moving beyond constructive alignment to

7/26/2019 Moving Beyond Constructive Alignment To

1/15

1 | P a g e

Higher Education Teaching & Learning Southern Africa (HELTASA) Conference 2008

30 November3 December 2008

Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

Moving beyond constructive alignment to significant learning

Bernie Millar & Marianne Bester

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Abstract

This paper is a result of a reflexive process undertaken by two co-teachersof the 2008 B.Tech. Research Methodology (BTRM) course at a South

African University of Technology. Biggs constructive alignment (1994) wasused in creating the BTRM course whereby we sought to align the learning

outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment to move our

students to a deep learning approach. At the end of the course we asked

ourselves whether this approach had in fact worked and where it had not,

how could we remedy this. Upon reflection we realized that we had

regarded constructive alignment as a product in our application of it and,

more importantly, that there are flaws in both the deep learning the

constructive alignment approaches, principally that the human dimension

is lacking as well as a socio-cultural approach that embraces diversity,

strengths and the multiple literacies that learners bring to the teaching andlearning situation.

This paper considers Haggis critique (2003) of the surface/ deep learning

approach in terms of the Research Methodology course, particularly the

importance of recognizing personal Discourse (Gee, 2005). It then critiques

Biggs constructive alignment and investigates an alternative, namely

Finks taxonomy of significant, integrated learning. Finally, the paper

proposes an adaptation of Finks model of significant learning to include

the primary and secondary discourses of both teachers and learners.

Key words: Deep learning, Constructive Alignment, Finks taxonomy ofsignificant learning, New literacy studies, personal Discourse.

Introduction

This paper is the outcome of a reflexive process undertaken at the end of the 2008 B.Tech.

Research Methodology (BTRM) course. The authors of this paper have realized that in designing

the BTRM course they had in fact been working with a conception of Constructive Alignment

and an approach to deep learning which saw these as product rather than process. They

recognize flaws in both the deep learning and constructive alignment approaches, namely that

acknowledgement of the socio-cultural, human dimension is lacking leading to an overly


2/15

2 | P a g e

cognitive approach which denies the richness and strengths of multiple literacies and personal

Discourses that learners bring to the teaching and learning situation.

Since 1976 Higher Education has been heavily influenced by the work of Marton and Slj on

surface and deep approaches to learning. Biggs added two frameworks, constructive alignment

and the SOLO taxonomy, to embrace the concepts of surface and deep learning and as a means

of moving students from the former to the latter. This paper supports Haggis critiqueof theapproaches to surface and deep learning, particularly in her criticism of the absence of a socio-

cultural dimension in terms of the New Literacies Studies (NLS). Furthermore, this paper

examines Haggis (2003) critique of the paradigm of surface and deep learning in the light of the2008 B. Tech. Research Methodology subject offered in the Department of Clothing and Textile

Technology at a South African University of Technology. This paper reflects critically on Biggsconstructive alignment as it was used in BTRM in 2008. Finally, a model is proposed of

significant, integrated learning based on Finks taxonomyof significant learning, but to which afurther dimension is added.

A key term, namely, personal Discourse, is defined at the start of this paper as it is often used.

Personal Discourse

This paper follows Gee (1996:131) who defines a Discourse as follows:

A Discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of using language, other symbolic

expressions, and artifacts, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting that can be used toidentify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or social network, or to signal (thatone is playing) a socially meaningful role.

Gee (1996:127) capitalizes Discourse when he uses it to refer to ways of being in society, and

uses discourse for connected stretches of language that make sense like conversations, stories,reports, arguments, essays and so forth. So discourse is part of Discourse. He distinguishes

two kinds of Discourse, primary and secondary. Primary Discourse is created from infancy

during our primary socialization within and through exposure to our family, social group,

language, beliefs and culture. This creates our understanding of who we are. Secondary

Discourse is created when we move outside our primary home and peer-group to become

members of institutions such as schools, churches, and are socialized within various local, state

and national groups and constitute the recognisability and meaningfulness of our public(more formal) acts (ibid.). Secondary Discourse extends our primary Discourse and we may

have more than one secondary Discourse. However, the boundary between these Discourses is

permeable, because they influence and interact with each other, and is constantly negotiatedand contested in society and history(Gee, 1996:138). He emphasizes that it is in and throughDiscourses that we make clear to ourselves and others whowe are and whatwe are doing at a

given time and place (Gees emphasis,1996:129).In our paper we use the term, Personal

Discourse, which should be understood as referring to and incorporating both primary andsecondary Discourse.

Approaches to learning

As much literature has been dedicated to students approaches to learning, especially the

surface and deep approaches to learning (Entwistle (2000), Biggs (2003), and Prosser &

Trigwell, 1999), only a brief tabular summary will be provided in Table 1 to contextualize the

discussion of Haggis critique of these approaches and Biggs Constructive Alignment.Table 1

depicts the surface and deep learning approaches as well as the achieving or strategic approach

in which a student is more organized than in the surface approach and is motivated to achieve

good grades by using whatever technique will enable the student to reach that goal.


3/15

3 | P a g e

Table 1: Approaches to learning

Surface approach Deep approachAchieving /strategic

approach

New knowledge isolated Learning is seen as

acquisition of facts

knowing a lot

Information memorized

for assessment

Unreflective association of

facts and concepts

Principle not

distinguished from

examples

Task is seen as externally

imposed

Emphasis external on

assessment

Relates prior knowledge tonew knowledge

Knowledge is related to

other areas

Theory related to practical

experience & application

Relates and distinguishes

evidence & argument

Organizes structure &

content into coherent

whole

Emphasis internal from

within student

Well-organized surfaceapproach

Motivation to obtain good

marks

Learning seen as activity

where acquisition of

technique improves

performance

(Source: Atherton, 2005)

This paper supports Haggis (2003) critique of the surface/deep approaches to learning and will

discuss some points of her critique in terms of the BTRM subject. First, Haggis disputes claims

such as Biggs claim(1994) that the approaches to learning framework is holistic and

relational. A framework that separates learners into categories according to their individual

approaches to learning is not holistic, but rather atomistic in that it only focuses on one

cognitive area while ignoring the affective and personal contexts of the learners. This is

illustrated by Haggiss statement:

One of the fundamental problems with the view of learning that the model presents is that it

removes the individual learner from the richness and complexity of his/her multiple

contextsthe learner in this model is a human being without agency. There is littleacknowledgement that learners are people who may have any number of reasons not to want to

respond to institutional agendas (2003:98).

In other words, the surface/deep approach to learning entirely ignores the personal Discourse

of the learners. Haggis suggests an academic Literacies approach as an alternative socio-cultural

approach. We endorse this, but would further stress the importance of keeping in mind the

primary and secondary Discourses (Gee, 2005) that both learners and teachers bring into the

teaching and learning situation. Furthermore, not only should HE teachers have an awareness of

their learners personal Discourses, but should view these diverse Discourses as strengths that

learners bring into the classroom rather than lack.

To illustrate this point, we would like to present a profile of the personal Discourses of two

BTRM students which illustrate how diverse a class may be in terms of primary and secondary

Discourse. It is not possible, in terms of this paper, to refer to all the BTRM learners. Student A

is an Afrikaans-speaking Muslim, age 32, divorced, single parent of a seven year old daughter,

living with her parents and she is employed at a large clothing manufacturing company. She

works full-time during the day, and studies part-time in the evenings. She is a first generation

student, who brings a wealth of industry knowledge and discourse into the classroom. Student


4/15

4 | P a g e

Bis an Afrikaans-speaking Christian, age 24, single, living with her parents, unemployed. She

studies full-time and is a second generation student, who comes from a well-educated family.

She brings knowledge and skills gained from a good secondary schooling into the classroom.

Both of these students have English as an additional language and live with their parents, which

is all they have in common. The point of this comparison is that if we are aware of the personal

Discourses of our students, then we cannot reify them or slot them into preconceived notions oflearning. Below we will show how their personal Discourses impact upon their teaching and

learning situation.

The immediate question arises: How can one determine what a students personal Discourseis? In our BTRM course, we devised a sensitive, confidential biographical questionnaire which

our learners were asked to complete during our first meeting. An analysis of this biographical

questionnaire provided insight into not only the learners life circumstances, but also their

personal interests. Our purpose in having the learners answer the questionnaire was, firstly, for

us to become aware of the human diversity and the challenges that comprised the BTRM class

and, secondly, to begin to understand our learners as people. We wanted to know who they

were and what interested and motivated them, what their challenges were and how they hoped

to overcome them. We also wanted to find what strengths they would bring to the BTRM

teaching and learning situation. The information on Students A and B was taken from their

biographical questionnaires.

Although we did recognise the studentsstrengths in terms of their primary and secondaryDiscourses, we acknowledge, on reflection, that we did not fully utilise these strengths in our

teaching or in our curriculum design and constructive alignment this year (2008). This is

challenge that we have to address in our move to significant learning, particularly how we are

going to do this so that it results in meaningful co-learning for both learners and teachers. The

question of fit between personal Discourses, not only on a learner to learner, but also teacher to

learner basis, is a rich area for further research. We are aware that this method of using a

biographical questionnaire may be problematic in large classes, but feel that the problem is not

insurmountable. Our questionnaire was designed to be analysed manually as we had only 20

students; however, it would be possible to create a similar questionnaire for use in large classes

that could be electronically scanned and analysed.

It is unfortunate that of Blooms original taxonomy that covered three domains, namely thecognitive, affective and psychomotor, only the cognitive domain has been extremely influential

for over fifty years. This exclusive emphasis on the cognitive has come at a cost which is a

skewed view of learning that does not recognize learners as human beings with agency. With

reference to the two students A and B from the BTRM subject, we would like to present an

example to illustrate how their personal Discourses impact upon the learning challenges they

faced in doing research for their B.Tech. dissertation. This example will illustrate clearly how

important it is to recognize the fact that learners are human beings with agency and will act in

terms of their own Discourses.

The dissertation requires students to write a literature review and do a situational analysis

regarding their research problem. Student As research problem was an analysis of garmentdefects and related costs in a clothing manufacturing company. Student Bs research problemwas similar to that of Student A, but she focused on customer satisfaction of mens tailored suitsfrom a manufacturing perspective. The similarity of the research problems lies in the fact that

quality is a key component of customer satisfaction with clothing products and therefore, in

essence, both students had to relate their theoretical knowledge of quality assurance to its

practical application in a manufacturing environment. Student As approach was to conduct the

situational analysis at the clothing manufacturing company first, while Student B engaged with

literature on quality assurance and then did the situational analysis reluctantly. Student B views

the clothing manufacturing environment as hostile, because it lies completely outside her

personal Discourse. On the other hand, Student A, who is employed by a clothing manufacturing

company, is perfectly comfortable within this environment and could produce a good situational


5/15

5 | P a g e

analysis, but had difficulty relating practice to theory. Student B had difficulty in relating the

theory to the practice. On reflection, their personal discourses influenced their approach to

learning in this case. By being aware not only of these particular challenges that Students A and

B faced, but also of their personal Discourses (which held the reasons for their problems), we

could understand whyeach student was experiencing her unique problem. Therefore, we could

help the student recognize, address and resolve the problem. This was done by asking Student Ato do the situational analysis first as this was her strength and to research and write up the

literature review afterwards in the light of what she had discovered in the situational analysis.

Student B did the literature review first as her strength lay there, and then had to be encouraged

to go to the manufacturer to conduct the situational analysis, which she then carried out well.

Within a dissertations one-to-one supervision framework, it is essential that the supervisor isaware of the studentspersonal Discourse as well as his/her own and makes an effort to find a

fit between the two to enable significant learning to take place. This obviously implies a shift

away from the traditional power relations between supervisor and student where the

supervisor is the one who knows, hence the holder of power, while the student lacks power inthe relationship, or, in a worst-case scenario gives away her/his own power to the supervisor

and becomes dependent upon the supervisor. In a significant-learning supervisory relationship,

power is shared while both parties undergo a significant learning experience. On the otherhand, if the main aim of a teacher or supervisor is to move the learner from being a surface

learner to a deep learner in terms of a learning outcome set by the teacher/supervisor, thepower remains in the hands of the teacher/supervisor.

A further problem with the approaches to surface/deep learning framework is that thecategory of surface learning seems to be regarded either in a pejorative light in the literature or

as an undesirable element that has to be excluded entirely from the students repertoire oflearning strategies. The literature around these approaches to learning seems to attach a value

judgement to them, namely, surface learning is undesirable while deep learning is desirable.

This belies any claims to a holistic and relational approach. We would rather argue that there

are times when surface learning may be an appropriate strategy to use. It may be appropriate to

take a both-and rather than an either-or approach to learning.Furthermore, we would saythat a student may have a deep approach to learning in a particular subject that holds his/her

attention, but may use a surface or strategic approach in another subject which may be a core

requirement in a course, but which holds little meaning or interest for the student.

This brings us to another critique namely that the learning objective ultimately seems to be that

of moving a student from being a surface to a deep learner (Brabrand, 2007). This would

indicate that becoming a learner who uses a deep approach is seen as a goodend productwhich takes no account of a learners ability to be both a deep and surface learner depending on

personal choice of learning approach in a particular situation. This supports Haggiscritiquethat what started out as a students approach to deep learning has become reified and

represented as a product called deep learning rather than the approach its original authors

Marton and Slj described. Furthermore, deep learning has been put on a pedagogical pedestal(and, may one suggest, deified) as the end to which teaching and learning must move its

students to achieve a change in learning behaviour. This would paint the framework in

behaviourist shades, rather than the constructivism it claims. We question whether the deep

learning approach does, in fact, effect significant change on levels other than that of the

cognitive.

Prosser and Trigwell (1999, cited in Haggis, 2003) define a deep approach as including a searchfor personal meaning based on intrinsic interest, curiosity and a desire and ability to relate the

meaning to personal experience. Haggis critiques this by pointing out that meaning is a

problematic concept because it is so general and open to interpretation. We would take this

point further and stress that making meaning is directly related to ones personal Discourse as

illustrated by the above example of the students Discourses.


6/15

6 | P a g e

Making meaning in a teaching and learning situation involves two parties, the learner and the

teacher. Both these parties bring their particular Discourses and strengths to the teaching and

learning situation. When a co-teaching approach is used, as in BTRM, further richness is brought

into the classroom through both teachers personal discourses and strengths. For example,

Teacher A approaches the subject from a clothing perspective, while Teacher B comes from a

research perspective. Together these teachers draw on their unique Discourses and strengths tofocus on a shared learner-centred approach. Furthermore, the co-teachers see themselves as

becoming co-learners with their learners.

Haggis (2003) regards Biggs Constructive Alignment as a tightly articulated version of theapproaches to surface/deep learning framework. This brings us to the main point of this paper,

namely our critique of Biggs constructive alignmentin terms of 2008 BTRM and our vision of

an adapted model of significant learning based on Finks taxonomyof significant learning.

Firstly, we will critique Biggs constructive alignment as it was used in the 2008 BTRM andsecondly, we will discuss Finkstaxonomy of significant learning and how we intend to adapt

and apply this to the 2009 BTRM course.

Biggs Constructive Alignment

Constructive alignment is a term coined by John Biggs to describe a process of aligned

instruction design that aligns the intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities

with a criterion based assessment. According to Biggs (2003) the constructive within

constructive alignment indicates that this falls within the ambit of constructivist learningtheory in that the students are seen as constructing meaning, hence constructive refers to

what the student does.The alignment refers to what the teacher does, i.e. setting the

learning goals with their learning outcomes and aligning these to teaching and learning

activities and assessment. Entwistle (2000) claims that the result is a transparent, coherent

system in which the students know upfront what competencies they have to achieve and

according to which criteria they will be assessed, while the teaching and learning activities are

so structured that they foster deep rather than surface learning. Figure 1 shows Biggsconstructive alignment which demonstrates the importance that he places on the curriculum

objectives into which the teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks feed.


7/15

7 | P a g e

Figure 1: Biggs constructive alignment

Source: Biggs, 2003.

At the beginning of this year, we adopted the constructive alignment approach, as promoted by

Biggs (2003), in the 2008 BTRM course, by clearly defining the intended learning outcomes, by

carefully planning teaching and learning activities to support the achievement of these

outcomes and by continuously assessing against the actual learning outcomes to determine to

what extent they were meeting the learning outcomes. On reflection, we can see that we were

actually cognitively streamliningour course, and often functioning in the cognitive domain atthe expense of the other human domains.

The dominant factor in Biggsmodel is the curriculum objectives/intended learning outcomes

and this is the inherent characteristic that determines to a large extent what the learningactivities and the assessment tasks and criteria will have to be, although this is not actually

depicted in the model as illustrated above. A flaw in constructive alignment is that we are

working with the assumption that if the learning activities and assessments are aligned to the

learning outcomes, we have defined the correct learning outcomes, which can be highly

subjective. This subjectivity affects both the process of defining the learning outcomes and the

interpretation and application of them. For example, the BTRM subject consists of theoretical

knowledge (coursework) and practical application (research project) in aspects relating to

clothing product conceptualisation, clothing production processes and technology as well as

clothing product performance evaluation. Students are required to plan, design, conduct and

report on research of an area of specialisation within the scope of this subject as evidence that

they are capable of applying knowledge. On reflection, we have recognised that we had defined

the learning outcome incorrectly and although we had aligned the learning activity and

Teaching &

Learning Activities

Designed to elicit

desired verbs

May be:

Teacher-

controlled

Peer-controlled

Self-controlled

As best suits

context

Curriculum Objectives

expressed as verbs

students have to enact

A

The very best

understanding that could

reasonable be expected:

might contain verbs such as

hypothesize, apply to far

domains etc.

B

Highly satisfactory

understanding: might

contain verbs such as

explain, solve, analyse,

compare etc.

C

Quite satisfactory learning

with understanding at adeclarative level: verbs

such as elaborate, classify,

cover topics a to n etc.

D

Understanding at a level

that would warrant a pass:

low level verbs, also

inadequate but salvageable

higher level attempts.

Assessment

Tasks

Evaluate how well

the target verbs are

deployed in context.

The highest level

verb to be clearly

manifested becomes

the final grade

(A,B,C etc.).


8/15

8 | P a g e

assessment to the learning outcome, there was a distinct lack of fit between these. As a result,

the students experienced difficulty applying the theoretical knowledge to practice.

In terms of Biggs constructive alignment, although we had aligned the constructive (what thestudent does) with the alignment (what the teacher does) the learning did not meet

expectations inherent in the learning outcome nor effect change. We uncovered further

problematic elements in constructive alignment namely the lack of provision for a humandimension in the model, the absence of both the strengths and personal Discourses that impact

on teaching and learning situation as well as issues of diversity. We would suggest that these

shortcomings may result from Biggs premising his constructive alignment and SOLO taxonomy

on a reified deep learning, which in practice addresses only the cognitive domain. Therefore,

we have decided to adapt a taxonomy that will add a holistic perspective and human dimension

to our curriculum and practice, namely Finks taxonomyof significant learning.

Finks taxonomyof significant learning

While recognizing the importance of Blooms taxonomy and its long-lasting influence on Higher

Education, Fink responded to the need for different kinds of learning that do not easily flowfrom Blooms cognitivetaxonomy (Fink, 2003:29). These new kinds of learning, which Fink sees

as learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills,

character, tolerance and the ability to adapt to change, have to be a response to the demands of

a fast-changing, globalized and increasingly complex world. Finks response has been to create anew taxonomy of significant learning:

In the process of constructing this taxonomy, I was guided by a particular perspective on

learning: I defined learning in terms of change. For learning to occur there has to be

some kind of change in the learner. No change, no learning. And significant learning

requires that there be some kind of lasting change that is important in terms of the

learners life (Fink, 2003:30).

Figure 2: Finks taxonomySource: Fink (2003:30)


9/15

9 | P a g e

Unlike the taxonomies of Bloom and Biggs which are hierarchical and developmental (i.e. stage

theory which requires mastery of one stage before being able to move on to the next stage),

Finks taxonomy is holistic, interactive and inter-relational. The taxonomy is made up of six

categories of significant learning, each of which contains several specific kinds of related

learning that are of value to the learner (Fink, 2003:31). These six categories, as illustrated in

Figure 2 above, are: Foundational Knowledge, Application, Integration, the Human Dimension,Caring, and Learning how to learn. Foundational Knowledge is foundational in the sense that it

forms the fundamental infrastructure of learning to which other learning is added. Application

Learning is the development of certain skills that allow other kinds of learning to becomeuseful (ibid). Integration is making connections and seeing relationships which give learners a

new form of power especially intellectual power (ibid). Human dimension is about learningmore about oneself and others and the implications, consequences and human significance of

that learning. Caring implies that the students willingly apply energy to developing new feelings,

interests and values. Learning how to learn teaches students how to become self-directing and

life-long learners. To emphasise that this model is not stage (i.e. developmental, hierarchical)

theory, the interactive nature of significant learning is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows the

interconnectivity of the model.

Figure 3: Interactive nature of significant learningSource: Fink (2003:33)

With reference to Table 1 that outlines surface, deep and strategic approaches to learning, a

comparison can be drawn between deep and significant learning. Deep learning is seen as

hierarchical and developmental, while significant learning is seen as six kinds of learning that

relate to and interact with each other in a synergistic manner. Achieving any one kind of

learning simultaneouslyenhances the possibility of achieving the other kinds of learning as well(Fink, 2003:32, our emphasis). Designing a course that embodies all six kinds of learning will

result in a significant learning experience. An important feature of significant learning is that it

recognizes that learning is a process of change that cannot be quantified as an absolute or a

product that is the same for every student. When reflecting on our studentslearning, we

recognize that what constitutes a dynamic, significant learning experience is different for eachstudent, as demonstrated by our Students A and B above.


10/15

10 | P a g e

With reference to the 2008 BTRM course, the learning outcomes, as indicated in Table 2 were

defined only in cognitive terms according to Blooms taxonomy and applied within constructive

alignment as defined by Biggs. Reflecting on the shortcomings that we found in Biggsconstructive alignment, we redefined the learning outcomes using the categories of significant

learning to support our vision of a holistic approach that incorporates a human dimension. In

Table 2, the same learning outcomes of the 2008 BTRM are restated in terms of Finkstaxonomy. Adding the categories of the human dimension, caring and learning to learn creates arichness of context in which significant learning can happen simultaneously on different levels.

Table 2: Example of learning outcomes of BTRM subject 2008-2009

Current learning outcomes based on

constructive alignment of Biggs

2008

Proposed new learning outcomes based on

Finks taxonomy of significant learning

2009

Learners will be able to: By the end of this course a learner should

be able to:

Demonstrate an adequate understanding

of the research process and application

thereof within a specialised field of

clothing;

Source and evaluate information and read

critically to produce an academically

acceptable literature review;

Conduct a situational analysis at a

clothing/textile manufacturing companyor in a retail environment;

Conduct basic research using appropriate

research methods, collecting, analysing

and interpreting data to solve research

problem;

Demonstrate accountability for their own

research work by good time and project

management

Write and present a research report to

peers and industry experts.

Foundational knowledge

Understand the nature of research,

quantitative and qualitative approaches, and

the research process.

Application

Apply research methods for data collection;

analyse and interpret data and solve research

problem. Manage the research projecteffectively.

Integration

Use various sources of information available to

students in this field of study to write a

literature review and situational analysis that

integrates knowledge gained and shows the

relationship between theory and practice.

Write and present a research report to peers

and industry experts.

Human dimension

Manage oneself in relation to the available

time and resources, including feedback from

supervisor and language practitioner. Learn to

interact significantly with others who are

different to oneself.

Caring

Reflect on the research project and how it

could be used to influence ones own life and

that of others significantly.


11/15

11 | P a g e

Learning how to learn

Become a self-directing learner who is able to

reflect and pass judgement on onesown

performance. And in the process be able to

identify what further steps need to be taken tomake the learning process an experience of

significant change in oneself and oneslife.

Key components of integrated course design

Like Biggs model of constructive alignment, Finks model of integrated course design has thesame elements of learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment. However,

Fink has expanded assessment to include feedback. He uses a rather delightful term,FIDeLity

feedback, which means feedback that is Frequent, Immediate, Discriminating, and done Lovingly

(2003:100). Feedback is indeed a very important component of assessment not only in terms of

the learning that appropriate feedback encourages, but also in terms of the students personalgrowth towards emotional maturity as they learn to accept and manage that feedback.

Figure 4: Key components of Finks model of significant integrated course design(Source: Fink, 2003:127)

Fink uses Wigginsterminology (cited in Fink 2003:82) of auditive and educative assessment,where the former refers to assessment that merely looks back to see (take an audit of) whether

the learner understood the work, while the latter, educative assessment, is forward-looking

assessment whose primary purpose is to help students learn better.

Fink also distinguishes between passive and active learning, where the former refers to

receiving information and ideas while the latter refers to experiencing and reflecting. He

suggests three strategies for implementing powerful forms of active learning: create richlearning experiences, find new ways to introduce students to information and ideas and


12/15

12 | P a g e

promote in-depth reflective writing on the learning process. It is important to remember that

this active learning forms part of Finks view of learning as change.

Fink (2003:69) adds a further dimension, namely situational factors, which need to be taken

into consideration when designing an integrated course for significant learning. Basically, this

requires conducting an in-depth situational analysis of the specific teaching and learningsituation. These situational factors are: specific context of the teaching and learning situation,

expectations of external groups, nature of the subject, characteristics of the learners,

characteristics of the teacher and the special pedagogical challenge. The examples below

indicate our reflection on these situational factors as they impact upon our course:

Specific context of the teaching and learning situation

Less than 20 learners

Class once per week after normal working hours

Web-based support material provision

Expectations of external groups

Different stakeholders in different occupations will have different expectations, but generically:

Good oral and written communication

Good interpersonal skills, able to work in a team, able to apply theory to practice, treatothers with respect

Personal attributes such as responsibility, self-esteem and self-management, sociability

and integrity.

Nature of the subject

Cognitive

Requires application of technical knowledge

Rapidly changing industry environment

Characteristics of the learners

Diverse

Many personal Discourses

Different levels of mastery in terms of English language proficiency Some are full-time students

Some are part-time students who work full-time during the day

Characteristics of the teachers

Research expertise

Technical skills and knowledge

Experienced teachers and supervisors

Different personal Discourses

Special pedagogical challenge

Special situation in this course novice researchers

English as additional language for the majority of learners.

In keeping with his holistic approach, Fink (2003:69) has incorporated characteristics of

learners which consider aspects such as life-situation, family/work responsibilities;

life/professional goals related to the learning experience, reasons for enrolling, prior

knowledge, skills, attitude towards the subject, learning styles inter alia. Characteristics ofteachers include prior experience, knowledge, skills, attitude in terms of the subject; has she/he

taught it before; level of competence of teacher & confidence in subject; what prior experiences,

knowledge, skills and attitudes does teacher have vis visthe process of teaching, i.e. effective

teaching? Fink (ibid.) describes the special pedagogical challenge as: What is the specialsituation in this course that challenges the students and the teacher in the desire to make this a

meaningful and important learning experience?


13/15

13 | P a g e

An adapted model

In addition to the situational factors, we would suggest a model that incorporates the personal

Discourses of both the learners and teachers. This is important because the socio-cultural

context of both parties influence the teaching and learning situation, as has been demonstrated

in the example of Students A and B earlier in this paper. We feel that this would add a further

richness to Finks holistic approach and the personal Discourse would fit well into hissituational factors which consider the characteristics of learners and teachers. The question

arises, How does Personal Discoursediffer from Characteristics of learners and teachers?

The most significant difference lies in the deliberately socio-cultural approach and application

of Gees theory that Personal Discourse represents. Although Finks Characteristics of learners

and teachers does indeed consider the personal, human element, we feel that it does not go farenough. Some of the elements of Personal Discourse, particularly, the philosophical dimension

and social justice aspect are not present in Finks taxonomy to a sufficient degree. We feel theneed to incorporate personal Discourse into Finks taxonomy of significant learning because we

have many special pedagogical challenges in South Africa. By incorporating personal Discourse

we hope to make both learners and teachers aware of their own rich contexts and multiple

literacies so that together we can harness our strengths for emancipatory transformation of self

and society.

Figure 5: Model of significant and integrated learning adapted from Fink

The above figure illustrates that our model retains Finks ground-breaking taxonomy ofsignificant learning, but feeds the primary and secondary Discourses of both learners and

teachers into the situational factors , particularly into Characteristics of learnersand teachers.

Conclusion

This paper has considered the approaches to deep and surface learning, Haggiss critique

thereof and our critique of Biggs and has adapted Finks significant learning model. We havecontextualised this paper within the 2008 BTRM. Our reflections have clarified for us that we

view learning as significant change in a learner and that our use of Biggs constructive alignmentdid not produce sufficient change within a diverse student cohort. We recognise that we did not


14/15

14 | P a g e

fully utilise our students strengths. Having decided to take a more holistic approach that

incorporates both the strengths and richness of our students personal Discourses, we have

chosen to use Finks taxonomyof significant learning. We also realise that redefining learningoutcomes, learning activities and assessment according to Finks holistic approachwill require

of us to be in tune with the socio-cultural dynamics that students bring into the classroom. This

is a dynamic approach that is open to reflection and revision. It recognises that significantlearning encompasses both a process and an outcome: teaching should result in somethingothers can look at and say: That learning experience resulted in something that is truly

significant in terms of the students lives (Fink, 2003:6).

List of references

Atherton, J.S. 2005. Learning and Teaching:Deep and Surface learnin. [On-line] UK: Available:

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm Accessed: 27 October 2008.

Biggs, J.B. 1994. Student learning Research and Theory where do we currently stand? In Gibbs,

G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff

Development.

Biggs, J. B. 1996. Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education,

32:347-364.

Biggs, J. 2003. Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives. The Higher

Education Academy.

Brabrand,C. 2007. Constructive Alignment for teaching Model-based Design for Concurrency.

Invited paper at TEACONC 2007.

Entwistle, N. 2000. Promoting Deep Learning through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual

Frameworks and Educational Contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester,

2000.

Fink, D.L. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gee, J.P. 2005.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. 2nded. New York:

Routledge.

Gee, J.P. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses(2nded.). London: Taylor &

Francis.

Haggis, T. 2003. Constructing Images of Ourselves? A critical inverstigation into Approaches toLearning Research in Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal,29 (1):89-104.

Haggis, T. 2006. Pedagogies for Diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of dumbingdown. Studies in Higher Education,31(5): 521-535.

Hawley, J. M. 2005. Border crossing: Active and Deep Learning in a large Global Consumption

Class. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23(4): 229-237.

Lea, M.R. 2004. Academic Literacies: a Pedagogy for Course Design. Studies in Higher Education,

29 (6):739-756.

Marshall, D. and Case, J. 2005. Approaches to Learning Research in Higher Education: aResponse to Haggis. British Educational Research Journal,31(2): 257-267.

McCune, V. and Entwistle, N. 2000. The deep approach to learning: analytic abstraction and

idiosyncratic development. Paper presented at the Innovations in Higher Education Conference,

30 August 2 September 2000, Helsinki, Finland.

The New London Group. 1996. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: designing Social Futures. HarvardEducational Review, 66(1).


15/15

15 | P a g e

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. 1999. Relations between teachers approaches toteaching and students approaches to learning. Higher Education,37: 57-90.

moving beyond constructive alignment to

Documents