others-"assert, assess, and adjust meanings in light of
personal and shared purposes. It is through practice that meanings
grow into goals, that we shape our purposes in the matrix of contested
possibilities that a community creates" (Tagg, 2004b, p. 12).
Learning communities are an example of the communities of practice
approach.
Learning Communities
Tagg (2004b) discussed "a cognitive economy that produces cognitive
entrepreneurs, independent and reflective thinkers" (p. 14).
Perkins (1992) studied what he called the "hot" cognitive
economy and concluded that the following elements of the learning
environment motivate the energy for deep learning.
-
Goals - intrinsic goals
-
Activities - frequent, connected, and authentic
activities
-
Information - consistent, continuous, and interactive
feedback
-
Time - long time horizon for learning through a
connected curriculum
-
Community - engaged communities of practice
-
Alignment - related goals, activities, information,
time, and community
Tagg proposed that the framework for a cognitive economy could be
achieved through "learning communities, learning outcomes assessment,
performance-based learning, portfolios, ability transcripts, capstone
projects, self-assessment, first-year programs, service learning,
undergraduate research, collaborative learning, and abundant combinations
of and variations on them all" (p. 16).
Now What
Although most institutions have programs and practitioners that value
and use deep learning processes, the key challenge is alignment for
learning. The mixed messages from most institutions reinforce performance
goals. So, the need to keep an eye on the big picture is critical
to ensuring that students move through the developmental stages of
learning from surface to deep learning. Although it is unlikely that
a top-down master plan for realignment for the whole institution can
be sustained, alignment can be achieved through personal reflection
and engagement.
The individual educator has three choices: alter or suppress values,
criticize the institution, or change it. Each educator can use the
tools of scholarship and reflection to discover meaning and revise
practice. Communities of practice can form in concert with others
who are reshaping their work. In this manner, the context can be changed
from a bunch of courses to alignment for learning. Kappa Omicron Nu
can play a role by promoting the integration of academic and co-curricular
goals. The Undergraduate Research Community (URC) and the "Kids
and Careers" service learning initiatives are two examples of
Kappa Omicron Nu commitment to alignment for learning.
I conclude with a plea: Look around the institutions you know and
do your part as a volunteer, educator, or patron to identify the institutional
structures and processes that are misaligned with the goal of promoting
deep learning. Then, do your part in establishing educational goals
and aligning the policies and practices to them.
References
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation,
personality, and development. Philadelphia, Psychology Press.
Marton, E., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning
for every child. New York: Free Press.
Tagg, J. (2004a). Why learn? What we may really be teaching students.
About Campus, 9:1, 2-10.
Tagg, J. (2004b). Alignment for learning: Reorganizing classrooms
and campuses. About Campus, 9:2, 8-18.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,
and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
|
