Constructivist learning and openness to diversity and challenge in higher education environments

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorit Alt
Author(s):  
Rebecca Hamer ◽  
Erik Jan van Rossum

Understanding means different things to different people, influencing what and how students learn and teachers teach. Mainstream understanding of understanding has not progressed beyond the first level of constructivist learning and thinking, ie academic understanding. This study, based on 167 student narratives, presents two hitherto unknown conceptions of understanding matching more complex ways of knowing, understanding-in-relativism and understanding-in-supercomplexity requiring the development of more complex versions of constructive alignment. Students comment that multiple choice testing encourages learning focused on recall and recognition, while academic understanding is not assessed often and more complex forms of understanding are hardly assessed at all in higher education. However, if study success depends on assessments-of-learning that credit them for meaning oriented learning and deeper understanding, students will put in effort to succeed.


10.14201/3256 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo Gargallo López ◽  
Amparo Fernández March ◽  
Miguel Ángel Jiménez

RESUMEN: El objetivo fundamental de este trabajo era precisar los modelos docentes de los profesores universitarios para corroborar si se ajustaban a los requerimientos del espacio europeo de educación superior (que preconiza un modelo centrado en el aprendizaje con dominio de competencias pedagógicas). Encontramos dos modelos, uno centrado en el aprendizaje y otro centrado en la enseñanza, y otros dos modelos intermedios. Un grupo de profesores (alrededor de un 48% de la muestra de 326 profesores) se encuadraba en el modelo centrado en el aprendizaje, de corte constructivista, y se subdividía en dos grupos, uno de ellos más centrado en el aprendizaje y con más habilidades docentes. También encontramos otro grupo (alrededor del 52% de los profesores), centrado en la enseñanza y que utilizaba metodologías tradicionales. Este grupo también se subdividía en otros dos, uno más tradicional y con menos habilidades docentes que el otro. Estos resultados reclaman la atención de los gestores universitarios y el diseño de ofertas racionales de formación que ayuden a los profesores a adquirir las competencias pedagógicas necesarias.ABSTRACT: The main objective of this work was to specify the teaching models of university professors in order to find out whether they meet the requirements of the European higher education area (which upholds a learning-centred model with pedagogical competencies). We found two models, one of them learning-centred and the other one teaching-centred, with two intermediate models. A group of professors (around 48% of the sample of 326 professors) fitted with the constructivist learning-centred model, and this group was subdivided into two, one of them more learningcentred and with more teaching and assessment abilities than the other. We also found another group (around 52% of the professors), teaching-centred and which used traditional methodologies. This group was also subdivided into two, one of them more traditional and with less teaching and assessment abilities than the other. These results demand the attention of the university managers and also the design of rational offers of training that help the professors to acquire the necessary pedagogical competencies.SOMMAIRE: L'objectif fondamental de ce travail était de préciser les modèles d'enseignement des professeurs universitaires pour corroborer s'ils étaient adaptés ou pas aux exigences de l'espace européen d'éducation supérieur (qui préconise un modèle centré sur l'apprentissage avec la maîtrise de compétences pédagogiques). Quatre modèles ont été trouvés. L'un est centré sur l'apprentissage, l'autre sur l'enseignement, avec deux modèles intermédiaires. Un groupe de professeurs (autour de 48% d'un échantillon de 326 professeurs) était encadré dans le modèle centré sur l'apprentissage, de type constructiviste et subdivisé en deux sous-groupes, l'un plus centré sur l'apprentissage et possédant des habilités d'enseignement et d'évaluation plus poussées que l'autre. Un autre groupe devprofesseurs a été trouvé (environ 52% de l'échantillon), centré sur l'enseignement et utilisant des méthodologies traditionnelles. Ce groupe était aussi subdivisé en deux sous-groupes, l'un plus traditionnel et avec moins d'habilités d'enseignement que l'autre. Les dirigeants universitaires devraient tenir compte de ces résultats et l'offre rationnelle de formation des professeurs devrait viser l'acquisition de ces compétences pédagogiques nécessaires.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Dane-Staples

As accountability and the nature of higher education are changing to an emphasis on teaching, it is critical for faculty to have pedagogical training to develop their classroom skills. Currently, most doctoral programs do not require pedagogical courses therefore faculty must independently seek knowledge on how to engage students and to teach the specifics of sport management. This article discusses the foundations of constructivist learning and some specific teaching strategies relevant for a sport management classroom. Drawing on educational and psychological theory, a six-element framework is outlined where instructors attempt to reach long-term learning, not just a memorization of facts. The overall framework and each element are discussed and then strategies such as the Fishbowl, Active Opinion, Talking in Circles, and group selection options are introduced. The benefit of this approach to the classroom is that it is not topic specific, and can be implemented in a variety of sport management classrooms.


Author(s):  
Rebecca Hamer ◽  
Erik Jan van Rossum

Understanding means different things to different people, influencing what and how students learn and teachers teach. Mainstream understanding of understanding has not progressed beyond the first level of constructivist learning and thinking, ie academic understanding. This study, based on 167 student narratives, presents two hitherto unknown conceptions of understanding matching more complex ways of knowing, understanding-in-relativism and understanding-in-supercomplexity requiring the development of more complex versions of constructive alignment. Students comment that multiple choice testing encourages learning focused on recall and recognition, while academic understanding is not assessed often and more complex forms of understanding are hardly assessed at all in higher education. However, if study success depends on assessments-of-learning that credit them for meaning oriented learning and deeper understanding, students will put in effort to succeed.


i-com ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-277
Author(s):  
Michael Herczeg

Abstract Teaching and learning using computer systems has a long tradition. This contribution will discuss major challenges and changes of the last 20 years to derive consequences and ideas for the next 20 years. The development of digital educational technologies will be outlined and the deficiencies and potentials of learning with digital systems and environments will be discussed. Finally, a media framework that enables for post-constructivist learning in the 21st century will be presented. The contribution focuses on interactive media in the context of schools, laying the foundation for digital competences for higher education and workplaces.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document