Kings Learning

Institute

Volume 4

Higher Education
Research Network
Journal

HERN-J
Editor: David B Hay

Indvidual Contributors, 2011

Published by
King's Learning Institute
King's College London
James Clerk Maxwell Building
57 Waterloo Road
London SE1 8WA
United Kingdom

ISBN 978-0-955 8633-7-0

2

Editors Introduction
Welcome to the latest edition of HERN-J: the Journal of Kings College Higher Education Research
Network. This volume brings together a collection of essays from Kings College researcher/teachers
submitted in part fulfilment of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) within Kings
Learning Institute (KLI).
The purpose of this journal is to collect together some of the outstanding work of PGCAP participants. In
doing this we hope: a) to gather the different disciplinary voices of our colleagues; b) to register the issues
and concerns most relevant among Kings researcher/teachers; and c) exhibit the commitment of Kings
teaching staff towards the quality student educational experience in the College. This volume includes
analyses of teaching in Bioscience, Biomedical Engineering, Forensic Science, Law, Medicine and Allied
Health Professions and War Studies. The collective scope includes critical inquiry into practical class
design, learning in high fidelity simulation environments, interdisciplinary and distance education methods,
self-authorship, research-to-teaching links, dialogue and imaginative teaching/learning and the cultural
concerns of westernised teaching styles when these values are exported overseas. Each paper combines
original scholarship and development of theory; some of the articles also use new student experience
data: all of them illustrate College teaching life as a place of contact between research and scholarship,
educational enhancement and the active engagement of students as participants in teaching/learning and
development of new curriculum.
In the schools educational literature there is good consensus that educational relationships are the necessary
learning pre-condition (see Alexander, 2006; Wegerif, 2007). All our essays extend this principle to
higher education, demonstrating how it is that each different researcher/teachers commitment to their
research, faculty and students includes these identities together as a means of creativity, insight and new
relationships per se. Some of the essays point towards superficial tensions between creative education and
other academic roles and even sometimes tensions with the formal targets of curriculum. Nevertheless, all
the authors exhibit the ways that academic and professions/cultural identity, employability, and an ability
to make use of knowledge depend on relationships towards the educational setting/context and towards the
teacher or the teaching team. Perhaps it is true to say that the unique Kings Experience arises because of
including tension rather than removing it.
As well as a great deal of scholarship, there is general advice for higher education teachers in this volume. In
his analysis of team teaching in Biomedical Science, Marc Dionne draws in literature from teaching Law as
well as other fields, reaching some general conclusions about course design that commonly involves teams
of experts. Andrew King presents a case study of learning style and cultural difference, contrasting western
education premise with an Ethiopian higher education setting. Like Dionne, King reaches conclusions that
are likely to be useful to many different higher education professionals.
The essays of Chiara De Franco and Alison Stenton are located in two very different contexts (respectively:
War Studies and the Allied Health Professions). Both however, draw on the literature of dialogue, selfauthorship and imagination, showing how these theories/approaches are not simply teaching method but
as Wegerif (2007) puts it: the education ends itself (ibid., p. 42). Like the other authors in this volume,
de Franco and Stenton turn to their own research and towards their own professional practice in order to
address the teaching problems they encounter. Their accounts are necessarily personal (including their
own development as part of their development as teachers and researchers), and showing how, within
themselves, their fields and their specific academic cultures teaching/learning becomes participation in
design and knowledge-making (Kress, 2003). In this way both exemplify the distinctiveness of researcherled teaching at Kings College. De Franco in particular, uses this approach explicitly in order to develop a
3

new view point of research-to-teaching links or what teaching really means in research rich settings.
The themes of intense personal but also scholarly and professional critique are also carried by the work of
Martina Proctor (in Law education), Clare Bradley (fidelity simulation in Medicine) and Leon
Bradley (Postgraduate Forensic Science). Here we see some detailed analysis of the needs and experiences
of different students, the fit between educational theory/practice and the cultures of respective professions.
Like the other essays the work furnishes some general principles about good higher education teaching,
while also exhibiting the ways that this depends upon quality relationships.
It is my very great pleasure to present these papers together and to underline the ways that the Kings
Student Experience is rather unique - because of the unique qualities of those researchers and professionals
who promote the richness of their teaching through critique, reflection and analysis.

References
Wegerif, R. (2007) Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning (Springer, New
York).
Alexander, R. (2006) Education as Dialogue: moral and pedagogical choices for a runaway world (Institute of
Education with Dialogos, Hong Kong).
Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age (Routledge, New York).

David Hay (Editor)

Culture, Learning and Development:

A Case Study on the Ethiopian Higher
Education System
Andrew King

School of Biomedical Health Sciences, King's College London

Submitted: September 2011
Abstract
There is a significant body of literature that suggests that different students have different styles of learning
in which they learn more effectively. Furthermore, the influence of cultural background on the way of
thinking of individuals, and hence their learning style, has been widely reported. The combination of these
two factors suggests potential difficulties in a number of fields in which the teacher and student come from
different cultures: if there is a mismatch between the teaching style of the teacher and the learning style
of the student then the teaching/learning process can be less effective. One field in which such a potential
difficulty exists, but which has been neglected in the literature, is that of the role of predominantly western
development agencies in the expansion of the higher education sector in developing countries. The aim of
this essay is to investigate and discuss the potential conflicts, dangers and opportunities associated with this
role. The central thesis is that differences in learning style due to culture mean that involvement of western
educational experts and teachers in the evolution of higher education in developing countries needs to
be treated with caution and cultural sensitivity. This thesis is illustrated with a case study focusing on the
higher education system in Ethiopia.

Learning Styles
A learning style can be defined as the application, within a learning situation, of an individuals typical
mode of problem solving, thinking, perceiving and remembering (Cassidy, 2004). There are a wide range
of theories and models to characterise different learning styles (eg Riding and Cheema, 1991; Rayner and
Riding, 1997) and good overviews of the literature can be found in Cassidy (2004) and Swanson (1995).
In this essay, Currys onion model of learning style differences (Curry, 1983, 1987) is considered in more
detail. This model was chosen because it is one of the most widely cited and has been influential in the
literature on learning style differences due to culture. An illustration of the model is shown in Figure 1. The
model can be viewed as a framework for categorising other models and measures according to their level of
abstraction from the underlying cognitive processes of learning. It represents the way in which the layers
of an onion are analogous to the different levels of a persons characteristics or style (Swanson, 1995:2). At
each layer a number of more specific models have been proposed to characterise and measure learning style
differences at the particular level of abstraction. The following list summarises the four layers and gives
one example for each of a model/measure that has been proposed to characterise differences at that layer
(Figure 1 is annotated with the letters from this list):
A)
B)

Basic personality traits: These high-level traits or cognitive processes can be measured using
techniques such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers and Briggs, 1995);
Assimilating/processing information: Variations in the way in which individuals process information
can be characterised using, for example, Kolbs learning model (Kolb, 1983), in which information
processing is modelled as a cycle involving four stages: concrete experience, abstract
conceptualisation, reflective observation and active experimentation. Individuals develop different
levels of ability in each of these four stages, leading to different styles of learning (Yamazaki, 2005);
5

C)

D)

Social interaction: This refers to modes of interaction in the classroom and has been characterised
by the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) (Reichman and Grasha,
1974). GRSLSS categorises students as avoidant/participative, competitive/collaborative and
dependent/independent based on their attitudes to their teachers and other students.
Preferred learning techniques/environment: This refers to an individuals preferences for different
classroom learning techniques, such as lectures or small group situations. For example, Biggs (1999)
presents a good summary of different types of teaching/learning activity.

There are many other models of learning style difference that can be viewed within this framework, and
it is not the purpose of this essay to thoroughly review and compare all of them. However, it is clear that
a consensus exists in the literature that different learning styles do exist and that they can impact upon
the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process. For example, in engineering education, Felder and
Silverman (1988) argued that the effectiveness of learning depends on the compatibility between the
teaching style of the teacher and the learning style of the student.
Figure 1. Currys onion model illustrating four layers of differences in learning style,1 annotated by the
author with letters corresponding to the list in the text.

Reproduced from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/EDIT489/modules/edpy489_7_Learner.htm

The Influence of Culture on Learning Styles

Culture is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour
products, or way of life of a particular society, people or period (www.oed.com). Alternatively, Hofstede
defined culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human
group from another (Hofstede, 1991:5). Such references to distinctive ideas and collective programming
emphasise the fact that the impact of culture on peoples minds can be wide-ranging, from values and ethics
to emotional responses and cognitive processes.
The impact of culture on the way of thinking of individuals has been studied by Markus and Kitayama
(1991). They discussed two models of self-construal (ways of viewing the self). They argued that the
independent model tends to dominate in most western cultures whereas the interdependent model
dominates in Asian cultures. The dominant model of self-construal has a significant impact on an
individuals cognition, emotion and motivation.
If culture is a significant factor in determining an individuals way of thinking, it seems likely that learning
will be one activity affected by this conditioning. In her review of the literature on learning styles, Swanson
stated that the research that has been done across different cultural groups suggest that cultural patterns
exist (Swanson, 1995:9). Yamazaki (2005) analysed these cultural patterns with reference to six cultural
typologies, and related their differences in learning style to Kolbs learning model (Kolb, 1983). Six
empirical studies were reviewed, and conclusions suggested that different cultural typologies related to
certain learning styles and abilities. For example, one typology considered was Markus and Kitayamas
models of self-construal (discussed above). Yamazaki argued that interdependent cultures were stronger
in the concrete experience and reflective observation abilities within Kolbs learning model, whereas
independent cultures were stronger in abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation.
Some researchers, however, have sounded a note of caution regarding some widespread assumptions about
learning styles of different ethnic groups. Irvine and York (1995) argued that research does not support
the supposition that members of a particular ethnic group have the same learning style (Irvine and York,
1995:484). However, this assertion is not inconsistent with other findings: differences in learning style are
likely not due to ethnicity, but rather are learnt at a young age depending on the culture in which the child
grows up and the way in which they have engaged in cultural activities (Gutirrez and Rogoff, 2003). In
the words of Singh, future responses to teaching and learning style are determined in pre-school years by
the childs socio-cultural environment (Singh, 1988:355).
Perhaps one of the most relevant works to this essay on the links between culture and styles of teaching/
learning is that by Tweed and Lehman (2002). They identified two distinct styles of teaching and learning:
the Socratic model, which they argued was common in many western cultures, and the Confucian model,
more common in Asian cultures. The Socratic model places emphasis on questioning of the teacher,
dialogue and self-generation of knowledge, whereas the Confucian model emphasises learning from
respected others and the passing on of ideas rather than innovating. However, they emphasised that it is not
necessarily true that the Confucian model equates more with shallow rather than deep learning (Marton
and Slj, 1976) as is often assumed, but rather that the memorisation tasks commonly encountered in
Confucian learning are a step on the path to deep learning. This distinction between a predominantly
western conceptualisation of the teaching/learning process (the Socratic model) and a predominantly
Asian one (the Confucian model) is an important one that will be revisited later in this essay.
In summary, there is a strong body of literature that argues for the existence of a link between culture and
learning style.
Referring back to Currys onion model of learning differences, Figure 2 illustrates how some of the key
papers discussed in this section relate to the onion model. Note that although Markus and Kitayama
7

(1991) discussed models of self-construal rather than referring explicitly to learning style, they are
included here because of the demonstrated link between their work and learning style (Yamazaki, 2005).
Overall, it seems likely that all layers of the onion can be affected by cultural upbringing. Because of these
multilayered differences in learning style, teaching is likely to be more effective when the teaching and
learning styles are compatible. Where cultural differences do exist between teacher and student, teaching
effectiveness can be increased by showing sensitivity to the students potentially different learning styles
and conceptualisations of the teaching/learning process. These factors will have an impact in a number of
teaching/learning situations where cultural differences exist, for example:
the teaching of international students (Biggs, 1999; Harris, 1995; Samuelowicz, 1987; Niles,
1995; Tan, 2010);
distance and technology-based learning programmes (Lal, 2003; Collis, 1999; Chisholm, 1994;
Powar, 2006);
involvement of international agencies in the development of education in developing countries.
The first two areas have been addressed extensively in the literature, but to the authors knowledge there
are no papers that have considered the final area. The focus of the remainder of this essay is to investigate
the impact of differences in learning style due to culture on the involvement of western educational experts
in the evolution of the higher education (HE) sector in developing countries. The next section briefly
summarises the involvement of international agencies in HE in the developing world. The subsequent
section considers a specific case study to illustrate some of the potential difficulties associated with this
involvement.
Figure 2. An illustration of how key papers on differences in way of thinking and learning style fit into
Currys onion model (annotated by the author).

Higher Education in the Developing World

Although HE enrolment in the developing world is significantly lower than that in the developed world
(Altbach et al., 2009), numbers are expected to increase dramatically as developing countries economies
grow. Sir John Daniel argued that in a decade or two, most university and college students will be in the
developing world (Daniel, 2007:1). This projected expansion is essential for the progress of developing
countries: in a World Bank sponsored report, it was argued that without more and better higher education,
developing countries will find it increasingly difficult to benefit from the global knowledge-based economy
(Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000:9).
This expansion has begun already, and due to the limited local capacity in terms of qualified and educated
staff, international development agencies are taking on a significant role. Amongst the leading agencies
8

involved in the development of HE in developing countries are:

the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 2009);
the UK Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) programme (eg VSO, 2007);
the USA International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH) (USAID, 2005).
Of these, VSO and IFESH focus their activities on sending teachers and educational specialists to work
with local staff, whereas UNESCO work mainly on capacity building and policy development.

Ethiopian Higher Education: A Case Study

A case study on the HE system in Ethiopia is now considered. Ethiopia was chosen because it illustrates
a number of potential difficulties that may be relevant to developing countries in general. In addition, the
author has personal experience of working in the Ethiopian HE sector, and this experience is used to inform
the following discussion.

Ethiopian Higher Education

Ethiopia is a country located in the Horn of Africa with a population of 90.8 million and a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) per capita of approximately $1000 (CIA, 2011). Until the early nineties, there were only
two government universities in the entire country. Since then, government expenditure on education
has increased and currently stands at 5.5 per cent of GDP (CIA, 2011). There are now 26 government
universities (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2004) and a number of private HE institutions.
However, enrolment into HE still stands at approximately 0.5 per cent (Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia - Ministry of Education, 2010), one of the lowest in the world.
There have been concerns about the quality of education on offer. In an effort to improve this quality,
in 2003 the Ministry of Education introduced a pedagogy degree for all teachers, known as the Higher
Diploma Programme (HDP) (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2004). This course is compulsory
for all academic staff in HE institutions, as well as school teachers. The programme comprises five major
components: (USAID, 2005)

a teaching placement;
reflective activities (self-evaluation, peer-assessment);
participation/practice in active learning methodologies;
continuous assessment;
an action research project.

The HDP was developed by western educational specialists and was inspired by similar programmes in
western universities. It is largely run by expatriates from two western development organisations: VSO
and IFESH. The aim of the programme is to encourage teachers to introduce new teaching methodologies
focused on active learning. The original intention was to hand over the running of the HDP to local staff
(VSO, 2007) but this has not yet taken place. In addition, some criticisms have been forthcoming from
local staff. For example, learning tasks encourage the largely adult participants to memorize, imitate, and
implement national directives and prescriptive teaching principles (Tessema, 2006:1).

Ethiopian Culture and Learning

Most research on cultural differences in ways of thinking and learning styles has focused on differences
between western and Asian students (eg Biggs, 1999, Ch. 7). There has been little research on Ethiopian
or even African cultures and learning styles. One exception to this is Markus and Kitayama (1991), who
argued that their interdependent model of self-construal is characteristic of African cultures as well as
Asian ones. Although it is dangerous to generalise about a continent of around 50 countries and many more
9

distinct cultures, there may be an element of truth in this assertion. Many African cultures, including in
Ethiopia, have a long tradition of social living and communities tend to be very strong and group-oriented
(Lassiter, 2000). As discussed earlier in this essay, Yamazaki (2005) has argued that this interdependent
model of self-construal leads to varying levels of ability in Kolbs learning model, and hence impacts on
learning style at the information processing layer of Currys onion (see Figure 2). Therefore, although it is
difficult to ascribe a single learning style to all of Ethiopia, it seems likely that a difference exists between
most Ethiopian cultures and most western cultures. This difference will be primarily at the information
processing layer of Currys onion, and most likely at other layers affected by the different models of selfconstrual.
In addition, the role of poverty in educational motivation cannot be ignored. Ethiopia is one of the
poorest countries in the world and many students enrolling in HE come from very deprived backgrounds.
This often puts great pressure on the students to succeed so that they can gain employment to support
their families. This can lead to a more goal-driven approach to education, which is consistent with
the Confucian model of teaching/learning outlined in Tweed and Lehman (2002). In contrast, the
western (Socratic) model emphasises learning for learnings sake and can be viewed as a luxury that
many students in Ethiopia cannot afford. In addition, generally speaking teachers in Ethiopia are seen as
respected figures in society, and the educational process is viewed as one of the teacher imparting their
knowledge to the students. Again, this is consistent with the teachers as respected others attitude of the
Confucian model of teaching/learning, and contrasts with the self-generated knowledge approach of the
Socratic model. This difference in teaching/learning models will manifest itself mostly at the outer two
layers of Currys onion (see Figure 2).
In summary, there is significant evidence to suggest that cultural differences in learning style exist between
Ethiopia and the west. These differences will manifest themselves at several layers of Currys onion model.
In the next section, the impact of these cultural differences with regard to the role of western educational
experts in Ethiopia is considered.

Can Western-Inspired Ideas on Teaching/Learning be Translated Directly to Ethiopia?

The development of HE in Ethiopia is proceeding rapidly, driven to a significant extent by the
contributions of western experts through programmes such as the HDP. The danger exists, therefore, of
a mismatch of conceptualisations of the teaching/learning process between the western experts and the
Ethiopian staff/students. To a large extent, the western experts, initially at least, have little experience or
cultural knowledge of the country or how the teaching/learning process is viewed there. Although such
knowledge can be assimilated in-country to a certain extent, the length of time that most western staff stay
in Ethiopia makes the level of this assimilation quite limited (VSO volunteer placements are typically two
years and IFESH placements are typically one year). There is a danger that this lack of cultural knowledge
could lead to a less informed and more prescriptive approach to development of the HE sector, ie
Ethiopia should adopt the better western practices wholesale as dictated by the western experts. A more
culturally sensitive approach would be for the development to be driven by local staff and for the western
experts knowledge to be seen as a toolbox from which local staff can select techniques that they view as
appropriate to local culture and learning styles.

Conclusions
This essay has focused on establishing a link between culture, learning and the development of HE systems
in the developing world. There is a strong body of literature on the existence of different learning styles and
the impact that cultural background has on these styles. The implications of this have been addressed in
the literature on distance and technology-based learning and the teaching of international students. In this
essay an additional area of concern has been highlighted: the role of international development agencies in
the expansion of HE in the developing world. Using a case study on HE in Ethiopia it has been argued that
the expansion of HE is being driven primarily by western experts who have different cultural backgrounds
10

to the developing country they are working in. This cultural difference leads to a potential conflict when
transferring teachers and teacher-training courses from western countries directly to a country with a
different culture and learning style. It is the recommendation of this essay that, wherever possible, links
between western countries and developing countries in HE should be genuine partnerships and not
prescriptive relationships in which the developing country adapts their system to that of the western donor
country. Programmes aimed at educational development should be designed and run in partnership with
local staff who have a deep cultural understanding and sensitivity. Where western experts are employed, it
is highly desirable that they spend longer periods of time in their host country to gain a deeper insight into
its culture and learning styles.
In closing, it should be emphasised that it is not the assertion of this essay that international links in HE
are a bad thing. Such links can be very fruitful and beneficial to both parties, and their continued existence
is to be encouraged. However, they should be treated with caution and close attention paid to the way in
which they are implemented. It is important to form genuine two-way partnerships rather than one-way
prescriptive relationships to ensure that the maximum potential of international links is realised.

References
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L.E. (2009) Trends in global higher education: Tracking an
academic revolution. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001831/183168e.pdf
(accessed 21 June, 2011).
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (The Society for Research Into Higher
Education).
Cassidy, S. (2004) Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures, Educational Psychology,
24(4), 419-444.
CIA, (2011) CIA - the world factbook - Ethiopia. Available online at: https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html (accessed 16 June, 2011).
Chisholm, I.M. (1994) Culture and technology : implications for multicultural teacher education, Journal
of Information Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2), 213-228.
Collis, B. (1999) Designing for difference: cultural issues in the design of WWW-based course-support
sites, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 201-215.
Curry, L. (1983) An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Educational Research
Information Centre document no. ED 235 185.
Curry, L. (1987) Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric
standards (Learning Styles Network).
Daniel, J. (2007) The expansion of higher education in the developing world: What can distance
learning contribute? Available online at: http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2007presentations/
Pages/2007-02-01.aspx (accessed 23 August, 2011).
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2004) Report on the development of education in Ethiopia to the
UNESCO forty-seventh session of the international conference on education. Available online at: http://www.
ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE47/English/Natreps/reports/ethiopia_scan.pdf (accessed 31 May, 2011).
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia - Ministry of Education. (2010) Education statistics annual
11

abstract. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.et/Downloads/Educational Statistics/Education

Statistics Annual Abstract 2002 EC (2009-10) - Iss.zip (accessed 16 June, 2011).
Felder, R.M. & Silverman, L.K. (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education,
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Gutirrez, K.D. & Rogoff, B. (2003) Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice,
Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Harris, R. (1995). Overseas students in the United Kingdom university system, Higher Education, 29, 7792.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (McGraw-Hill).
Irvine, J.J. & York, D.E. (1995) Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A literature review, in
Banks, J.A. & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds) Handbook of research in multicultural education (McMillan, New York).
Kolb, D.A. (1983) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. (Financial
Times / Prentice Hall).
Lal, V. (2003) Cultural difference and its influence on learning. Available online at: http://community.
flexiblelearning.net.au/TeachingTrainingLearners/content/ article_4502.htm (accessed 04 May, 2011).
Lassiter, J.E. (2000) African culture and personality: Bad social science, effective social activism, or a call
to reinvent ethnology? African Studies Quarterly, 3(3), 1-21.
Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and
motivation, Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Marton, F. & Slj , R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning - I: outcome and process, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Myers, I.B. & Briggs, P.B. (1995) Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Davies-Black
Publishing).
Niles, F.S. (1995) Cultural differences in learning motivation and learning strategies: A comparison of
overseas and Australian students at an Australian university, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
19(3), 369385.
Powar, K.B. (2006) Developing-world perspective on cross border higher education. Available online at:
http://pcf4.dec.uwi.edu/viewpaper.php?id=400 (accessed 21 June, 2011).
Rayner, S. & Riding, R. (1997) Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and learning styles,
Educational Psychology, 17, 5-27.
Reichman, S.W. & Grasha, A.F. (1974) A rational approach to developing and assessing the construct
validity of a student learning scale instrument, Journal of Psychology, 87, 213-223.
Riding, R. & Cheema, N. (1991) Cognitive styles - an overview and integration, Educational Psychology,
11, 193-215.
12

Samuelowicz, K. (1987) Learning problems of overseas students: two sides of a story, Higher Education
Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133.
Singh, B.R. (1988) Cognitive styles, cultural pluralism and effective teaching and learning, International
Review of Education, 34, 355-370.
Swanson, L.J. (1995) Learning styles: A review of the literature, Educational Research Information Centre
document no. ED 387 067.
Tan, P.L. (2010) Towards a culturally sensitive and deeper understanding of rote learning and
memorisation of adult learners, Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(2), 124-145.
Task Force on Higher Education and Society. (2000) Higher education in developing countries: Peril and
promise. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/Peril
and Promise.pdf (accessed 21 June, 2011).
Tessema, K.A. (2006) Contradictions, challenges, and chaos in Ethiopian teacher education, Journal for
Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(1).
Tweed, R.G. & Lehman, D.R. (2002) Learning considered within a cultural context, American
Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.
UNESCO, (2009) 2009 world conference on higher education: The new dynamics of higher education and
research for societal change and development - communiqu. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0018/001832/183277e.pdf (accessed 22 June, 2011).
USAID, (2005) Changing lives: Success stories from the Africa education initiative. Available online at:
http://literacyhub.org/documents/PNADG236.pdf (accessed 31 May, 2011).
VSO, (2007) VSO Ethiopia education programme area summary. Available online at: http://www.vso.org.
uk/Images/ethiopia-education-summary-mar07_tcm79-20538.pdf (accessed 31 May, 2011).
Yamazaki, Y. (2005) Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: A theoretical and empirical
comparison, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 521-548.

13

14

How could a dialogic approach to

teaching transform students learning?
A discussion with reference to Medical
Education
Alison Stenton

School of Medicine, King's College London

Submitted December 2010
Abstract
This essay explores some of the tensions between dialogic educational theory and more conventional
notions of teaching and learning in medical education. I review Michael Bakhtins dialogic theory and take
in some of the more recent analysis of classroom talk, imagination and the making of meaning in relation to
the viewpoints of others. I consider how these theoretical stances are relevant to the aims and objectives of
the General Medical Councils view of developing medical professionalism. I conclude that the spark of
creativity is the possibility of dialogism; and while superficially this can be in tension with correctness, at
a deeper level it is fundamentally essential to the development of professional identity in medicine. I show
that while dialogic encounters with curricular materials are at first sight problematic for many students
(because of their open-endedness and possible plurality), nevertheless students quickly learn to encompass
learning in a dialogic context and eventually recognize this as a vital function for their professional
development as well as their development as learners.

Introduction
Much educational research has focused on the need to encourage students in higher education to foster
deep learning strategies (Entwistle, 1998), to work towards a transformative model of learning (Mezirow,
2000) or to develop an imaginative acquisition of knowledge (Ramsden, 2003; p.20). For lecturers
working within the field of Medical Education, notions of deep and transformative models of learning are
not new, even if they might be difficult to implement within a fact-loaded curriculum (Spencer & Jordan,
1999; Swanwick, 2010). The notion of an imaginative approach to generating knowledge, however, may
raise a few eyebrows among medical educationalists: imaginative is not an adjective used by the General
Medical Councils guide to training future doctors (Tomorrows Doctors, 2009); at first glance, its meaning
as having or showing creativity or inventiveness (OED) might be read as a challenge to maintaining
professional, clinical standards of competence as students are trained for the workplace. In pedagogic
terms, however, AN Whiteheads often quoted paper Universities and their Function (1929), offers an
interpretation to suit all disciplines: Imagination [] works by eliciting the general principles which apply
to the facts, as they exist, and then by an intellectual survey of alternative possibilities which are consistent
with those principles (p.2). With this interpretation, imagination is seen as a way of exciting a spirit of
intellectual inquiry (Ramsden, 2003; p.97): encouraging the independent pursuit of, and discussion of,
relevant content in order to construct evidence-based knowledge in any discipline.
If an imaginative approach to generating knowledge is available to all disciplines, how might it be brought
to medical education? One possibility the subject of this paper is to introduce interdisciplinarity to the
field in the form of dialogism. Here, dialogism is a theoretical approach providing a lens through which our
understanding of learning might shift, and also as teaching style, with a practical application for teachers
and students at work in the classroom. Dialogism, and, by extension, dialogic learning, has received critical
attention from educationalists in recent years, most notably Gordon Wells (1999), Tim Koschmann (1999),
Robin Alexander (2006) and Rupert Wegerif (2007; 2008). Interpretations of what constitutes dialogic
15

learning vary, as will be discussed in more detail below, but at the root of the differing interpretations is the
originator of the theory of dialogism, the early twentieth-century Russian literary critic, Mikhail Bakhtin.
That Bakhtins literary theory might reach out to Medical Education across different disciplines highlights
what the humanities can bring to medicine. Scholars from both disciplines recognise the impact or value of
the humanities as an integral part of knowledge within the discipline of medicine (Evans & Finlay, 2001
p.2), not merely a boon companion and supportive friend (Brody, 2009), offering soft subjects to stressed
medics. If considered in terms of genuine interdisciplinarity, as is the purpose of Bakhtinian dialogism,
the imaginative, disciplined, critical skills of analysis that Edgar and Pattison (2006) argue define the
humanities, can play a significant role in developing the elasticity of medical students learning.

What is dialogism?
The concept of dialogism that informs a dialogic approach to teaching in Higher Education is based on
the work of Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, in particular his seminal study of the European novel,
The Dialogic Imagination (1981, trans.) and his later work on culture and language, Speech Genres (1986,
trans.). Bakhtins position on the nature of language is that it is inherently in dialogue with something else:
with other words and utterances as they have been used before (and will be used again) or with an eternally
expected other on the receiving end of the utterance:
The word in language is half someone else's. It becomes "one's own" only when the speaker populates
it with his own intention, his own accent, when he appropriates the word [] Prior to this moment of
appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language [. . ] but rather it exists in
other people's mouths, in other people's contexts, serving other people's intentions: it is from there
that one must take the word, and make it one's own (Bakhtin, 1981; p.294).
Expressed in terms of polyphony and heteroglossia, Bakhtins literary criticism emphasises the
multivoiced and interconnectedness of language, an approach that departs significantly from the
formalism of much literary criticism prevalent in Russia in the early part of the twentieth century
(Eagleton, 1992; p.117). For Bakhtin, meaning in language, and so in text and discourse, is generated
through imaginative interplay, iteration and questioning; it lies not in a fixed linguistic structure, but,
rather, in the spaces that open up within or outside of the structure, in a continuous re-generating process
provoked by its essential dialogic nature. The dialogic imperative is thus: if an answer does not give rise
to a new question from itself, it falls out of the dialogue (Bakhtin, 1986; p.168). In this understanding,
language is destabilised so that the essential meaning of any utterance or text is rejected in favour of
a multiple, discursive view, which is not divorced from its socio-cultural context: words, phrases,
utterances place themselves side by side in such a manner that their past contexts come together and
interact in a momentary spark of meaning (Vice, 1997; p.47).
To bring Bakhtins literary theory to education in the university is to reconsider the ways in which
students work with language and texts, and the ways in which students, texts and teachers interact
enter into dialogue in order to generate meaning and understanding. For educationalists engaging with
dialogism, the meaning of dialogic varies from being an alternative word for learning via teacher-student
and student-student active, collaborative discussion (Bruner 1996; Brookfield & Preskill, 1999; Lipman,
2003; Alexander 2006a & b), to appropriating social discourses and establishing communities of inquiry
in the classroom (Wells, 1999; Lipman 2003; Koschmann, 1999; Alfassi, 2009; Ligorio, 2010), and to
a more abstract idea of the possibilities of an imaginative (and radical) dialogic space (Wegerif, 2007;
2008; Hermans, 2001; Sullivan, 2010; Ligorio, 2010). Whilst these readings of dialogism range across
the spectrum of educational theory from literal to abstract-conceptual interpretations, what they have in
common is the idea that learning might be most meaningful when the material under consideration (facts,
information, ideas) is not simply transmitted from teacher to student (Alexander, 2006a; p.12), but is
placed into a discursive space which allows for knowledge-generating discussion resulting, potentially, in
higher levels of understanding. The conditional tense is used deliberately, here, for the extent to which
16

dialogism can generate better or fuller understanding among learners is open to discussion in a Bakhtinian
sense, can best or full understanding ever be achieved if the dialogic imperative is an ever-regenerating,
never-fixed-nor-final, dynamic of meanings which change over time?
The task of unpicking the different interpretations of dialogism is, for this author, a meta-inquiry, or
dialogism in action. In the discursive arena that is pedagogic readings of dialogism, it is possible to range
across the texts engaging with this topic in search not of the answer to the question what is dialogism?,
but in search of a changing understanding of the ways in which the topic might be addressed, without
any expectation of final or synthesised response. Current theories of education support this view:
teaching is comprehended as a process of working cooperatively with learners to help them change their
understanding (Ramsden, 2003; p.110) [my emphasis]. Encouraging, and creating an environment for,
changes in understanding depends upon the student-teacher dynamic and the teachers expectations of
the students learning outcomes. With a dialogic approach, the traditional roles of teacher as expert and
student as learner are reconsidered in favour of what some critics have described as a more imaginative,
radical or democratic relationship (Fielding, 2001; Tennant, 2006), and what others might interpret
as merely a more reciprocal or collaborative association (Alexander, 2006a & b). In an authentically
Bakhtinian dialogic environment, the teacher would sit somewhere between what Tennant classifies as
Marxist and postmodern pedagogic positions: the teacher plays an active role in challenging the learners
presuppositions-and confusion, uncertainty and ambiguity may result [Marxist]; the teacheracts as a
commentator or decoder who challenges and opens up alternative readings of experience [] the aim of the
dialogue is not to find the truth but to explore new possibilities [postmodern] (Tennant, 2006; p.131). If
the Marxist position appears to evade understanding, it is because the dialogic environment can generate
disequilibrium in a positive dynamic [it] is enforced to compel forward movement [] in dialogue, each
argument evokes a counterargument that pushes itself beyond the other and pushes the other beyond itself'
(Lipman, 2003; p.87). This approach is in contrast to the dialogue-as-collaborative-discussion theorists,
who see the teachers role as 'using authentic questioning, discussion and exposition to guide and prompt,
minimize risk and error, and expedite the uptake or handover of concepts and principles (Alexander,
2006b; p.17). To enable this kind of dialogic environment, Alexander argues that learning talk must
consist of five principles if it is to be described as dialogic: collective, reciprocal, supportive (no wrong
answers), cumulative and purposeful (Alexander, 2006b; p.19). Here, arguably, the requirement of a
purposeful teaching environment is, from a Bakhtinian perspective, flawed (Wolfe & Alexander, 2008;
p.9): if the teacher is working towards particular goals, meanings or learning outcomes, then she takes the
authoritative position of someone who holds the answer. Is this, then, a paradox inherent in dialogism?
And, if so, is there any value in bringing dialogism into the classroom?

How might dialogism transform students learning?

In the discursive field of dialogism in education, the changing perspectives and apparent paradoxes of
different approaches and understandings signify a key aspect of Bakhtins dialogic theory: that there is
neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic context (it extends into the boundless
past and the boundless future) (Bakhtin, 1986; p.170). This irony of dialogism might be viewed as cold
comfort to lecturers seeking to bring imaginative, open-ended understanding and knowledge-generation
to the classroom, for how can it work in practice? One road through the complexities of the topic is to
return to the abstract-conceptual understanding of dialogism as put forward by Robert Wegerif: meaning
arises out of and depends upon an original creative difference or opening that can be thought of as
the opening of dialogue (Wegerif, 2007; p.26). Wegerifs idea of the opening or space that arises out of
complexity or even paradox in any topic where two or more perspectives are held together in tension
(Wegerif, 2007; p.4) is useful not merely for navigating the topic of dialogism itself and reconciling the
value of learning talk with more abstract, Bakhtinian notions of dialogue, but also for coming up with
ways to make dialogism work, in practice, in a curriculum. Key to Wegerifs reading of dialogism is the
idea of the imaginative space where dialogue as an end in itself (Wegerif, 2007; p.28) can be recognised.
This space may appear, at first glance, to evade the practicalities of guiding students through a curriculum
17

loaded with learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2007), however the space or opening itself may need to be
nothing more than a time, a place, or an opportunity to give students the chance to explore, dynamically,
through discussion, the complexities, problems or paradoxes of some, if not all, of their curriculum. Within
the dialogic space, learning is transformed because it is understood to be a process not of knowledge
construction, but of knowledge exploration where what is known at any one time is not static or final
but is dependent upon continued dialogue. For lecturers engaged in research, the notion of an open
and changing discursive field like the field of dialogic learning in education is a given; for students,
however, the notion of no fixed answer may be harder to handle. The opportunity for students to embrace
uncertainty and shifting understandings is potentially enabled, therefore, by creating a literal and figurative
space in which dialogism can be activated.
Key to enabling this imaginative, dialogic space is the role the teacher plays within it: whilst a teacher
might create the space and set the topic for discussion, their role from that point forward is to place
themselves within the dialogue as just another voice a voice which at times might seek to gain control
or authority or guide students towards understanding but one which, theoretically, cant control, in any
Bakhtinian sense, what others say or do within the dialogue in the classroom (or, indeed, in the coursework
which might be produced as a part of the dialogue). By placing herself in this role, the teacher generates
the tension or imaginative space for dialogue to occur, but crucially does not proscribe or control it by
setting targets or summative assessments requiring measurable learning outcomes. Wegerif describes this
positioning as one where learner and teacher learn to see the task through each others eyes (Wegerif,
2007; p.4) a potentially carnivalesque position (Sullivan, 2010) which can be creative so long as the
student most probably surprised by the notion of multi-voiced discussion including the teacher is an
equal and engaged agent in the generation of dialogue.

Implications for medical education: a dialogic approach and the zone of complexity
Wegerifs notion of the creative dialogic space may appear, to some disciplines, as an idealised, potentially
anarchic, view of education which holds little value for students who are motivated to pass assessments
or achieve registration as part of a professional programme. Indeed, Bakhtins reading of speech genres
recognizes that some forms of discourse may be designed to suppress the destabilizing aspects of language
use by seeking to uphold a particular sanctioned viewpoint (Koschmann, 1999; p.3). In Medical
Education, for example, how could creating dialogic space benefit students who are required to learn in
line with the GMCs guidelines, or, indeed, to practice skills safely and within the limits of the law? One
possibility is to introduce into the curriculum opportunities for dialogic learning which run alongside core
assessment for professional purposes, and which provide a glimpse into alternative ways of seeing. In fact,
Medical Educationalists have called for ways of responding to the challenge of complexity in healthcare
(Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001; p.628) with learning opportunities tailored towards uncertain outcomes.
Stating that theclockwork universe metaphor for solving clinical and organizational problems is
anachronistic because to cope with escalating complexity in health care we must abandon linear models,
accept unpredictability, respect and utilizecreativity (Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001; p.628), medical
educationalists are recommending that students are provided with opprtunties to engage with an uncertain
and unfamiliar context in a meaningful way (Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001; p.800).
Responding to this appeal for medical students to experience the zone of complexity, which is likely
to be familiar to students of the humanities or social sciences, students enrolled on Extended Medical
Degree Programme at Kings College London are required, in their first year, to take part in the Writing
& Discourse (W&D) programme designed and run by the author of this paper. In W&D, students are
asked to look into a zone of complexity allied to medicine in order to generate knowledge about one of
four medically-themed public health topics (eg obesity), tackling the open question of how is [obesity]
a subject of public and medical scrutiny? Students are required to undertake their own research into
these areas, working independently and in self-run journal clubs, bringing their findings and ideas into
the classroom to be discussed together as a group. They are given clear information at the outset that it
18

is the teachers role to take part and arrange the space and prompts for the sessions, but not to drive the
discussion. Throughout the course, students complete short formative assignments, building cumulatively
towards an essay; these are returned to the students with feedback (written and one-to-one verbal
feedback, if requested). Throughout, teaching sessions are planned in terms of sub-topics (eg what does
the public know? What public policy is relevant?) and each begins with a short teacher-lead presentation
focused on raising questions, but the discussion that follows is unpredictable and dependent, entirely, on
what ideas and texts are brought into the room (in one instance where students arrived unprepared the
class was adjourned). Throughout, dialogue is maintained through feedback and discussion in and outside
of the classroom; if a student asks a question of me eg where can we find reliable statistics about obesity
levels?, my response might be: where might you start looking? or can anyone answer that question?.
With the dialogically thorny issue of purpose, the expectation is that students will navigate the zone of
complexity in which their topic sits to produce an evidence-based essay that demonstrates understanding
of, and reflections on, the field, but the form that the essay takes, and the evidence used to support the
students discussion, is self-determined. In this respect, the dialogic space of the classroom is extended
to include written contributions to the dialogue in much the same way as academic papers, like this
one, contribute to a dialogic space within a discursive field of research with the expectation that the
contribution is just one (evidence-based, thoughtful) voice among many.
Seeking meaning in a complex discursive field (one where different voices compete to be heard) and
finding creative, but organised and cogent, ways to discuss them is, in essence, the dialogic task of
W&D. Students do not find it easy: at the mid-point of W&D, enquiries into what is expected tend to
peak, flagging up the anxiety at the heart of all complexity and perhaps conforming to Tennants view
that confusion, uncertainty and ambiguity are an inevitable stage of the dialogic approach, providing
momentum for seeking clarity (2006; p.130). However, when students evaluate the programme at the end
of the year, a recurring motif of their comments are the learning opportunities of the multivoiced dialogic
environment: [I] enjoyed the group setting and how the teaching wasn't just from the teacher but amongst
students as well; discussions were helpful in thinking about a topic from different angles that I would
previously not have thought of; making sense of the topics was difficult but it was really satisfying when
things came together in the essay at the end (W&D Evaluation, 2009/10). Here, students are noting
the dialogic imperative, where self and other mutually construct and reconstruct each other (Wegerif,
2008; p.353) and where discussion confirms students as cocreators of knowledge (Brookfield & Preskill,
1999; p.25). Overall, students find the course useful for getting started with academic research, citing the
combination of discussion and feedback as being most effective: the discussion style of W&D was an
eye opener [] it challenged me, and also allowed me to see the stage which I'm at (W&D Evaluation,
2010/11).
For Medical Education, I would argue that the value of courses such as W&D is weighed against how the
rest of the curriculum is delivered: if the teaching style and content of W&D is transformative, its possible
that this is because it exists in tension with the core curriculum (arguably run on a knowledge-transmission
model) the two styles together create the Wegerif-ian spark that is the creative possibility of dialogism.
Of course, not all university courses will have room in their curricula for programmes like W&D, and
indeed many courses are already run on a dialogic model. What we might learn from W&D is the value
of an interdisciplinary, formative other curriculum which students are required to tackle. The success
of W&D lies in the space it offers: the end products (classroom discussions, pieces of written work) are
generated out of a desire to complete the task, make sense of the discursive field and receive feedback,
rather than to gain marks. Educational theory argues that assessment drives the style of learning (Entwistle,
2008; Light et al., 2009). In this respect, then, dialogism enables students to experience learning as a
process of changing understanding where success is driven by engagement, creativity and a willingness to
add their voice to the discussion.

19

References
Alexander, R. (2006a) Education as Dialogue: moral and pedagogical choices for a runaway world (Institute of
Education with Dialogos, Hong Kong).
Alexander, R. (2006b) Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (3rd edn) (Dialogos, York).
Alfassi, M. (2009) The Efficacy of a Dialogic Learning Environment in Fostering Literacy, Reading
Psychology, 30(6), 539-563.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays (University of Texas Press, Austin).
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. V. W. McGee. (University of Texas
Press, Austin).
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd edn) (Open University Press,
Buckingham).
Brody, H. (2009) Defining the medical humanities: three conceptions and three narratives, Journal of
Medical Humanities, 30(4).
Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (1999) Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for University
Teachers (Open University Press, Buckingham).
Bruner, J.S. (1996) The Culture of Education (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA).
Eagleton, T. (1992) Literary Theory: An Introduction (Blackwell, Oxford).
Edgar, A. & Pattison, S. (2006) Need humanities be so useless? Justifying the place and role of humanities
as a critical resource for performance and practice, Medical Humanities 32, 92-98.
Entwistle, N. (1998) Styles of Learning and Teaching; an integrated outline of educational psychology for
students, teachers and lecturers (David Fulton Publishers, London).
Entwistle, N. (2008) Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of
Thinking (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke).
Evans, M. & Finlay, I. (2001) Medical Humanities (BMJ Books, London).
Fraser, A. & Greenhalgh, T. (2001) Coping with complexity: educating for capability, British Medical
Journal, 323, 799-803.
Fielding, M. (2001) Students as Radical Agents of Change, Journal of Educational Change 2, 123-141.
General Medical Council (2009) Tomorrows Doctors. Available online at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/
education/undergraduate/tomorrows_doctors_2009.asp [accessed 22 March, 2012].
Hermans, H.J.M. (2001) The Dialogical Self: Toward a Theory of Personal and Cultural Positioning,
Culture Psychology, 7(3), 243-281.

20

Koschmann, T. (1999) Toward a Dialogic Theory of Learning: Bakhtins Contribution to Understanding

Learning in Settings of Collaboration, in Hoadley, C.M. and Roschelle, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ).
Light, G., Cox, R. & Calkins, S. (2009) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective
Professional (2nd edn) (Sage, London).
Ligorio, M.B. (2010) Dialogical Relationship between Identity and Learning, Culture Psychology 16(1),
93-107.
Lipman, M. (2003) Thinking in Education (2nd edn) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (Higher
Education), (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Plsek, P. & Greenhalgh, T. (2001) The challenge of complexity in health care, British Medical Journal,
323, 625-8.
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd edn) (Routledge, London).
Spencer, J.A. & Jordan, R.K. (1999) Learner centred approaches in medical education, British Medical
Journal, 318, 1280-3.
Sullivan, P. (2010) Vygotskian Dialectics and Bakhtinian Dialogics: Consciousness between the
Authoritative and the Carnivalesque, Theory & Psychology 20(3), 362-378.
Swanwick, T. (2010) Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice (Wiley-Blackwell,
London).
Tennant, M. (2006) Psychology and Adult Learning (3rd edn) (Routledge, Abingdon).
Vice, S. (1997) Introducing Bakhtin (Manchester University Press, Manchester).
Wegerif, R. (2007) Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning (Springer, New
York).
Wegerif, R. (2008) Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on
educational dialogue, British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347-361.
Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge).
Whitehead, A.N. (1929) Universities and their Function, Address to the American Association of the Collegiate
Schools of Business. Available online at: https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/330T/350kPEEwhite
headunivfxtable.pdf [accessed 22 March, 2012].
Wolfe, S. & Alexander, R. J. (2008) Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogies for a
changing world. Available online at: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/argumentation-anddialogic-teaching-alternative-pedagogies-for-a-changing-world/ [accessed 20 July 2010].
21

22

Mindfulness and open-text authorship in

higher education: a meditation on how
to make peace between the teacher and
the researcher
Chiara de Franco

School of Social Science & Public Policy, King's College London

Submitted September 2011
Abstract
The objective of this paper is twofold: on the one hand it aims at reviewing the existing literature and
analyse scholarly debates discussing the link between teaching and research as well as leading to different
academic structures and practices. On the other hand, it intends to explore how a third new image of the
researcher-teacher in higher education can be developed which originates from deconstruction and
reconstruction of the rigid teacher and researcher identities, as well as of students identity and role.
Building on two very different traditions semiotic theory of meaning production and mindfulness , this
paper speculates on the construction of a new image of the teacher-researcher which may be the result of a
fluid encounter of traditional roles and identities and which may see lectureship as a form of authorship of
open texts.

Introduction
As a scholar in International Relations, in 2008 I moved from the Department of Social and Political
Science at the European University Institute (Florence) to the Department of War Studies at Kings
College London to both study and teach the interplay between the reality of war and its media
representations. Decision to share my research findings with my students seemed natural and was mainly
taken instinctively and unconsciously and not meditated. This simple fact posed a series of problems that I
tried to investigate and that I managed to solve, at least partly, by turning not to the conventional literature
in higher education, but to my studies in the field of the Philosophy of Language.
In the previous ten years, I had conducted research on the role that the image of war has on warfare and
drawn on Umberto Ecos concepts of open text and semiotic guerrilla. Ecos semiotics contradicts most of
the assumptions at the basis of Foucaultian discourse analysis and mainstream media studies, which very
often lead discussion about the role of the media in contemporary society. Having taken distance from the
classical theory of communication (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), Eco argues that there is no fixed message
that travels between sender and receiver in an environment which can cause noise and distortions. What
the author (or sender) produces is always an open text (Eco, 1962) that the audience (or receiver) rewrites
when reading, watching or listening and even sends back as a new text, when possible. Every text can be
read in an infinite number of ways depending on what the reader brings to the text and therefore there is no
net distinction between the sender and the receiver, the author and the audience. In Apocalittici ed Integrati
(1964), Eco went as far as to write that, as any text can produce different meanings, the semiotic process
becomes a field of fighting between hegemonic and subordinate groups, or more in general between parties
in a conflict. A semiotic guerrilla is therefore possible, which is a tactic that any subordinate social group
could use to reverse the meanings of hegemonic media texts.
As I failed to see that of the student as an inescapably passive role to which s/he is confined because of
an objectively inferior knowledge of the subject matter, I tried to translate Ecos notion of open text and
authorship into my teaching. I approached any seminar or lecture as a situation of interaction where I
23

produce a text to which the students react by various operations of re-authorship after which my original
text will never remain the same, but will be a new one, a third one born from my first text and the
macro-text produced by my audience, that is, my students. However, such a translation showed to be all
but unproblematic. I soon started feeling uncomfortable with the distinction between research and teaching
that I came to experience in the various academic contexts which I encountered in the last years and even
more with the strong separation between the teacher and the student that the students themselves expect
to experience in class. The more I thought my research findings were innovative and ground breaking the
more I felt it difficult to teach them. Will my students understand, I wondered? Will I manage to make my
finding as credible as the ideas expressed by the existing literature? Will I be able to manage my doubts and
uncertainties about some of my findings without sounding confused and confusing?
A training in mindfulness-based psychology, which I started two years ago, helped me to identify in the
rigid role identities of teacher, researcher, and student an obstacle to the effective translation of the
notions of open text and authorship into teaching practices. Different images and identities shape one
another and determine the quality of teaching and of the interaction between teachers and students: the
image/identity of the teacher, that of the researcher and that of the student, all as perceived and understood
but also embodied by both lecturers and students.
Recent research indicates that academic experiences of the relation between teaching and research may
vary according to the nature of the institution (old/new university), the status of those interviewed
(administrators/faculty members), the level of teaching (undergraduate/postgraduate), the discipline
involved, and, above all, the meanings attached to the activities of research and teaching (Robertson,
2007: 543). Multiple and competing discourses produced by academics and policy-makers reveal how
unstable and contested the research/teaching nexus is.
In the following, scholarly debates discussing the link between teaching and research will be analysed as
well as leading academic structures and practices. Then, it will be explored how a third new image of the
researcher-teacher in higher education can be developed which originates from deconstruction and
reconstruction of the rigid teacher and researcher identities, as well as of students identity and role. Finally,
building on semiotic theory and mindfulness, this article will speculate on the possibility of constructing of
a new image of the teacher-researcher which may be the result of a fluid encounter of traditional roles and
identities and which may see lectureship as a form of authorship of open texts.

The existing literature and policies

The image of the researcher-teacher is being fought over as if a conflict were ongoing between two different
roles. Some scholars have decided that the war had to be won by one of the two images while others
have developed a middle ground position where peace is made. At the same time, policies have been
discussed and implemented that do reflect and determine at the same time how the relationship between
teaching and research is perceived and constructed in university systems, colleges, and departments. In the
following, we will explore scholarly works and policies to point out that they all end up reinforcing a rigid
distinction between those two images and misses that what is really at stake is the potential for the arising
of a third image produced in the midst of what should be seen as an interaction and not as a war.

Scholarly traditions
The excellent literature review by Simons and Elen (2007) is the starting point of this synthetic analysis
of the two scholarly traditions that have explored the relation between research and teaching. Simons and
Elen, in fact, have distinguished between the model set by von Humboldt in Germany, which stresses
that education is possible only through research, and the group of scholars that have investigated the
nexus between research and teaching and concluded that the latter can be improved by the former. In
the humboldtian model, the university has an important role in society as it is conceived as an institution
24

for Wissenschaft, which can be understood as science or academic enquiry (Simons and Elen, 2007).
University institutions are entitled to advance knowledge and contribute to the progress of humanity
and a more general project of enlightenment (von Humboldt 1810 cited in Simons and Elen, 2007). As
a consequence, education must happen through research, or better through the unity of education and
research. The relation between research and education is here oriented towards a notion of scholarship
which is mainly ethical: It is a form of life or ethos oriented towards truth, understood in terms of
a grasping of reality in its totality or in the unity of the world. The assumption being made is that
Wissenschaftlichkeit or systematic enquiry driven by the spirit of truth is at the same time a process
of edification of the individual and of society as a whole (Simons and Elen, 2007: 624). Such an approach
has been therefore called idealistic (Simons and Elen, 2007) and described as an attempt to conceive
research, teaching and learning as a unity. Von Humboldt had claimed that a rigorous distinction between
teaching (by a lecturer) and learning (by a student) does not make sense in higher education because:
researchers at the university, while being involved in an ongoing search for truth, do not have a fixed
body of knowledge at their disposal. [...] And, therefore, the student at the university is not a pupil but
someone who participates in academic enquiry. This participation, due to the orientation of academic
research, is a process of general education (Simons and Elen, 2007: 624).
However, von Humboldt had also argued that at the university the researcher is not there for the sake of
the student, but for the sake of scholarship (von Humboldt 1810 cited in Simon and Elen, 2007). Also the
student, according to him, attends lectures not for the sake of his/her individual learning, but again for
the sake of scholarship (Ibid.). As very well argued by Simons and Elen, (2007) the point of departure
is not a concern for teaching, but an interest in a particular kind of research and its edifying potential for
both the researcher and the student as researcher (Simons and Elen, 2007: 623). Teaching becomes
therefore a function of research, nothing more than that. After von Humboldts project for the University
of Berlin, this approach has been further developed by more recent formulations which have, in particular,
criticised the ongoing disciplinary specialisation of research and vocational orientation of university systems
in Europe and the US. Habermas and Blazek (1987), for example, have emphasised that truth must still
be the ultimate goal of education through research in university systems. Truth is here understood as an
orientation toward consensus through scientific argumentation. Following Habermas and Blazek, this will
favour not only scientific progress, but also the formation of future citizens of a truly democratic society
(Ibid.). More recently, Mittelstrass has again argued against specialised research disciplines which produce
experts but not intellectuals, and that prevent both the researcher and the students from being involved in a
process of general edification (Mittelstrass, 2002 cited in Simons and Elen, 2007: 625).
In these reformulations of von Humboldts ideal, a conception of research as a defender and supporter of
the progress of humankind can be found so that primary objective of the university is not teaching, but
academic enquiry, the advancement of knowledge and the promotion of humanist values. The emphasis
is clearly put on research and once again a strict distinction between research and teaching is reinforced.
As a corollary, the university must be autonomous, independent from didactical principles or managerial
considerations (Simons and Elen, 2007: 626), and from religious or economic imperatives (Ibid.).
Moreover, as in this in this model autonomous research is a point of departure, the content and organisation
of university systems should be based on academic principles only and remain totally autonomous from
educational/pedagogical expertise (Ibid.). Researchers have to teach in their role as researchers as
differentiated from a role as school teachers (Simons and Elen, 2007: 626). A critical attitude towards
the influence of school didactics and learning theory is therefore a component of this approach (Simons
and Elen, 2007) as it assumes that the researcher needs no additional competencies to be a good teacher
(Ibid.). On the one hand, unity is declared between research and higher education, but on the other hand a
separation is created between education and teaching.
Very different is the approach of those scholars who have treated both research and teaching as functions
25

of the university and have therefore worked on clarifying how the nexus between the two can be
improved. This approach, also known as functional (Simons and Elen, 2007), started as a reaction to some
studies conducted in the US, UK and Australia which concluded that the correlation between research
productivity and educational effectiveness was only slightly positive (Neumann, 1992, 1994; Hattie and
Marsh, 1996).
Against such findings, theoretical and empirical studies were conducted during the 1990s and found that
teaching and research are correlated when they are co-related (Brew and Boud, 1995: 268) and that
their relationships should be approached as dynamic and context-driven (Brew, 1999: 296). Political
and educational strategies were also proposed to support those contextual factors that can increase the
probability of a positive nexus through a research-based education (Jenkins, 2004; Brew, 2003 and 2006).
Following this view, lecturers conceptions of research and teaching are important factors enhancing the
research-teaching nexus. Broad conceptions of research as a process of knowledge construction would,
for example, enhance the nexus (see, eg, Westergaard, 1991; Boyer, 1992; Elton, 2001) as well as a
constructivist conception of education which shifts the focus from teaching to the facilitation of learning
(Brew and Boud, 1995; Brown and McCartney, 1998). Moreover, the researcher becomes an expert
learner who facilitates the learning of a novice learner (Brew, 1999, p. 297). As a result, it is assumed
that research can improve teaching because it is an example of learning. As pointed out by Simons and
Elen (2007), this attention to learning processes and outcomes is derived from contemporary learning
and instruction theory (eg the importance of a deep approach to learning, learning for understanding and
student-centred teaching methods), and define in a particular way the aim of higher education or higher
learning in terms of competencies (Simons and Elen, 2007: 620-621). Other relevant contextual factors
explaining the quality of the nexus between research and teaching are the academic discipline, the level of
academic education and the conceptions of the students (see, eg Gibbs, 2003 and Jenkins et al., 2003).
The point of departure here is clearly very different from that of the idealist approach: both teaching and
research are distinct activities and research is not seen as a goal but as an instrument one could even
say a teaching strategy. This approach, therefore, develops a concept of research-based teaching where
research, or simulation of research, can be used in class to support the learning process. As put by Simons
and Elen (2007) the first concern of this approach is to determine the function of higher education, ie
the aim (and nature) of the students learning process (Simons and Elen, 2007: 622). As a consequence,
the functional approach brings forward the design issue of how to make research-based or researchled teaching operational, and leads to questions such as: how can we differentiate between the research
disciplines and their function for the curriculum? How can the curriculum be organised in order to take
into account the learning styles of the students, and/or their level of learning expertise? How can we
create learning environments that take into account the prior learning of students? (Ibid.) It also leads to
a professionalisation of the lecturer/researcher through acquisition of expertise in research-based teaching
and implies that the lecturers can be both researcher and teacher, but that these are distinct roles which
require specific skills.
In conclusion, while both traditions seem to look for a unification of research and teaching they end
up reinforcing the separation between the two. On the one hand, the humboldtian idea of education as
edification through research poses the ultimate goal of the university in the advancement of knowledge,
and therefore of research. A higher value is given to research as compared to teaching, which is instead
relegated to primary and secondary education. On the other hand, the discourses about the nexus
between research and teaching investigate very little about the contribution of teaching to research and
mainly focus on how research can enhance teaching and teaching methods.

Policies
Of course, the way the debate is shaped by the literature discussed above does reflect and at the same time
determines the way university institutions understand the research-teaching nexus. Educational policy
26

on the one hand, and organisational culture of colleges and departments, on the other, do support the
construction of the image of the researcher-teacher in higher education on the basis of a fracture between
two roles: the one constructed around a rigid idea of teacher and teaching activities, the other around a
stereotypical image of what being an academic and do research is. According to Simons and Elen (2007),
it is the functional approach which is prevailing today in terms of policies and managerial choices. In fact,
massification of higher education, the development of the vocational dimension of higher education, and
the ongoing specialisation of research (Simons and Elen, 2007: 617) have shaped higher education in a
way that favours the functional approach against the idealist one. To illustrate this point they mention
a report produced in 2002 by the STRATA-ETAN expert group on Foresight for the Development of
Higher Education/Research Relations for the European Commission. The report is told to use the jargon
of the idealist approach as a cover for a functional programme. It, in fact, concludes that competencybased higher education focused on employability of the students must be an education through research
[...] because research competencies are useful for professionals in a knowledge-society, and because higher
education is only able to deliver these competencies if its education is related to research (Ibid: 618).
In reality, it seems that instead ambiguities characterise political and educational strategies and that
not surprisingly the nexus between research and teaching remains a problematic terrain. If we limit our
observation to the UK system, for example, we can note that while programmes like the Postgraduate
Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) seem to realise the functional ideal of teaching as focused
on the learning process, exercises like the Research Excellence Framework (REF) goes in a completely
different direction. On the one hand, a certificate in academic practice wants to push the lecturer to
be reflexive in his/her teaching and to make the same enthusiasm and effort in his/her development as
a teacher as in his/her development as a researcher. On the other hand, as leading exercise to measure
academic performances in the UK, the REF causes evaluation of academic excellence at the individual,
departmental and collegial levels to be based on indicators of excellence in research only and to ignore
the role of teaching and quality of teaching.
The consequence of such ambiguities is that teaching and research remain two distinct activities also in a
system, like the one of the UK, were such distinction is not formalised and institutionalised as in the US.
In the following, Ill explain that the moment we look at the research-teaching nexus in terms of identity
construction, we can develop a completely different approach to the topic and can suggest alternative
options to solve the researcher-teacher dilemma.

A personal approach
Differently from the strategies chosen by the literature discussed above, this section of the paper will
treat the teacher-researcher problem as a double-identity issue. It intends to first deconstruct the existing
conflict between research and teaching as the result of identity constructions and then argue that a fluid
identity can be embodied by the lecturer and not only make peace between research and teaching but
also produce a new and distinct interaction between learning and teaching and between the learner and
the teacher. This section, however, has to be considered as a sort of meditation on the topic at stake.
Not supported by empirical evidence, the argument advanced here wants to be a first step towards the
construction of a new image of the researcher-teacher which of course would need to be substantiated by
testing the hypotheses presented here.
Use of the concept of identity is certainly not new to higher education research (see, eg Henkel, 2000;
Malcolm and Zukas, 2000; Renn et al., 2003) and has been employed to explain both sociological
processes, such as an individuals identification with a given professional group and need of social
recognition, and psychological dynamics, like the construction of an image of the self which makes sense of
actions and choices. Attention to social processes has led most scholars to treat teacher identity formation
as a process of socialisation (eg Lortie, 1975) so that teachers ways of thinking about their teaching
and their teaching practice are seen to be influenced by a process of learning through relations within a
community (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and a process of identification in a given role and/or group.
27

In this literature, however, the very nature of identities is never really questioned as an artefact which limits
choices and behaviours of human beings. This is because identity formation is considered as an inescapable
process: no human being living in a community can avoid being a mixture of different identities. Similarly,
no academic can escape from being labelled or label him/herself as a teacher or a researcher, or, in the
best scenario, as a combination of the two. The social dimension of the identity formation is considered
as inevitable and therefore never really questioned. This is, in turn, also due to the fact that identities are
considered as integral to the idea of the self. However, identity and identity formation can be approached
from a different perspective if we move from sociology to psychology and from mainstream western
psychology to mindfulness-based psychology. The latter, in fact, promotes the construction of a self with
no attachment to I am or identities of any sort and it is grounded in the idea of a mindful engagement
with others, both in human relationships and in the contact with natural surroundings. The central tenet
of this approach is the no-self, which does not dispute the relative reality of the conventionally appearing
self, but the fact that we give it an absolute status that it does not possess (Batchelor, 1997; Brazier, 2003).
According to mindfulness-based psychology, we generally think that the self is more real and fix than it is
and spend a lot of time to protect and defend it. The same happens with the multiple constituents of this
relational self, that is, the identities (Ibid.). This approach recognises that one of the selfs secret needs is
to be liberated from a belief in its absolute reality (Ibid.). Self-certainty is instead at the basis of western
psychology and of many sociological theories about social behaviour (see Goffman, 1959, for example).
Kreber (2010) has explained teacher identities as being shaped by a dynamic interaction between personal
theories of teaching and perceptions of self, both influenced by social and occupational context. In
particular, she has focused on the fact that priority given to either research or teaching is a relevant aspect
of the occupational context. Over recent decades, she argues, balance between teaching and research
has been perceived, internationally, as having tipped towards the latter, which is usually attributed to
the greater individual as well as institutional recognition and rewards that are associated with research
compared to teaching (Kreber, 2010: 173). At the same time, she underlines that the relationship between
teaching and research has become more complex nowadays with more students entering higher education,
and academics obliged to assume also administrative roles. In this context, the orientation the institutions
adopt towards the research-teaching nexus can be decisive in understanding how the lecturer builds his/her
idientity(ies) around teaching and research. In fact, orientation towards either of the two is often decided
and reinforced at the departmental level. However, she concludes that it is plausible to focus on, explore
and describe academics teacher identities separately, particularly if the purpose is to better understand
teaching-learning interactions (Ibid.).
The argument being made here is instead that this is not possible, that the two identities are mutually
constituted and that we should better arrive to construct a third new image where the movement from
an identity to the other is fluid and aware. Such a new image is not the blend or synthesis of difference
between the two conventional images where in fact the values of either are diluted out, but instead
something new. The new image of the teacher-researcher may create a dialogue also with the multitude of
other identities that the researcher-teacher has, such as man/woman/transsexual, maybe father/mother,
maybe administrator, maybe artist, maybe party member, maybe student even, and so on. The double
identity teacher-researcher is based on a monolithic view of the academics that excludes the complexity of
individuals.
First we have to recognise that rigid identities perpetrate standard behaviours and reinforce existing
patterns, while a fluid subjectivity that recognises the multiplicity of different identities can also become
aware of the conditions conducing to one or the other identity to emerge. Awareness of the limitations
imposed by self-recognition in a given identity and of the cultural and social determination of that very
identity can allow individuals to look beyond it, make active choices instead of simply reacting to the
environment by repeating habitual patterns and finally become creative. A lecturer will neither forget about
being a teacher when s/he will conduct research nor about being a researcher while teaching because s/he
28

simply will no longer get confused by that double identity and will stop to see him/herself as just a teacherresearcher. For example, s/he will consider the pedagogic dimension of what s/he publishes in books and
journals, and invest teaching with the same questioning attitude s/he must develop to carry out research.
She will also see how his/her other identities as parent, or student, or foreigner, or upper class member
do influence both research and teaching. Moreover, s/he will see how rigid identities limit the strategic
options at his/her disposal. The traditional images will not simply mix up, but encounter one another and
produce a third and more integral image where neither teaching nor research are confined into an identitydriven course of actions and reactions. Subjectivity and authorship can replace the role of identities as
they support an encompassing and fluid self who is at the same time one, none, and a hundred thousand
(Pirandello, 1926). Subjectivity and authorship differ also from the concept of authenticity as developed
by Kreber (2007, 2010) in opposition to the concept of identity and constitute a third new image of the
researcher-teacher that rejects the very idea of a fixed self which is frozen by identity constructions of by
the idea of an authentic self that has to be found.
Following this approach, instead of a self which is determined by socially-constructed identities, we may
just have a producer of open texts who interacts with an audience and uses different strategies to persuade
his/her audience that the text produced is interesting, deserves attention and can be variously improved
through interaction. This way, the lecturer can offer himself/herself and his/her body of knowledge,
doubts, and uncertainties as an example of critical thinking (Mezirow, 1990) and opinion development
in action. In so doing, these otherwise abstract goals of learning may become alive: they may become an
experience for the student and a practice the student is called to follow. The lecturer will not engage with
students from the perspective of a teacher, or of a researcher, nor of a good synthesis of the two. S/he will
act as an author of an open text which will be given to the students to be experienced and re-written. In
such a way the student itself will be led to expose his/her own subjectivity and assume authorship of what
s/he discusses in class. Self-authorship is seen as an important developmental outcome of higher education
and also as a prerequisite for students to cope with uncertainty and complexity in the spheres of work,
local, national and global citizenship. Studies into continued learning throughout life (Kreber, 2009; Pittam
et al., 2009), for example, suggests that promoting authorship or what it is generally called authorial
identity can give students confidence in writing(Pittam et al., 2009: 153) and lead them to avoid
unintentional plagiarism (Ibid.).
At the same time, it is clear that this approach cant be successful if the lecturer operates in a professional
context that reinforces the identity distinction between teachers and researchers. This may due to
implementation of specific policies taken at the higher level of the government or at a lower and
departmental level. For example, academics are primarily socialised to become researchers through the
existing PhD programmes where teaching is often experienced as an imposition of the system and not as a
choice. From this point of view, the PGCAP generally arrives when its too late, when the identity has been
constructed around the researcher-role and in conflict with the teacher-role, and could even worsen the
situation as it is also often experienced as an obligation.
An additional difficulty is given by the fact that students take courses with many different teachers, not
necessarily belonging to the same department and each with his/her more or less rigid cluster of identities.
If situated in a context where identities are treated rigidly, also students will most probably interact with
the lecturer seeing primarily a teacher (or a researcher). Moreover, the student should operate a similar
process of deconstruction of his/her own cluster of rigid identities, otherwise it would be difficult for the
lecturer to escape from identity-driven action and reaction chains.

Conclusions
In this article, the existing literature about the relation between teaching and research in higher education
has been reviewed. Having analysed scholarly debates discussing the research-teaching nexus as well as
policies that reflect those debates and shape the nature of university institutions, I have argued that both
29

the idealist and the functionalist approach strengthen the separation between research and teaching. While,
in fact, the humboldtian idea of education as edification through research gives research an higher value as
compared to teaching, the functionalist discourses about the nexus end up focusing only on how research
can enhance teaching and teaching strategies.
We have then explored the possibility of constructing a third new image of the researcher-teacher in higher
education which originates from de-construction of the rigid teacher and researcher identities, as well as
of students identity and role. Drawing on two very different traditions semiotic theory on the one hand
and mindfulness-based psychology on the other, this paper has meditated on the possibility of demolishing
traditional roles and rigid identities with a fluid conception of lectureship as a form of authorship of open
texts.
Finally, this paper has recognised that embodiment of such a new image is difficult as it presupposes a
professional and social context which is able to support both lecturers and students so that they can develop
a fluid identity and the practice of open-text authorship. This would be possible in university systems with
no career separation between teachers and researchers, that recognise equal values to both activities and
that allow academic training to be focused on an holistic integration of research and teaching since the
beginning.

References
Batchelor, S. (1997) Buddhism without Belief (Bloomsbury, London).
Boyer, E. (1992) Scholarship reconsidered: priorities for the professoriate (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, Princeton).
Brazier, C. (2003) Buddhist Psychology (Robinson, London).
Brew, A. (1999) Research and teaching: changing relations in a changing context, Studies in Higher
Education, 24(3), 291-301.
Brew, A. (2003) Teaching and research: new relationships and their implications for inquiry based teaching
and learning in higher education, Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3-18.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide (Palgrave Macmillan, London).
Brew, A. & Boud, D. (1995) Teaching and research: stabilising the vital link with learning, Higher
Education, 29, 261-273.
Brown, R. B. & McCartney, S. (1998) The link between research and teaching: its purpose and
implications, Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(2), 117-129.
Eco, U. (1962) Opera Aperta (Bompiani, Milano).
Eco, U. (1964) Apocalittici e Integrati (Bompiani, Milano).
Elton, L. (2001) Research and teaching: conditions for a positive link, Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1),
43-56.
Gibbs, G. (2003) Institutional strategies for linking research and teaching, Exchange, 3, 8-11.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Book, New York).
30

Habermas, J. & Blaze, J.R. (1987) The Idea of the University: Learning Process, New German Critique, 41,
3-22.
Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. (1996) The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis, Review of
Educational Research, 66(4), 507-542.
Henkel, M. (2000) Academic identities: Policy change in higher education (Jessica Kingsley, London).
Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. & Brew, A. (2003) Reshaping teaching in higher education: linking
teaching and research (Kogan Page, London).
Jenkins, A. (2004) A guide to the research evidence on teaching research relations (Higher Education
Academy, York).
Kreber, C. (2007) Exploring the notion of 'university teaching excellence' in Canada. An interrogation of
common practices and policies, in: A. Skelton (Ed) International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher
education: Improving knowledge and practice (Routledge, London), 226-249.
Kreber, C. (2009) (Ed) The University and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond
disciplinary boundaries (Routledge, London).
Kreber, C. (2010) Academics' teacher identities, authenticity and pedagogy, Studies in Higher Education,
35(2), 171-194.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge).
Lortie, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: A sociological study (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Malcolm, J. & Zukas, M. (2000) Becoming an educator: Communities of practice in higher education, in:
I. McNay (ed.) Higher education and its communities (Open University Press, Buckingham).
Mezirow, J. (ed.) (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Neumann, R. (1992) Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: a framework for analysis, Higher
Education, 23(2): 159-171.
Neumann, R. (1994) The teachingresearch nexus: applying a framework to university students learning
experiences, European Journal of Education, 29(3), 323-338.
Pirandello, L. (1926) Uno, Nessuno e Centomila (Rizzoli, Milano).
Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P. & Payne, N. (2009) Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial
identity in academic writing, Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170.
Renn, K., Dilley, P. & Prentice, M.(2003) Identity research in higher education: Commonalities,
differences, and complementarities, in: J.C. Smart and W.G. Tierney (eds.) Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (Kluwer, Dordrecht), 191-263.
Robertson, J. (2007) Beyond the 'research/teaching nexus': exploring the complexity of academic
experience, Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 541-556.
31

Simons, M. & Elen, J. (2007) The 'research-teaching nexus' and 'education through research': an
exploration of ambivalences, Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 617-631.
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois
Press, Champaign).
Westergaard, J. (1991) Scholarship, research and teaching: a view from the social sciences, Studies in
Higher Education, 16(1), 23-28.

32

The role of high-fidelity clinical

simulation in teaching and learning in
the health professions
Claire Bradley

School of Medicine, King's College London

Submitted April 2011
Abstract
This essay reviews some of the literature about development of expert practice in medicine and related
health professions. It uses adult education theory, Vygotskys notion of learning in the zone of proximal
development and some of the more general higher education literature in order to produce a critical
analysis of the benefits of high fidelity simulation experiences. Conclusions point towards the validity
of constructivist educational theories and their specific relevance in a medical educational context. The
work constitutes critical advocacy for use of simulation training methods in Nursing and Allied Health
Professions with the argument resting on the ways that these professional identities are constituted in the
interplay of theoretical knowledge and practice application.

Introduction
Traditionally pre-registration medicine and healthcare education involves the acquisition and learning
of classroom-based facts and theories interspersed with discrete periods of clinical practice which
supposedly serve to consolidate students knowledge and prepare them for work once qualified. Due to
the legal requirements for supervision, patient safety and the increasing frequency of litigation against the
healthcare sector there is often limited opportunity for students to meaningfully explore and develop their
newly acquired knowledge in the clinical setting which often involves dealing with unexpected situations
and medical emergencies (Murray, 2006). It is my experience as both a teacher in higher education and
a clinical practice educator that the link between theory and practice is not always easily elicited by
students: classroom-based teaching often involves information transmitted to students as discrete topics
in lectures or seminars which often fail to highlight the interrelation of one topic to another. This makes
clinical reasoning and the management of real life patients difficult as the relationships between these
discrete facts is not always immediately obvious to the student in the clinical situation. In addition to
this difficulty in transferring and transforming knowledge, students studying for a degree in medicine or
healthcare-related professions are often rewarded in assessment for the memorisation and regurgitation of
theories and knowledge through essays, multiple choice questions (MCQs) or in a six minute objective
structured clinical exam (OSCE). These current assessment methods reward rote learning (Gibbs and
Simpson, 2005), placing little emphasis for students on safe and effective patient management, teamwork
and reflective practice, all of which are considered core attributes and skills of the modern healthcare
professional. This poses the question; do current UK undergraduate training and assessment methods meet
the needs of the health professional once qualified? This paper aims to explore the role of high-fidelity
clinical simulation as an approach to overcoming some of these challenges and problems, potentially
enhancing the teaching and learning strategies currently used in the education of medics, nurses and allied
health professionals (AHPs).

High-fidelity Clinical Simulation

It has previously been proven that technical faults are to blame for only 30 per cent of all clinical
complications; the remaining 70 per cent are due to mistakes made by health professionals (Paver-Erzen
33

and Cimerman, 2007). In response to this, increasing attention has been paid to the development of highfidelity clinical simulation and the role this may play in postgraduate education and learning
(Shapiro et al., 2004; Gordon and Buckle, 2009). Simulator-based training is well established in aviation
and other high risk industries where it is used for skills training and enhancing inter-staff communication
(Paver-Erzen and Cimerman, 2007). Healthcare is one of the few high-risk industries that has not yet
fully embraced the incorporation of simulation into the primary and continuing education of healthcare
professionals (Shapiro et al., 2004). Patient simulators were first used medically in anaesthesia crisis
resource management and due to their benefits are now being increasingly used in the education of
qualified physicians, nurses and other AHPs (Good, 2003).
High-fidelity clinical simulation involves treating a lifelike mannequin that produces realistic physiological
responses to interventions in a real-time real-life situation. The experience is viewed by peers and faculty
and the participants able to view a recording of their simulated scenario. Post simulation, participants all
engage in a debrief session, discussing reasoning and theories behind actions and reflecting on performance.
The simulation and debrief process permits a sequential increase in task complexity, unlimited repetition,
immediate feedback on action and enables learners to progress at their own pace (Good, 2003).
When combined with existing traditional training methods, simulation training for emergency department
staff and graduate nurses has been found to improve both technical and non-technical patient management
skills, enhancing learning and developing clinical proficiency (Gordon and Buckle, 2009). This leads us
to consider whether high-fidelity clinical simulation facilitates the transition between theory and practice,
facilitating deep learning and understanding at undergraduate level and assists in preparing students for the
reality of clinical practice?

Constructivist Learning Theories

To quote Henri Poincare, mathematician and physicist (1854-1912):
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so science is made of facts. But a pile of stones is not
a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Medicine and healthcare are sciences; however it is acknowledged that those students and clinicians who
can instantaneously recall the facts and theories do not necessarily make the best healthcare professionals.
Healthcare education has moved away from the traditional medical model, considering purely anatomy,
physiology and diagnosis of the problem to the bio-psychosocial approach, recognising not only the
underlying knowledge of the condition but also the impact emotional, behavioural and social factors have
on the context of the disease (Santrock, 2007).
It should be remembered at this stage that healthcare students are not just studying for a degree; they
are learning to do an important and responsible job (Ward, 2011). Various professional bodies emphasise
the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) throughout clinicians careers (General
Medical Council, 2006; Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2008; Chartered Society of Physiotherapy,
2005). At an undergraduate or pre-registration level we therefore need to ensure students are provided
with the opportunities to develop the skills to become competent and reflective practitioners of the future,
recognising that qualification is not the end of the learning process but merely the beginning, with their
degree providing the foundations to build knowledge and experience upon in their future clinical roles.
Constructivism involves the learner engaging in a joint experience with the teacher to construct and create
their own understanding of the experience. Constructivist learning theories extend from Vgotskys notion
of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), that being the difference between the learners current ability
to solve problems independently and that which they can achieve with guidance and collaboration (Figure
1). Problem-based learning (PBL) is a constructivist approach frequently taken in the education
34

undergraduate healthcare professionals. Students are presented with a problem, usually a clinical scenario,
and are required to work in small groups to identify the issues emerging, draw upon the knowledge they
already have to address the problem and highlight further knowledge they need to acquire in order to
adequately solve the task (Khan and ORourke, 2004). PBL promotes a shift from didactive teaching
methods which involve transmission of knowledge to the students towards more engaging activities which
encourage students to construct their own knowledge and understanding (Khan and ORouke, 2004),
developing skills that will assist them with CPD and reflective practice throughout their training and
professional careers.
Figure 1: Zone of Proximal Development (taken from http://bucs.wikispaces.com/vygotsky)

Another benefit of PBL is the opportunity for students to incorporate and link information they have
previously learnt, integrating basic science into the clinical scenario or problem to be addressed (Norman,
2005). Previous literature on mapping of knowledge structures suggest students enter into a situation with
a set of pre-learnt facts or spokes of knowledge. As learning takes place, these facts are built upon and
linked together forming chains of knowledge which enable the student to reach their goal and successfully
understand the theoretical concept behind the problem (Kinchin et al., 2008). Clinical scenarios however
are seldom that straightforward. The human factors involved when treating a patient mean previously
learnt facts and chains of knowledge are not always relevant or prove untrue when dealing with real-life
scenarios. This is coupled by working in a team with individuals with differing backgrounds, knowledge
and understanding. Students then need to grapple with these competing spokes and chains of knowledge,
which, as they develop meaning and situation specific context begin to form more complex networks of
understanding, enabling them to successfully select a solution to the given problem. (Kinchin and Cabot,
2010; Bradley et al., 2006; Kinchin et al., 2008).
Despite these benefits, PBL still does this in the context of small groups, discussing and theorising actions
and knowledge. Whilst this facilitates active engagement from students and clarifies understanding it does
not necessarily translate to improved patient care and outcomes which is considered a primary aim in
current healthcare. Activity theory on the other hand analyses and develops knowledge in relation to the
tools used, the rules of the community and the social and contextual factors in which the activity occurs
35

(Jonassen and Ruhrer-Murphy, 1999). Jonassen and Ruhrer-Murphy (1999) conclude the more embedded
the conscious thought processes are, the more meaning the learner attaches to the activity, deepening their
learning and developing understanding.
High-fidelity clinical simulation provides an ideal activity to construct learning from, providing students
with a risk free environment (Good, 2003) to practice, explore and develop the theories and solutions they
have constructed during the PBL activity (Gordon and Buckley, 2009). It also considers the non-technical
skills such as team working and communication that are inexplicably linked to solving the problem if we
adopt an activity theory view. By participating in clinical simulation and acting out a scenario students gain
knowledge, which effects understanding, shapes future actions and creates the transformational processes
central to activity theory and a constructivist approach to learning (Jonassen and Ruhrer-Murphy, 1999),
thereby extending the learners ZPD.
Gordon and Buckley (2009) examined the effects of simulation on graduate nurses perceived ability and
confidence in responding to patient clinical emergencies. Fifty nurses participated in the study and were
filmed responding to simulated emergency situations. Results demonstrated significant improvements in
both practical skills such as managing breathing difficulties and performing defibrillation and non-technical
skills such as communication and resource utilisation. These are skills that it is undoubtedly difficult and
unethical to practice in real life scenarios. Perhaps most interestingly 94 per cent of the participants
reported the post scenario debrief was the most useful aspect of the experience suggesting it is perhaps
the opportunity to review, pause, discuss and reflect on practice that is important to enhance learning and
development for future situations. Similarly, Shapiro et al. (2004) found a period of simulation training in
addition to a traditional didactic teaching programme resulted in a positive but non-significant impact on
team working amongst emergency department staff. These improvements occurred despite individuals
being familiar with problem-solving skills and working in high pressure environments, suggesting the
opportunity to practice in a low risk environment improves overall performance.
This may therefore highlight a role for high-fidelity clinical simulation in the training of undergraduate
healthcare students, providing a controlled environment to reflect on knowledge and practice, engaging
students in the discussion and exchange of knowledge with peers and experts, enhancing both learning and
the scholarship of teaching (Trigwell and Shale, 2004).

Conditions for Adult Learning

Like constructivism and activity theory, Habermans (1971), describes three conditions that are required
for adult learning to occur. These are context, meaning and reflection. As adults we have various levels
of prior knowledge and accepted facts that we draw on when presented with new concepts, these can
prove true or untrue depending on the context in which we use them. In order for adult learning to occur
we need to add meaning to the situation, which often involves reflection and the notion of perspective
transformation (Mezirow, 1981). Perspective transformation involves recognising and reflecting on the
impact past experiences have on the new experience and is a central function to adult education (Mezirow,
1981). The notion of reflection and perspective transformation is also evident in Kolbs learning cycle
(1984) which is frequently referred to as a framework for students to structure their reflection around in
current healthcare teaching.
With consideration of the work by Habermans and Kolb it is clear to see how clinical simulation would
provide the opportunity for adult learning to occur (Figure 2). The concrete experience of the simulation
task provides opportunity for the students to reflect on performance and outcome, drawing on prior
knowledge and experiences when discussing their actions, adding conscious meaning to the experience.
It also provides opportunity in the debriefing session to explore alternative theories or approaches to the
situation, potentially transforming students understanding or ideas to approaching similar tasks in the
future.
36

Figure 2: Kolbs Learning Cyclle (Kolb, 1984) annotated and related to high-fidelity clinical simulation
experience

Simulation Experience
Using previously
acquired knowledge to
address clinical scenario

Concrete
Experience
(doing/having an
experience)

Active
Experimentation

Reflective
Observation

(Planning / trying
what you have
learnt)

Perspective Transformation
Simulation experience shapes
learning. Performance either
reinforced and repeated or
new approaches adopted to
trial in future.

Debrief Session
Students, peers and faculty
discuss actions, share
knowledge and reflect on
simulation exercise

(reflecting/reviewing
experience)

Abstract
Conceptualisation
(concluding/learning
from experience)

Collaborative Meaning
Making
Conclusions drawn from
group debrief session.
Understanding developed
and alternative strategies
considered

We often talk of a surface or deep approach to student learning. A surface approach involves rote learning
of material, often driven by short-term external pressures such as passing an exam. In comparison, a deep
approach to learning is established when students aim to find meaning and relations to similar domains
or other knowledge (Fyrenius et al., 2007). Two main categories are considered in relation to achieving
understanding; receiving and condensing information from available resources and sorting and sifting what
is relevant to know. In a deep approach to learning, students relate new information to prior knowledge
and experience, developing their own understanding of the material (Fyrenius et al., 2007). Students
who choose to build and develop knowledge in this way ensure learning becomes a dynamic, evolving
process where understanding is viewed as an opened ended event, constantly changing depending on the
environment, situation and task (Fyrenius et al., 2007). This idea of moving understanding also reflects
the perspective transformation described by Habermans and the reflection and abstract conceptualisation
reported by Kolb.
As providers of higher education for healthcare students we should aim to engage students in a deep
learning approach, enabling them to use their knowledge meaningfully in novel situations with patients
(Fyrenius et. al., 2007). Another central feature to adult education is enhancing students ability to
function as independent learners (Mezirow, 1981).In their discussion of the scholarship of teaching,
Trigwell and Shale (2004), suggest in order for students to learn and develop as independent thinkers they
need to be viewed as equal partners in learning, involving collaboration and sharing of information between
students and teachers in a two way interaction. Universities therefore need to provide students with the
appropriate opportunities, activities and forums to develop critical thinking and reflection skills, enabling
them to become independent learners both during and following their degree.

37

Clinical simulation affords this collaboration and interaction. Having drawn on their knowledge and prior
understanding to address the problem the opportunity is then provided to interact with peers and teachers
in the debrief session, exploring and developing the concepts covered in the simulated exercise. As well
as promoting a deep approach to learning, reflection and perspective transformation, simulation may also
offer the opportunity to develop knowledge structures, moving from the previously described spokes and
chains of information to networks of understanding associated with advanced reasoning and expert status
(Kinchin et al., 2008).

Novice versus Expert Status

Within the context of higher education students are often regarded a novices and academics as experts
with superior knowledge and performance in their subject areas (Bradley et al., 2006). The role of the
expert is to share with the novice their knowledge, enabling the novice to construct and develop their own
understanding of the subject. When looking at the structure of individuals knowledge frameworks experts
demonstrate networks of understanding incorporating various competing chains of knowledge, the most
appropriate of which is selected depending on the task and desired outcome (Bradley et. al., 2006). The
knowledge framework of novices on the other hand exists as spokes of previous information and facts that
create a state of learning readiness (Kinchin et al., 2008), upon which chains of knowledge devised from
the experts teaching are constructed. In time the novice can begin to move and transform these chains of
knowledge, developing their own network of understanding (Kinchin and Cabot, 2010).
As a practitioner learns a skill they pass through five stages of development. These range from novice,
to advanced beginner, competent, proficient and finally expert (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986). As they
progress through the stages, the learner becomes more aware of the interaction and outcome of their
activity in relation to the wider situation. There is a move away from a rigid adherence to the rules towards
an intuitive grasp of the situation, based on a deep tacit understanding and analytical approach (Kinchin
and Cabot, 2010). If the experts tacit knowledge is not made available to the student during the learning
experience they may struggle to grasp the topic and its relevance unless the expert spends time teaching
and explaining what has become intuitive to them (Kinchin et al., 2008).
It is recognised experts view a situation more holistically than a novice. For example a student or newly
qualified physiotherapist has a basic level of understanding and limited experience to aid in hypothesis
generation. The novice therefore will adopt a more structured approach using little situational awareness
whereas the expert will utilise more abstract concepts to solve a problem, demonstrating a holistic
perception of the situation (Bradley et al., 2006).

38

Figure 3: The relationship between the three major knowledge structures (from Kinchin et.al., 2008)

Certainly during healthcare education I do not believe it is possible to create expert graduates as the
vast and rapidly changing domain of healthcare requires a commitment to lifelong learning and CPD. I do
believe however that our role as higher education institutes is to produce graduates who are of a competent
and proficient level, provided with the skills to cope with the crowdedness of information surrounding them
and approach situations holistically rather than as separate discrete tasks.
Engaging students in clinical simulation exercises may serve as a safe and efficient way of facilitating
development of these skills. Students are able to put theory into practice, exploring the links and conflicts
of previously learnt knowledge and theories in a safe environment where reality can be suspended and no
harm occurs to patients. Simulator-based learning enables the training agenda to be determined by the
needs of the learner, not the patient (Good, 2003) and provides the learner with an insight into the experts
network of understanding, tacit knowledge and holistic view of the situation during the post simulation
debrief which involves two way sharing of information between students and teacher.

Assessment
It was mentioned in the introduction to this essay that current methods of assessing medical and healthcare
students such as OSCEs, MCQs and exams tend to promote surface learning approaches, assessing
students knowledge rather than proficiency in both the basic and complex tasks required in practice
(Murray, 2005). Whilst a comprehensive discussion on the role of high-fidelity clinical simulation in the
assessment of students studying healthcare related courses is beyond the scope of this paper it has become
apparent it may incur potential benefits.
If our overall objective is to produce healthcare professionals not only competent to practice at a basic
level but to develop as expert practitioners of the future we need to equip students with these skills and
assess them in these ways at university (Stefani, 2005). Clinical simulation as an assessment modality
has the potential to assess and reward competent and proficient students who have demonstrated a deep
approach to learning, using, transforming and re-presenting relevant university taught material in the
clinical context they are about to enter into as a qualified medic, nurse or AHP. Assessing deeper learning
and situation-specific use of knowledge promotes these actions amongst students during their studies. By
39

using clinical simulation in the assessment of the competent or proficient student we can align learning
outcomes, teaching activities and assessment methods, developing a web of consistency and enhance the
constructive alignment of the curriculum (Biggs, 2003). This will hopefully improve teaching and learning
experiences for healthcare students and produce competent, thoughtful, professional and forward-thinking
healthcare professionals of the future (Ward, 2011) who are adequately equipped to take on the challenges
of the modern health care system and lifelong learning.

Conclusions
This paper has presented evidence for the role of high-fidelity clinical simulation in the education of
undergraduate and pre-registration medical and healthcare students based on constructivist theories of
learning.
Clinical simulation can be used to create a clinically realistic environment in which learning takes
precedence over patient care (Good, 2003). It uses activity theory to compliment and further develop
the concepts of PBL, providing students with the opportunity to work together to use and acquire the
knowledge necessary to solve a given task. The simulation experience and post session debrief provide an
interactive forum for students to use and transform their chains of knowledge to the beginnings of networks
associated with the expert status. It also provides a risk free learning environment which can progress at the
rate and direction desired by the student, developing both technical and non-technical skills essential for
effective patient care. Ultimately clinical simulation promotes learning that is based on discovery guided
by mentoring rather than on the transmission of information (Boyer Commission, 1998), providing ideal
opportunities to promote and develop clinical reasoning and critical reflection skills necessary to become
independent learners ready to take on the challenges of the health care system and notion of lifelong
learning.
Clinical simulation is also likely to be beneficial in the assessment of competent and proficient healthcare
graduates, enhancing the constructive alignment of the curriculum and promoting deep approaches to
learning and studying.
It would be of interest to investigate the incorporation of high-fidelity clinical simulation into the
undergraduate education of medical, nursing and AHP students to formally examine the impact on the
quality of learning and the healthcare professional produced as a result.

40

References
Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (second edition)(Open
University Press, Buckingham).
Boyer Commission on educating undergraduates in the research university (1998) Reinventing
undergraduate education: a blueprint for Americas research universities. Stoney Brook: State University of
New York at Stoney Brook. Available on line at: http://napels.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/ (accessed
25th August, 2011).
Bradley, J., Paul, R. & Seeman, E. (2006) Analysing the structure of expert knowledge, Information and
Management, 43, 77-91.
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (2005) Rules of Professional Conduct.
Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1986) Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the
era of the computer, (The Free Press, New York).
Fyrenius, A., Wirell, S. & Silen, C. (2007) Student approaches to achieving understanding approaches to
learning revisited, Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 149-165.
General Medical Council (2006) Good Medical Practice.
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2005) Conditions under which assessment supports students learning, Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-26.
Good, M.L. (2003) Patient simulation training for basic and advanced clinical skills, Medical Education,
37(1), 14-21.
Gordon, C.J. & Buckley, T. (2009) The effect of high-fidelity simulation training on medical-surgical
graduate nurses perceived ability to respond to patient clinical emergencies, Journal of Continuing
Education in Nursing, 40(11), 491-498.
Habermans, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests, (Beacon Press, Boston).
Jonassen, D. & Ruhrer-Murphy, L. (1999) Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist
learning environments, Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
Khan, P. & ORourke, K. (2004) Guide to Curriculum Design: Enquiry-Based Learning. Available online at:
www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/guides/khan_2004.pdf (accessed 4th August, 2011).
Kinchin, I. & Cabot, L. (2010) Reconsidering the dimensions of expertise: from linear stages towards dual
processing, London Review of Education, 8(2), 153-166.
Kinchin, I., Lygo-Baker, S. & Hay, D. (2008) Universities as centres of non-learning, Studies in Higher
Education, 33(1), 89-103.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning experience as the source of learning and development (Prentice Hall:
London).
Mezirow, J. (1981) A critical theory of adult learning and education, Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1),
3-24.
41

Murray, D. (2005) Clinical simulation: Measuring the efficacy of training, Current Opinion in
Anaesthesiology, 18, 645-648.
Murray, D. (2006) Clinical skills in acute care: A role for simulation training, Critical Care Medicine, 34(1),
252-253.
Norman, G. (2005) Research in clinical reasoning: Past history and current trends, Medical Education, 39,
418-427.
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2008) The code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and
midwives.
Paver-Erzen, V. & Cimerman, M. (2007) The value of clinical simulation-based training, 11th
Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biomedical Engineering and Computing, 16(1), 327-328.
Santrock, J. (2007) A Topical Approach to Human Life-span Development (3rd ed.) (McGraw-Hill, St.
Louis, MO.).
Shapiro, M.J., Morey, JC., Small, S.D., Langford, V., Kaylor, C.J., Jagminas, L., Suner, S., Sailsbury, M.L.,
Simon, R. & Jay, G.D. (2004) Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it
improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum?, Quality and
Safety in Health Care, 13, 417-421.
Stefani, L. (2005) Assessment of student learning: promoting a scholarly approach, Learning and Teaching
in Higher Education, 1, 51-65.
Trigwell, K. & Shale, S. (2004) Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching, Studies in
Higher Education, 29(4), 523-536.
Ward, K. (2011) Frustrations in bedside teaching: Opinion, Higher Education Research Network Journal, 2,
3-8.

42

Using scaffolding and guided-inquiry

to improve learning in a postgraduate
forensic science laboratory class
Leon Barron

School of Biomedical Health Sciences, King's College London

Submitted December 2010
Abstract
This essay explores the development of laboratory-class teaching methods in postgraduate education for
forensic science. The analysis combines a critical review of teaching theory and research of the student
learning experience. The conclusions point towards the appropriateness of inquiry-based methods but
emphasise the need for deliberate scaffolding and attention to the issues of context and dialogic process if
student learning is to be linked to expert practice and subsequent employment in this field.

Introduction
As an applied science, forensic science consists of many diverse sub-disciplines which are employed to help
provide expert testimony in support of a legal investigation. In the context of forensic science education,
however, prospective students are often blinded by the science fiction CSI Effect (Durnal, 2010) and have
the misconception that forensic science involves analysing green ooze with a device possessing a Solve
Crime Here button. The reality is that forensic scientists require a broad understanding of the capabilities
of general science, along with good interpretive and deductive reasoning skills. Alongside this, forensic
scientists should have a deep knowledge of at least one specialism to give them an appreciation of its
location, usefulness and applicability within the overall forensic process. In general, most practising forensic
scientists have some form of natural science undergraduate training at the very least. More importantly,
detailed studies by the UK Higher Education Academy (UKHEA, 2004) showed that forensic employers
preferred graduates with an MSc in Forensic Science (~19 per cent), followed by those with at least
a BSc in chemistry or biology (16 per cent each). For the MSc in Forensic Science at Kings College
London, students usually possess undergraduate qualifications in biochemistry, chemistry, forensic science,
biotechnology, pharmacy, biomedical science or molecular genetics. Evidence suggests that the extent of
students disciplinary diversity (Evans et al., 2009) can have an effect on learning ability (Akbulut, 2010;
Brown, 2010). This article focuses is on improving laboratory-based learning within the authors subdiscipline: forensic chemistry.
The rate at which broader science and technology is developing makes it increasingly difficult for
university chemistry educators and their students to keep pace with the changing demands of the recently
privatised forensic sector. Employer criticism of the ~280 undergraduate forensic science programmes
lies with graduate deficiencies in practical ability, especially regarding communication, problem-solving/
deductive logic, and team-working skills (UKHEA, 2004). Programmes at Level 7 should build on a
previous learning framework gained from studying a natural science undergraduate programme. The
concept of learning science is not considered new to these students and it could be argued that possessing
some scientific knowledge could aid their learning of related topics. For example, students of biology will
have prior training of scientific literacy which may act as a platform for learning in the chemical sciences
(Hodson and Taber, 2009). However, postgraduate courses also suffer criticism relating to practical skills.
There is clearly a need to carefully consider the pedagogy of practical laboratory instruction and learning
within this environment. Forensic science programmes are also sometimes considered redundant, given

43

that graduates of a natural science will have the necessary skills to perform laboratory work and that
professional practice can be used as a means to fill in the gaps later on. Some argue that provision of these
courses contextualise the more general practice of the natural sciences (Quarino and Brettell, 2009). In
particular, Quarino and Brettel argue that experts may not realise the location of their specific test within
the entire suite of forensic techniques available and, as a result, this could limit the extent of further testing
possible in other areas (eg a destructive analytical technique may limit/preclude a DNA profile being
possible later on). Tutor monitored and better contextualised practice in a laboratory training environment
could therefore improve this awareness before live case-work is undertaken. This has obvious implications
in supporting the Criminal Justice System more effectively.
This essay examines a practical laboratory led by the author at Level 7 which suffers from many of
the problems outlined above. Pedagogical theories are examined here to assess students learning of
forensic chemistry, but also how the choice of engagement style could influence the development of
communication, team-working and problem-solving skills. This practical is contextualised towards real
forensic practice where analyses are performed as an investigative team under regulated conditions similar
to that experienced in industry. The importance of scaffolding the styles of laboratory instruction is
discussed with respect to a trialled revision of the practical towards a more guided-inquiry approach.

The Drugs of Abuse Practical Laboratory

The aim of this practical class is to identify suspect drug material according to internationally accepted
guidelines (SWGDRUG, 2008) over six sessions. It is outlined in these guidelines that identification of
illicit drug material be conducted using a sequence of carefully chosen tests, which are classified according
to their forensic value. A specified number of these tests are required and results from one are designed to
inform which test should be performed next. The class (~30-35) is generally divided into teams of five to
six by the tutor and who, over ~eight weeks prior to the practical, are required to research the literature,
propose their own analytical protocols and purchase the necessary chemicals/equipment to execute their
tests (with some tutor input in terms of logistics and feasibility). The tutor then provides elected team
leaders with three specimens of drug material in tamper-proof police evidence bags on the first day of
the practical and this is accompanied by relevant documentation covering the specifics of the case, a
description of the contents and where they were found. In general, the class receives street examples of
crack cocaine, cocaine hydrochloride, ketamine, amphetamine, Ecstacy, cannabis plant/resin and heroin.
Each team receives different material and are not told their identity. In some cases, materials are mixed and
therefore two identities can exist, prompting an explanation in their justification. For example, a Speedball
is a powder which contains a mixture of heroin and cocaine. In drug abuse, this type of mixture is taken to
enhance the euphoric feeling of heroin by reducing its sedative effect using cocaine. This laboratory aims to
reinforce several learning outcomes of the module as a whole with such scenarios.

Rationale for the Transition from Open- to a Guided-Inquiry Style

As a one-year MSc programme covering a large range of topics in detail, the workload of this practical
was often criticised by students as being excessive for the learning return gained. Significant time and
effort was invested particularly in developing each analytical protocol rather than on higher-order
problem-solving and interpretive skills. This often affected other areas of the programme in terms of poorer
assessment performance. Similarly, students were often overwhelmed, often did not understand where
their responsibilities lay in the sessions and were sometimes excluded by more experienced team members,
especially where chemistry expertise was more abundant in the group. Whilst this may have been down
to students inability to organise themselves as a team, it is clear from several years of feedback that some
structural change was required to improve student learning. Examples from our formal programme review
in 2008 are as follows:

44

Student 1

Too much happening in the Drugs [of Abuse] Practicals. I didnt really understand what I
was doing let alone what the rest of the group was doing;

Student 2

The drug practicals were a bit disorganised and biologists were expected to know already
how to do all of the techniques, and not given anywhere near the amount of training that the
chemists are..;

Student 3

a case-work scenario [] would be likely to get students more involved and would be
infinitely more interesting.

These three examples highlight problems identified by very many students and they centre on three main
issues: (a) excessive workload, reducing students ability to retain important information; (b) concerns
about broad levels of multidisciplinary expertise leading to disorganisation; and (c) the need for more
contextualisation of the session. It is important to ask why these issues emerged and how pedagogy of
laboratory instruction may offer more insight into how learning can be improved.
There have been numerous research articles (Bruck and Towns, 2009; Deckert et al., 1998) and reviews
(Domin, 1999, Marshall et al., 2004) of laboratory science teaching at university level. Four main styles
have been identified: expository; problem-based; guided-inquiry; and open-inquiry (Wilczek-Vera
and Salin, 2011). Expository styles use tutor defined protocols for students to reach a pre-determined
end-point. Problem-based learning encourages students to acquire knowledge in order to solve a tutordefined problem. Open-inquiry is where students create their own problem(s) and decide how to solve
it themselves. Guided-inquiry is similar to open-inquiry, except that students do not prepare their own
protocols, but are involved in creation of the problems to be solved and often towards a known end-point.
Each of these styles has benefits and their differences are often subtle (Table 1). The first two types are
more deductive in nature, where students learn by accruing information to determine a solution (Gaddis
and Schoffstall, 2007). In problem-based learning in particular, there may be several solutions or possible
end-points. The latter two styles require inductive reasoning where the students make decisions based
on some prior knowledge along with some active experimentation to reach their conclusion (Gaddis and
Schoffstall, 2007; Domin, 1999). Whilst these may seem rather similar, an important point to note is that
one crucial difference between guided and open-inquiry laboratories is that they are tutor-led and studentled respectively. This practical class was run in the past mostly as an open-inquiry style. Here, the tutor
acted more as a facilitator and there were no defined routes or end-points to the practical session (with
the exception of potentially identifying the drugs). From examination of these styles, the move towards a
guided-inquiry approach may more effectively address issues related to multi-discipliniarity, teamwork
(co-operation), communication, and higher order reasoning skills required for professional practice.
Similar to feedback received here, others have shown that students criticised open-inquiry for its
disorganisation and this negatively influenced their ability to perform in chemistry (Hodson, 1996,
Domin, 1999). In a qualitative study by Deters, the opinions of students and teachers in an inquirybased chemistry laboratory were discussed (Deters, 2005). In general, tutors criticised open-inquiry
styles regarding the adequacy of students knowledge of safety protocols; the requirement for timeconsuming sessions; increased grading time/effort; complaints from students due to excessive preparation
effort; and, refraining oneself as a tutor from helping students who pursue an incorrect pathway (loss of
control). Students criticised this style for its excessive workload and the added responsibility put on them
to be in charge of their own session. Despite these fears, students felt overall that there was a sense of
accomplishment in inquiry-based laboratories and that their knowledge of chemical concepts as well as
their practical and communication ability was enhanced greatly. Chatterjea and co-workers tackled the
same topic more quantitatively (Chatterjee et al., 2009). Students generally preferred guided-inquiry to
open-inquiry (83 per cent versus 21 per cent liked either respectively) and felt they were easier to do and
took less time. Overall, 45 per cent of students felt they learned more in guided-inquiry over open-inquiry.
45

Table 1. Laboratory Teaching Styles and Pedagogies (adapted from (Gaddis and Schoffstall 2007,
Chatterjee et al., 2009, Deters, 2005))

Style

Led by

Expository Tutor

Main advantages

Main Disadvantages

1. Easy to manage/run

1. Little critical thinking

2. Questioning is more
straightforward

2. Little interest from students

End-Point
Known

3. Tutor can reinforce

fundamental concepts
ProblemBased

GuidedInquiry

Student 1. Critical thinking promoted

Tutor

1. Limited by students prior

knowledge

Unknown

2. Can be contextualised

2. Tutor involvement in
decision making

1. Higher cognitive abilities

gained

Known
1. Students miss the depth of
experience in designing their
own protocols

2. Less effort than open inquiry

3. Less reliant on students
prior experience

2. Some loss of tutor control

4. Can be contextualised
5. Promotes better team
working and communication
OpenInquiry

Student 1. Critical thinking

1. Loss of tutor control can

be disorganised;

2. Improves practical ability of

the individual

2. High workload

3. Can be contextualised

3. Much prior experience

needed some students feel
excluded

4. Deep learning promoted

46

5. Better communication and

motivation skills

4. More time required

6. Fun

5. Difficult to manage

Unknown

It is apparent that inquiry-based sessions can aid student learning, but it begs questions regarding how and
why students learn effectively under these conditions. Traditional didactic teaching methods often suffer in
that students may only gain limited understanding of subject meaning (Ashcraft, 2006). By incorporating
some form of rote-learning, some reinforcement of essential scientific concepts is possible (Herron and
Nurrenbern, 1999), but it assumes that knowledge (and its associated reality) is passively transferred
unchanged from the teacher to the minds of their students (Acar and Tarhan, 2008). However in the
domain of learning theory, this is where the notion of constructivist learning could be argued as having a
significant role to play. With many diverse interpretations and forms of constructivist theory (Loyens et al.,
2008), the general opinion is that students actively learn by constructing their own knowledge of a topic
through their own experiences (Bodner et al., 2001). Obviously, laboratory sessions are a key channel for
providing such a first-hand learning experience through practice.

Experiential Learning
Kolb proposed the constructivist cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and this model has been used
recently to describe learning in the laboratory environment (Abdulwahed and Nagy, 2009). Whilst there
is no defined entry point to this cycle, students generally transition across stages in a sequential, ordered
format. Jarvis model of constructivist learning should also be considered here. He proposed that deep
learning occurs in a more social context along with a conscious reflection which leads to a change in the
person (Jarvis, 1987). He also proposed that learning from secondary experiences should be considered
significant (eg cultural experiences) and this may be more applicable to group work (Jarvis, 2006). Whilst
Kolbs and Jarvis models of learning may be appropriate to some degree here, they are both subject to
rather rigid stage-by-stage learning. Constructivist learning within these group inquiry sessions may be
more complex to understand and how forensic science students create knowledge may become non-linear
and difficult to characterise so simplistically, especially given their multidiscipliniarity. Expectations at
Level 7 are focussed on students operating at the higher levels of the Blooms Taxonomy cognitive domain,
ie demonstrating skills in analysis, evaluation and synthesis (Bloom, 1956). The concept of co-operative
learning therefore could have an influence on how knowledge is constructed at this level and certainly
within a multidisciplinary cohort. It may be constructed by the individual directly, but also as part of a
group arising from peer-peer and peer-tutor interactions (Loyens et al., 2007). As such, some stages in
Kolbs cycle may be skipped, transferred or omitted altogether by the individual as these processes may be
shared across the group towards a common goal (Dewey, 1933). However, this is not to say that individual
students do not learn effectively within this environment. In fact, it has been argued that co-operative
activities could rectify the earlier discussed deficiencies in forensic science graduates such as organisation,
team-working ability and problem-solving skills (Slavin, 1996, Slavin and Cooper, 1999; Wright, 1996).
Similarly, students may also realise their individual academic status within the class, giving them a signpost
towards where they should focus their future acquisition of knowledge to meet or exceed class norms
(Loyens and Gijbels, 2008).

Scaffolding of Laboratory Styles over the Programme Duration

The location of this session within the academic calendar is significant to consider (middle of Term 2). In
the first Term, students mostly attend expository-style laboratories, some of which underpin the basic
practical usage of some of the instrumental methods used in this session. Students then transition to a
research or open-inquiry project after the period covered by the Drugs of Abuse Practical. Learning in this
practical seems to suffer as many students do not feel ready to prepare their own protocols confidently at
this stage in the programme, especially if they are from a biology-related background (~50-60 per cent of
the class) and stress levels may be higher as a result (Mallow et al., 2010). A move towards a more guidedinquiry approach may offer a more inclusive environment (Cesar and Santos, 2006) in this instance as well
as providing a stepping-stone towards enhancing performance in later component of the course the openinquiry research project.

47

The purpose of scaffolding the laboratory session style (Bliss et al., 1996) across the programme ties in
with Vygotskys notion of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Whilst considerable
research on this concept has focussed on learning in children, the same principles have been applied in
University education (Huong, 2007). Scaffolding is evident where students are provided with some tutor
example, until they construct sufficient knowledge to perform tasks independently. In this class, students
zones of proximal development are often very different depending on their prior training in chemistry.
Additionally, our students comments above indicated that the multidisciplinary nature of the class may
be limiting the learning experience of biologists in particular. Another possible advantage of running this
practical towards a guided-inquiry is that it provides biologists in particular with a more supportive scaffold
on a basic level (via the tutor) to execute the tasks whilst also allowing the chemists to proceed with some
independence and freedom. Moreover, chemistry-trained students themselves can adopt a subconscious
tutoring role by providing explanations to their biologist peers. The works of Wegerif and Baker have given
us recent insight into the use of dialogue or conversation amongst peers in constructing knowledge (Baker
et al., 2005; Wegerif, 2003, 2005; Wegerif et al., 1999). However in terms of this particular situation, a
paper by Brown and co-workers describes the performance of students from different scientific disciplines
on an anatomy and physiology programme. Results showed that once guided-inquiry was introduced, that
performance improved. Students also valued the help of their peers to understand key concepts and clearly
understood the need for guided-inquiry and the benefits it provided (Brown, 2010).

Emergent Student Opinion of a Revised, Guided-Inquiry Approach

Bearing in mind the pedagogical considerations discussed above, an opportunity was apparent to use the
educational diversity of this class to the students advantage through co-operative learning rather than it
acting as a hindrance. In a revised, guided-inquiry approach, students with a chemistry background were
spread across all groupings (rather than by random selection) in order to promote a supportive role with
their biologist peers. Students were now provided with a bank of prescribed analytical protocols rather than
having to create them themselves (ie the end-point was better defined as being achievable through use of
this set of techniques alone). This also more accurately reflects the industry norm, as forensic laboratories
are highly regulated and bespoke analytical method development would not generally be permitted for
common standardised tests in a forensic environment. A case-scenario was also provided with details of
the police seizure and their requirements for analytical/forensic support. In order to assess teamwork and
communication skills, the practical was now summatively assessed via an oral group presentation of their
findings including a justification of results. This therefore allowed students to apply the skills learned
in the practical again, this time to the problems faced by other groups. The content of this presentation
was opened to discussion by the whole class afterwards and worked very well. As part of my reflection
of the revised approach, an anonymous student survey was conducted requesting information on the
students primary discipline, their perceptions of learning chemistry, whether they felt co-operation was
achieved in the class, whether they enjoyed the practical and whether it caused any anxiety in terms of
workload or preparation time. The questionnaire was set out in the form of 25 statements with responses
generated via a 5-point Likert scale. Out of 34 students, 31 responded. Of these, 17 identified themselves
as biologists and nine as chemists. The remainder classified themselves as forensic scientists (three) or
as pharmacologists (one). Due to the low numbers and the mixture of chemistry and biology within these
latter two disciplines, these four were omitted from any further interpretation.
Responses showed that students from the biological disciplines seemed unsure whether they felt
disadvantaged because their level of chemistry experience was lower. Conversely, 70 per cent of chemists
still felt they had a distinct advantage. Interestingly, a large proportion of biologists admitted actively
engaging with their chemist peers during this session and 65 per cent found that the co-operative
approach aided in their understanding. Chemists also liked this approach as it may have given them some
empowerment. Overall, the majority of students felt that they learned more about analytical chemistry
during the practical and felt they could now perform a similar analysis by themselves in an industrial
setting. In this way, it was felt that the engagement with pedagogic literature had a strong influence on
48

making this a better experience for students and their learning via a relatively minor change of style.
As a bonus, most students also felt that they had fun while doing this practical. A higher proportion of
chemistry graduates felt that they would still be prepared to design their own protocols and valued this as
a learning experience they did not have in the revised structure. The biologists felt that they would not
have had the ability, sufficient time or confidence to prepare their own protocols even if given details in
the first term meaning that the scaffolded approach acted better as an intermediate towards open-inquiry
activities met later on in the programme. Students overall did not find that the revised practical session
took excessive time to prepare for and allowed them to experience the chemical analysis first, reflect on
it afterwards and present an argument as a group based on what they had learned. Whilst providing the
protocols in the revised style, maintaining the mechanism of choice resulted in some students feeling
empowered. The routes they took in generating the evidence were varied and mistakes were made, but
the aims of the practical were satisfied for the most part by the students with only some guidance from
the tutor. Baker suggests five main dialectics of learning in this conversational setting: apprehension and
comprehension; reflection and action; epistemological discourse and ontological recourse; individual and
relationality; and status and solidarity (Baker et al., 2005). Enhanced discourse and interaction within this
session seemed to indeed facilitate improved negotiation of students constructed meanings over what I
had experienced in tutor-centred expository practical sessions in the first Term (Anton, 1999) and having
consequences to their choices seemed to enhance their decision making ability. Apart from a questionnaire,
I offered students a chance to freely contribute their feedback. Students offered good ideas in order to
make this practical (and my practice) better in the future. A number of students from both biological and
chemistry disciplines highlighted that they would prefer smaller group sizes to more appropriately match
the workload. In the following year, group sizes were reduced to four and this suited the students very well
when asked.

Conclusions
From the investigation of pedagogical theories, it seems that students did benefit by constructing their own
knowledge in an open-inquiry-based practical environment. However, a conscious move towards a better
scaffolded, guided-inquiry approach alleviated problems associated with the excessive workload and the
multidisciplinary nature of the class. Key reported advantages of a guided approach are the potential for
improvement in organisation (by clarifying objectives with prescribed protocols), teamwork and
co-operative problem solving ability as identified by industry as being of particularly in need. A move
towards this guided approach may have bridged the gap more effectively between initial expository
laboratories and the open-inquiry research project. Finally, the use of dialogue, co-operation and
contextualisation should be actively encouraged within multidisciplinary cohorts such as forensic scientists
in order to provide a more realistic view of the real-world environment.

49

References
Abdulwahed, M. & Nagy, Z.K. (2009) Applying Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory
Education, Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 283-294.
Acar, B. & Tarhan, L. (2008) Effects of cooperative learning on students' understanding of metallic
bonding, Research in Science Education, 38, 401-420.
Akbulut, D. (2010) The effects of different student backgrounds in basic design education, in:
UZUNBOYLU, H. (Ed.) Innovation and Creativity in Education (Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam).
Anton, M. (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacherlearner interaction in the second-language classroom, Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-318.
Ashcraft, P.G. (2006) A comparison of student understanding of seasons using inquiry and didactic
teaching methods, 2005, Physics Education Research Conference, 818, 85-88.
Baker, A.C., Jensen, P.J. & Kolb, D.A. (2005) Conversation as experiential learning, Management Learning,
36, 411-427.
Bliss, J., Askew, M. & Macrae, S. (1996) Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited, Oxford
Review of Education, 22, 37-61.
Bloom, B.S. (1956) A taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: Cognitive domain, (McKay, New York).
Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M. & Geelan, D. (2001) The Many Forms of Constructivism, Journal of Chemical
Education, 78, 1107-null.
Brown, P.J.P. (2010) Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and physiology
course with a diverse student population, Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 150-155.
Bruck, L.B. & Towns, M.H. (2009) Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the
Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions, Journal of Chemical Education, 86, 820-822.
Cesar, M. & Santos, N. (2006) From exclusion to inclusion: Collaborative work contributions to more
inclusive learning settings, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 333-346.
Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V.M., Mccann, K. & Peck, M.L. (2009) Surveying Students' Attitudes and
Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry and Open-Inquiry Laboratories, Journal of Chemical Education, 86,
1427-1432.
Deckert, A.A., Nestor, L.P. & Dilullo, D. (1998) An example of a guided-inquiry, collaborative physical
chemistry laboratory course, Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 860-863.
Deters, K.M. (2005) Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs, Journal of Chemical Education, 82,
1178-1180.
Dewey, J. (1933) How we think, (Heath, New York).
Domin, D.S. (1999) A review of laboratory instruction styles, Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.
Durnal, E.W. (2010) Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Science International, 199, 1-5.
50

Evans, E., Tindale, J., Cable, D. & Mead, S.H. (2009) Collaborative teaching in a linguistically and
culturally diverse higher education setting: a case study of a postgraduate accounting program, Higher
Education Research & Development, 28, 597-613.
Gaddis, B.A. & Schoffstall, A.M. (2007) Incorporating guided-inquiry learning into the organic chemistry
laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 848-851.
Herron, J.D. & Nurrenbern, S.C. (1999) Chemical education research - Improving chemistry learning,
Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1354-1361.
Hodson, D. (1996) Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion,
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 115-135.
Hodson, D. & Taber, K.S. (2009) Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history,
traditions and values, (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, the Netherlands).
Huong, L.P.H. (2007) The more knowledgeable peer, target language use, and group participation,
Canadian Modern Language Review-Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 64, 333-354.
Jarvis, P. (1987) Adult Learning in the Social Context, (Crrom Helm, London).
Jarvis, P. (2006) Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: lifelong learning and the learning society,
(Routledge, London & New York).
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, (Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Loyens, S.M.M. & Gijbels, D. (2008) Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments:
introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351-357.
Loyens, S.M.M., Rikers, R. & Schmidt, H.G. (2007) Students' conceptions of distinct constructivist
assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 179-199.
Mallow, J., Kastrup, H., Bryant, F.B., Hislop, N., Shefner, R. & Udo, M. (2010) Science Anxiety, Science
Attitudes, and Gender: Interviews from a Binational Study, Journal of Science Education and Technology,
19, 356-369.
Marshall, R., Cartwright, N. & Mattick, K. (2004) Teaching and learning pathology: a critical review of
the English literature, Medical Education, 38, 302-313.
Quarino, L. & Brettell, T.A. (2009) Current issues in forensic science higher education, Anal Bioanal
Chem, 394, 1987-93.
Slavin, R.E. (1996) Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to
know, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
Slavin, R.E. & Cooper, R. (1999) Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative
learning programs, Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647-663.
Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Siezed Drugs, 2008, Recommendations.

51

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies, 2004. Forensic Science:
Implications for Higher Education.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, (Harvard
University Press., Cambridge, MA, USA).
Wegerif, R. (2003) Foundations of language - Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 17, 121-122.
Wegerif, R. (2005) Towards a dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching
thinking skills, CSCL 2005: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years,
Proceedings, 707-716.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999) From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical
investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development, Learning and Instruction, 9, 493516.
Wilczek-Vera, G. & Salin, E.D. (2011) Understanding Fluorescence Measurements through a GuidedInquiry and Discovery Experiment in Advanced Analytical Laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 88,
216219.
Wright, J.C. (1996). Authentic learning environment in analytical chemistry using cooperative methods
and open-ended laboratories in large lecture courses, Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 827-832.

52

Team-teaching of lecture courses in

the biomedical sciences: an analysis
of methods and approaches in other
fields and consequent practical
recommendations
Marc S Dionne

School of Medicine, King's College London

Submitted December 2010
Abstract
Team-taught lectures are the norm in many higher-level biomedical sciences courses, but there has been
little analysis of why this is the case, and how we can work within external and internal constraints to
improve the pedagogical value of these kinds of courses. In this essay, I examine why we team-teach, and
what advantages we hope to gain from this. My critical analysis is developed in order to provide markers of
good practice in team-teaching and also to suggest what pitfalls it might be useful to avoid. This analysis is
then integrated into a set of concrete recommendations for ways to improve the quality of our higher-level
courses in the biomedical sciences, acknowledging other tradeoffs-for example, with research time.

Introduction
Why do we team-teach in the biomedical sciences?
Team-taught courses have become the norm in the biomedical sciences at many institutions, in particular
at higher levels. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the remarkable depth of knowledge weve
accumulated in many aspects of the biological sciences is such that many lecturers feel intimidated at the
thought of teaching outside their specific area of expertise. Second, and related, team-teaching is seen as
being potentially somewhat less work: rather than having to learn or relearn material so as to present it to
students, we can simply have someone who is already au courant come in to teach that part of the course.
The lecturer can also be presented as an expert specialist. As an added virtue, that individual may be able
to repurpose part or all of their lecture materials to be used multiple times in different courses. A third
apparent advantage is the ability to slot in different lecturers as institutional personnel change. 1,2
These potential benefits of team-taught structures come at costs that may not be immediately apparent.
Some of these costs are intrinsic to the practice of team-teaching; others are practical consequences that
can be ameliorated or eliminated by reflexive practice or by changing course structures. The goal of this
essay is to examine these costs and their origins and explore how we can improve team-taught courses in
the biomedical sciences while simultaneously retaining some or all of their advantages.
In order to fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of team-taught structures, we must
understand how our practice could be different. In order to do this, I review the literature on the nature
of team-teaching in other contexts, and on the different ways in which team-taught courses can be seen
to work. This is particularly important because there has been little analysis of team-teaching per se
specifically in the context of higher-level scientific courses; most of the academic literature on this topic
explores these issues in the context of teacher-training or law school.
53

Comparative analysis
Kinds of team teaching
We can imagine indeed, with only a small effort, we can observe different sorts of structures for teamtaught courses. In considering these different structures, it is useful to consider the following typology:
(a) Star one teacher holds major responsibility for the course, collaborators function as guest lecturers
etc.;
(b) Hierarchical one senior teacher responsible for most of class, junior instructors assist in discussions
etc.;
(c) Specialist collective designing of curriculum by team members, each one taking major role
according to special knowledge, all assisting in discussions, etc.;
(d) Generalist collective designing of curriculum but teaching divided by practical considerations
rather than specialty; and
(e) Interactive collective designing of curriculum, teaching highly flexible according to need at time of
teaching rather than in advance. 3,4
In examining these different structures, it immediately becomes clear that the best structure will be
dictated in large part by the nature of the material being taught. In the context of higher-level biological
sciences, where the goals are to distribute teaching burden onto those with greatest insight into specialized
materials, the only plausible possibilities in this analysis are the Star and Specialist structures. (In contrast,
in the American university system, many or most first- and second-year biological sciences courses are
taught by some variation of the hierarchical model; this is made possible by the presence of abundant
lower-ranking labour human capital in the form of PhD students, who lead most discussions/tutorials, and
by the fact that American students are assumed to enter university with less specialized knowledge, in part
because the education system places much greater weight on general learning.5 This will be expanded
upon below.) The key organizational principle in the higher-level biomedical sciences thus becomes the
hierarchical nature of the course: either it will be designed around the vision of one or a few individuals,
who will then find other lecturers to fill in the gaps, either chronological or in knowledge; or it will be the
product of the combined vision of all the lecturers on the course. Though middle ground certainly exists
between these two extremes, most actually-existing courses can be seen as being close to one end or the
other of this hierarchical spectrum.

Examples from the teacher-training literature

A large fraction of the educational literature has an explicit focus on teacher-training.6 Much of the
literature on team-teaching in these contexts focuses specifically on bringing together teaching professionals
with different kinds of professional expertise for example, those who teach children with special needs are
brought together with those who teach in more traditional classrooms, in part as a response to the outside
pressures to include as many special-needs students as possible in the normal curriculum.7 These courses
are thus taught by a two-person team, in which both team members are present at every, or nearly every,
class session.
It is immediately obvious that this situation is one where one of the major points that has led to the
adoption of team-teaching in the biomedical sciences the perception of reduced workload is not
met. Indeed, York-Barr et al (2004) cite the desire to team-teach to decrease load as one of the primary
challenges to successful team-teaching. Kluth and Straut (2003) agree that co-teaching and other types
of collaboration may not be practical when time is tight and resources limited. With this in mind, several
salient points can still be gleaned from these studies. The first is specifically on the topic of workload
reduction: though it is conceivably possible that we can find a model in which workload is less than that
imposed by every teacher attending every class session, it will likely be impossible to achieve a linear
decrease in workload (ie, in a course taught by 10 people, each individual will have a load equal to greater
54

than 10 per cent of the course) without significant sacrifices of teaching quality. Second, it is critically
important that the institution make some special accommodation for this changed workload that is, some
way must be found for credit to be reasonably shared among the teachers and organizers of a course. Third,
despite these barriers, team-teaching does nonetheless increase flexibility in comparison to single-instructor
courses, both with respect to the time-demands on faculty and with respect to the materials taught.

Examples from the legal education literature

A significant literature also exists with regard to team-teaching in the context of American legal education.
The structures of law school are in some ways closer to those of the biomedical sciences: individual
instructors typically teach close to or within their own area of scholarly expertise, and faculty at top schools
are strongly expected to maintain an active research program in addition to spending significant time on
instruction. The chief differences are that courses are expected to be taught by individuals, and that many
courses are taught, not as lectures, but via the case method. Within this framework, there have been several
studies of different kinds of team-taught courses.
One interesting example is provided by Corcos et al. (1997), in which four faculty with different expertise
decided to work together to provide a single year-long course covering aspects of environmental, national,
international, and administrative law, with the goal of showing students how these apparently different
topics actually interacted in reality. This is very similar to the goals we might have for a typical higher-level
course in the biomedical sciences, where we often wish to show students how different fundamental topics
in molecular biology, cell biology, and biochemistry then come together to interact in a larger biological
context, such as the development of an organism or the generation and resolution of an immune response.
Corcos and her colleagues found that their team-taught course was rewarding both for the faculty and for
the students: Team teaching is better than going it alone. Not only did it let us commiserate and band
together when the chips (or students) were down, but it made our teaching better (ibid., p. 238). However,
they reiterated the point that this type of course increased, rather than reducing, the total labor burden. In
the end, they suggest that an extra member of the faculty be appointed the role of going to all the lectures
and simply acting as gadfly; this implies that the amount of extra total labor invested in the course amounts
to about 25 per cent.
The example provided by Seamon and Spitz (2002) is also very interesting. In this case, two courses
generally perceived as distinct-constitutional law and property law are partly joined: for two weeks
during the term, the two courses are jointly taught, with both professors present; through the rest of the
term, they are separate. The goal is to show the students how these two domains of the law interact.
According to their account, the course produced by this joining is relatively easy to implement (ibid., p.
258) and is enjoyed by students, but they also raise several difficulties: as in the other examples weve seen,
this is more work for the professors; moreover, the professors must be sure to communicate well with one
another, especially since the students seem to attribute [perceived conflicts regarding the material]... to
either lack of adequate preparation or substantive incompetence (p. 270).
Overall, then, experience in legal teaching seems to bear out both the advantages (better interdisciplinary
teaching, better integrated understanding of material) and disadvantages (increased, rather than decreased,
workloads) seen in collaborative teacher-training.

Biological sciences teaching in American research universities.

The third set of examples to consider in the context of advanced biomedical courses is the experiences of
students and lecturers in a somewhat similar context: that of less-advanced courses in American research
universities.
The way these courses are typically run is different from that expected in UK universities in several ways.
55

Students enter American universities with less assumed specialist knowledge than their UK counterparts,
so the first two years of university study are often taken up with materials that, in Britain, would be
assumed to be covered at A-level.8 Lectures are given to large groups of students (often several hundred),
with (typically) biweekly tutorial sessions of one or two dozen students in which the material from that
weeks lectures are clarified or expanded upon by a teaching assistant, typically a PhD student. This
structure has the advantage of providing teaching experience at the PhD student level; moreover, though
the primary lecturer in the course may change over the course of a term, the teaching assistant typically
does not, providing some measure of continuity.
In this context, the general-biology course for non-biologists mentioned earlier makes an intriguing
example (Bondos and Phillips, 2008). The point of this course is to give students an appreciation of the
biological sciences as experienced in everyday life, using examples drawn from news or current events.
Different lecturers, often PhD students or postdocs, are recruited; obvious repetition is avoided by virtue
of the fact that lecturers with topics that build on a previous subject attended the earlier classes to prevent
repeating or skipping key information (ibid., p. 23). A given topic would be covered for a duration of one
to three lectures (lectures are 75 minutes long). The course coordinator worked hard to maintain some
measure of continuity and consistency, and was apparently present at all lectures.
A second example can be seen in a study of a large introductory anthropology course for non-majors
(Plotnicov, 1985). Here, the goal was to increase student entry into the field of anthropology by allowing
each professor to give only one or two lectures on the topics they found most interesting, pitched at an
appropriate level for first-year university students with no prior anthropology training, the idea being that
teachers are most dynamic when teaching the subject they like best. In this case, all continuity appears to
have been provided by the small discussion sections; the atomization of individual lecturers presentations
was diminished by the ability of the discussion section leaders to bridge whatever gaps existed. Still, the
discreteness of the lectures in style and subject matter was clearly a problem:
Most disconcerting to students was the diversity of topics, a condition exacerbated by contrasting
lecture styles and differences in intellectual demands. When we repeated the course, we tried to
ameliorate these problems in several ways. First, we emphasized the relatedness of the presentations by
grouping them under common headings like Religious and Social Movements, or Sex Roles. Second,
to keep the lectures focused for the students, each lecturer provided a short paragraph emphasizing
the main points of his or her contribution; this appeared as part of the syllabus. Third, each teaching
assistant began the discussion section meeting with a brief review of the main points of the previous
week's presentations and attempted to show the relatedness of those grouped together under a general
heading. (Plotnicov, (1985)p 259-260)
It is noted that the course presented something of a challenge to organize, essentially because individual
faculty thought their time in teaching on this course would be ill-rewarded. However, it is clear that in later
years, the success of the course muted this concern.
To summarize from these two examples, then, it is once again clear that a properly-organized team-taught
course cant reduce the amount of work being done. The course coordinator on the first course discussed
appears to have worked as hard as if she had been teaching the course alone, even though she gave few or
no lectures herself. In the second example, only the presence of in-term discussion sections with consistent
teaching assistants gave the course any measure of consistency, and the clear hierarchical nature of the
course (with the course director in charge of materials and so on) was essential for success. However, there
is an important advantage to these courses: when they work, they clearly give students a broader insight
into a field, and its internal connections, than a course taught by only one professor.

56

Synthesis
How can we modify our team-taught higher-level courses in the biomedical sciences?
What can we learn from this examination of team-taught courses in other contexts? Too often, our
team-taught lectures end up being essentially separate courses being held sequentially with no
communication between the instructors (Osgood et al., 2005, p397). Obviously, we cannot simply change
all of higher-level biomedical teaching to fit the model of collaborative teacher training; however, there may
be smaller changes we can make that would improve our current courses without simultaneously calling for
a dramatic increase in the number of contact hours per lecturer.
The first point is fairly obvious: the lecturers teaching a given course must communicate. Everyone
teaching in a course should know who else is teaching, what the content of their lectures is (at least in
broad strokes), and how each given lecture fits in with the grand scheme. This type of interaction can
be facilitated by regular discussion meetings, where all the lecturers on a given course (or in a given
department) gather for the specific purpose of discussion of teaching; others have found this sort of
structure to work well (Popovich et al., 2006). In any case, full and frequent communication amongst all
the relevant lecturers is vital to the success of a course of this type.
The second point arises from this communication issue: the course structure must be transparent to
everyone involved. If the course is of the star type, it must be clear to and acknowledged by everyone
involved: there must be no question about who is in charge, and whose vision ultimately guides the course.
Conversely, if the course is of the specialist type, there must be genuine and deep agreement among those
participating what the overall point is and how individual lectures fit in to the greater pedagogical structure.
It does no good for these issues to remain tacit; in particular, if a course is to be organized and run by a
single individual or a small group that draws from a larger pool of lecturers, the organizer or organizers
must be willing to organize. Even though it is both psychologically easier and less work to allow individual
lecturers simply to come in and give a lecture on whatever they want with minimal outside interference,
this is no way to run an organized course, and it gives rise to students whose knowledge is at best
atomized rather than coherent.
The third point is clear, in particular, from the examples from teacher-training: when well done, team
teaching does not generate a linear reduction in workload. We cannot hope simply to prepare single,
discrete lectures, unconnected from the previous lecture and the next, and hope to somehow achieve
a satisfying pedagogical result. In particular, the amount of time spent simply in organizing and
communication as mentioned in the two points above will mean that we each spend more time on our
courses the more team-taught they are. In many cases, it is clearly critical for lecturers to attend other
lecturers class sessions, even when they themselves are not actively teaching. However, this is not without
its advantages, even outside the strictly pedagogical. The experience of Osgood et al. (2005) was typical,
and deserves to be quoted at length:
A very clear change that all authors noticed was a new appreciation for the others background
disciplines. One of us was primarily a biologist (M.O.); another (W.A.) was trained first as a chemist.
Biologists and chemists approach the teaching of biochemistry differently (at least we did), and we
both were surprised to discover that the others approach had much to commend it. The words just
think of the chemistry of the process ... came out of the biologists mouth by the end of the shared
course, and the chemist found he could not help but mention evolution and ecology in his discussions
of metabolism.
(Osgood et al. (2005), p. 397)
Clearly, the process of team teaching potentially offers real improvements in the interdisciplinarity of
instructors, as well as students.
57

With these points in mind, I would suggest that present course structures should be modified as follows.
Rather than viewing each lecture as a discrete entity, we should consider lectures in modules. For example,
in a typical course containing 24 lectures, we could have six modules of four lectures each. Each of these
six groups could be the responsibility of two lecturers; each of these two lecturers would give two lectures,
and each would be present for all the lectures in that module. Lecture sizes tend to be small in the
higher-level biomedical sciences-ranging from 10 to 30 students; a group of this size can be enticed to
discuss in the course of lecture, especially when there is a second lecturer in the audience, interacting
directly with the lead lecturer, providing clarification of points where necessary, and so on.9 Though this
would double the number of contact hours in any given course, the amount of added work per lecturer
would be less than doubled, as the amount of preparation required to be a member of the audience is much
less than that required to actually prepare a lecture. At its best, this would expose students to, and involve
them in, scientific discussion as it actually happens; at the very least, it would act as a sort of informal
quality-control mechanism for the lecture few of us would not put extra work into a lecture if one of our
colleagues was to be present, watching our performance.

Examination issues
Examinations can present a particular problem in team-taught courses. We tend to construct our
examinations so as to force students to have at least a shallow understanding of all the material presented
combined with a better, in-depth grasp on a subset of materials, typically chosen by the student (for
example, giving a mandatory set of multiple-choice questions, as well as an essay chosen from a
constrained set of topics). This seems reasonable and fair, but it presents a problem in a team-teaching
context in which some lecturers do a better job than others; the students then disproportionately work on
the material presented by the good lecturers. This subverts the overall goal of the course if no students
are actually going to develop any deep understanding of the material taught by some of the lecturers, why
bother to teach this material at all? If that material is essential for a critical understanding to the topic at
hand, can any students be said to have actually learned what the course sets out to teach?
The modified structure I suggest above lends itself to some level of examination reform. Rather than setting
essays that correspond to a single lecturers contribution, the groups of lecturers who have come together to
form a module can then jointly propose a question; students answering this question can be jointly marked.
Ideally, the question proposed would involve integrating knowledge from multiple lectures and lecturers.
One advantage of this system is that every question comes with a built-in second marker, one who not only
has some intrinsic appreciation for the underlying material, but also has a genuine understanding of the
material that was presented in the lecture (since he or she was there at the time).

Conclusion
The goal of this essay has been to identify the reasons we team-teach in the advanced biomedical sciences;
to examine team-teaching in other contexts; and then to integrate these to analyses into a concrete set
of practical improvements. I recommend that we move our team-taught courses more toward a full
collaborative model, with multiple lecturers present at and collaborating on the various parts of a course.
This should give significant pedagogical improvement at the cost of relatively minor increases in actual
contact time, and also offers advantages in terms of examination structure and marking.
Footnotes
1
Perhaps a particular advantage from the viewpoint of UK higher education administration at the current
point in time.
2
Sadly, these reasons do not include the fact that, to the extent that this can be measured convincingly,
team teaching does actually seem to work a little bit better than solo teaching at the pedagogical level
(Carpenter et. al., 2007; Anderson and Speck, 1998).
3
Originally due to Esterby-Smith and Olve (1984); this formulation is from Nevin et. al. (2009).
4
This typology is clearly idealized, to the point where it is tempting to add a sixth category, (f) Haphazard.
58

A particularly compelling example is described by Bondos and Phillips (2008).

This is perhaps to be expected: those most compelled to write about ways of teaching are those who
teach teachers.
7
Two good examples of this kind of study, from which much of the source material in this section is drawn,
are Kluth and Straut (2003) and York-Barr et. al. (2004).
8
An example of this can be seen in a linked set of five articles: Eisen (2005), Batzli (2005), Becker (2005),
Fambrough et. al. (2005), and Ledbetter and Campbell (2005).
9
This model is similar to that proposed by McDaniel and Colarulli (1997), though less complex.
5
6

References
Anderson, R.S., & Speck, B.W. (1998) Oh what a difference a team makes: why team teaching makes a
difference, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 671-686.
Batzli, J.M. (2005) A unique approach? Four semesters of biology core curriculum, Cell Biology Education,
4, 125-128.
Becker, D. (2005) A case for nonsurvey introductory biology courses, Cell Biology Education, 4, 128-131.
Bondos, S.E. & Phillips, D. (2008) Team-teaching a current events-based biology course for nonmajors,
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(1), 22-27.
Carpenter II, D.M., Crawford, L. & Walden, R. (2007) Testing the efficacy of team teaching, Learning
Environments Research, 10, 53-65.
Corcos, C.A., Durschlag, M.R., Morriss, A.P. & Wagner, W.E. (1997) Teaching a megacourse: adventures
in environmental policy, team teaching, and group grading, Journal of Legal Education 47(2), 224-239.
Eisen, A. (2005) Running out of hands: designing a modern biology curriculum, Cell Biology Education, 4,
123-124.
Esterby-Smith, M., & Olve, N. (1984) Team teaching: making management education more studentcentered? Management Learning, 15(3), 221-236.
Fambrough, D.M., Pearlman, R., Shingles, R. & Brosnan, R. (2005) A case for survey courses in biology,
Cell Biology Education, 4, 131-133.
Kluth, P. & Straut, D. (2003) Do as we say and as we do: teaching and modeling collaborative practice in
the university classroom, Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 228-240.
Ledbetter, M.L. & Campbell, A.M. (2005) Argument Favoring a Survey as the First Course for Majors,
Cell Biology Education, 4, 133-137.
McDaniel, E.A. & Colarulli, G.C. (1997) Collaborative Teaching in the Face of Productivity Concerns:
The Dispersed Team Model, Innovative Higher Education, 22(1), 19-36.
Nevin, A.I., Thousand, J.S. & Villa, R.A. (2009) Collaborative teaching for teacher educators-what does
the research say?, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569-574.
Osgood, M.P., Mitchell, S.M. & Anderson, W.L. (2005) Teachers as learners in a cooperative learning
biochemistry class, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(6), 394-398 (2005).

59

Plotnicov, L. (1985) Introducing Contemporary Anthropology: A Team-Taught Course for Large Classes,
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16(4), 256-260.
Popovich, N.G., Peverly, S.L. & Jackson, T.R. (2006) Effectiveness of a weekly faculty conversation forum
about teaching, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(5), Article 107.
Seamon, R.H., & Spitz, S.A. (2002) Joint teaching with a colleague, for just a week or two, Journal of
Legal Education, 52(1-2), 258-271.
York-Barr, J., Bacharach, N., Salk, J., Frank, J. H. & Benick, B. (2004) Team teaching in teacher
education: general and special education faculty experiences and perspectives, Issues in Teacher Education,
13(1), 73-94.

60

Leveling the deep learning approach

playing field for traditional,
multidisciplinary and distance law
students
Martina Proctor

Independent Academic Practitioner

Submitted December 2010
Abstract
It has been said that among law students part-time learners and those that do not have a background in law
already do not approach their learning with a deep approach and correspondingly, their learning outcomes
lack academic quality. This is a harsh judgment to pronounce and immediately relegates all other forms
of student learning to a lesser status. Nevertheless, if this is not merely pejorative, but rather reflects a
valid issue, then steps should be taken to scrap all post Dearing Report programme developments with
regards to Law. With the same brush, all law programmes tenable at all new UK universities should also be
abolished. Given this dilemma and futility in prolonging the collision of values debate, could an answer be
achieved through dismantling student categorization and/or profiling and simultaneously, developing new
theoretical underpinnings in teaching and learning. The Effective Teaching Approach has potential as a
strategy and might be strengthened with viable student Personal Development Planning.

The invisible strata

Recent years have seen the globalization of universities, particularly from well-named UK, US and
Australian universities, through cross-border exportation and externalization of their degree programmes
with the setting up of partner or branch institutions in host countries1. Technological advances in
information and communication technologies have aided programme delivery to students in the virtual
environment. The higher education student population now includes an invisible strata of part-time and
external students, both nationally and cross-border.
Collaterally, the multidiscipline approach adopted by universities have ensured that subjects no longer
remain within the purview of established disciplines. For example, different areas of law are now bundled
up as new products for non-law students. Many business students now have to read a widely packaged
module appropriately named Business Law and MBA students have to be acquainted with the strategic
legal and social issues surrounding business.

Purpose of a HE education
According to Steven Schwartz2, the goal of university education is to help build a fairer, more just society.3
However, as Cleveland observed more than 30 years ago, there has always been a collision of values given
the differential dictates of commercial realities and the aspirations of academia from the time of Bacon4 to
Cardinal Newman.5
The Dearing Committee6 stated the aims of higher education as promoting intellectual growth for personal

61

development, employability and nation building. This statement is restated7 as mission statements by UK
universities. Accordingly, universities have inextricably tied student learning to the delivery of courses for
optimum output and funding maximisation.
Until recently, the University of London was the main provider of distance learning through its London
External Programme8 on the belief that equal learning opportunity should be made available to able
citizens from across the Commonwealth.9 Today, most universities operate cross-border partnerships10
and external programmes. N James identifies corporatismas the driving force11 in that it dictates how
learning is to be delivered in terms of efficiency, marketability and growth of the law school as a corporate
institution.12 Those universities which do not engage in them are left behind in the funding race.
The writer would argue that in addressing the shortfall between student learning and the teaching of law
in the UK, much more work would have to be done to develop and collectivise informed theories on the
teaching of law as a discipline and the establishment of a framework (tested for structural strength13 and
made benchmark for all law schools) to oversee the impartation of critical legal pedagogy.
Nonetheless, the ancient collision of values argument still continue to dominate albeit from a different
perspective given the aspirations of educators such as Biggs,14 Marton and Slj15 who developed
benchmarks on student learning. In their theories on deep and surface learning they impliedly pass
judgment on the quality of student learning.16 This raises the issue as to the perception of the learning
capability of non-law and/or part-time17 students studying law, for whom law is either not the main
discipline or who do not attend campus. Together, these form the invisible strata of students.

The Issue
This essay seeks to consider the pedagogical issue as to whether and how non-law and part-time law
students can foster/develop a deep learning approach to the subject area so as to achieve a comparable
appreciation and understanding of the subject as their mainstream counterparts. This evaluation is done
under four points of inquiry.

(i) Law-learning & teaching

Law is a discipline with a long history; hierarchical in nature,18 traditional, doctrinal in approach and
delivered through Socratic argument. Students are expected to learn a large body of rules and principles
which are to be found in the reading of cases, statutes and academic texts which are evaluative schematic
synthesis of the two areas. Journals focus on particular areas which are perceived as being worthy of
investigation.
Collaterally, law is generally perceived as academic rather than professional or vocational. The favoured
approach to learning is by abstraction of meaning a method which Garrett observes as inherently
rendering students as passive recipients of ready-made knowledge.19 This creates another barrier for the
student to adopt a deep learning approach.
Accordingly, the instructional method has tended to be traditional with lectures, tutorials and private
study. Garrett echoes the view held by Timms, that law, like the social sciences rely on discussion and
disputation as a major forum for learning (Timms, 199:4). Hence the function of the lecture is to set the
stage or the background for the topic at hand this being the information transfer stage.20 Issues highlighted
for further discussion are raised as potential problem areas requiring clarification or determination by the
courts at a future date. The tutorial or seminar which follows provides the platform to discuss, analyse and/
or apply the principles and reasoning employed by judges in deciding earlier cases.21
It is in the last activity of private study where students engage in learning-reflecting and questioning in
62

order to construct general principles/ arguments in a rationalist way. It is perhaps here that the private
study activity that the deep learning takes place.

(ii) Critical Pedagogy

So what then is deep learning? Deep learning, as explained by the Higher Education Academy refers to
examining new facts and ideas critically, and tying them into existing cognitive structures and making
numerous links between ideas.'22 It involves the looking for meaning; focusing on the central argument or
concepts needed to solve a problem; interacting actively; distinguishing between argument and evidence;
making connections between different modules; relating new and previous knowledge; and linking course
content to real-life.
In the mid 70s, pedagogical research into the different approaches to learning by Marton & Slj
established a distinction between deep and surface approaches. In the former approach, students tended
to examine arguments critically, question the assumptions on which they were based and to relate them to
previous knowledge and understanding23 whereas in the former, students would learn by rote, and not to
question the assumptions underpinning the material, or relate it to context.'24
How then do students learn; when does learning take place? In the first instance, the lecturers role is one
of a transmitter of information the legal principles and rules which the student requires in understanding
the issue, in reconstruction of the principle and which can then be tested for universal validity as well as
suitability for application (with modification) for solving a current problem faced. Whilst much of these
rules remain black-letter law, it should be remembered that law is also a dynamic force, ever changing in
response to the fickleness of human conduct. Hence Professor Goldrings observation that to study law
is to study change; to learn law is to learn how to cope with change; and to build a conceptual framework
which accommodates change,25 a course of study which requires of the student a particular capacity
for independent learning. Students with a deep approach examine the arguments critically, question
the assumptions on which they are based and relate them to previous knowledge and understanding.
Ramsden, among others, indicates that University level education should foster a deep approach to
learning the development of understanding which is not superficial or easily forgotten. Understanding of
legal material, both from a perspective of internal consistency and structure, and of its relations to the social
context, is essential to the making of sound professional judgments and evaluations.26

This process will require the dual steps of (a) processing the information and achieving an understanding
it27 and (b) reflecting so as to find parallel situations for application, analysis, synthesis and finally an
evaluation.28 The interpretative process might lead the student to a crisis, a seeming inability to accept
or reconcile the new found information with his already acquired view of lifes events. Javis29 calls this
crisis point, disjuncture. The student may be tempted to stop and abandon the exercise at this point or
he may proceed to push further in reflection. If he does, and emerges with a different view of the issue,
then it is said that learning has taken place.30 This contributes to deep learning where the focus is on the
underlying meaning or principle and reconstructing it into a statement which becomes capable of universal
application.
In his experimentation on Kolbs theory of learning,31 Jarvis found that Kolb had omitted to take into
account various pertinent variables, viz; the person, the sensory experience and social, emotional and
practical aspects of learning, the reasoning process which leads to planning and the possibility that the
student may not always univeralise or concepetualise the experience of learning. Accordingly, it is the
person who learns,32 a statement providing philosophical support to Biggs assertion that learning is what
the student does, and what the student does, is a very consequence of what the teacher does.33
Often students seek to increase their body of knowledge with the acquisition of facts and/or rules and
63

regulations by attempting to memorise solutions to complex problems they do not understand in the hope
of regurgitating them in assessment. This is a surface learning approach34 which will not cause the student
to experience the disjuncture necessary to be able to form his own view of the issue hence no learning
having taken place. Hence Jarvis defines learning as the transformation of experience into knowledge, skills
and attitudes.35
Collaterally, students may feel frustrated when they have to work with more complex principles without
necessarily understanding the rationale behind the more basic principles.36 Goldring asserts that these
students would have been encouraged by the system to learn by rote as the learning objective was to
pass examinations, after which the material would be forgotten. He states that a legal education which
consists of the rote-learning of bodies of rules (which some people think makes up the law) is probably
not a desired learning objective , thus endorsing the Marton and Sljs view on deep and surface
approaches to learning.
There will invariably be some students who would develop a deep approach to learning, and this would
be inspite of, rather than because of the system. It is submitted that the issue of fostering a deep learning
approach is one which applies to the whole educational process delivering both campus-based universities
and distance learning. It would therefore be appropriate as suggested by Goldring, to examine the whole
educational process37 in order to ensure that the capacity for independent learning and the development of
deep approaches to learning are to be achieved as learning outcomes.

(iii) Quality shortfall -a myth?

It has been said previously that campus-based programmes achieve greater quality than multidisciplinary
and part-time law programmes.38 We have seen that this does not necessarily relegate the non-law or
part-time law learner as a surface learner and accordingly of lower quality as the system itself encouraged
surface learning because the learning object was to pass exams. Students will become deep learners inspite
of the system. Therefore the need then is to restate the learning objectives. It would appear that post
Dearing Report teaching methodology has achieved this.
It would therefore be unfair, to say that non-law or part-time law students are incapable of deep learning in
a way similar to their campus-based counterparts as no definitive survey or research has been done on the
subject.39 Further, in his experiment on the measurement of student perceptions of academic quality40 and
approaches to studying in distance education using a combination of the ASI,41 its revised version42 and
applying it to the CEG,43 Richardson found that distance learners produced results attributable to deep
learning approach.44 He thought the main attributing reason was the differentials in age groups,45 rather
than the mode of course delivery, an argument which points to a justification for ending student profiling in
campus-based learning.
Richardson46 also referred to reports that distance learners scored highly on items relating to Good
Teaching and Appropriate Assessment indicating they were generally satisfied with the quality of their
programmes. However, Johnson47 suggested caution in holding this view because these are not results
arrived at through a particular survey.
Accordingly, it may now be appropriate to suggest that consideration be given to two main questions
firstly, what makes a good law teacher, and secondly, in what way(s) can the delivery of law programmes be
enhanced so as to assist the student in becoming a deep learner?

(iv) Effective Teaching

Dr NJ James48 establishes a definite connection between good teaching and what the student does:
good law teaching is about facilitating student learning. In writing generally about the teaching of law,
64

he invokes the necessity of developing legal pedagogicalism as an ingredient in the delivery of legal
education49 in order to give effect to the facilitation of learning. Ramsden50 was quoted then and is now as
authority for the need to establish teaching as being more than instructing and performing and extends
more broadly to providing a context in which students engage productively with subject matter. we
should concentrate on learning, on what the student does and why the learner thinks he or she is doing it,
rather than what the teacher does.
In summary, the effective teaching approach51 adopted by Australian legal education scholarship is
student-centred devising rote learning avoidance strategies; connecting deep learning with good teaching
methods; monitoring student learning; and maintaining flexibility in instruction methods.
In addition, a good or effective law teacher shows enthusiasm for the subject; motivates students in learning
and be self directed; creates interests; shows concern and respect for students; states and clarifies learning
outcomes; and facilitates understanding in key concepts and assessments.
Put briefly, the responsibility of the effective law teacher is learning how to teach and teaching how to
learn.52
As a first step towards motivating students to adopt a deep learning approach, an effective law teacher
would encourage students to practice the application of basic principles, perhaps through problem-based
group activities, or even collaborative reconstruction (in written form) of basic principles. An interactive
group activity can be the catalyst needed to spark student interest as will the formulation of oral argument
in discussion. A further step will then be to encourage reflection to achieve analysis of principles learnt. It
is hoped that collaborative work will lead to further discussion and peer review, which might in turn lead to
analysis, as students seemingly learn better with and from their peers.
One of the most striking differences between campus-based and part-time and non-law students
programmes lay in the facilities and learning environments, (or the lack of it). Traditional law students
have had at their disposal/access to massive law libraries which source law reports, journals and texts
written by learned authors. These provide the tools and the source of stimulus and inspiration to enable
deep inquiry and reflection, critical analysis, application and evaluation, but have not been available to
their counterparts, even though the latter programmes were no more than an extension of the campusbased programmes (often exported without adaptation to the needs nor consideration of the part-time/
non law student). Neither were the latter group taught the skills/practice of legal reasoning.53 The lack of
equivalent facilities, resources and the learning environment for part-time law and non-law students may
have impeded their capacity to adopt a deep learning approach,54 coupled with the previous stated learning
objective. For this reason they have referred to as the forgotten cohort.55

However, with the onslaught of technology in the 21st-century, the facilities available to campus-based
students are also available to all other students. These facilities include databases of law cases, law search
engines56 across jurisdictions as well as online learning environments like Blackboard and Moodle57 and the
use of film.58
It would appear that the learning environments of the two systems may now have converged and both
systems now operate on a level playing field.
The forgotten cohort59 of part-time law students are not as homogenous a group as their campusbased counterparts, having come from all walks of life (though usually after having spent several years in
employment and may have acquired postgraduate qualifications) and of differing age groups.60 They are
also an invisible group who have not been featured in any pedagogical research.61
65

Conclusions
In considering the needs of the non-law and part-time law student, the writer is influenced by the need to
examine the present system of legal education as a whole. Law schools have adopted improved in their law
teaching methods, as seen from the scholarly contributions to legal pedagogy. However, in order to achieve
sustainability, it is suggested that a strong framework in legal pedagogicalism (containing a PDP62 policy)
be established to drive coordinated change. The seeming convergence of learning environment in both
campus bases and distance learning will make equal learning opportunity meaningful.
Accordingly, law schools should end student profiling for homogeneity in favour of a policy of inclusiveness
(of both campus-based students and their invisible and forgotten cohorts) in the design and implementation
of law programmes both nationally and cross-border.
Goldring is of the opinion that distance education, if properly planned and executed, may be able to
achieve the desired outcomes.63 He advocated the use of problem-based learning systems and structured
readings reinforced with audiotapes and questions (with feedback provided in appropriate ways). However,
he concluded that ultimately, the choice is not one of 18th-century or 23rd-century methods, but one of
rethinking and making best use of existing methods and creating a more effective learning environment to
impart to the whole body of students the capacity for independent learning.
Law students will, generally elect to become lawyers. Accordingly, there will be a need to provide interface
between the learning of law and law practitioners; this will also ensure that the development of law schools
follow that of law service providers. It will also provide the relevant linkage between education, vocational
training and practice as was intended by the Dearing Report. There will be a need to train law lecturers to
teach areas of legal specialty in order to sustain the future of the profession.
As a strategic move towards sustainability of the discipline, the legal education sector might consider
adopting the liberal changes made in the Australian legal educational system by adopting their effective
law teaching approach as the informed legal pedagogical theory underpinning legal education.64 This will
provide a step forward in the compromise between the traditional doctrinal approach and the vocational
approach referred to in the Dearing Report; the effective law teaching approach may well enable a way out
of having to flog the proverbial horse with a continuation of engagement with the collision of values debate.

Footnotes
Ferris, The legal educational continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey (2009) Vol 43(2) The Law
Teacher 102-113: the future is a foreign country at page 102.
2
Former vice-chancellor of Brunel University.
3
Times Higher, 16 May 2003.
4
That knowledge should be practical and not be a courtesan, for pleasure.
5
Useful knowledge, is a deal of trash.
6
Report published entitled: Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997, http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
7
As imparting a vocational preparation for employability.
8
Chartered by Queen Victoria in 1858 with name change in 2010, see Our History, University of London,
International Programmes, http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/about_us/history.shtml
9
Professor Goldring suggested a Commonwealth system whereby the Commonwealth Institute of
Learning which had been established following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in
1987 would act as the clearing house and co-ordinating body for institutions delivering distance learning
programmes in the various parts of the Commonwealth. This was thought to be a viable possibility
on the basis a shared system of law the Common Law: Distance Teaching in Law: Possibilities for
1

66

Commonwealth Cooperation, (1990) 2 Legal Education Review, 83.

10
Examples are INTO University Partnerships (http://www.intohigher.com/footer/corporate/about-us/
our-university-partners.aspx?sc_lang=en), Kaplan, (http://www.kaplan.co.uk/), London International
College of Business and Technology (http://www.libt.uk.com/index.php) and the like. The University of
Liverpool, in partnership with Laureate Online Education delivers a full online learning environment as
well as distance learning programmes.
11
James (2004), Power-knowledge and Critique in Australian legal education, 22.
12
James (2004), Power-knowledge and Critique in Australian legal education, 22. The other discourses
are: doctrinalism (law as set of legal rules to be obeyed; therefore to be studied with intellectual rigour),
vocationalism (law as a set of skills acquired through training with view to employability, liberalism (law
as theory and philosophy to be applied in order to achieve social justice and promote ethical behaviour),
radicalism (questions and critique the rule of law) and pedagogicalism (teaching and learning of law as a
discipline).
13
Variables suggested to be taken in the equation to include, transparency, accountability, disclosure,
integrity and fairness.
14
(1987), Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research; (1996), Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education, 32,
1-18.
15
(1976), On qualitative differences in learning : I. Outcome and process, British Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 15, 193-220.
16
See Higher Education Academy statement in: Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning Very crudely:
deep is good, surface is bad, and we should teach in a way that encourages students to adopt a deep
approach; : http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning-and-teaching-theory-guide/deep-and-surface-approacheslearning
17
Referred to as the forgotten cohort by Francis & McDonald [2006] Legal Digest 30.
18
H Garrett, (1997) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall
(eds), 310,.
19
Garrett, (1997) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall
(eds), 319.
20
Garrett defines with reference to lectures, transfer theory where knowledge is a commodity to be passed
from teacher to student in (1997) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Fry, Ketteridge
& Marshall (eds), 319.
21
Garrett describes the lecture-tutorial-case study method at page 319.
22
See HEA, Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning, http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning-and-teachingtheory-guide/deep-and-surface-approaches-learning. See also, Teaching & Learning @ UNSW Teaching
Portfolio, Sessional Staff Gateway: http://sessional.lnt.unsw.edu.au/content/how-are-they-learning/studentapproaches-learning
23
N J James, The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education,
(2004) UNSW Law Journal, 147-169.
24
N J James, The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education,
(2004) UNSW Law Journal, 147-169.
25
Coping with the Virtual Campus - Some Hints and Opportunities for Legal Education, 6 Legal Educ.
Rev. 116 (1995).
26
Goldring, Coping with the Virtual Campus - Some Hints and Opportunities for Legal Education,(1995)
6 Legal Educ. Rev. 116.
27
This may well be identified as the abstraction of meaning approach referred to by Garrett (1997) A
Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall (eds),at p 318.
67

Which may be described as the interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality, Garrett
(1997) 318.
29
P Jarvis (2006), Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning, 7. Having identified weaknesses
in the various approaches to learning during the mid 1980s, he was able to formulate and develop his
own research and theory on human learning (Adult Learning in the Social Context, Croon Helm, 1987).
This was based on the Kolb learning cycle, a diagrammatic representation is also found in Towards a
Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning, (2006), 9.
30
Reflecting J. Deweys philosophy that knowledge is the product of inquiry: See Dewey, as summarized
by Ferris, The legal educational continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey (2009) Vol 43(2) The Law
Teacher 102-113.
31
Kolb, (1984) Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development', New Jersey,
Prentice Hall. Kolbs theory is thought to be a refinement on Deweys analysis on experiential learning: see
Ferris, The legal educational continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey (2009) Vol 43(2) The Law
Teacher, 102-113.
32
P Jarvis (2006), Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning, 31. Ferris also states: For Dewey
learning is something a learner does in the course of attempting to achieve some goal.: Ferris, The legal
educational continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey (2009) Vol 43(2) The Law Teacher, 102-113.
33
See James, The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education,
(2004) UNSW Law Journal, 147-169, below.
34
referred to as the first 3 stages in Slj five categories of conceptions of learning (and cited in Gibbs,
1981).
35
P Jarvis (2006), Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning, 11, originally Jarvis, 1987:32.
36
I.e. that the Law is a social phenomenon, and finds its meaning in social practices.
37
including distance learning.
38
This was the subject of investigation by Richardson in Students perceptions of academic quality and
approaches to studying in distance education (2005) 31 British Educational Research Journal, 13.
39
This is also a view reflected by Professor Goldring in Goldring, Coping with the Virtual Campus - Some
Hints and Opportunities for Legal Education,(1995) 6 Legal Educ. Rev. 116 and Richardson, Students
perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education (2005) British
Educational Research Journal, 31, 1-21.
40
Which comprise, clear goals and standards, good teaching, generic skills. Appropriate assessment and
appropriate workload, See Entwistle & Tomlinson, Student learning and university teaching, (2007) The
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 8.
41
Approaches to Studying Inventory.
42
Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI).
43
Course Experience Questionaire, developed by Ramsden (1991).
44
(2005) 31 British Educational Research Journal, 13.
45
Generally distance learners resemble their older counterparts in orientation and approaches to studying
: Richardson, Students perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education
(2005) 31 British Educational Research Journal, 13.
46
(2005) 31 British Educational Research Journal, 13.
47
Johnson (1997) The 1996 Course Experience Questionnaire; Report prepared for the Graduate Careers
Council of Australia (Parkville, Victoria, Graduate Careers Council of Australia) pp 39-40 and (1998) The
1997 Course Experience Questionnaire; Report prepared for the Graduate Careers Council of Australia
(Parkville, Victoria, Graduate Careers Council of Australia), pp 56-57, 73-74
48
The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education, ( 2004)
UNSW Law Journal, 147-169.
28

68

legal pedagogicalism being both a form of knowledge about the teaching of law and an expression of
power seeking to regulate and discipline law teachers, law students and others in the law school: James,
The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education, ( 2004)
UNSW Law Journal, 147-169, at p 148.
50
Paul Ramsden, Improving the Quality of Higher Education: Lessons from Research on Student Learning
and Educational Leadership (1995) 6 Legal Education Review, 1, 3.
51
See James, The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education, (
2004) UNSW Law Journal, 147-169.
52
Burridge et al (eds), (2002) Effective learning & teaching in law, ILT, UK. Some practices have been
highlighted at p 20.
53
This is traditionally referred to as the legal method.
54
Professor Goldring is of the opinion that the learning objective should be restated to include helping
students acquire the capacity to learn:
55
Francis & McDonald [2006] Legal Digest 30.
56
World Legal Information Institute, AUSTLII, AsianLII, BAILII, FINDLAW and the like all of which are
of free access. Law schools are also sponsored by the various commercial publishing organizations which
provide access to their search engines like WESTLAW, LEXISNEXIS, Oxford University Press Online
Resources Centres, just to name a few.
57
See also UKCLE on Using e-learning in legal education which offers support and guidelines on the use
of e-learning products.
58
See Stone, Harding and Kidger, UKCLE, http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/enhancing-learningthrough-technology/ilex/
59
Francis & McDonald [2006] Legal Digest 30.
60
See Francis & McDonald [2006] Legal Digest 30 at p 278
61
See footnotes 39 and 47 above.
62
I.e. Personal Development Planning which is designed to help students monitor their own learning
and is defined by the Higher Education Academy as 'a structured and supported process undertaken
by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for
their personal, educational and career development'; see http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/
teachingandlearning/pdp. It includes a variety of methods connecting the planning (of intended learning /
achievement goals), doing (aligning actions to intentions), recording (thoughts, ideas, experiences and the
like, to facilitate documentation and evaluation of the process) and reflection (reviewing and evaluating
experiences and the results of learning) to aid the learning process.
63
Goldring, Coping with the Virtual Campus - Some Hints and Opportunities for Legal Education,(1995)
6 Legal Educ. Rev. 116.
64
It is noted that there is a move afoot in the UK to professionalise the teaching of law in the UK.
However, the momentum for this appears to be lacking. See Burridge et al (eds), (2002) Effective learning
& teaching in law, ILT, UK. Ferris suggests adopting a clinical approach by adapting Deweys experiential
learning theory: see Ferris, The legal educational continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey (2009)
Vol 43(2) The Law Teacher, 102-113.
49

69

References
Biggs, J. (1987) Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1-18.
Biggs, J. (1999) What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning; (1999) Vol. 18 (1) Higher
Education Research & Development, 57-75.
Bone, A. (2009) The twenty-first century law student, The Law Teacher, 43(2) 222-245.
Burridge, R et al (eds), (2002) Effective learning & teaching in law, ILT, UK.
Byles, R. & Soetendorp, R. (2002) Law teaching for other programmes, Chapter 7. Effective Learning &
Teaching in Law, Roger Burridge (ed) Routledge.
Cuthbert, P. (2005) The student learning process: learning styles or learning approaches? Teaching in
Higher Education, 10 (2) 235-249
Entwistle, N. & Tomlinson, P. (2007) Student learning and university teaching. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 8.
Ferris, G. (2009) The legal education continuum that is visible through a glass Dewey. The Law Teacher,
43(2), 102-113.
Francis, A & MacDonald, I. (2006) Legal Digest 30.
Garrett, R. (1997) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Fry. Ketteridge & Marshall
(eds) (2002) Kogan Page.
Goldring, J. (1995) Coping with the Virtual Campus-Some Hints and Opportunities for Legal Education.
6 Legal Educ. Rev, 116.
James, N. (2004) The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal
Education. 27(1) UNSW Law Journal, 147-169.
James, N. (2004) Power-Knowledge and Critique in Australian Legal Education, QUT.
Jarvis, P. (2006) Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning Routledge.
Johnson, T. (1997) The 1996 Course Experience Questionnaire; Report prepared for the Graduate Careers
Council of Australia (Parkville, Victoria, Graduate Careers Council of Australia).
Johnson, T. (1998) The 1997 Course Experience Questionnaire; Report prepared for the Graduate Careers
Council of Australia (Parkville, Victoria, Graduate Careers Council of Australia).
Keyes, M. & Johnstone, R. (2005) Changing Legal Education: Rhetoric, Reality and Prospects for the
Future, 13(4) Legal Education Digest, 15.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall.
70

Macduff, A. (2006) Deep Learning, Critical Thinking and Teaching for Law Reform, Legal Education
Digest, 14(4), 22.
Maharg, P. & Owen, M. (2007) Simulations, learning and the metaverse: changing cultures in legal
education. Vol. 1 Journal of Information Law and Technology, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/
elj/jilt/2007_1/ maharg_owen.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1997) The Experience of Learning, Scottish Academic Press.
Marton, F. & Slj, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 15, 193-220.
Neumann, R. (2001) Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 26(2),
135 -146.
Paliwala, A. (2007) Legal e-Learning in Network Society. Vol. 1 Journal of Information Law and
Technology, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2007_1/paliwala.
Ramsden, P. (2003) Chapters 4 and 5, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
Ramsden, P. (1995), Improving the Quality of Higher Education: Lessons from Research on Student
Learning and Educational Leadership, 6 Legal Education Review, 1, 3.
Richardson, J. (2005) Students perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance
education, British Educational Research Journal, 31, 1-21.
Stone, E., Harding, E, & Kidger, L. UKCLE, http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/enhancing-learningthrough-technology/ilex/.
Wallace, J. (2003) Globalisation of Judicial Education. 28 Yale Journal of International Law, 355-364.

71

Higher Education Research Network Journal

Prizewinning Essays
Contents
Editor's Introduction
David Hay

Culture, Learning and Development: A Case Study on the Ethiopian Higher Education System
Andrew King

How could a dialogic approach to teaching transform students' learning? A discussion with
reference to Medical Education
Alison Stenton

15

Mindfulness and open-text in higher education: a meditation on how to make peace between
the teacher and the researcher
Chiara de Franco

23

The role of high-fidelity clinical simulation in teaching and learning in the health professions
Claire Bradley

33

Using scaffolding and guided-inquiry to improve learning in a postgraduate forensic science

laboratory class
Leon Barron

43

Team-teaching of lecture courses in the biomedical sciences: an analysis of methods and

approaches in other fields and consequent practical recommendations
Marc S Dionne

53

Leveling the deep learning approach playing field for traditional, multidisciplinary and distance law
students
Martina Proctor

61

HERN-J
Editor: David B Hay
ISBN 978-0-955 8633-7-0