RAPPORT
WWW.RECORDINGACHIEVEMENT.AC.UK
Issue 1 (2017)
seems we should have better understanding of
how individuals’ previous learning experiences
and qualifications affect our ability to learn.
Anecdotally, we may associate the encounter
with an inspirational teacher with our later choice
of subject at university, or the opposite, how a
difficult experience put us off an area for the rest
of our lives. For example, Carol Dweck (1999,
2006) has suggested that the way children are
treated during their time at school will shape their
beliefs about learning or ‘mindsets’ which, in
turn, influence how they approach learning.
Children with ‘fixed mindsets’, according to
Dweck, believe that success or failure is due to
their ability not effort, and will interpret results
accordingly (e.g. ‘I got good grades because I
am clever’ or ‘I failed this test because I am not
good at maths’). There is not much that can be
done about it, so there is no reason to try harder
or something different, and there is nothing that
teachers’ feedback can offer that can change
things.
The opposite happens with children who have a
‘growth mindset’. By contrast, they attribute their
results to their effort and are eager to try
something different the next time. Instead of
taking feedback personally, they use it to
improve. Progressive changes in adults’ beliefs
about knowledge, or ‘personal epistemologies’,
have been studied through post-tertiary
education (e.g. Baxter Magolda, 2004; Perry,
1970), but relatively little is known yet about how
these conceptions influence the ways they learn.
Individual differences, for example, intelligence,
personality and learning styles, have also been
researched (e.g. Furnham & Mon sen, 2008;
Furnham, Monsen, & Ahmetoglu, 2009), but far
less is known about how cultural differences are
reflected in the way students learn. Perhaps, the
reader can think of many other important factors
associated with learners. We do not want to
restrict input factors to aspects of the learners’
characteristics or their background, but would
like to include any aspects of their current lives
that influence their learning in positive or
negative ways. There is some evidence of the
contribution that attachment bonds to parents
make to college students’ adjustment and
development (e.g. Mattanah, Lopez, & Govern,
2011).
In the same way, the multiple
responsibilities of mature students can influence
their learning experiences (e.g. Panacci, 2015).
Input variables also include the learning
environment. The curriculum can be understood
broadly as learning experiences that arise from
the combination of content, goals, methods,
assessment, extracurricular activities and (even)
learning environment, hidden curriculum and
cultures (Shao-Wen, 2012). Curriculum design
reflects the history of a discipline as well as the
state of the art, but also a pedagogical
philosophy, often implicitly. In some institutions,
a clear mission guides the curricula. In the first
years of the 21st century, centres of excellence
in teaching and learning (CETLs) embedded in
many universities the UK carried out work on
different ways of teaching or facilitating learning.
We ought to mention the important work of
support systems that assist students with
academic skills, but also counselling, general
health and finances. Such services operate at a
local level (e.g. personal tutors) as well as
centrally. Finally, resources include libraries and
labs,
but
increasingly
online
resources
accessible remotely at all times: VLEs, email,
ePortfolios, online library catalogues and
electronic libraries and portals that provide
access to thousands of academic journals.
While the above relates to the conditions for
learning, they do not constitute the learning itself.
For learning to take place, the students must
both engage with the curriculum and use the
resources available.
By illustration, the
University of Bedfordshire aspires to generate
learning processes referred to as ‘realistic
learning’ (Gaitán, 2007)4, where the learner is
active, not passive. Instead of viewing teaching
as the transmission of knowledge we conceive it
as supportive of the construction of knowledge
by the learner. We favour learning by doing,
rather than through merely listening to a lecture.
From this perspective, learners become active
when the learning relates to their interests or
when they can make sense of the material in
terms of a purpose for learning it. Learning then
becomes meaningful. However, we believe that
the most significant learning takes place in social
interactions with others (peers or lecturers)
where students work on tasks collaboratively. It
is essential that learners have their views and
prior knowledge challenged and that, as a result
of careful analysis and debate, they transform
their understanding; there can be a modest, but
important, shift or a total reorganisation of their
thinking (Mezirow, 1997, 2000). Learning can
also be challenging in that the materials and
4
The notion of ‘realistic learning’ relates to some of the
‘principles of good practice’ proposed by Chickering and
Gamson (1987, 1999), but its dimensions describe
aspects of the learning process that lead to deep
learning and learner development, hence qualities of
the learners’ experience rather than things that tutors
ought to do. We believe the role of excellent teaching is,
of course, to foster or promote these qualities of
leaning. However, teaching on its own, even if it is
excellent, cannot produce realistic learning without the
students’ engagement. We believe realistic learning
requires a partnership between learners and tutors.
10