The Education Pendulum

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjeh20

Journal of Educational Administration and History

ISSN: 0022-0620 (Print) 1478-7431 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education

Nicole Mary Rege Colet

To cite this article: Nicole Mary Rege Colet (2017) From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49:1, 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

Published online: 07 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1130

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education Nicole Mary Rege Colet

Institut de développement et d’innovation pédagogiques (IDIP), University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

ABSTRACT This article reviews changes in pedagogical approaches in higher education at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first century from a creative perspective, by looking back from the future on the shifts that occurred in conceptions and approaches relating to teaching and learning. Reflecting on moves from one-dimensional thinking to complex-oriented system thinking, and referring to the transformational framework of theory U, it discusses how the technological revolution and the increase in attendance of higher education triggered transformations in teaching practices and academic identity. Inputs from cognitive psychology and adult education led to a pedagogical revolution reframing teaching practices that would, hopefully, serve student learning. The article draws on the metaphor of ‘the learner in the driver’s seat’ to explain the new teaching and learning philosophy that unfolded changing, through sustainable educational innovations, the landscape of higher education.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 30 September 2016 Accepted 6 October 2016

KEYWORDS Architectural education; Higher education pedagogy; student-centric approaches; paradigm shifts; change management; innovation higher education; educational psychology

1. Looking back from the future

I am not a historian and do not claim to be so. I see myself as being very grounded in the present reality of educational development in higher education, whilst experiencing changes in our ways of thinking of the field of higher education. I have a close colleague who is a well-known educational historian. I admire her line of work, in particular how she looks at the social histories of curriculum development. Her scholarly approach has little to do with the action research I carry out for building up teaching and learning capacities in higher education and promoting professional development of academics. So why am I contributing to a special issue on the history of higher education?

When I look back on the past years, I see myself walking through times of great changes and actively taking part in shaping the landscape of twenty-first century European higher education, a movement that started with the signature of the Bologna Declaration in June 1999. As an educational psychologist, I have been embodying interdisciplinary approaches and crossing boundaries in order to foster innovation in teaching and learning practices, and to support organisational and leadership development in higher education. In short, I have been focussing on change management and shifting paradigms in the way we think and carry out teaching in higher education.

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Nicole Mary Rege Colet [email protected]

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY, 2017 VOL. 49, NO. 1, 72–86 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

I am assuming that future historians will look back on the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first century and immediately recognise that these were times of big changes for higher education. They might even be seen as part of the global transformation that societies experienced in the early twenty-first century when facing several acute disrup- tions. My intention is to unfold part of this transformation looking at the rise of a new teaching and learning philosophy that, after decades of pedagogical approaches based on knowledge dissemination by scholarly academics, put the learner in the driver’s seat.

The narrative should be met as a philosophical and leadership journey into transform- ing higher education. What triggered the need to change paradigms and espouse a new pedagogical philosophy? What were the consequences and the expected outcomes? How did this affect teaching and learning practices? What are the scientific findings that supported this shift? How did it impact academic identity and organisational devel- opment of higher education institutions? The story will reveal the admittedly difficult journey of academics letting go of strongly embedded traditions and embracing new systems of thought and action. Will this qualify as a scholarly piece of work on the history and administration of higher education? Let’s see it as a reflective contribution from someone who not only aspires to reform teaching and learning practices in higher education and to take academics on a transformational journey, but has also been actively engaged in doing so.

The creative exercise of looking back at present reality from the future requires to look at the shifts going on without getting tangled up in conventional mind-sets and tumbling over deep-rooted assumptions. How can we look at the unfolding paradigm with fresh eyes? This is where theory U, a framework devised by Otto Scharmer and his team from the Presencing Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) comes in handy (Scharmer 2009, Scharmer and Kaufer 2013). Theory U suggests a social technology that enables us to step out of the systems that hold us so that we can see them from outside and get a deeper understanding of how they operate and their internal dynamics. Scharmer advocates that listening to the emerging future supports shifts in systems. More than a theoretical and practical framework, theory U also stands out as a source of inspiration for thinking creatively.

2. Witnessing shifts in systems of thought and action

Let’s imagine we are in the early years of the twenty-third century. What will future edu- cational historians see when they look back on higher education from 1980 to 2020? It is quite likely that academics – if they still exist as we know them today – looking at material and documents will declare that people were studying organisational development and leadership, and redefining higher education. They will probably add that this discourse was not only going on within higher education, it was present in many sectors leading to the assumption that organisations were undergoing shifts and experiencing deep trans- formations both in how they were structured and how they operated.

Future scholars will notice that the leading episteme at the time acknowledged that pro- cesses of thought informed and were reflected in processes of action. They will therefore be examining evidences of shifts in systems of thought and action, and how they unfolded in higher education. Researchers, for instance, were facing a scientific revolution (Kuhn 1970) as they went from one-dimensional thinking and normal disciplinary-based

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 73

research towards complex-oriented system thinking and interdisciplinary action research. Innovation in higher education was highly encouraged based on a statement credited to Albert Einstein that ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. The purpose was not to invent something new in order to patch up whatever problem had occurred, it was more about changing the system of thought that was guiding actions. Future historians will note that several governments provided special funding in order to promote innovation in higher education and research with the hope of modifying the mind-set (system of thought) and how people addressed issues (system of action).

According to T.S. Kuhn’s theory on scientific revolutions, shifts occur when a deep and long-term crisis challenges our assumptions and ways of operating. In other words, and going back to Einstein’s quote, the prevalent thinking can neither solve the problems nor define them, and a new way of thinking is called for. Future historians will probably suggest that the period from 1980 to 2020 marked the end of the age of the scientific revo- lution, an era that started with the Renaissance and led to modernism with its tradition regarding knowledge production, bringing together science, politics and economics (Harrari 2011). The growing crises revealed the divides produced by the system that were challenging models of thought and action. In theory U, MIT economist Otto Schar- mer called attention to three divides, the ecological divide between self and nature, the social divide between self and others, and the spiritual divide between self and self (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, p. 4). These divides told of the complexity of the system where silo-thinking and organisations, as produced in modern societies and through one-dimensional thinking, became inadequate for addressing the complex issues at stakes. This meant that institutions, such as higher education institutions, also needed to shift from organisations built on hierarchical distribution of power to organisations open to creativity and shared responsibilities. The theory U framework then suggested four levels of organisation: level 1.0 referred to traditional state-centric systems dominated by hierarchy and centralised control, level 2.0 referred to free-market systems based on competition driven by individual awareness, level 3.0 referred to social-market systems promoting networking and negotiations between the various stakeholders, and level 4.0 referred to co-creative eco-systems driven by a collective awareness of the whole system (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, pp. 13–14).

Looking back on innovation in higher education, future educational historians might be able to see how change leaders started to pay attention to the way they saw the system cap- turing by this means the main frameworks and assumptions used to understand mani- fested reality. From the future they will identify the common stories and myths that held together communities, as well as the network of strategies and tactics that were held as efficient. They will understand how stepping back from deep-rooted assumptions and routines enabled to gain in awareness of the complexity of systems and, through this, build up capacities in system thinking and approaches, which would then guide transformation.

For supporting transformation, theory U advocated for a threefold journey called pre- sencing (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, pp. 21–22). The first phase called for suspending habits and routines, and moving towards the edges of the system through observation. The second phase consisted of reflective practices so as to let go of previous conceptions and approaches, and allow in new ways of seeing. The third phase, based on exploring by

74 N. M. REGE COLET

doing, encouraged acting swiftly and smoothly, and tapping into creativity to innovate. Historians might even pick up on U. Lab, the massive online open course (MOOC) launched in 2015 promoting theory U, which bought together a thriving community of 500,000 innovators and change leaders crafting post-modern universities. Was their success due to the fact that it came from the MIT, one of the leading universities according to the Shanghai ranking of higher education institutions? In two hundred years time will historians fully understand the purpose of such rankings and their consequences for shaping the landscape of higher education? Will they untangle the growing fascination for rankings that were also highly criticised and debated?

3. Reframing higher education

Future historians will start looking at the disruptions that were pushing organisations to evolve towards new open models. Institutions issued from the scientific revolution such as nations, banks and stock exchanges, universities and research institutions, trade unions and global industries all needed to undergo deep transformations. They will also record that reframing higher education was high on the agenda, as universities, born from the rise of modern science in the second half of the nineteenth century, were no longer adapted to the way research was conducted, nor capable of providing graduates embracing complex-oriented system thinking.

Three elements convened to build up the crisis that hit higher education at the end of the twentieth century: (1) growth of higher education that saw a rapid and massive increase in the number of people attending higher education, (2) diminishing of public funding putting a strain on higher education institutions to provide more high-level scien- tific education with less resources and to seek alternative sources of funding, (3) a disagree- ment between academic leaders and policy-makers over the purpose of higher education institutions and how they should be governed and managed. The clash of the tectonic plates of political thought, economic drive and knowledge production caused an earth- quake that would bring down the research-led universities founded in the second half of the nineteenth century – the so-called ivory towers – that has become cut off from reality and societal needs.

Old traditional universities had originally been designed to train a small number of aca- demics, who would then become members of an elite. It was even said that academics invented universities as a breeding ground for their own. The inbreeding of academics and the tribulations of the tribes defending their territories were frequent topics of dis- course not only in scholarly works on academia (Becher and Trowler 2001) but also in literature such as David Lodge’s highly successful and witty novels. Paradoxically, the driving force of the scientific revolution that created research-led universities would even- tually also lead to their dismiss.

How could provision of higher education meet the ever-growing demand as more and more people claimed their right to higher education? Expanding population led some countries, like China, to export their students whereas other countries decided to set up their campuses in countries lacking the resources to build up research and innovation capacities, thereby gaining precious parts in a highly profitable market.

The rise of a global market for higher education turned education into a commodity that could be regulated according to the market. Universities got caught up in the belief

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 75

that global higher education was an indicator of growth; they succumbed to standardis- ation, rankings, quality enhancement procedures and accountability exercises in order to prove their value on the global market. Financing higher education became a challenge as state funding diminished and the cost of supporting cutting-edge research exploded. Knowledge production and dissemination became a very expensive business that drew attention to egalitarianism, in a context where higher education was becoming a consumer product.

Expanding higher education also meant catering for a very diverse population where adult learners were no longer an exception. Universities became places of initial and increasing continuous education. Programmes and courses needed to become more flex- ible and designed to fit the purpose of the students and other stakeholders. Technology revolutionised academia as knowledge was externalised and no longer in the head of the academics. New forms of communications between scientific communities became commonplace, and blended-forms of teaching and learning became the rule.

Last of all, issues of governance and ownership became critical since mass higher edu- cation could not be left in the hands of a small elite concerned about its reproduction. The industry of higher education bought about many changes in governance and management of institutions, redefining academic leadership and its impact on the development of higher education. Servant leadership, for instance, seemed a better fit for societal demands claiming that higher education should serve the growth of the whole rather than the elite.

As the walls of the Ivory Tower came tumbling down it also became clear that the teach- ing and learning practices, established in the early Renaissance universities from the heights of the cathedra, based on knowledge dissemination and accumulation, had to be reviewed. This growing awareness preceded the pedagogical revolution that would strike higher education and eventually put the learner in the driver’s seat after having kicked the professor off his chair.

4. Fostering transformation in higher education

The technological revolution, the need for fresh pedagogical approaches, the rise of aca- demic development and leadership all led to promoting pedagogical innovation as a means of fostering transformation both in curriculum development and in teaching prac- tices. The pioneers of innovation claimed that if new methods were introduced and widely spread, they would predictably induce changes in conceptions and approaches of teaching and learning, thereby shifting the system. Future historians looking back on the first ped- agogical innovations in higher education, in the last decade of the twentieth century, will probably notice the drive for using technology, which rapidly separated the digital passio- nate from the digital sceptical who saw little point in falling to the fascination of technol- ogy as a means of transforming teaching. The idea of catering for the so-called digital natives did little to prevent spreading the idea that innovation could only be achieved by drawing on digital technology.

At the same time, twentieth century cognitive psychology emphasised that changes do not occur simply because we change something in the way we do things. Studying the link between our conceptions – the way we see things – and our approaches – the way we do things – revealed a much more complex interdependence. Systems of thought based on

76 N. M. REGE COLET

beliefs, assumptions, implicit theories and experience are not always rational, as pointed out by Kahneman (2011). All cognitive scientists were supporting that changes in beha- viours and patterns of thought required working on the underlying assumptions and the mind-set that guided actions (Varela et al. 1991). In other words, introducing new digital tools cannot, by itself, drive transformation, and future historians will comment how they only yielded cosmetic innovations that were short lasting, expensive and ineffective.

Historians will understand that, based on the assumption that processes of thought and processes of action are co-dependent, and drawing on theory U’s social technology, change management in the early twenty-first century was about helping the actors in their specific organisations to see themselves by paying attention to the way they thought, told and operated within the system.

The early unsuccessful experiences related to wide dissemination of technology and the growing knowledge on transformational processes emphasised the conditions to be ful- filled for sustainable pedagogical innovation as opposed to cosmetic. The first condition was to experiment – learning by doing – and to prototype a budding idea in a safe environ- ment, in other words to risk an idea and to let go of the results. The second condition sup- porting sustainable innovation was to be able to reflect on the experiment and, in doing so, to draw on the power of collegial work and collective intelligence. To experience some- thing and then to reflect on this experience fitted in well with the assumption that systems of thought and action are co-dependent. The third condition addressed the issue of how collective reflection was carried out and what types of conversation were needed to generate collective creativity and to support sustainable innovation.

The backbone of fostering transformation in higher education, in the early twenty-first century, was about creating a holding space that could empower academics to become innovators in a system undergoing deep transformation and that could help them not to withdraw from the change processes but rather to embody shared values and principles. Transformational processes bought to light factors slowing down innovation such as the dominant mind-set (i.e. reactive and pushing for adaptation versus creative and opening up to new possibilities) and the characteristics allocated to the system (hostile or suppor- tive of change, focussed on control or growth, inspirational or prescriptive). Together that could regulate the capacity to grow and expand in a given system. For instance, a reactive mind-set would most likely conclude that the system was hostile to change and that inno- vation was impossible, when not dangerous. Whereas a creative mind-set would see the many opportunities open where creativity could seep through. As with all major shifts, a fertile soil for pedagogical innovation always started with a fundamental issue or ques- tion that could not be left unattended. When a core group of committed people followed up on their inspiration, changes happened. The saying went that it only needed five people to change the world.

5. Putting the learner in the driver’s seat

The twenty-first century shift in pedagogical philosophy involved letting go of a teacher- centric knowledge-dissemination model to summon up a student-centric learning- focussed approach. The need to take these two steps – the first from teacher to student, and the second from content dissemination to learning experiences – grew from

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 77

pioneer studies on teaching and learning in higher education carried out in the 1990s (Biggs 1999, Prosser and Trigwell 1999, Hativa 2000, Ramsden 2003). These studies invariably highlighted the link between teachers’ conceptions of teaching and their assumptions regarding learning processes, and their teaching practices and how students’ achieved and also learned to learn.

Educational historians will suggest that the need to focus on learning grew from twen- tieth century psychology revealing the complexities of learning processes. Another quote of Albert Einstein summarises the standpoint ‘I never teach my students: I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.’ Pioneers in professional development of academics made understanding how students learn a core principle for effectiveness in teaching. Therefore educational psychologists were encouraged to draw on modern psychological knowledge for designing curricula and teaching practices that supported learning.

5.1. Understanding learning

Socio-constructivist theories of learning, flowing out of Jean Piaget’s constructivist frame- work, presented a promising background for primary and secondary education and were very present in educational discourse. Future historians will notice that it took longer for higher education to draw on psychological knowledge on learning and to start thinking of providing conditions that supported student learning, as suggested by Einstein. They might hypothesise that the reason being was that academics were the only teachers that do not need any formal training to be assigned teaching duties. It took decades for acade- mia to acknowledge that teaching in higher education required specific skills, and that training could help build up teaching capacities. Many academics assumed that psychol- ogy only related to children and that pedagogy – which literally stands for ‘the art and science of teaching children’ – was out of place in higher education where emphasis went on training adults to carry out high-level research. Programmes on teaching and learning in higher education were often considered an offense to the noble art of teaching research and likely to turn universities into upper secondary schools. Historians will prob- ably pick on the ferocious opposition to even thinking of teaching in higher education. Nonetheless massive increases in attendance of higher education and the need to care for a wider and more diverse student population changed things dramatically, especially when student attrition and drop out rates raised, or when policy-makers requested that a higher percentage of the population should achieve a first degree in higher education to boost the economy.

Caught up in the commotion of knowledge society and economy higher education systems needed to understand how people learn, grow and thrive in order to respond to the agenda. The main concern was to understand the specifics of adult learning and identify the conditions that support efficient learning strategies. Initial studies in student learning revealed a strong connection between students’ approaches to learning and the teachers’ approaches to teaching (Marton et al. 1984). The concept of surface and deep learning was largely studied in order to understand which teaching practices could support deep learning and knowledge production as opposed to short-term super- ficial surface learning.

78 N. M. REGE COLET

Malcolm Knowles’s (1998) work on adult education, as from the mid-twentieth century, challenged the assumption that learning stops at adulthood. This led to thinking in terms of life-long learning suggesting that higher education could not only expand on initial training but also spread out in the field of continuous education. Various studies looking into adult learning were able to pinpoint the specifics of the adult learner such as taking ownership and responsibility for their learning, drawing on their experience, engaging in learning when ready and when the goal is within reach, learning for purposes of personal or professional growth, and relying on intrinsic motivation rather than extrin- sic. Because of the growing numbers of adult students in higher education from the late twentieth century onwards, academics needed to distinguish between pedagogical approaches for children and teaching approaches for adults in research-led environments. Andragogy – ‘the art and the science of helping adults to learn’ – therefore became an acceptable way of thinking of teaching. It also sustained other learning models relevant to adult learning such as experiential learning (Kolb 1984) or transformative learning (Mezirow 1991).

Knowles pioneer work on adult learning led to re-examining inputs from educational psychology crisscrossing various schools of thought and weaving together concepts for understanding learning. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, for instance, gave insights on setting learning goals that were attainable and sufficiently challenging to sustain motivation. Motivational theories and frameworks were designed and tested in order to reduce student attrition and support engagement in learning as well as building up self-esteem. Positive psychology bought ground-breaking ideas on the well-being that is essential for learning to occur (Seligman 2011). Cognitive sciences continued to further understand how the mind works and the different mental processes that comprise human rationality. Teaching practices based on inquiry-based learning and problem- based learning grew in order to strengthen the research-teaching nexus characteristic of academia, and reinforce higher order skills associated with scientific knowledge and thinking.

Over time and through action research, the combined threads of psychology wove a comprehensive framework for understanding learning in higher education. Academics could gradually see the point of putting the learner in the driver’s seat, a metaphor that was suggested by the theory U framework for designing innovative learning environments. The metaphor gave substance to the principle of shifting pedagogies from teacher-centric to student-centric. It helped focus on designing contexts for deep and transformative learning, grasp what affected student motivation and self-efficacy, endorse self-directed learning and student autonomy, and expand the rationale for assessment practices and feedback aiming at personal growth and professional development.

5.2. Empowering the learner

The metaphor of the learner being in the driver’s seat holds the idea that the student is in charge of his learning process. Future historians will notice how often the idea of ‘learning to learn’ featured in mission statements and official governmental documents or in leaflets promoting higher education institutions. Implementing the principles of andragogy was certainly more oriented towards helping students take advantage of the enriched learning environment they are immersed in, than asking them to swallow up large chunks of

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 79

knowledge straight out of the heads of the professors. As a matter of fact, due to the tech- nological revolution and its impacts on communication, knowledge no longer resided in the sole heads of scholars; it had been externalised and was accessible on a wide range of social media. This challenged traditional views regarding the roles of professors and how they were to relate to their students.

If teaching was not about handing down knowledge and testing mastery of scientific evidence, what was it all about? What could the purpose of academics be if all the infor- mation was out there and available to all? Fortunately, externalisation of knowledge did not imply obsolescence of academics. It just required a shift in their role as teachers. Their expertise was still needed and highly valued since being exposed to knowledge, however vast and carefully crafted, did not automatically lead to learning or acquiring new skills. The increasing quantity of information available required training inquisitive minds and teaching students to sort through the information. They also needed to learn to collect relevant data with suitable methods, and to interpret them drawing on an appropriate conceptual and theoretical framework. Future historians will suggest that models in educational psychology shifted as a result of the technological revolution and its implications for the relationship between a teacher and his students. The socio- constructivist models from the twentieth century based on incremental construction of knowledge gave way, early twenty-first century, to connectivist models that focussed on learning as processing information and making sense of complex systems. And only qua- lified experts in their field can accompany students to undertake such a learning journey both pointing out what they need to master and how to carry out a scholarly inquiry fitting the scientific norms and cultures. There was a popular saying at the time that summarised the change in role. Teachers could no longer be a sage on the stage, they needed to become a guide on the side, shifting from hierarchical relationships to learning partnerships.

Historians should be able to trace how educational psychologists shaped their field of studies and why they carried out action research to provide evidence-based knowledge supporting their inquiry. For instance, as connectivist views on learning and developing the higher order skills needed to navigate complexity grew, they became interested in the idea of self-directed learning and achieving self-concordant goals. Drawing on moti- vational theories and self-determination, they focussed on the components of autonomy and ownership, and what supported learners in staying in the driver’s seat, taking respon- sibility for their learning. Developmental psychologists came up with the concept of self- authorship (Baxter Magolda 2009) exploring how students stepped away from external formulas and built internal foundations, and how they travelled the many steps to become self-dependent.

The idea of enhancing learning partnerships bought attention to the importance of social interaction in learning. Although many innovators agreed on the principle, it still needed to be implemented in teaching practices in higher education. As a result, historians will probably see an increase in experiences in collaborative learning, peer teaching and learning, tutoring and mentoring as models for redesigning practices and helping teachers find their place in the new environment. The purpose of these experiments was to make sure that the learner stayed in the driver’s seat with the help of other learners rather than hand over the seat to the teacher when in got too difficult (especially when the teacher standing by would probably have been more than happier to take over the driver’s seat).

80 N. M. REGE COLET

Hopefully historians will notice an interesting concept for empowering the learner put forward by social psychologist Ed Schein, the democratic classroom. Referring to Kurt Levin’s work he made a distinction between a teacher-dependent authoritarian classroom and a democratic classroom, where the students learn together and manage their own learning process. The democratic classroom encouraged letting the learners decide what they wanted to learn and required that the teacher became a resource. Ed Schein did emphasise that the teacher was needed to start the process, before stepping back to let the learners climb into the driving seats. Prototyping democratic classes helped define the role of teachers in innovative learning contexts where they were no longer requested to be constantly in charge running the classroom as would be done in an authoritarian manner. The new role was to light up the process and trust that the learners would grow and, of course, learn from it.

Societal shifts in the early twenty-first century were questioning democracy and how organisations were governed and managed. In fact, due to the repeated crises in both gov- ernance and economy, there were several voices pondering on the scope and meaning of democracy, and how to implement democratically managed communities. The reform of the European Union, when the United Kingdom stepped out as a result of a democratic referendum, was one of many incidents that illustrated the questioning about the value of democracy as opposed to authoritarianism. Therefore thinking of a classroom in terms of a democratic process contributed, to a certain extent, to reframing democracy and how it was practised.

Unusually, traces of Ed Schein’s reflections did not show up in an authorised publi- cation, the most common way of disseminating knowledge in twentieth century academia. It was documented in interviews and conversations as part of an innovative experience in online teaching and learning. The twenty-first century saw the growth of global collabora- tive learning platforms where people could share their experiences and benefit from feed- back from other co-workers. Through technological innovation, the videos and recordings comprised a new body of knowledge and changed the way people published their findings, spread ideas and reflected together on the next steps. This supported experiencing collec- tive intelligence and building up capacities for collaborative work and delivering construc- tive feedback.

So in a few words, empowering the learner to learn was about supporting self-author- ship, encouraging collaborative learning and experiencing democratic learning environ- ments. Looking back on the wide range of experiences carried out to reform higher education and to take academia through the shift from teacher-centric to student- centric pedagogies, future educational historians will understand how these principles found their way into the new pedagogical paradigm of post-modern higher education. They will also be able to fully understand the influence of the technological revolution in accelerating reforms in teaching practises.

5.3. Focussing on learning journeys

What was the rationale behind the new pedagogies? Why take up a metaphor such as putting the learner in the driver’s seat? What was the purpose? Was there an agenda behind all these novel educational psychologies? Future historians will probably want to look at their first readings of the rising pedagogical philosophy and look out for new

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 81

insights. Obviously they will shift through material on educational policy in higher edu- cation looking at priorities and main trends, seeking for traces of the driving forces behind educational innovation.

Clarifying the learning outcomes of graduates was high on the agenda of most reforms in higher education from the onsets of the twenty-first century. They showed up in curri- culum development in the wake of the Bologna process as a means of taking attention away from content and knowledge-driven courses and moving towards competence- based programmes catering for a wide range of societal needs in education and training. Universities were requested to explicit the outcomes of higher education not only in terms of the skills developed or the generic attributes acquired, but also in terms of the potential contributions to social development. Learning outcomes were supposed to explain the added value of higher education and impacts for economic growth. In many respects, they were seen as the perfect indicator for measuring effectiveness and efficiency in higher education and monitoring progress.

Historians will probably surmise that the economic crises of the twenty-first century and the increasing costs of higher education intensified the faith in measurement and they might also see how this often led decision-makers into blind corners. As markers of system performance, learning outcomes were not the best indicators, as they tended to be fuzzy and not always accurately measured. Relying mainly on indicators also tells of an inclination to look for cause–effect relations where system thinking would have been more appropriate for untangling complex phenomena. Expliciting learning outcomes did however facilitate the shift in educational paradigm as far as curriculum development was concerned, because it encouraged programme leaders to design courses in terms of the learning pathways that would supposedly lead to the expected outcomes.

Advocating for learning outcomes within the metaphor of the learner in the driver’s seat is another way of asking the following questions: Where is the car driving to? And who sets the destination? The answers to both questions depend on what the system values. Otherwise said, the purpose of learning outcomes and how they shaped the curri- culum depended on the level on which the system was operating. Therefore, historians might be drawn to use the theory U framework and its four levels of organisation to discuss issues of autonomy and control within learning environments. And this is what they may come up with.

In a traditional 1.0 higher education system based on control and hierarchy, the learn- ing outcomes would inevitably focus on knowledge acquisition and keeping up academic standards. The learner would have had no say in where he had to drive to and how to get there. He would have followed the tracks set by academics and focussed on getting over the hurdles in due time and with a minimum effort.

In a free-market 2.0 higher education system, the learning outcomes would have focussed on employability and gains in terms of competitiveness for securing external funding and positions in international rankings. Employability of graduates was the driving force for many higher education systems, and the key purpose for designing courses and programmes, much to the dismay of traditional academics who claimed that the standards of academia were being discarded. The learner in the driver’s seat was expected to take the most direct route to a job and to bring in bonus points for the reputation of his university.

82 N. M. REGE COLET

In a social-market 3.0 higher education system based on partnerships and negotiation, the learning outcomes were set in an open field with various options reflecting the stake- holders’ recommendations. The driver could then decide on the destination that appealed to him within a predetermined framework. He was invited to choose whichever route he fancied, to come in when and where he thought he needed to be, to set the pace for achiev- ing his goals, remembering nonetheless to negotiate his road map with the other partners.

In a 4.0 creative higher education system, the learning outcomes were believed to be somewhere out there in the vast field of future possibilities. There was no set agenda, the purpose being, according to quantum theory, to tap into the emerging future and the unfolding qualities of reality. The learner did not need to decide where he wanted to go. He could just start up the car and drive off confident that he would be picking up some knowledge and skills along the way. He could follow his calling and highest aspirations and decide how he was going to be a contribution to his eco-system.

Observing these different levels, historians might wonder if the metaphor of ‘the learner in the driver’s seat’ reflected a new educational utopia. As for all metaphors, looking back on it, they will most likely see what was not addressed at the times, such as the need to align individual pursuits with collective targets, and attain a form of equilibrium. Ques- tions as to who built the roads the learners were driving on and where the blind corners were might not have been discussed, leaving a few unturned stones on the pathway to paradigmatic change.

6. Embodying a new academic identity

As mentioned in the previous section, putting the student in the driver’s seat and promot- ing democratic classrooms led to major changes in the teacher’s position. Who was he going to be? And where was he going to stand? A passenger on the back seat? An instruc- tor on the passenger’s seat?

Future historians will notice that transformation of academic identity was much dis- cussed in the context of the rise of the European area of higher education that came out of the Bologna process (Fanghanel 2012, Evans and Nixon 2015). The main issue was reframing the dual identity, inherited from traditional research-led universities, of being a researcher and a teacher who teaches his research. This definition of academic identity fitted in well with a 1.0 level of higher education, but needed to change as higher education systems evolved towards dynamic eco-systems. Shifts in educational development inevitably led to shifts in professional identity of academics, reaffirming the values of academic culture and embodying a transformed scholarly attitude.

Historians will suggest that the America educator Ernest Boyer, president of the Car- negie foundation for the advancement of teaching, probably foresaw the important changes about to happen regarding academic identity and the need to apply the same scholarly attitude towards teaching and learning as was done for research. They will notice how often his paper on scholarship and professoriate was quoted (Boyer 1990). His framework of scholarship in a knowledge society and economy comprised four forms of scholarship: (1) scholarship of discovery (producing new knowledge), (2) scho- larship of integration (spreading knowledge), (3) scholarship of application (transferring knowledge) and (4) scholarship of teaching (sharing knowledge). These distinctions helped see that research and teaching were not necessarily two conflicting activities.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 83

Boyer was the first to outline academic identity from a holistic perspective focussing on the importance of developing appreciative inquiry and an inquisitive and curious mind-set for understanding complex phenomena of which, of course, the specifics of teaching and learning.

Nonetheless, for a long time, research did remain highly valued for pursuing a career and achieving international recognition. Gradually the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning – inquiring into teaching practices and effective learning – was put forward to support professional development of academics and reconcile them with the ‘noble art and science of teaching’. Developing a scholarly attitude towards the effects of teaching on stu- dents learning was an acceptable approach, which did not involve having to go back to school to learn some new fashionable technology expected to revolutionise the classroom.

Historians will note that professional development of academics took off during the twenty-first century. The first step was to declare that doctoral education comprised the initial professional training in research. It led to designing doctoral programmes and pro- viding workplaces in research labs where doctoral students – who were renamed ‘early stage researchers’ – did their research under the supervision of their peers and mentors. Initial professional training in teaching slowly made its way to the scene either as part of the doctoral programme or as a separate programme offered to academics during their first years of teaching duties. In some countries it was mandatory to have followed such a programme in order to secure teaching responsibilities. In others it was highly rec- ommended and left up to the individuals. Those who intended to pursue an international career did do so, knowing that their chances of securing a position, and later a tenured professorship, would be stronger if they could show evidence of their professional devel- opment as a teacher in higher education.

The reluctance to go back to school to learn to become a higher education teacher made continuous training and job-place learning more acceptable. Professional development of academics became an open field where different experiences and manners of accounting of professional growth became widespread. Workshops and comprehensive courses blos- somed, but so did alternatives such as taking part in innovative projects and communities of practice, applying for mentoring and trying out peer observation, developing evaluation of teaching effectiveness or carrying out applied research on teaching and learning, sharing the outcomes and publically communicating on the results. Accounting for professional development as a teacher was not reduced to obtaining a recognised certificate. Other forms reflecting a scholarly attitude were encouraged such as producing a teaching port- folio or publishing the outcomes of a research into teaching and learning, both of which were peer-reviewed according to academic culture.

Historians will understand that implementing new pedagogical approaches and foster- ing professional development of academics opened the way for establishing centres for teaching and learning that rapidly grew and settled in the new landscape of higher edu- cation, although – a bit like the egg and the hen – it might be difficult to see which came first. The purpose of the centres was to build up the teaching and learning capacities in higher education and faculty developers, as they were often called, suddenly appeared on the scene. Drawing on their experience in change management and their work supporting academics develop their teaching practices, they put together a framework that captured the meaning and scope of educational development and innovation in higher education (Saroyan and Frenay 2010). They were able to explain the expertise of educational

84 N. M. REGE COLET

development and to monitor the effects of academics shifting in the system. Through servant leadership and transformational learning journeys, they helped academics step down from the stage and become passionate guides on the side, comfortably finding their place in the community of learners that comprised post-modern higher education.

7. And where do we go from here?

In this article I have chosen to tell of the story of shifting educational paradigms in higher education, as it might be understood from the future. I hope I have captured the narrative of what triggered the need to transform higher education to meet new societal needs. Part of the story is about the inertia of higher education institutions slowing down creativity and innovation, thereby threatening the existence of research-led universities and challen- ging the essence of being an academic. I have suggested that educational transformation is about shifting from teaching to learning and I have used the metaphor of ‘the learner in the driver’s seat’ to explain the new teaching and learning philosophy with its conse- quences for reframing the landscape of higher education and academic identity.

Paradigm shifts require us to go on a long transformational journey as we go to the edge of the system and step into the emerging future. Although the destination remains uncer- tain it is important to stay open to unexpected possibilities. All the same, I cannot help wondering what the landscape will look like on the other side of Alice’s looking-glass in the twenty-third century. Transformative learning, as supported by theory U, is about pur- suing noble pursuits and becoming who we truly are. I have always felt passionate about higher education as a place of countless learning and creativity. I feel very privileged to have been able to work in this field for so many years, honouring our legacy and contri- buting to supporting growth both within the system and within the people who comprise it. So I would like to conclude my narrative by sharing what I hope will come out of the transformation.

In my vision, higher education will reflect a social contract, as suggested by Rousseau, bringing together many stakeholders and interest groups who see in higher education a tool for promoting citizenship and democracy-based organisations. Leadership, author- ship and ownership should be the basis of the social contract. Teaching will serve learning and, as a result, the boundaries between teachers and students, between teaching and learning will have blurred enabling learning communities bringing together people sharing commons interests and pursuits to spring up all over the place. Educational sciences, that were so severely criticised by academics, will have disappeared replaced by learning sciences. Universities will no longer be built around disciplines and depart- ments reflecting disciplinary boundaries. Passion, curiosity, eagerness and willingness to step out of the comfort zone will lead to more agency and virtuosity. I also see a learning community busy shaping 5.0 and 6.0 frameworks for appreciating systems and their evol- ution. Unfortunately their work is beyond the reach of our present understanding of higher education in much as our current organisation of higher education would have been out of grasp of medieval monks copying books to gather knowledge in libraries.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 85

Notes on contributor

Nicole Mary Rege Colet is a professor in educational psychology who has carried out her career exploring educational development in higher education, with an active role in the Bologna process. Her work is mostly about implementing innovative teaching and learn- ing and supporting academics to adapt to the new environments and engage in pro- fessional and organisational development. Drawing on her interdisciplinary and intercultural experience, her recent inquiries look at leadership development and change processes. She is interested in understanding how people, communities and organ- isations can shift and engage collectively in meaningful and socially responsible projects letting go of old paradigms of thought.

References

Baxter Magolda, M.B., 2009. Authoring your life. Developing an internal voice to navigate life’s chal- lenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R., 2001. Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.

Biggs, J., 1999. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press. Boyer, E., 1990. Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities for the professoriate. New York, NY: The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Evans, L. and Nixon, J., eds., 2015. Academic identities in higher education. The changing European

landscape. London: Bloomsbury. Fanghanel, J., 2012. Being an academic. London: Routledge. Harrari, Y.N., 2011. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage. Hativa, N., 2000. Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers. Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books. Knowles, M.S., 1998. The adult learner. The definite classic in adult education and human resource

development. Houston, TX: Gulf Publication Company. Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuhn, T.S., 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chigaco

Press. Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N.J., eds., 1984. The experience of learning. Edinburgh:

Scottish Academic Press. Mezirow, J., 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K., 1999. Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher

education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University. Ramsden, P., 2003. Learning to teach in higher education. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Saroyan, A. and Frenay, M., eds., 2010. Building teaching capacities in higher education. A compre-

hensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Scharmer, C.O., 2009. Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. The social technology of pre-

sencing. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Scharmer, C.O. and Kaufer, K., 2013. Leading from the emerging future. From ego-system to eco-

system economies. Applying theory U to transforming business, society, and self. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.

Seligman, M., 2011. Flourish. A new understanding of happiness and well-being and how to achieve them. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E., 1991. The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

86 N. M. REGE COLET