PLAGIARISM FREE "A" WORK

NeNe1994

Chapter2UnderstandingEducationalTheory.pdf

Home >Education homework help >PLAGIARISM FREE "A" WORK

Chapter 2

Understanding Educational TheoryUnderstanding Educational TheoryUnderstanding Educational Theory

As we discussed in Chapter 1, all faculty members, regardless of our primary academic discipline, are educators. However, few of us have spe- cifically studied the ontologies and epistemologies of education, including study of educational or developmental psychology. These concepts are fundamental to understanding how our students think and learn. This chapter provides a basic overview, particularly with regard to young adults. Some of these theories are decades old, yet they remain staples of textbooks used in current educational psychology courses, such as the widely used Essentials of Educational Psychology (Ormond, 2014), among many other mainstays of teacher-training programs. We need not become experts on educational theory or developmental psychology, but gaining a working familiarity with these concepts can facilitate our un- derstanding of why we should implement the approaches to teaching and learning presented in subsequent chapters.

Nearly everything we human beings do is supported by theory and philosophy, although many of us remain unaware of it. In higher education, our actions are par- ticularly influenced by two branches of philosophy: ontology and epistemology.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

n Student Development Theory

n Related Theories

n Theories and Practices of Teaching and Learning

n Theories and Practices of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

n Rationale

Mackh, B. M. (2018). Higher education by design : Best practices for curricular planning and instruction. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from amridge on 2021-10-10 03:28:29.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

To keep things simple, we’ll define ontology as the study of the nature of being, which involves attempting to categorize and understand the kinds of things that exist. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or as a professor under whom I studied for my PhD explained, it’s “how we know what we know and why we know it.”

Scholars are concerned with both of these philosophical concepts, but their applications across academic disciplines vary widely. Moreover, the more deeply we study any given discipline, the narrower our focus becomes. Once we reach the “terminal degree” stage, we’ve become super-specialists in just one knowledge area, understanding what exists within it and why this knowledge is important. In other words, we’ve mastered the ontology and epistemology of our disciplines. Therein lies our claim to disciplinary expertise. At this level of super-specialization, the ontologies and epistemologies of quantum physics would be self-evident to a quantum physicist, but they would be largely opaque to a political historian of Renaissance Italy. Likewise, the quantum physicist would lack sufficient under- standing of the ontologies and epistemologies of historical study of the Italian Renaissance. We know what we know, but we don’t know what other scholars know. Therefore, we gather together in colleges and universities so that collec- tively, we form a comprehensive assemblage of knowledge.

To better understand the ideas that support all of our work as educators, we’ll take a brief look at a selection of relevant theories of education. Since our design process begins with understanding our students, we’ll first consider some theo- ries of student development.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

From approximately ages 18 to 26, college students undergo a period of intense intellectual, social, and emotional growth. They enter college as teenagers, but they leave as adults who are presumably ready to find their own way in the world. Theories related to human development occurring during this age range include student development theory, developmental psychology, and educational psychology.

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget (1936) was the first psychologist to make a systematic study of cog- nitive development. His work disrupted longstanding beliefs that children were unable to answer questions correctly only because they lacked proper training. Piaget revealed that development progresses in discrete stages, influenced both by the growing maturity of children’s brains and through environmental input. He proposed that human beings acquire and use knowledge according to “schemas,” or mental maps about the world. For example, an adult would possess a schema

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

for a basic task such as going to a movie: arrive at the theater, decide which movie to see, purchase a ticket, enter the theater, find a seat, wait for the lighting to dim, watch the coming attractions, and finally watch the movie. The environment of the theater, the progression of actions, and the experience as a whole would each be part of this schema. Young children have few schemas to explain the world around them, but these form as the child progresses toward adulthood.

Intellectual growth is a process of adapting to the world around us, and according to Piaget, it progresses through four distinct stages. First, infants begin life in the sensorimotor stage, marking a major developmental milestone when they are able to understand than an object hidden from view still exists (object permanence). Toddlers and very young children enter the preoperational stage, where they are able to think about things symbolically—a word or other symbol is understood to stand for the object itself. Older school-age children are in the concrete operational stage. They can think logically and work out problems men- tally instead of having to solve them manually. For example, a child in the preop- erational stage might not be able to associate the symbol “5” without counting the number on the fingers of her hand, but a child in the concrete operational stage can use the logical idea of “5” to perform mathematical calculations mentally. Piaget’s last developmental stage is formal operations, lasting into adulthood. During this time, human beings can develop abstract concepts and logically test hypotheses (Piaget, 1936, 1957).1

Although we in higher education might presume that all of our students have achieved the “formal operations” stage of development, this may not actually be the case. Keating (1979)2 found that between 40% and 60% of college-age stu- dents failed when attempting formal operation tasks. Dasen (1994)3 found that only one-third of adults ever reached the formal operational stage. For those of us working in higher education, this means we would be wise to implement some of Piaget’s recommendations for teaching an audience of learners in the concrete operations stage. Interestingly, these continue to exist among best practices in teaching and learning today. Figure 2.1 matches Piaget’s recommendations in the left column with some higher educational applications on the right.

Piaget’s theories remain a cornerstone of developmental psychology, although not uncontested. For example, Vygotsky (1934)4 and Bruner (1957)5 preferred to think of development as a continuous process and linked more closely with social interaction and language development. Nevertheless, Piaget’s theories remain influential to the present day.

Psychosocial Theories

Psychosocial theories, such as the foundational ideas promoted by scholars such as Erik Erikson (1959)6 view human development as a series of stages through which individuals experience changes in their thought processes, feelings,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

behavior, values, and the ways in which they relate to themselves and others. Erikson proposed that we can identify eight developmental stages, of which many undergraduates may still be in late adolescence and moving into early adulthood or beyond. Adolescence is marked by establishing one’s identity, setting goals and finding one’s purpose. Young adulthood involves developing lifelong relationships such as finding a life partner and making lasting adult friendships. These devel- opmental stages also include the development of fidelity, which Erikson defines as the ability to accept and make commitments to others even when differences are recognized.

Arthur Chickering (1969)7 built upon Erikson’s theories, proposing seven “vectors” or non-sequential developmental tasks that all individuals work through in their journey toward adulthood. These include developing competence,

Piaget Higher Education

Focus on the process of learning, not only the end result.

Instruction in strategies for ideation (e.g., critical thinking, design thinking, lateral thinking); institution-wide emphasis on teaching students to become “lifelong learners” and to acquire critical thinking skills

Use active methods that allow students to discover or reconstruct knowledge.

Discussion groups (humanities); studio- based learning (the arts); laboratory requirements (the sciences)

Use both collaborative and individual activities.

Project-based learning; collaborative learning; independent research

Match tasks to the student’s level of development.

Scaled courses of instruction with simpler content or tasks for freshmen, progressing in complexity to upper-class or graduate- level students

The role of the teacher should be that of a facilitator.

Student-centered pedagogies; flipped classrooms; online learning; independent study

Learning should be active, not passive. Internships, co-op and practicum experiences; project-based and/or collaborative learning

Problem-solving skills must be discovered— they cannot be taught.

Hands-on, practical learning, including all of the above

FIGURE 2.1 Piaget and Higher Education

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

managing emotions, moving through autonomy to independence, increasingly mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, establishing purpose, and emerging integrity.

Student development theories are evident in our everyday observations of our students, whom we know to be highly relational and intensely focused on inter- actions with their peers. The communities in which students choose to associ- ate shape their collegiate experience significantly, such as co-curricular groups, roommates or housemates, romantic partners, or membership in athletic teams or performing arts organizations. This relational focus affects their performance in our classrooms. Knowing it’s normal for our students to be preoccupied by human relationships, we can plan learning experiences that tap into this power- ful motivator, such as collaborative learning and group projects. This knowledge also prepares us to exercise understanding and empathy when these relationships impinge on what we expect our students to accomplish. Mature adults learn how to manage their personal relationships and still perform their jobs adequately, but this is a developmental task most college-age students have not yet mastered.

Cognitive and Moral Development Theories

Cognitive and moral development theories focus on the ways people think. Law- rence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development8 explained that human beings progress through six stages occurring at three levels. Elementary school students move through the preconventional level, characterized by obedience to rules set forth by authority figures. In the second stage, conventional morality, individu- als follow social norms, first because they seek the approval of others and later because they accept the existence of law and order. The third stage involves learn- ing that morality is a social contract and developing a genuine interest in the wel- fare of others, leading to an understanding of ethics as a set of universal principles such as justice, equality, and respect for human dignity.9

Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development10 also posits that indi- viduals move through stages, beginning with Dualism, an interpretation of the world as governed by unqualified absolutes of right/wrong or good/bad. This is followed by Relativism, in which the individual recognizes multiplicity in the world and understands that all knowledge is contextual and relative, developing analytical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate different perspectives. Author- ity is seen as open to question, and individuals are able to evaluate their own thinking and to assess their own ideas and the ideas of others. Perry’s model is widely accepted among student development professionals, who regularly see the important transition between Dualism and Relativism occurring among the college students with whom they work.

Students who are still in the dualism phase of their development are generally willing to accept whatever their professor has to say as unmitigated truth, since

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

they retain a belief in authority figures. Students who have entered the phase of relativism, however, are more likely to evaluate an instructor’s statements criti- cally and to seek additional corroboration, input, or verification before accepting information as fact. They are more likely to question course content, to disagree with assigned readings, or fail to view the instructor as a source of consistently reliable information.

Instructors and university administrators often say they want to teach students how to think critically, which is the fundamental skill of relativ- ism. Therefore, we cannot simultaneously become offended when we find ourselves on the receiving end of our students’ questions. Our best course of action in those situations is to provide cogent, thorough, and convincing explanations, just as we would if we were challenged by a colleague or by one of our administrators.

Typology Theories

Typology theories focus on individual differences in how people view and relate to the world. These include, or are based on, Carl Jung’s theory of psycholog- ical types.11 Jung proposed that human beings primarily receive information through either their senses or through intuition. They make decisions based on either objective knowledge or subjective feelings. They also tend to be either introverted or extroverted. Based on these categories, Jung identified eight per- sonality types, which were further developed by Katherine and Isabel Briggs who proposed that humans have four primary operational modes that govern their flow of energy, how they receive information, how they make decisions, and the everyday lifestyle they prefer (extravert/introvert, sensing/intuitive, thinking/ feeling, judging/perceiving). These theories of personality types remain prev- alent, often implemented through assessments such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, a self-assessment tool that leads individuals to identify their dominant personality characteristics.12

Several other typology theories pertain directly to college-age individuals. For instance, Astin’s Theory of Involvement states that the greater a student’s involve- ment on campus, the more they will persist in their pursuit of academic success, influenced by their satisfaction with the campus environment: in other words, student involvement is directly linked to learning.13 Typology theories and their applications can be useful, especially when advising students about their choice of major or career, but assessments such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, although popular, might not be generally applicable to a classroom setting. Rather, it’s wise for instructors to understand the following:

1. Students have many different personality types, which subsequently affect their learning in our classrooms.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

2. Students’ involvement on campus can help them to be more successful in their educational journey.

3. Students bring a number of preexisting cognitive and experiential conditions with them when they come to our classrooms, all of which affect their learning: past academic experience, family dynamics, personal preferences, and much more.

4. The institutional environment, the frequency and quality of our interac- tions with our students, and the character of students’ individual effort will all affect their performance in our classrooms.

To be even more concise: These theories tell us that treating all students as though they were the same is mistaken. Just as you and I are different from one another, and both of us are different from our colleagues, our students come to us as indi- viduals, not as a group. High-quality teaching and learning require that we offer the same kind of individual consideration to our students that we would wish for ourselves. Sometimes this includes offering the student additional help or tutor- ing when course content proves difficult, sometimes we need to exercise leniency and compassion, and sometimes the best choice is to stand firm on course poli- cies. Speaking from my own experience, I’ve discovered that erring on the side of empathy is seldom wrong.

Person-Environment Theories

Person-environment theories consider the relationships that can be identi- fied between the individual and the environment. John Dewey’s Education and Experience (1938)14 remains a seminal work in this field. Dewey proposed that the environment holds a profound and usually unacknowledged influence on the individual, leading to formation of habits that control our behavior and our thinking. Educators who shape the learning environment to encourage student participation increase engagement in the task of learning. Social environments shape human behavior by involving people in purposeful activities that entail specific consequences. Students must learn introspection and self-awareness to recognize the impact of the environment on their thinking and behavior, to eval- uate this influence, and then to gain a measure of control over their thoughts and actions. Dewey was a strong supporter of experiential education, empha- sizing the importance of learning by doing rather than by passive listening. He also proposed that educators must take into account the individual differences between their students, opposing traditional approaches to education in which a defined body of preordained knowledge was conveyed uniformly to all students. Sandeen (1991)15 built upon Dewey’s work, studying the environment of higher education, identifying the sources of influence on college students as including clarity and consistency of objectives; institutional size; curriculum, teaching, and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

evaluation; residence halls; faculty and administration; and friends, groups, and student culture.

The structures of higher education continue to operate on a model befitting the Industrial Age rather than the Information Age in which we now live, elo- quently explained by Sir Ken Robinson.16 Consider any large lecture section of a general education course, no matter what academic field: Students sit in an auditorium-style room, all facing a stage with a lectern, where the instructor stands and delivers course content by talking, sometimes assisted by visual aids. Students take notes as quickly as possible, and interaction between students and the instructor is minimal, perhaps limited to 5 minutes at the end of the class period where the instructor acknowledges a few students’ questions. All students complete the same assigned readings, take the same standardized exams, and write the same papers. The traditional classroom is effectively a factory designed to convey knowledge provided by the instructor, ensuring uniformity. Dewey, among theorists for the past 80 years, says that we should question this model of instructional delivery. As Graham Gibbs (2013) reported,

More than 700 studies confirmed that lectures are less effective than a wide range of methods for achieving almost every educational goal you can think of. Even for the straightforward objective of transmitting factual informa- tion, they are no better than a host of alternatives, including private read- ing. Moreover, lectures inspire students less than other methods, and lead to less study afterwards.17

We should question, then, why we continue to rely on a method of instruction that has soundly been proven to be less effective than other tools at our disposal. The work of Dewey, Robinson, and Sandeen, among many others, asks us to con- sider our practices as educators more thoughtfully.

RELATED THEORIES

Two further theoretical models factor significantly into discussions of educational theory.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” (1954)18 remains an influ- ential explanation of human motivation. Maslow proposed that an individual’s needs exist in two categories. Deficiency needs must be satisfied in order of importance, beginning with the most basic physiological needs: hunger, thirst, or other bodily comforts. Next, the need for safety and security must be met, followed by the need to belong and to be loved. Finally, an individual must meet

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

their need for esteem: to achieve, to be competent, and to find approval and rec- ognition. Once these deficiencies have been addressed, an individual can act upon growth needs. These include cognitive needs to know, understand, and explore, followed by an aesthetic need for symmetry, order, and beauty. An individual can then move toward self-actualization, or realizing one’s potential, and finally to self-transcendence where the individual is able to connect to something beyond the self and help others to find self-fulfillment. These highest levels result in wis- dom, or the ability to know what to do in virtually any situation.

Maslow’s ideas have had a lasting impact on educational theory because they align with universal experiences and common sense, which is why we can eas- ily see their impact on what we do in our classrooms. We know from our own experiences that being physically distressed—hungry, thirsty, exhausted, too hot or too cold, among other things—prevents us from learning or from doing our jobs well. We know that students who don’t feel safe are too anxious to learn. We know that a sense of belonging and the presence of strong caring relationships in our lives help us to be more successful in whatever we choose to do. Every one of the levels of the hierarchy conveys something we’ve experienced ourselves. We should note that Maslow’s work has been criticized as being too simplistic and subjective, with some theorists making a point that a person can become self- actualized even in poverty, danger, or in other conditions that prevent basic needs to be met prior to moving up through the hierarchy. Nevertheless, it is helpful to understand Maslow’s concept in order to think about our students’ needs from a more comprehensive and holistic perspective.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Next, Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist who created a well- known and widely accepted structure for classifying levels of knowledge in higher education, partially in response to his observation that university educators relied much more heavily on lecture and student memorization of information than on higher-order cognitive activities.

The taxonomy, originally produced in 1956, organized the goals of learning, ranging from the most basic to the most complex: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. This structure has been widely used in education for decades, undergoing revision by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl19 that changed the nouns to verbs, renamed Synthesis as Creating, and reordered the categories slightly.

Figure 2.2 shows the current form of the taxonomy. Bloom observed that the majority of university courses featured the lower

levels such as recalling facts, while students had fewer opportunities to demon- strate higher-order thinking found in the upper levels of this taxonomy. The low- est levels of knowledge exist at the base of the pyramid, ascending to the highest

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

levels at the top. Figure 2.3 organizes these terms in the opposite order, with the lowest stages of learning appearing first, then building to the highest levels at the opposite end of the continuum.

Bloom’s taxonomy is foundational to the task of writing outcomes and objec- tives for student learning in higher education, so we’ll revisit this topic in the chapters that follow.

When taken together, these educational theories help us to form a deeper understanding of the students we teach and the ways in which they learn. We enter into teaching with the presumption that students are adults such as our- selves, but in actuality, many of our students more closely fit the profile of a late adolescent, seeking to form their own identities and set individual goals. Now that we’ve prepared our thinking with this basic knowledge, let’s consider some further theories of teaching and learning that are relevant to higher education.

THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Although there are far more theories of teaching and learning than a single chapter can contain, the following overview allows us to gain an appreciation for some of

Crea�ng Evalua�ng Analyzing Applying

Understanding Remembering

FIGURE 2.2 Bloom’s Taxonomy

FIGURE 2.3 Bloom’s Verbs Hierarchy

LOWEST  Remembering: define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall, repeat, reproduce, state  Understanding: classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report,

select, translate, paraphrase  Applying: choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate,

schedule, sketch, solve, use, write  Analyzing: compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine,

experiment, question, test  Evaluating: appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, evaluate  Creating: assemble, compose, construct, create, design, develop, express, formulate

HIGHEST

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

the theoretical basis for what we do, or can aspire to, as educators. These theories and practices are organized alphabetically, not chronologically or hierarchically.

Traditional approaches to education might be termed instructivism, rooted in John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) in which Locke pro- poses that the human mind is a blank slate at birth, filled by accumulated expe- rience. Education has, therefore, historically been predicated on the belief that students’ minds are empty until filled by the instructor, who carefully plans and organizes a program of study on behalf of the learner. Learners must first become literate and gain a measure of self-discipline to pay attention to the information presented by the instructor and to remember concepts they do not understand, including rote memorization of information.20 Clearly this is an instructor- centered model of learning, with the student remaining a passive recipient of transmitted knowledge. It’s also the predominant model in settings from lecture halls to K–12 classrooms where students sit at individual desks facing the teacher and listen attentively to verbal instruction. Many other educational models have followed this longstanding norm, yet it remains preeminent nevertheless.

Andragogy

We usually refer to the work of teaching as pedagogy, a term derived from two Greek words: paîs, which means “child,” and agōgós, which means “guide.” How- ever, in common usage, all teaching is included in the term pedagogy, regardless of the age of the student. In the 1980s, Malcolm Knowles21 proposed that teach- ing adults was different than teaching children, an idea that lead to his theory of andragogy (andra- from the Greek word for man, ἀνδρ-).

According to Knowles, adults are self-directed, and they expect to take responsibility for their own learning, which impacts four key considerations in the design of learning experiences for adults.

1. They want to know the rationale behind what they are asked to learn. 2. They learn best through experience. 3. They approach learning as problem solving. 4. They need to recognize the topic’s immediate value.

Andragogy is a much different approach to teaching than traditional lecture-based college courses, where we presume the audience will accept any statement at face value as the wisdom of a qualified expert. Nevertheless, adult learners have moved beyond Perry’s dualism phase to a position of relativism, able to think about their own thinking (metacognition) and to question statements that they would previously have accepted unthinkingly. Adults can think critically and trust their own judgments. They approach learning skeptically and want to know the reasons why the course content is important, prioritize and weigh the value of

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

the information or skills being imparted through the course, and accept respon- sibility for their own learning.

In my experience, most colleagues expect their students to receive instruction at face value, believing that students should simply accept their authority because they are experts in their academic fields. Few faculty members welcome students’ questions about why they’re being asked to learn something, and they often dis- like explaining how the course content will apply to real-world situations. Nev- ertheless, adult students learn better when they are empowered to understand the instructor’s rationale and can see the relevance of what they’re asked to learn.

Many faculty members I’ve encountered believe they need to “prepare stu- dents for the real world” by implementing strict classroom policies for missed class periods, late assignments, and so forth. Most adults, however, already know that punctuality, meeting deadlines, and absenteeism carry intrinsic penalties and rewards. They neither need nor appreciate inflexibility by an instructor who feels it is his or her bounden duty as an educator to teach life lessons on top of the stated curriculum.

A philosophy of andragogy leads instructors to treat their students more like peers than children who need instruction in behavioral standards. It also means understanding that older adult students may have encumbrances and responsibili- ties uncommon among typical 18- to 22-year-olds. Many adult learners have full- time jobs, young children, or aging parents in need of care. These nontraditional students greatly appreciate an instructor’s flexibility, such as allowing additional time to complete assignments or granting an exception to an attendance policy. We will discuss these concepts at greater length in our discussion about class- room policies later in this book, but the philosophical foundation of all of these ideas exists in andragogy—treating our students as though they were responsible adults.

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

Not all knowledge comes neatly packaged into a single discipline or context. Spiro, Feltovitch, and Coulson’s Cognitive Flexibility Theory (1990)22 examines the nature of the learning related to students’ ability to transfer knowledge and skills beyond the context in which they were initially acquired. To allow students to most effectively acquire transferrable knowledge, instruction must impart information from multiple perspectives, incorporate diverse examples or case studies, and allow learners to develop their own representations of information to maximize their learning.

Our instruction should not only apply within the four walls of a classroom or lecture hall. Students must be able to implement their learning in external con- texts or situations. Instructors can incorporate this knowledge into their planned teaching, providing explanations and examples of how course topics exist in

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

external contexts and designing learning experiences that allow students to prac- tice this cognitive flexibility. Perhaps the best demonstration of cognitive flexibil- ity would be the 1980s television program MacGyver, in which the protagonist was a secret agent with an uncanny ability to use everyday objects resourcefully based on his advanced scientific knowledge. Instructors concerned with imparting cog- nitive flexibility to their students will incorporate activities that require students to apply knowledge or skills in unfamiliar or novel contexts. Our students aren’t likely to emulate MacGuyver’s ingenious uses for paper clips and duct tape, but we do need to prepare them to apply their classroom learning to situations we can’t anticipate at the time of our instruction.

Constructivist Theory

Cognitive Flexibility Theory is based on a constructivist theory of learning (Jerome Bruner, 1960),23 which states that learning is an active process through which learners build new knowledge upon the knowledge they’ve already acquired, standing in marked contrast to “instructivism.” Piaget’s idea of “schemas” is appli- cable in constructivism, as well. A student’s schema, or mental model, serves as the basis for acquiring new knowledge. Earlier, we discussed the adult schema for going to a movie. Constructivist theory would explain that this schema could serve as the basis for a person familiar with going to a movie who is attending a live theatrical performance for the first time. Many aspects of the two activities are the same, but the variations found in the live performance would then expand the learner’s schema to include greater knowledge of both types of experience.

Constructivism explains many aspects of human development. For instance, when my oldest son was a toddler, every round red object was a “ball,” every four-legged creature was a “kitty,” and all beverages were “juice.” Building on this initial knowledge, he learned the differences between a ball, an apple, an orange, and other round objects. He learned that a horse is not just a really big kitty. And, of course, he learned that there are more things to drink from a cup than just juice and that they all have their own unique names and characteristics. All learn- ing builds upon existing knowledge. Instructors cannot expect their students to retain new content unless they have some kind of existing schema upon which to build. It is up to us as instructors to deliberately make these connections for our students, and to anticipate their learning needs by first building the schemas that allow students to acquire the advanced knowledge we intend to teach. Some of this occurs naturally through the logical progression inherent in education. Other times, though, we must be more intentional and more empathetic than may come naturally. Our own schemas, especially within our academic disciplines, are highly developed and habitual, so we seldom stop to consider that our students do not possess similar mental models. Disciplinary vocabulary, for instance, seems quite obvious to us, but it can be as unfamiliar as a foreign language to our students. If

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

we first take the time to provide instruction in key disciplinary terminology, we help our students to build the basic knowledge upon which they can more suc- cessfully acquire the learning we seek to impart.

Criterion-Referenced Instruction

Robert Mager (1961)24 developed a comprehensive framework for training pro- grams that can serve as a functional model for instructional design. This follows four key steps.

1. Analyze the goal or task to identify specifically what students should learn.

2. Determine performance objectives that specify the outcomes students must demonstrate and criteria by which these will be evaluated.

3. Design evaluation mechanisms for student learning of the knowledge and skills specified in the outcomes and objectives of the course.

4. Develop learning modules aligned with specific outcomes and objectives.

This approach to educational design is fundamental to this book and to achieving excellence in teaching. The four principles seem quite obvious, yet many faculty members do not systematically work through them prior to teaching a course, re- lying instead on their own expert knowledge and the familiar structures endemic to higher education. Unfortunately, this can result in disorganization, excessive subjectivity in grading, and increased likelihood that important course content might not be presented before the end of the course.

Design-Based Research

The idea of design-based research (DBR)25 originated as early as 1992 in the work of Brown and Collins, among others, later expanded by the Design-Based Research Collective (2002). As the name suggests, it incorporates key principles of the design process, which involves an ongoing cycle of ideation, implementa- tion, evaluation, and revision.

DBR is more closely aligned with the development of theories and processes for education than specific instructional methods, bridging the gap between the- ory and practice and attempting to create generalizable principles upon which sound actions may be built. As we work to design our courses, each of us utilizes DBR, although perhaps informally or unintentionally. We have an idea for a new course. We teach the course. As we teach, we notice what works and what should be changed. Then we teach it again, implementing the changes we made, which begins the cycle yet again. Applying DBR means that we not only make observa- tions about our own courses, but we thoughtfully apply educational theory to our

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

actions as instructors, and we also share our own learning about curricular and pedagogical design with others.

Experiential Learning

Carl Rogers (1969, 1994)26 identified two types of learning: cognitive learning, which he considered to be meaningless, such as rote memorization of vocabulary words or multiplication tables, and experiential learning, which addresses the needs and wants of the learner. Experiential learning is self-initiated, involves the learner personally, is evaluated by the learner (not the instructor), and holds pervasive effects on the learner. The instructor’s role is that of a facilitator, which involves five actions.

1. Establish a positive climate for learning. 2. Clarify the purpose for the learner. 3. Organize learning resources and make them available to students. 4. Balance the emotional and intellectual aspects of the learning experience. 5. Share thoughts and feelings with students without dominating their learn-

ing experience.

Rogers states that students must participate completely in the learning process and must have control over its nature and direction. Learning is most significant when it directly confronts genuine social, practical, personal, or research prob- lems. Students should be the primary evaluators of their own learning, as well as assessing their own progress and success. Further, they should be assisted in learning how to learn and increasing their openness to change.

Rogers’ views align well with the principles of andragogy and other educa- tional theories pertaining to adult learners. By implementing the five instructor actions listed in the preceding paragraph, we can increase student engagement— frequently listed prominently among universities’ priorities—which then pro- duces better learning experiences for our students. As with andragogy, however, this runs contrary to standard operating procedures for higher education, which rely on the delivery of instructional content that Rogers identified as “cognitive learning,” expecting students to assimilate information disassociated from its application.

Heutagogy and Digigogy

If the term pedagogy is inclusive of all teaching, and andragogy is teaching tai- lored to the identified needs of adult learners, heutagogy is an instructional meth- odology for facilitating self-directed learning. This term, coined by Steward Hase and Chris Kenyon (2000),27 is particularly applicable to 21st century educational

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

trends. Kevin Carey’s The End of College (2015)28 describes a future in which tra- ditional collegiate systems will cease to exist, replaced by self-directed, mostly online, learning that Carey terms “The University of Everywhere.”

Heutagogy takes andragogy a step further, moving beyond problem solving to proactivity. It also includes an emphasis on capability, active learning, reflection, and experiential learning. Instructors taking a heutagogical approach to teaching provide a selection of tasks and learning materials to their students, with which the students structure their own learning around critical questions or issues, determining what is personally relevant and then working with the instructor to select further readings and appropriate assessments. These assessments are also part of the learning experience, not simply measures of knowledge acquisition. Heutagogy strives to develop the learner’s capability and skill to produce gradu- ates who are not only competent, but prepared are to cope with a rapidly chang- ing world.

Digigogy, on the other hand, refers to the methods of instruction employed in online learning environments, including growing emphasis on instructional delivery through cell phones rather than desktop or laptop computers, enabling individuals in remote areas unprecedented access to educational opportunities. Educators can access a wealth of resources for creating engaging online course content; however, just because a course is offered online does not mean that it is actually heutagogical or even truly self-directed. The more structured the course content, the more traditional it is in terms of its approach, even if stu- dents have freedom of choice as to when to view the lectures or contribute to online discussions. The model in Carey’s The End of College relies more on heu- tagogy than digigogy, in that he envisions students creating their own course of study by choosing among a virtually unlimited selection of online content from many different providers. Heutagogy is necessarily learner driven, whereas digigogy is not.

Employing heutagogy can be unnerving for instructors who are accustomed to retaining full control over their students’ learning experiences since it puts students squarely in the driver’s seat. Nevertheless, this trend is worth exploring. Universities that offer the option of a self-designed major, for example, tap into this instructional model, such as the University of Alabama’s New College. At Canada’s Open University, students choose a faculty mentor, and together they design a program of study, including selected readings centered on a student- generated question, followed by a comprehensive project demonstrating the stu- dent’s learning, presented to the university community at the conclusion of the student’s course of study. Although this is a radical departure from the norms and traditions of higher education, it holds great promise for the future, moving well beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to education that has been prevalent for centuries.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning is both an instructional method and an educational theory, based on creating active, hands-on classroom experiences that promote engaged learning (Woods et al., 2003).29 As the name suggests, students must work to find a solution to a problem, usually linked to a real-world situation. Problems are either selected by the instructor or discovered by the students, depending on the course. They can be well-defined, especially in courses offered at the freshman or sophomore levels, but they can range up to “messy” or very complex issues. The instructor is a guide, mentor, and facilitator. Students may work alone or in collaborative groups, varied by course or subject area.

Problem-based learning presents natural opportunities to form partnerships with local organizations, allowing students to gain firsthand experience in the world outside of the classroom as they attempt to address genuine problems. It is a relatively uncomplicated first step into student-directed learning, mak- ing it a good choice for instructors who heretofore have not ventured beyond lectures. As an example, in my Marketing and Promotions course, students were partnered with a local arts organization and given the task of designing its new social media campaign. By the end of the course, they acquired real-world hands-on experience in the professional sector, and the organization had a suc- cessful marketing strategy that proved to be quite beneficial. I monitored the students’ activities, communicating frequently with the organization’s director to make sure that things were progressing smoothly. Our class periods included direct instruction, but they also allowed time to discuss the students’ work with the organization and the progress they were making with the campaign. Facilitating this process required as much of my energies as planning and deliv- ering lengthy lectures, but the results were much more satisfying to everyone involved.

Situated Learning

Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991)30 argue that learning is a process of partic- ipation situated in communities of practitioners. New learners engage in “legiti- mate peripheral participation” until they become assimilated into the community, with mastery of knowledge occurring when an individual achieves full partici- pation in the socio-cultural practices of the community. Educational organiza- tions are also social institutions, within which students must learn to participate according to specific norms befitting this society. This becomes evident when we consider the structure of higher education itself: New students are outsiders who must learn the social norms and practices of the educational community. Pro- fessors are those who have mastered the knowledge of the community and have achieved full participation.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

Although we can see how situated learning functions, traditional educational practices tend to decontextualize knowledge, presenting it apart from its legit- imate situations. We learn about the ecosystem of a rainforest in a lecture hall, not an Amazonian village. We learn about systems of government in a classroom, not in the halls of Congress. In contrast, situated learning takes place in the same context in which it is applied. According to Lave and Wenger, learning should not simply entail the transmission of abstract and decontextualized knowledge from the instructor to the student, but should be a social process through which knowledge is co-constructed, embedded in a specific context and within a unique social and physical environment. Field-based learning, apprenticeships, co-op, practicum, and internship experiences all offer opportunities for situated learning.

As with constructivist theory, andragogy, and other learning theories we’ve examined thus far, situated learning involves a move away from the lecture hall and toward more engaging methods of instructional delivery that allow students to make knowledge explicit and concrete rather than remaining in the abstract. The problem-based learning in my Marketing and Promotions course could also be identified as situated learning, since students actively engaged in a real-world workplace and participated in the same type of task they would be expected to do as employees of the organization.

Systems Thinking

Based on the recognition that the world itself is a complex system, systems thinking promotes understanding of the interconnected nature of a whole rather than examination of its diverse parts (Meadows, 2009).31 For example, instead of taking separate courses in urban architecture, city planning, urban sociology, municipal water systems, and so on, a systems-thinking approach would com- bine all of these subsystems into a larger and more comprehensive study of a city. Natural phenomena, too, can be seen as complex systems such as climate change or the human circulatory system. Study of interconnected components and the relationships between them is the heart of a systems-thinking approach to education.

Systems thinking is included in this list of theories because it is the approach applied to the design of this book itself. To a lesser extent, all instructors should be cognizant of how a given course fits into the overall system of their students’ educational experience as well as its relevance to their eventual professional careers. This information should be communicated to students from the first day of class, explaining why the course is of value, how it will apply to further study or professional engagement, and what connections and relationships the course bears to other courses or contexts.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

The movement beyond oppressive socio-political systems and practices in the United States ranks high among the most significant developments of the past 100 years. Cultural shifts including women’s suffrage in the early 1900s and the changing role of women in the workforce during and after World War II, the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and activism by the LGBTQQIP2SAA32 com- munity up to and including the US Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in favor of marriage equality have fundamentally changed the character of our society. This is most certainly not to say that we no longer experience problems with sexism, racism, homophobia, or a plethora of other forms of prejudice and hate. Rather, our society has become increasing aware of the destructive influence of system- atic exclusion and oppression, and we have begun to reject the notion that preju- dice is inevitable or acceptable. By no means have we arrived at a truly equitable, just, or inclusive civilization. But many of those who work in higher education embrace this goal as a driving force behind organizational, programmatic, and individual choices as educators.

Critical Theory

These sweeping social changes were fueled, at least in part, by the growth of critical theory. Beginning with the Frankfurt School in the 1930s, theorists such as Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Water Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Jurgen Habermas challenged Enlightenment-era beliefs that knowledge is objective and discoverable, existing apart from an individual knower. Instead, we now view knowledge as contingent upon specific socio- historical contexts and further influenced by individuals’ values and beliefs. We have begun to accept that many views can coexist simultaneously rather than insisting that our particular viewpoint is the only “right” way to interpret information. Textbooks, for example, were once widely accepted as neutral, objective, and reliable tools for educating students because they convey prov- able facts. Critical theory revealed that the authors’ and publishers’ decisions of which facts to include and exclude from the text, and the manner in which the book’s content is presented, implicitly communicate attitudes and ideals about what is important and what is not, all conducted under the guise of factual objectivity.

Bias and Privilege

No social institution is immune from intrinsic bias, either in its history or its pres- ent practices. Privilege—the unearned, unasked for, often invisible benefits given

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

to some—and oppression—discrimination of one social group by another backed by institutional policy—continue to be widespread. Our colleges and universi- ties work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, employing comprehensive efforts to identify, overcome, and eliminate exclusionary systems and practices. Yet thus far, the results fail to reach our aspirations.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the demographic composition of our faculties and student bodies. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (www.nces.ed.gov) and the US Census Bureau (www.census.gov) illus- trate differences in representation among four demographic categories (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian—the descriptors used by the two government agen- cies)33 for full-time faculty, undergraduate students, and the US population as a whole. Of course, race is only one analytical dimension among many that could be considered, yet the findings of this cursory investigation are enlightening nonetheless. Whites comprise 62% of the general population, but 78% of the faculty, whereas 18% of the general population identifies as Hispanic but hold only 4% of faculty positions. Blacks exemplify similarly unfavorable disparities, at 13% of the general population and only 6% of the faculty. We could make sim- ilarly startling representations of other demographic categories such as religion, gender and sexual orientation, ethnicity, or socio-economic factors, all leading to the conclusion that White, Christian,34 heterosexual, relatively affluent individu- als of European descent represent the majority of persons involved in US higher educational institutions. Admittedly, I fall into this category myself, as do most of my colleagues.

Despite ongoing efforts to promote diversity among faculty and students, including increasing scrutiny for hidden bias in our institutional policies and prac- tices for hiring and admissions, many of our systems remain inequitable. Much remains to be done before higher education can live up to its potential as a pos- itive force for promoting diversity, increasing equity, and truly helping all per- sons to achieve their potential. Our examination of educational theory, therefore, should also be informed by the present reality in which we attempt to recognize the inherent bias of the systems in which we live and work as well as the influence of our own attitudes and assumptions.

The climate for diversity varies greatly between our higher educational insti- tutions, influenced by four key factors. Our institutions’ historical track record of inclusion or exclusion of racial or ethnic groups, their present levels of repre- sentation of diverse groups, faculty and student attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about diversity, and the patterns of interaction between racial and ethnic groups on campus each have an impact on an institution’s diversity climate, as shown in Figure 2.4.35 We cannot control our histories or legacies, but we can work toward increasing our demographic range, working to change our value structures, and promoting positive interactions among campus groups.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.nces.ed.gov

http://www.census.gov

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

Individual Attitudes

Since the emphasis of this book is on the choices we make as individual instruc- tors with regard to our curriculum and instruction, we will shift our focus from the inequities that are still present in society and in our higher educational insti- tutions to steps we can take as educators. Each of us has considerable power to make a positive difference in the lives of others through our personal and profes- sional actions, but to do so, we must first become aware of our own hidden biases through reflective self-analysis.

Most conscientious educators strive to be open-minded, inclusive, and sup- portive of diversity, yet each of us harbors hidden preferences and biases of which we may not be aware. We humans are especially good at passing judgment on one another, most of which occurs below the level of consciousness. This ability had survival value for early humans, where instantly distinguishing between friend and foe, or telling the difference between members of one’s own group and “outsiders” was sometimes a matter of life and death. Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), explains that our brains have two systems for cognitive functioning. System 1 operates automatically and extremely quickly, capable of processing about 11 million bits of information per second, nearly all of which occurs outside of conscious awareness.36 We rely on our System 1 responses for driving a car, for example, a task that demands we make up to 200 decisions per mile,37 nearly all of which depend on our unconscious, automatic capabilities. We fluently receive, process, categorize, and act upon incoming sen- sory information, handled with ease by our brains’ powerful System 1. Conscious processing, on the other hand, occurs in System 2, which works at a much slower rate. We depend on System 2 for tasks that require concentration such as con- ducting research, assembling a newly purchased piece of furniture, or preparing a tax return. Active learning engages System 2, whereas prior knowledge occupies

Diversity Climate

Historical Legacy

Behavioral Climate

Structural Diversity

Psychological Climate

FIGURE 2.4 Diversity Climate

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

System 1. I know that the product of 4 and 6 is 24 without engaging in conscious thought because this knowledge is instantly available via my brain’s System 1, but if I were to attempt to convert US dollars to British pounds at the present rate of exchange rate, I would need to engage System 2 and actively concentrate on finding an answer.

We continuously acquire information about the world through multiple chan- nels: our personal experiences, our family and upbringing, the kind and quality of our education, our existence with in a particular socio-cultural context, environ- mental factors, and our lifelong exposure to media, among others. Each of these causes us to form implicit associations occurring below the level of conscious thought, which instantly transpire through System 1. Such associations are helpful when they tell us to step on our car’s brakes when the stop light turns red, but when they create unconscious bias, our implicit knowledge doesn’t serve us as well. Furthermore, we tend to create broad categories and generalizations out of this information. If someone was bitten by a Cocker Spaniel as a child, she may well develop a lifelong aversion to all dogs of this breed. Likewise, the identities we perceive in others, including ethnicity, gender, race, age, and any number of other factors will necessarily affect our attitudes toward the people we encounter, but because they are deeply embedded in System 1, we usually remain unaware of their existence or influence. Even those of us who genuinely strive to value inclusivity, open-mindedness, and diversity cannot help but harbor these invisible biases.

Our work toward a more just and equitable world must, therefore, begin with ourselves, attempting to recognize and change our implicit biases. Each time we successfully question our underlying assumptions or work to alter an ingrained behavior, we remove an invisible bar in the cage that imprisons us, preventing us from truly living our conscious values. Harvard University’s “Project Implicit” offers a series of free online Implicit Associations Tests that can reveal hidden bias related to sexuality (gay/straight), disability, gender and career, gender and science, age, weight, skin tone, Arab/Muslim, Asian, Native American, and race (Black/White).38 If you’ve never completed one of these surveys, I recommend the experience, even though it’s disturbing or disappointing to learn that we’re not as open-minded as we’d formerly believed ourselves to be.

Implicit preferences are not harmful in their own right, as long as we do not act negatively upon them. They can also change over time. We might compare this to our aesthetic preferences. Most of us naturally prefer or dislike certain types of music, genres of literature, or foods and beverages. However, these preferences can change when we learn more about something that we formerly disliked. For example, most of us can remember a time when we didn’t enjoy something like jazz music, or mystery novels, or coffee. As we experience something repeat- edly over time or learn more about them, such as taking a college course about jazz, our affinity grows. We might still like Led Zeppelin better than Wynton

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

Marsalis, but we can understand and appreciate a greater variety of musical forms by becoming more familiar with them. Similarly, our political views or religious beliefs may change over time as the result of our experiences, education, and rela- tionships. No one is predestined to hold one set of beliefs, tastes, or preferences forever, which (in my opinion) is a very good thing. I can only speak for myself, but I know that I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. I’d like to think that the transformations I’ve undergone have caused me to be more ethical, compas- sionate, open-minded, and receptive to new experiences and ideas. The same can be true of us all.

Dimensions of Diversity

Since understanding is the foundation of empathy and compassion, achieving greater knowledge of others hinges upon getting to know them as whole human beings rather than only by name and appearance. When we speak of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the conversation generally relates to groups or individuals who have experienced negative treatment based on one or more identifying char- acteristics. Yet each of our identities is comprised of multiple factors, not only our race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, but characteristics such as income level, occupation, marital status, and others. We might organize these identities in four dimensions: personality, internal, external, and institutional.

A model of diversity in higher education based on these four dimensions, adapted from Gardenswartz and Rowe (2003, partially based on Loden and Rosener, 1991) appears in Figure 2.5.

Any one of these dimensions can place an individual into a minority group or among a population that is subject to prejudice or condemnation by others who hold membership in a more dominant group. We tend to equate “diversity” with internal factors such as race, ethnicity, physical ability, age, gender, and/or sexual orientation. However, external factors can also exert significant influence on an individual’s life. These 24 dimensions affect everyone to varying degrees, depend- ing on a complex array of circumstantial, environmental, and associative factors.

Discrimination, just like diversity, takes many guises, both covert and overt. Nearly everyone has been on the receiving end of another person’s unfair judg- ment based on generalizations, prejudice, or preconceptions. This can even involve judgments based on our disciplinary affiliation, academic rank, or oth- ers’ opinion of the institution where we work. By no means should this imply that all forms of discrimination are equally harmful—we cannot draw a parallel between disciplinary stereotypes and systematic racism, for example—but it’s unproductive to create a rank order of the ways in which we humans hurt one another based on prejudicial perceptions of our identities. Our emphasis should not be to say, “My suffering is worse than your suffering,” but to engage in empa- thy, saying, “I can understand something of how you’re feeling because I have

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

also suffered discrimination, even though it was different from the situation you face.” The points that divide us can also be points of connection, depending on the worldview we choose to employ. I cannot truly know what it is to be Black, or female, or transgender, or Muslim, or Hispanic. Nevertheless, I can draw upon my own experiences as the recipient of other forms of prejudice to empathize with those who have undergone discrimination, to advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to practice these core values in my classroom.

It’s easy to make a philosophical argument that all discrimination is wrong. It’s much more difficult when we’re faced with so many different manifestations of discrimination, or when individuals exhibit multiple dimensions of diversity that combine to make their lives extraordinarily difficult. Experiencing discrimination

Personality

Race

Ethnicity

Physical Ability

Age

Sexual Orienta�on

Gender

Marital/ Rela�onal

Status

Parental Status

Appearance

Work Experience

Educa�onal Background

Religion

Recrea�onal Habits

Personal Habits

Income/ Financial

Status

Geographic Loca�on

Leadership Role(s)

Work Loca�on

Organiza�onal Affilia�on(s)

Rank or Seniority

Func�onal Level or

Classifica�on

Department, Program, College,

School, or Unit

Academic DisciplineInternal Dimensions

External Dimensions

Ins�tu�onal Dimensions

FIGURE 2.5 Dimensions of Diversity

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

based on things we can change, such as the place where we live, is quite differ- ent than the impact of factors that are beyond our control such as race, age, or ethnicity. However, no matter why it occurs, how it is exhibited, or what has happened, discrimination is always wrong. We will not eradicate this evil until we have achieved its complete absence—becoming fully diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

Heightened awareness of the incredible complexity of diversity should inform our decisions as educators, causing us to be sensitive to our students’ multifaceted identities and to maintain awareness of how our own implicit and explicit biases affect our actions. Designing curriculum with diversity, equity, and inclusion in mind takes this personal awareness a step further, providing opportunities to engage in critical thinking about how our disciplines intersect with these values. We must move beyond longstanding “stale, pale, male”39 disciplinary perspectives by implementing purposefully designed, aesthetic, creative communication in/ through/with/about our academic disciplines that motivates students to develop critical consciousness, builds community, and inspires them to work toward a more just society and a better world for future generations.

RATIONALE

The purpose of presenting all of this background information is to provide the readers of this book with a means of learning more about how our student learn and to increase their awareness of how institutional climate and personal attitudes toward dimensions of identity can influence our decisions as educators. Then we will be better able to subsequently utilize this information to become more skill- ful in the execution of the teaching components of our professional lives.

The overview provided in this chapter is but the tip of a very large iceberg. Many more theories, philosophies, and practices exist, and each one is suffi- cient to fill numerous books on its own, from both supporters and critics. Those interested in exploring such theories further can easily find many intriguing resources.40

Developmental psychology, educational theory, and even the philosophical domains of ontology and epistemology are always in flux, with each new theory or emerging philosophy altering the conversation. Even though most educational theory focuses on children, this does not prohibit its applicability to our pur- poses in higher education. This field is constantly expanding, especially through cognitive neuroscience and its revelations about how the human brain functions. Despite the fact that we cannot possibly pin down a comprehensive theory of edu- cation that will serve to inform all we do as educators, acquiring working knowl- edge of these ideas is the first step toward improving our pedagogical practice and to subsequently creating optimal learning experiences and environments for our students. The same is true for recognizing our own biases and the inequities that

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

are present in higher education. The more aware we become of these attitudes, the better prepared we are to work for positive change in the world, beginning in our own classrooms.

Remember:

• Although we cannot identify a single, unifying educational theory that will serve all of higher education, numerous theories can inform and guide our practice as educators.

• Curriculum should be designed with educational theory in mind to deliver the best possible learning experience to our students.

• When we grow in our knowledge of these theories, we are better able to enact pedagogical and curricular practices that serve our students’ learning needs.

Notes 1 Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of Reality in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Piag- et, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. AMC, 10, 12.

Identify Ideate

Why should we acquire a working knowledge of the theories and philosophies behind our teaching? We should understand the impact of our choices as educators and the effect of these practices on student learning.

How can we implement this knowledge in our teaching? Our new awareness of the theoretical basis for educational practices can shape our choices as instructors, allowing us to teach more mindfully and less reflexively.

Iterate Implement

When you teach, take note of the educational theories you’re employing, especially if you find yourself reverting to an instructivist position. We don’t need to remain under the influence of educational theory from the 17th century when more effective models exist.

What should we do with this information? If you’ve recognized your prior teaching practice in any of the theories presented in this chapter, you can build upon this to improve your approach to curriculum development and instruction. You can also begin to incorporate models or ideas that you might not have known about before, which can significantly improve your students’ learning.

FIGURE 2.6 Chapter 2 Design Connection

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

2 Keating, D. (1979). Adolescent thinking. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. New York: Wiley, 211–246. 3 Dasen, P. (1994). Culture and cognitive development from a Piagetian perspective. In W. J. Lonner and R. S. Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and Culture. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 4 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 5 Bruner, J. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2). http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/h0043805 6 Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 7 Chickering, A. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 8 Kohlberg, L., and Hersh, R. (April 1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, XVI(2). 9 Barger, R. (2000). A summary of Lawrence Kohlberg’s states of moral development. University of Notre Dame. www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm 10 Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 76–116. 11 Jung, C. (1921; translated by H. G. Baynes, 1923). Psychological Types. Classics in the History of Psychology. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm 12 MBTI basics. (2017). The Myers & Briggs Foundation. www.myersbriggs.org/ my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ 13 Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5). 14 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. 15 Sandeen, A. (1991). The Professional Student Affairs Administrator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 16 For an excellent explanation of changing educational paradigms, see Sir Ken Robin- son’s influential TED Talk at www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_ paradigms. Robinson’s remarks are directed at K–12 education, but those working in higher education can also learn from this message. 17 Gibbs, G. (November 21, 2013). Lectures don’t work, but we keep using them. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/lectures-dont-work-but-we- keep-using-them/2009141.article 18 McLeod, S. (2016). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology.org. www.simplyp sychology.org/maslow.html 19 Anderson, L., and Kranthwohl, D. (2000). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assess- ing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Educational Objectives, Complete Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson. 20 Hase, S., and Kenyon, C. (2001). From andragogy to heutagogy. http://pandora.nla.gov. au/nph-wb/20010220130000/http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2. htm

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043805

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

http://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/lectures-dont-work-but-we-keep-using-them/2009141.article

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010220130000/http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm

http://Simply Psychology.org

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

21 Knowles, M. S. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. 22 Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., and Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 23 Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 24 Mager, R. F. (1961). On the sequencing of instructional content. Psychological Reports, Southern Universities Press, 9, 405–413. doi:10.2466/pr0.1961.9.2.405 25 Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging para- digm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. 26 Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill; Rogers, C. R., and Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan. 27 Hase, S., and Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase Articles, 5(3), 1–10. 28 Carey, K. (2016). The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere. New York: Riverhead Books. 29 Wood, D. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. British Medical Journal, 326, 328–330. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328 30 Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. 31 Meadows, D. H. (2009). Thinking in Systems—a Primer. London: Earthscan. 32 This acronym has undergone rapid change in recent years, expanding from LGBTQ to include additional identities and designations. At present, LGBTQQIP2SAA is among the more inclusive forms in use, which encompasses Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, 2S (a Native American identi- fier), Asexual, and Ally. From: Urban Dictionary, www.urbandictionary.com/define. php?term=LGBTQQIP2SAA 33 Demographic categories representing less than 5% have been omitted simply for the sake of brevity. 34 This designation does not refer to an individual’s personal belief, but to the overar- ching influence of Christianity on US culture, history, and government. An individual may ascribe to Christian values apart from personal acceptance of Christian doctrine or theology. 35 Based on Hurtad, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., and Allen, W. (1998). En- hancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. 36 Nørretranders, T. (1999). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (New York: Penguin) and Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux). See more at: www.aft.org/ae/winter2015-2016/staats#sthash.b58KyinW. dpuf

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LGBTQQIP2SAA

http://www.aft.org/ae/winter2015-2016/staats#sthash.b58KyinW.dpuf

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL THEORY

37 United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). Guidelines for Employers to Reduce Motor Vehi- cle Crashes. www.osha.gov/Publications/motor_vehicle_guide.html 38 Harvard University. (2017). Project Implicit: Test Selection. https://implicit.harvard. edu/implicit/selectatest.html 39 See the Yale School of Management. (November 2, 2013). Getting conscious about unconscious bias (by Anees Chagpar). http://som.yale.edu/getting-conscious-about-unconscious-bias 40 For a very comprehensive interactive map of learning theories and theorists, visit http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LNV3H2J9-HWSVMQ-13LH/Learning%20The ory.cmap, created by Richard Millwood (2013).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/motor_vehicle_guide.html

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

http://som.yale.edu/getting-conscious-about-unconscious-bias

http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LNV3H2J9-HWSVMQ-13LH/Learning%20Theory.cmap