Noel Entwistle

The use of research on student learning in quality assessment

Noel Entwistle (Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction University of Edinburgh)

Reproduced with permission from Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning - Through Assessment and Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development (1995)

Introduction

This chapter explores what research on student learning has to offer to quality assessment of teaching and more generally to the theme of this book Improving Student Learning. The chapter draws on different sets of experience: as a researcher into student learning; as a reviewer of work on the effects of teaching on learning outcomes; as a member of the Quality Assessment Committee of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC); as the Head of an education department; and as a university teacher. All of these experiences affect my views on how research on student learning can be used to improve student learning.

Underlying the title of this chapter is an assumption that quality assessment can be used to improve the quality of student learning, and that quality assessment itself can be improved if findings from research on student learning are taken more actively into account. The starting point will be the perceived need for improvements in the quality of teaching and the function of quality assessment in encouraging such improvements. That will lead to a brief description of how the quality of teaching in departments is currently being judged in Britain, drawing specifically on experiences from SHEFC. The criteria on which quality of teaching is judged will be described, as well as the outcomes of those judgements and, in particular, comments on the teaching found in departments rated as 'excellent'. There do seem to be problems in the way quality in teaching is currently being judged, and these will be examined in the light of research on student learning. Some recent research is used to develop an argument about the way teaching needs to support the development of conceptual understanding, and that leads on to a consideration of staff development activities, and their effectiveness in changing the conceptions staff have about the nature of teaching and learning in higher education.

The Need for Improvement in the Quality of Teaching

Over the years, there have been repeated complaints about the quality of teaching in higher education. These complaints have come partly from educationists, who have pointed to the lack of formal training given to teachers in higher education, but also from students who have felt that their experience of higher education left a good deal to be desired. What criticisms, in particular, have been made? An analysis of more than 600 feedback questionnaires at the University of Teesside (Pennington, 1994) revealed three specific weaknesses in teaching. Students identified the need for more effective teaching delivery (50%), greater coherence in assessment methods (23%), and better course management and design (16%), with other factors mentioned by a further 11% of the students.

Another survey (Williams and Loader, 1993), this time including teaching staff and administrators as well as students, allows us to see in more detail which particular aspects of teaching provision are generally perceived to be weak (see Table 1).

Source: adapted from Williams and Loader, 1993.

Table 1 Criticisms of teaching in higher education made by administrators, lecturers and students

Official concern about the quality of teaching in higher education was noted in the 1987 White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, which asked for improvements in both quality and efficiency in teaching (Nightingale and O'Neil, 1994), and again in the 1991 White Paper on Higher Education: a New Framework which also laid down the procedures for improving quality. Of course, the current political climate has meant that economy and efficiency have been the main targets, although the rhetoric has continued to stress the improvement in quality. The funding councils for higher education have each set up their own procedures for assessing quality in teaching, but the general procedures are fairly similar. Here we shall look at the operation of the SHEFC quality assessment procedure.

The SHEFC Quality Framework

Initial ideas on the definition of quality in Scottish higher education were set out in a consultation paper issued in August 1992, based on the experience of a pilot quality assessment exercise carried out earlier that year. The paper described a 'systems model' based on inputs (such as staffing and the curriculum), processes (such as teaching and assessment), and outputs (such as learning outcomes, and student and employer satisfaction), and argued that certain criteria of quality could be established about which there would be a general consensus.

Quality in education is dependent on many factors, which may be incorporated in an operational quality framework ... For example, curriculum aims and objectives should be explicit and known to staff and students; courses should be periodically reviewed to assess their suitability; the learning and teaching environment should be generally conducive to learning; accommodation should be appropriate for the curriculum on offer; lectures should be well planned and prepared, and effectively performed; and learning should be enriched by appropriate reference to cross-curricular links, current research, industrial applications and the development of generic skills such as communication and teamwork. (para. 8)

The current Quality Framework had its origins in this analysis, with modifications introduced on the basis of the consultation exercise and subsequent experience in its use over the last two years. It should also be remembered that, in Scotland, the development of this framework was led by HMIs whose experience was in the visits and the reporting procedures developed within the Scottish Office Education Department. Their remit was broad with a concern essentially for what has since been described as 'total quality management'. The framework established reflected that breadth. The thinking behind the framework was certainly informed by research on teaching and learning, but the criteria included were derived from the experience of HMIs. Consultation with institutions led to modifications in the procedure! but there was less concern among institutions about the details of the framework.

Table 2 Aspects and reporting headings within the SHEFC Quality Framework

The Quality Framework is now used by departments in making their self-evaluations, and also by the panels of assessors both in judging the self-assessments and in discussing their impressions after visiting the department. (In Scotland, all departments being assessed are visited.) Self-evaluations are based on eleven aspects, but the framework for reporting has only five categories. Table 2 shows the 11 aspects, within the five reporting areas, while Table 3 shows examples of the 63 elements within the framework.

Table 3 A quality framework for assessing teaching

We shall come back to the Quality Framework, but let us look first at the results of using this framework in assessing the quality of Scottish departments over the first two years of its operation. In the first year, departments were graded as 'excellent', 'satisfactory' and 'unsatisfactory', while assessments in the second year sub-divided the 'satisfactory' category into 'highly satisfactory' and 'satisfactory'. The intention was that the other two categories would continue to carry their original meanings. Table 4 shows the distribution of grades awarded so far, by cognate area and university type.

The distributions of grades differ markedly between cognate areas, with Chemistry finding half of the departments 'excellent' compared with 15% in Computer Studies, while 90% of departments of civil engineering were considered 'highly satisfactory' with the remaining department being considered 'unsatisfactory'. So far, 62% of the 'excellent' departments are in the ancient universities, while 59% of those described as 'satisfactory' are in the newly established universities.

Table 4 Distribution of assessment categories in Scotland by cognate area and university type

The assessors visiting each institution write two reports, one which is published and another which is sent in confidence to the institution. Looking at the published reports, what impressions are obtained about what counts as 'good teaching'?

The Teaching Methods Found in 'Excellent' Departments

The first impression, which comes both from the distributions and the comments in the reports, is that either there are major differences in teaching quality between the cognate areas or, alternatively, 'excellence' and 'highly' satisfactory' are being interpreted in different ways by assessors in different cognate areas. The second impression is that 'high quality teaching', as judged by peers, must differ from what staff developers or researchers into student learning would mean by that term.

Looking, as an illustration, at reports from the two cognate areas published in July 1994 (Chemistry and Physics), what did the assessors say about staff development arrangements, and the methods of teaching used, in the ten 'excellent' departments? In three departments, the assessors found 'significant', 'some', or 'clear evidence of' staff development activity related to teaching, learning and assessment, but in the remaining seven departments, such activity was either 'low', 'little', 'limited' or not mentioned at all. The complete set of extracts from the reports are shown in the Appendix, but the following comments illustrate the range, with variants of the second comment being the most typical:

1990s University

There was a significant amount of staff development activity, notably in the area of teaching ... (with) regular one-day "School conferences" which were held away from the University ... There was (also) a structured ... scheme which successfully identified individual training needs'.

Ancient University

Beyond initial training, 'there appeared to be little staff development activity in the area of teaching, learning and assessment'.

Comments on teaching methods showed a heavy reliance on traditional methods, with reports on only two departments from 'old' universities mentioning the use of any innovative methods. The two departments in the 'new' universities had both used a mix of methods, but in one of them the assessors considered the methods to be 'of variable quality'. It is more difficult to give a flavour of the more varied comments on teaching, but the following probably give the right impression.

Ancient University

Lectures observed were well delivered using mainly traditional methods and appeared to be adequately prepared. However, there was, in general, little interaction with the students. Overhead projectors were not always properly used ... In the first year ... there was poor attendance at the tutorials.'

1990s University

A wide range of teaching and learning methods was employed ... appropriate to course aims. Lectures observed were generally well prepared, carefully planned and effectively delivered with good use of overhead projector and, in some cases, of handouts.'

Ancient University

Great emphasis was placed on 'small group tutorial teaching based on exercises ... which were clearly a valuable learning experience... Lecturing observed was traditional in style and used principally as a vehicle for conveying factual information'.

1960s University

Lectures tended to be traditional: there was scope for more variety in presentation and activity ... [as] in some cases [they] were not particularly imaginative. A great reliance was placed on the use of [overheads] and little student participation was evident. However, other more innovative teaching methods were also used.'

Looking back at the criticisms of teaching made by students and staff, we find that several of these 'excellent' departments are criticized for very similar failings unimaginative or ineffective presentation and a failure to encourage active learning. Of course, there were many complementary remarks made about these 'excellent' departments, and it was clear that describing the teaching as 'traditional' was not intended by the assessors as a criticism. However, there were a surprising number of criticisms, either implied or actual, of the teaching practice observed in these departments. The more complementary remarks generally referred to the organizational arrangements for teaching, rather than the teaching itself.

It may seem surprising that these 'excellent' departments attracted so few enthusiastic comments on staff development and teaching practice. There are perhaps two main reasons for this. First, we have focused on just one element within each of two of the 11 aspects of the Quality Framework. Judgements of excellence were presumably being based on other aspects. And yet it is evident that the assessors' observations on low levels of staff development activity and unimaginative teaching did not prevent the award of 'excellent'. These judgements may reflect the existing norms and cultures of these particular cognate areas, but there may be other reasons which are more pragmatic and political. Although the instructions to assessors do not rule out the use of differential weightings in reaching their decisions, the difficulty in coping with 11 aspects of quality may mean that, in practice, they are forced to rely on equal weightings and looking at how many aspects have been found to be 'excellent'. And, in reviewing the work of their peers, perhaps some panels of assessors have been more ready to stress the positive indications of quality and find reasons to excuse negative indications, thus producing a substantial skew towards high ratings. However, without being involved in either the observations or the decision-making, these possibilities remain speculative.

As the Quality Framework is currently being used, at least in the two cognate areas considered here, it seems unlikely that the assessments would lead to much reconsideration of traditional approaches to teaching and learning. If anything, they would seem to reinforce the status quo. If we want to use quality assessment to encourage more imaginative approaches, there would need to be a substantial change in the emphasis given within the Quality Framework to teaching practice and staff development, and assessors would have to use more of the indicators of 'high quality teaching' . Additional indicators could readily be based on research on student learning.

Encouraging and Supporting High Quality Learning

Research on student learning has been identifying a variety of teaching approaches which encourage students to adopt a deep approach to learning and studying, in other words to seek personal understanding rather than being satisfied with simply reproducing course content. Biggs (1989) identified four broad aspects of the learning environment which he believed would encourage a deep approach.

1. Motivational context which depends on students experiencing 'ownership' of course content and establishing a positive emotional climate associated with learning.
2. Learner activity which not only involves 'doing', but also reflecting on the activity and developing abstract conceptions.
3. Interaction with others which allows the negotiation of meaning with peers, either in tutorial contexts or in autonomous student groups.
4. A well-structured knowledge base to promote the integration of content into broad inter-related wholes rather than concentrating on pieces of information in isolation.

In a recent paper for SHEFC assessors, Entwistle (1994a) has suggested additional indicators of quality in teaching which have been derived from the literature on student learning. The influences on the quality of learning shown in Table 5 can be justified in terms of research findings and derive mainly from an earlier review of the effects of teaching on learning outcomes (Entwistle, 1992).

Table 5 Influences on the quality of learning

Commenting on other recent reviews of the effects of teaching on learning, Nightingale and O'Neil (1994) come to similar conclusions about how best to promote a deep approach and to encourage the development of personal understanding.

A deep approach to learning is best fostered by teaching and assessment methods that promote active and long-term engagement with learning tasks. Stimulating and considerate teaching which demonstrates the lecturer's personal commitment to the subject matter and stresses its meaning and relevance to students also shapes deep learning. Opportunities to exercise responsible choice in the method and content of study, including opportunities for independence in studying, play a major role in promoting meaningful learning too. (p. 80)

It is tempting to move from this analysis to pick out particular methods of teaching which will support a deep approach and there have been many suggestions about the particular methods which promote high quality learning (e.g. Gibbs, 1992a; Ramsden, 1992; Entwistle et al., 1992). However, a review of the literature on the differing teaching methods suggested strongly that research had demonstrated few consistent beneficial effects from any specific teaching method (Entwistle, 1992). And this conclusion has also been reached at school level (Dahllof, 1991).

There are at least two reasons why we should not expect strong or consistent effects from any specific teaching method in higher education. First, the outcomes of learning in any course depend not on a single teaching method, but on a set of interacting features of the whole learning environment. In the traditional context, for example, it is impossible to isolate the effects of lecturing from the influences of tutorials, conversations with staff and fellow students, carrying out assignments, and a whole range of independent activities such as reading and reflecting on course content. Even where a method is more likely to encourage high-quality learning, its effectiveness will be crucially dependent on the way it is implemented. Much of the staff development literature concentrates on the activities of both staff and students. It is much more difficult to explain how particular aspects ~f those activities come to influence the quality of learning. That requires a much more fundamental grasp of how teaching influences learning. But only if staff grasp the essence of the innovation will they be able to adapt the method effectively to the particular context| within which they are working.

Rather than looking for particular innovations, a more subtle and complex analysis is necessary. A form of 'systems thinking' is necessary (Entwistle, 1987, 1994b). There is a whole armoury of methods available for presenting information and encouraging learning. We have to ask which particular combination should this member of staff use on this course, with these students, at this level, and with these aims. And what combination of assessment methods will match those teaching arrangements? As Dahllof (1991) has said:

Too much attention is directed towards finding ... 'the best method', even though fifty years of educational research has not been able to support such generalisations. Instead we should ask which method - or which combination of methods - is best ... for which goals, for which students, and under which conditions (p. 148)

If staff are to grasp the essence of innovatory methods, and also be able to develop learning environments which support high quality learning, they will need to understand much more about how these methods and environments influence learning. And what is often currently lacking in descriptions of innovative methods is any discussion of the content, as opposed to the process, of learning. Research on student learning has looked at both content and process, but difficulties in generalizing about the learning of content has led to greater emphasis on process. So, we find extensive discussions of the importance of encouraging a deep approach, but much less is written about what a deep approach involves in specific subject areas. Academic staff are, naturally, more interested in their own discipline than in concepts introduced by educationists or social scientists, unless direct connections can be shown between those concepts and their own experience. That is what some of the recent research in student learning is beginning to do.

Developing Conceptual Understanding

In higher education, students are expected to learn how to think and use evidence in ways which are characteristic of the discipline they are studying. The essence of understanding is the connection between new ideas and what a person already knows (Entwistle, Entwistle and Tait, 1992). It is thus, necessarily, individually constructed. In developing effective conceptual understanding, students have to construct their own frameworks of interpretation from the evidence, arguments and explanations they have heard and read. The extent to which students will be able to construct fully independent frameworks will depend, to some extent, on the discipline. In the humanities and social sciences, these constructions can incorporate personal experience to a greater extent than in the sciences. But even in studying science, students necessarily come to understand concepts in somewhat idiosyncratic ways. They use the available representations of the abstractions in contrasting ways - some more visual and some more mathematical, for example.

Diana Laurillard (1987,1993) has argued that academic learning has to be distinguished from everyday learning - it involves a difference between acquiring 'percepts' and 'precepts'. Much of academic learning is not just abstract, but it depends on thinking in 'approved' ways. Laurillard argues that the task of the teacher involves mediating learning. It is essentially a rhetorical activity in which the teacher seeks to persuade students to change their ways of making sense of various kinds of phenomena, using the concepts and ways of thinking characteristic of their discipline. The independent frameworks that students develop are thus constrained by the history of the discipline, and yet retain elements of individuality. To make this discussion more concrete, let us look at some recent research being done in Edinburgh.

We have been investigating how students develop interpretative frameworks. We have done this by interviewing students in their final undergraduate year and asking them how they go about integrating complex material, both in preparing for coursework essays and in revising for Finals (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Entwistle, 1995). Initial analyses produced descriptions of common experiences of understanding during revision, and distinctive differences in the forms of understanding students were seeking. Here, we will look just at these differences (see Table 6).

Table 6 Contrasting forms of understanding during revision for finals

In analysing the interview transcripts, it became clear that students were using the word 'understanding' in quite different ways. Their descriptions differed in terms of breadth (how much material was being brought together to create an understanding), depth (the variety and strength of the connections made within the material and to related ideas), and structure (the principles of organization used to provide a scaffolding for those connections). The forms represent a hierarchy with increasing levels of conceptual sophistication.

The study was not large enough to indicate what proportion of students would predominantly aim for which form of understanding, but there was a worrying suggestion that the second category might prove the most common, and indeed that some exam questions might well require no more than that. This category implies that the student is accepting the lecturer's understanding without developing it into the personal framework which creates deeper meaning. Relying too much on the lecturer's framework leads to explanations which 'parrot' the lecturers' arguments and borrow their examples and evidence. The result is superficial knowledge mimicking conceptual understanding, although it can be difficult for an examiner to detect.

The first category was used, in the sample, only by medical students in referring to their experience in pre-clinical exams, which again was worrying. The only first-class degrees were awarded to students in the penultimate category, who combined a deep approach with a strategic awareness of the demands of the examination system.

The final category described students who were predominantly concerned with their own conceptual understanding of the content, but as a result they seemed to lack an equivalently clear awareness of examination requirements. As one student said:

Well, there were cases where I knew too much ... I had to go through all the stages of working through [the topic] and showing that I had understood it. I couldn't gloss over the surface. And once I started writing, it all just 'welled up'. I felt that I couldn't interrupt the argument half-way, as it was developing ... [because] it ties together as a whole. It's very difficult to pick something like that apart, when you understand the theory like that. Half an understanding doesn't make sense!

Are you saying that you have to explain it in the way you understand it for yourself?

Yes. It's essential to demonstrate your understanding of the whole, and its implications and limitations ... You could say I shouldn't be (doing) that in an exam, but basically I have to do it that way, because that's me. Anyway, gearing your learning too closely just to previous exam papers seems a bit like a form of cheating.

Discussions of the transcripts with Ference Marton - triggered by one particular extract - 3 led to a reanalysis of certain sections of the transcripts (Entwistle and Marton, 1994). The extract which suggested this particular re-analysis came from a student who was able to reflect particularly clearly on how she used her revision notes and brought them to mind on demand. Her general strategy in revising each topic involved 'concising' voluminous notes, step by step, down to a simple framework which she then used to rehearse her own understanding. Her experience of using these frameworks involved something like visualization, and yet not quite. She experienced her understanding in a quasi-sensory way, knew what was there, could 'see' the main points in her final summary notes, and was confident that more details were linked to the main points and could be retrieved when required.

The subsequent analysis of the whole set of interviews suggested that this experience was not uncommon, although the majority of students found more difficulty in articulating their experiences. Piecing together the range of incomplete descriptions, we concluded that students were experiencing their understandings as having some internal form and structure - almost as entities in their own right and these came to control their thinking paths in some way (Entwistle and Marton, 1994). The term knowledge object has been used to describe the essence of these quasi-sensory experiences of aspects of understanding. Focusing on key points within their knowledge object would 'pull up' additional information which they had memorized separately. In the words of one student, describing his ability to visualize a diagram he had been revising,

I can see that virtually as a picture, and I can review it, and bring in more facts about each part ... Looking at a particular part of the diagram sort of triggers off other thoughts. I find schematics, in flow diagrams and the like, very useful because a schematic acts a bit like a syllabus; it tells you what you should know, without actually telling you what it is. I think the facts are stored separately, ... and the schematic is like an index, I suppose.

The knowledge object also seems to be used to provide flexible control of an examination answer as it develops. There is a dynamic interplay between the knowledge object and the demands of the question which creates essentially a unique answer, but the knowledge object creates a generic structure for a topic which is likely to remain consistent. Some students seem also to use the knowledge object to monitor the adequacy of their explanations, and in some comments it was even given an independent existence - at least metaphorically.

Following that logic through, it pulls in pictures and facts as it needs them ... Each time I describe [a particular topic], it's likely to be different ... Well, you start with evolution, say, ... and suddenly you know where you're going next. Then, you might have a choice ... to go in that direction or that direction ... and follow it through various options it's offering ... Hopefully, you'll make the right choice, and so this goes to this, goes to this - and you've explained it to the level you've got to. Then, it says 'Okay, you can go on to talk about further criticisms in the time you've got left.'

The term 'knowledge object' is used to describe an experience. It is not intended to suggest that knowledge is a commodity which can be transferred from teacher to student. Quite the opposite. The whole essence of the knowledge object is that it is a personal construction which provides a mnemonic structure to summarize complex interconnections that have developed in the process of developing conceptual understanding.

We are currently analysing interviews with students about coursework essays to see to what extent similarly tight bundles of knowledge are developed. Our preliminary conclusion is that the knowledge objects formed in essay writing are much less firmly established than through extensive revision and occur only when the students engage personally with the topic. In our sample, most of the students interviewed seemed to be far too strategic in their approaches to essay writing for this to occur. But, of course, many of the students revising for finals were being equally strategic, and relied heavily on reproducing the understandings of their lecturers. Only those students fully committed to a deep approach created clearly defined knowledge objects.

One of the strengths of this type of qualitative research which describes students' experiences of learning is that the results should describe a 'recognizable reality'. The idea of a knowledge object should tally with experiences of both students and staff. Whether it will also prove a useful way of encouraging improvement in the quality of learning remains to be seen. At the moment, we have to rely on more fully developed concepts and ideas.

Changing Conceptions of Teaching

So far, we have argued that improvements in the quality of student learning cannot come from recommending specific methods of teaching. Encouraging student activity is important, but the form that activity takes is crucial. And the 'right' activity comes not from any single teaching method, but from a careful arrangement of the whole learning environment, including above all assessment which provides reward for deep, active ways of studying. It is by no means clear that the most effective learning environments necessarily involve innovative methods, but there is a strong probability that they will. It is clear that they will have involved the member of staff, or course team, in considerable thought about which teaching arrangements are most likely to support the type of learning required. But components of that environment could certainly involve traditional approaches carried out thoughtfully and imaginatively.

There is often a problem in the published reports describing innovations in teaching. They are often presented in unqualified and over-enthusiastic terms, without making clear how dependent success will be on the context and the individuals concerned. I am reminded of a comment made by Friedlander (1975) in describing 'open', or progressive, elementary education in the USA:

It is a gross oversight of available knowledge in psychology to assume that looser structure in the environment of the classroom is of some benefit for all children, just because it is of great benefit for some children. It is predictable that children who have a low tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty would find an open classroom, which operates very successfully for some children extremely threatening and anxiety provoking. It is also predictable that personality configurations of administrators and teachers who seek out the challenge of innovation in developing the open classroom would tend to be unmindful of the valid needs for order, predictability, and specificity for persons unlike themselves. (p467)

Traditional, as well as innovative, methods of teaching have been very effective in helping students to master the ways of thinking characteristic of the discipline. For example, another on-going study at Edinburgh is looking at how tutors encourage their students to develop conceptual understanding in conventional social science tutorials (Anderson, 1995). What is particularly interesting is the way that the best tutors seem to challenge the students to think critically and independently, and do so in a vigorous and direct way. And yet at the same time the tutors provide the encouragement and support necessary for the difficult process of developing more complex and abstract conceptions of topics and of the discipline as a whole. They create a climate in which misunderstanding is accepted as a necessary step along the path towards understanding. And in some of the best innovatory teaching involving collaborative work, students are encouraged to develop similar climates of acceptance in which alternative conceptions of the problem or task can be freely discussed without individuals feeling threatened, or their ideas devalued (Nightingale and O'Neil, 1994).

One of the challenges for quality assessment, institutions and staff developers is to create a similar climate for academic staff. If more imaginative teaching is to be introduced into higher education it must be seen to be rewarded, both within the quality frameworks, to provide incentives for departments to reconsider existing courses and methods of teaching, and within promotion criteria, to ensure that individual staff benefit from the efforts they put into teaching. But the task of staff developers is more complex. It is by no means sufficient to draw attention to alternative methods of teaching and learning. They have to act, like the staff themselves, as mediators in the task of changing conceptions.

Currently, many staff have conceptions of learning which allow traditional, and ineffective, methods of teaching to go unchallenged, and some seem to have a 'deficit model' of student behaviour. They see teaching largely as a matter of covering the syllabus (Trigwell and Prosser, 1994), believing that what is in the lecture course will then be known, and what is not covered is necessarily either unknown or misunderstood. And they seem to believe that many students are inherently lazy or confused, without appreciating that their motivation and clarity of thinking is, in part, a function of their experiences on the course (Entwistle, 1984). Changing such conceptions is, however, no simple task. The psychological literature is replete with examples of how difficult it is to change firmly entrenched attitudes and conceptions. How, then, should we proceed?

Evidence on conceptual change suggests that, first, the individual has to perceive a reason for change. If the existing conception still feels adequate and comfortable, change is unlikely. A variety of experiences have to be provided which both challenge existing conceptions and suggest interesting alternative conceptions. But these experiences have to be carefully managed within an encouraging and supportive climate. The experiences also have to be designed to fit the previous knowledge and learning habits of the learners involved. Unfortunately, there seems to be a developing orthodoxy in staff development circles that learning must necessarily take place in workshops in which the participants negotiate both content and learning activity. Yet this seems totally to disregard how most academic staff learn. They learn by reading, by attending conference papers, as well as through discussions with colleagues. They are quite capable of taking from presentations what interests them and may be useful, and are quite unused to situations in which they are expected to negotiate what is to happen. Why is it believed that this is the best way to run staff development? Presumably because there is a belief that there is a 'best' method for encouraging deep approaches to learning and that this should be exemplified in learning about teaching. But, just as there is no evidence of a 'best method' existing anywhere else in education, it seems reasonable to doubt whether a 'best method' exists for staff development. What is more likely to work is to arrange a variety of experiences which provide information, challenges and support, and which above all allow staff to decide for themselves what methods suit them, as individuals, best. Choice, yes. But not choice within the constraints of a single format, surely.

Trigwell and Prosser (1994) have been exploring university teachers' conceptions of teaching. Their research has led them to conclude that

improvements in teaching ... [depend on] a conceptual change on the part of some teachers. ... Such changes are difficult to bring about, and are unlikely to occur through the attendance at, and participation in, the occasional three-hour professional development workshop. A much more sustained and systematic approach is required, built upon teachers examining, and critically reflecting on, their own practices.

Such approaches are likely to work best where departments collectively agree to be involved in reappraising their teaching - perhaps as part of quality assessment or quality assurance procedures. Then the focus can be on that particular area of study. There is an understandable suspicion of methods of teaching which are presented as being 'best' for any discipline. Effective teaching, particularly in higher education, depends critically on the content and traditions of the individual discipline or profession. And examples of good teaching will be most influential if they come from a similar area of study.

Unfortunately, many of the innovations in teaching are not only advocated by social scientists, but the evidence of effectiveness has come solely from the same area. Not surprisingly, staff from other disciplines are unimpressed. We need good exemplars from different subject areas, and not just as written descriptions (see Cryer, 1992), but also as videos. And, in whatever format, they need to be supported by thorough discussions of the underlying rationale and of both practical utility and practicality. In the current situation facing colleagues, descriptions of methods which depend on greater staff input may understandably create anger and incredulity. Whatever is suggested must be within the constraints of existing time and resources, and those constraints are currently oppressive.

Conclusion

The introduction of quality assessment has created a climate in which discussion of more imaginative combinations of teaching methods can be encouraged. To have any marked effect, however, there will have to be substantial changes in the current situation. There will have to be changed emphases in the criteria used to assess teaching quality, changed institutional policies which give teaching excellence equal prominence in promotion decisions as research productivity and, finally, a changed ethos in staff development to provide a variety of approaches which cater for differing backgrounds and contrasting learning styles, and which also capitalize more effectively on the particular strengths of academic staff as learners.

References

Anderson, C.D.B. (1995). Personal communication.

Biggs, J.B. (1989). Does learning about learning help teachers with teaching? Psychology and the tertiary teacher. The Gazette (supplement), 26 (1). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Cryer, P. (1992). (ed.) Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Sheffield: Universities' and Colleges' Staff Development Unit

Dahllof, U. (1991) Towards a new model for the evaluation of teaching. In U. Dahllof et al. (Eds.) Discussions of Education in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Entwistle, N.J. (1984). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D.J. Hounsell, and N.J. Entwistle (eds) The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Entwistle, N.J. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In J.T.E. Richardson, M.W. Eysenck, and D. Warren Piper (eds). Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.

Entwistle, N.J. (1992). The Impact of Teaching on Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Sheffield: Universities' and Colleges Staff Development Unit.

Entwistle, N.J. (1994a). Defining quality in teaching: evidence from research. Paper prepared for training sessions of SHEFC assessors. Edinburgh: SHEFC.

Entwistle, N.J. (1994b). Teaching and the Quality of Learning in Higher Education. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 29 Tavistock Square, London, WCl 9EZ.

Entwistle, N.J. (1995). Frameworks for understanding as experienced in essay writing and in revising for examinations. Educational Psychologist, 30, 47-54.

Entwistle N.J. and Entwistle, A.C. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205-27.

Entwistle, N.J., Entwistle, A.C. and Tait, H. (1992). Academic understanding and contexts to enhance it: a perspective from research on student learning. In T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (eds).The Design of Constructivist Learning Environments. Berlin: Springer Verlag

Entwistle, N.J. and Marton, F. (1994). Knowledge objects: understandings constituted through intensive academic study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64,161-78.

Entwistle, N.J., Thompson, S. and Tait, H. (1992). Guidelines for Promoting Effective Learning in Higher Education. University of Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction.

Friedlander; B.Z. (1975). Some remarks on open educatio