As a visiting lecturer at Ohio State some years ago, Professor Tony Grasha of the University of Cincinnati titled his talk, "How Can I Teach You If I Don't Know How You Learn?" Although Grasha's question seems perfectly logical, quite amazingly, colleges and universities have traditionally had no formal requirements for any study of learning theory in the backgrounds of the people they hire to teach. The longstanding assumption has been that if one knows a body of knowledge, one can teach it. Recently, this assumption has been questioned and more systematic efforts to prepare graduate students and new faculty for teaching have been undertaken. Knowing how students learn involves exploring theories of cognition and motivation, knowing the backgrounds of the students one will teach, and being aware of differences in learning styles and stages of development among one's students. The material offered here will provide an overview of current learning theory, some constructs that have been used by researchers to organize descriptive information on students' ways of learning, and implications for instructors.
Ideas on how human learning occurs are explored primarily by psychologists. A very powerful explanation posed by a group of theorists taking what has come to be called the behaviorist-associationist approach has for years dominated thinking on how people learn. Some tenets of this theory are that people learn through associations and that a given stimulus will produce a response. The well-known example is Pavlov's classical conditioning exercise of the salivating dog. Learning is viewed as the building up of habits of association. Repetition, especially followed by positive reinforcement, promotes learning. The teacher breaks up knowledge into small, logically organized bits of information and provides reinforcement for students to learn. Many of the approaches in college teaching today, such as behavioral objectives, hierarchical curricula, and objective testing, are the legacy of behaviorist-associationist thinking.
More recently, the cognitive approach has been favored as an explanation for how people learn in settings such as college environments, where knowledge is complex and process is as important as recall of facts. Cognitive psychologists focus on memory, reasoning, and tasks such as critical thinking and problem solving. They are most interested in how learners construct meaning as they encounter new information and try to fit it in with what they already know. These theorists describe learning as a process of accommodating new information into existing frameworks that the learner has established for fitting pieces of information together. At times, new frameworks must be constructed as well. Good explanations of learning theory applied to college teaching are contained in Bruning (1994), Casazza and Silverman (1996) and Svinicki (2004).
Svinicki (1991) outlines six principles of learning based on cognitive theory and their implications for instructors:
Some suggestions for instructors for translating learning theory into practice were made by Svinicki (2004) in a guest lecture at Ohio State:
Follow the GAMES Model: be Goal oriented; encourage Active learning; make learning Meaningful; focus on how Explanations are given; encourage Self-regulation of learning.
For activating prior knowledge before learning, instructors can ask students to fill out a prelearning checklist, a preconceptions/misconceptions checklist, or brainstorm on what they already know that is related. During learning, instructors can make ample use of analogies, familiar examples, and comparison with topics that were previously treated.
To help students actively process new information, instructors can emphasize the organization of the ideas by having students fill in empty outlines or making concept maps that show relationships with other ideas. They can encourage students to summarize by asking them to paraphrase at given intervals or write a short summary of their understanding after a class or reading. Instructors can promote active involvement in learning by fostering peer dialogue and speaking, problem solving, and writing.
To help students become more aware of their own learning, instructors can have students document in writing the steps they took to solve a problem or arrive at a conclusion, discuss their learning approach and assess their own progress, and use peers as process observers who give feedback on the observed approaches to tasks and assignments.
Cognitive psychologists also emphasize the internal motivation of the learner (as opposed to external stimuli) and the role of social communities in learning. Theorists such as Pintrich (1994) and Perry, Menec, and Struthers (1996) point out that motivation is affected by both student and classroom factors. Students' beliefs about whether they are in control and competent to perform a learning task as well as the nature of the tasks, the reward and goal structure, the instructional methods, and teacher expectations and behaviors can affect learning. They suggest that teachers help students use "effort" as an explanation for their learning results rather than "luck," and teachers provide variety, an appropriate level of challenge, a collaborative rather than competitive ethos, and sufficient organizational structure for learning. Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) focus on student diversity in discussing motivation. They argue that students at the margins have particularly high needs for support. They suggest that teachers work hard to establish a sense of inclusion so that students feel respected and connected to one another; that they use relevance and choice to create a sense of self-determination; that they engage and challenge students to enhance meaning; and that they create a sense of competence in their students. Also focusing on instructor actions and classroom climate, McLeod (1996) distinguishes between "deep learning states" and surface learning, emphasizing that low stress learning environments that promote interpersonal interaction and create an atmosphere of caring and open reflection are more likely to foster deep learning.
Effective teachers realize that teaching is more than simply "laying out the feast of knowledge" and hoping that students will be motivated enough to partake. Teachers can have significant impact on levels of student motivation through exciting interest and encouraging learning as well as in introducing information. Instructors who excel in inspiring students argue that creating a
good classroom environment for learning is fundamental to their success. James Knight, a former Ohio State faculty member, lists nine tips for improving the classroom climate:
Integral to any discussion of motivation is "personalizing" the classroom. Using instructional strategies that enable some individualization of instruction or small group work helps develop personal investment and interest in learning. Similarly, direct attempts of instructors to talk about such things as their own life experiences related to the subject and their personal difficulties in mastering certain concepts create a warmer classroom climate.
As discussed earlier, Ohio State students come from a variety of backgrounds. It would be appropriate to assume that they would also have a variety of motivations for learning and widely differing levels of motivation. Even if students are willing to work hard and learn while in school or are capable of doing good work, there are external factors that may inhibit them from succeeding.
There is an incredibly wide range of reasons for why your students are in college and specifically why they are in your class. Keep in mind that their reasons may differ from your reasons for going to college and for having an interest in your field. Some students come to college with noble goals of self-edification and some come with practical goals of receiving knowledge, training, and experience. Some come for social reasons (prestige, partying) or for the sake of "getting a degree" because it is the next step expected of them after high school. As educators we generally hope that the latter reasons eventually turn into the former, and we should all participate in encouraging that transformation.
Likewise, students enroll in specific classes for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to a deep passion for the subject, teacher reputation, a pedestrian interest in the subject matter, requirements for majors and graduation, parents' insistence, and scheduling limitations that necessitate that they take any class at that time. In addition, some students come with a strong desire to succeed and a network of family and friends who are constantly supporting and encouraging them. Others may be the first in their family to go to college, and thus are here without the sense of tradition or their family's understanding of the difficulty and of the life-changing processes of the new experience. This type of motivation and support, in particular, has a profound effect on student dedication and success.
We are also soon made aware that we may not be perceived as the hottest ticket in town. Even if students are motivated to study and learn, there are other temptations and obligations which vie for their attention: the draw of social events, concerts, sporting events, television, the Internet, Greek life, work, recreational sports, new romances, and family matters. And then there are their other classes. Being aware of our "audience" makes us more effective teachers, not by pandering to students' wishes and likes, but by understanding how they learn, how they got here, what they need, and the wide range of obstacles hindering their success, and then addressing each of these in how we teach.
In addition to these factors that affect motivation, there is also the psychological or cognitive element in motivation. How students perceive their competency and how they judge the amount of control they exert in the learning process greatly affects how they will perform. Several learning motivation theories are briefly outlined below. Implications for instructors will also be provided. This section on learning motivation theories has been adapted from Cross and Steadman (1996).
The self-efficacy theory of learning motivation places emphasis on a person's beliefs about one's ability to learn. Some believe that ability is something that a person is born with and is seen as a permanent, fixed trait. Others believe that ability is expandable and that people can be successful through hard work. This incremental view of ability motivates them to take on challenges to increase their knowledge and to never give up when tasks become very difficult.
For others, beliefs about their lack of ability to learn are more important than actual skill levels. Students sitting in class may have high intelligence but lack confidence in their ability to complete tasks successfully. If they lack confidence (they do not believe they were born with a trait necessary for success), they will approach learning challenges with dread. They will typically avoid challenge and choose easy learning tasks that they are confident they can perform, ultimately ensuring some level of success.
Attribution theory states that motivation depends on the reasons to which people attribute their success or failure when completing various tasks. There are several ways of categorizing the attribution or cause of outcomes:
Locus. The cause is internal (ability) or external (teaching/exam) to the learner.
Stability. The cause is permanent (intelligence does not change) or temporary (effort can be modified).
Controllability. The actor has or does not have power or control in success or failure (no control over exam questions; control over own ability).
According to this theory, students may be less motivated to learn when they believe they are powerless over their success. They may assume that their ability is permanent and cannot be changed, leading to problems with self-confidence. Additionally, for students who believe that they have no control over the success of a learning task (e.g., exams are unfair; they were not born with high intelligence), they may lack the motivation to put a lot of effort into learning tasks.
In a competitive academic environment, most students want to preserve their sense of self-worth, which is based on their self-perceived ability to complete tasks successfully. Students who have been successful in their academic endeavors feel good about themselves, while those who have not done well question whether their failure is due to either their ability or effort (being dumb versus being lazy). Most people would rather have others (and themselves) question their effort and not their ability. Unfortunately, both potential causes come with negative emotions. If people fail at a task while putting in a lot of effort, they feel shame; if failure is due to a lack of effort, they feel guilt.
Using the self-worth theory, an inherent conflict exists between students' and instructors' values about effort. Instructors reward effort, yet students take a risk putting forth a lot of effort when faced with a challenging task that they perceive as having a low probability of success. In order to avoid shame from failing due to a lack of ability, some students may not try hard to succeed, may procrastinate on difficult tasks, or may select an easier learning task with less risk. It is interesting to note that some students avoid failure in the classroom (or excuse it) in a more socially acceptable way such as becoming overly involved in extracurricular activities.
According to the concepts of the self-worth model, there are four different (although not mutually exclusive) patterns of student motivation:
Success-Oriented. These students enjoy learning for the sake of learning. They are confident in their success because they have succeeded in the past. Despite some failures in the past, they will continue to take on learning tasks. For high academic achievement in order to prove their ability to themselves and others. These are usually the students who study very hard and still have very high anxiety about succeeding.
Failure-Avoiders. Students in this category escape testing their ability by avoiding challenges that pose a risk of failure. They have high anxiety but may not always be successful.
Failure-Accepting. These students have given up trying to succeed. They are not necessarily satisfied with success, but not unhappy with failure either. Since they do not expect much success, there is not a lot of shame in failure. These are typically the students who never check on their grades after exams and never seek out help from instructors.
Keeping all of the information given above in mind, instructors may want to take the following measures to maximize their students' chances for success.
Identify student goals. Students attend college and take specific courses for a variety of reasons based on different goals (occupational, educational, social, etc). All of these goals influence their motivation to learn. Many may not come to college with clear, specific goals, and this in turn affects the amount of importance they will place on certain courses and the amount of time and
energy they will allot to learning the material. Some students desire or otherwise need guidance in identifying or clarifying their goals. Many need to be shown (or convinced of) the relevance of the course to these goals and to their lives in general. Instructors, therefore, need to identify this relevance while designing the course, discuss it at the beginning of the course, and reinforce it frequently.
Assess motivation. In Classroom Assessment Techniques (Angelo & Cross, 1993) instructors can find numerous tools to help uncover their students' motivations for learning. For example, conducting a Course-Related Self Confidence Survey allows students to rate their self-perceived confidence in topics related to the course. The Focused Autobiographical Sketch can be used early in the course to help instructors determine how their students' past successes and failures may be related to their willingness to take on learning challenges which are important to the course. Tools like these can be valuable in looking for ways to modify curriculum and adjust teaching strategies that will allow the most success in their students' learning.
Challenge and encourage. Instructors can increase students' optimism for potential success and consequently decrease their fear of failure by providing moderate, non-threatening levels of challenge. The rationale is based on the fact that students' perception of their ability to succeed depends on both their perception of the level of difficulty and their self-confidence in their ability to succeed in that task. Allowing students to revise their own work, giving them choices in assignments, and always providing some amount of positive feedback on all learning tasks will increase their sense of control, responsibility, and mastery.
Tap into intrinsic motivation. By learning to make meaning of something and being able to use new information, students begin to have an intrinsic motivation to learn. All too often, students are accustomed to working for extrinsic motivating factors such as fulfilling requirements, grades/rewards, and avoiding punishment. In order to help students foster intrinsic motivations, instructors should avoid the excessive use of grades or penalties (less emphasis on substance and more on performance), be enthusiastic about the course content, provide relevant examples that connect with existing knowledge, actively discuss and review what they have mastered so far, and apply principles such as problem-based learning early on in the course.
Student Preparedness
Although learning theory provides a general entry to the question of how students learn, college teachers must also be aware of differences in learning across individuals. One of the most difficult issues in beginning to teach a new group is assessing the entry level of the students (i.e., level of preparation in and previous experience with the subject matter, level of cognitive development, repertoire of learning styles, level of interest and motivation). This knowledge is extremely important to effective teaching; a poor understanding of the needs and abilities of students can result in teaching that is at an inappropriate level of difficulty or is irrelevant to the needs of the students. There are several quick ways of assessing this entry level at the beginning of the term. In Classroom Assessment Techniques, Angelo and Cross (1993) discuss different means of determining prior knowledge, preconceptions, and misconceptions. Methods for assessment include student information cards (asking for previous experience, reasons for taking the class, etc.), an ungraded previous knowledge quiz, and class brainstorming on the subject matter of the class.
Equally important to teaching is some understanding of how these students are likely to differ in the ways in which they learn. Three broad categories of descriptive literature on students' ways of learning will be discussed here. They include cognitive development, cognitive style, and differences based on age, disability, gender, and cultural background.
Perry uses the term dualistic to describe the first three positions. The ways in which students at these stages differ are based on how they account for uncertainty:
Position 1. All information is either right or wrong. Uncertainty is not perceived.
Position 2. All information is either right or wrong, and where uncertainty seems to exist, it is really an error committed by a wrong authority.
Position 3. All information is either right or wrong, but uncertainty is acceptable in areas where experts do not know the answers yet. Someday the right answer will be discovered or found.
Students in the dualistic stage are often confused or hostile in a classroom setting in which multiple points of view are presented. They want "just the facts, please" and do not want to hear that there are conflicting opinions. They want the teacher to be strong, authoritative, and clear in the position that is taken. These students are apt to view their roles as passive recipients of a body of knowledge and will often resent being asked to play an active role in class. They regard the teacher as the person who already has the knowledge and may not feel that there is any value in contributing an opinion or listening to the opinions of their fellow students.
Students in Positions 1 and 2 are able to learn (often by memorizing) basic facts and definitions of words and concepts, identify parts of a whole, begin to compare and contrast, and provide an explanation of why they answer as they do. In Position 3, students can compare and contrast and see multiple perspectives, parts, opinions, and evaluations. Student can do basic analytic tasks but need to learn to use supportive evidence.
Perry uses the term relativistic to describe students in Positions 4–6. During this phase, the students' previous categories of right and wrong are transformed. Knowledge is now seen as uncertain or valid only within a context. The positions are differentiated by the following traits:
Position 4. The student begins to feel that most questions cannot be answered with absolute certainty and, when uncertainty prevails, feels that all answers are of equal value.
Position 5. The sense of relativism enlarges and the student begins to form nonabsolute criteria for making judgments.
Position 6. The ability to make judgments increases and a personal stance or commitment develops.
Students in Position 4 can compare and contrast, do abstract analysis, and do some synthesis. They can do both positive and negative critiques and use supportive arguments well. At this stage, the student is developing the capacity to relate learning in one context or class to other issues in other classes or to issues in real life.
In Positions 5 and 6, the student can relate learning in one context to learning in another with some ease and can look for relationships in learning. The student can evaluate, conclude, and support his or her own analysis and can synthesize various points of view. Finally, the student learns to modify and expand concepts of knowledge, and perhaps generates new ways of looking at a given question or formulates new questions.
Administration of instruments designed to assess cognitive development in terms of Perry's scheme has revealed that, although students of a given age category vary in their cognitive levels, most college students in the traditional age range of 18–24 enter at the dualistic stage and many progress toward the advanced relativistic stage as they go through college. Some enter at higher levels and some will not progress, so one cannot assume homogeneity in a group of a given age. Nevertheless, a general guideline is that most seniors can perform cognitive tasks that most freshmen cannot and instructional expectations should be based on this general guideline.
Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker (1975) use the notions of challenge and support to draw implications for teaching based on Perry's theory. They argue that students at a given level need to be stretched or challenged to continue to reach higher levels but also need support to handle the challenge. They caution that one cannot expect students to skip over developmental stages; tasks must be at or only slightly above the student's level. Specific recommendations are summarized below.
Teachers can challenge their students to move on to other levels by:
Teachers can support students who are at the dualistic stage as they work toward higher levels by:
Teachers can challenge their students to move to higher levels by:
Teachers can support their students as they move to higher levels by:
Gilligan (1982) and Belenky et al. (1986), aware that the sample for Perry's research was largely male, undertook research on female moral and cognitive development and found different patterns in their sample of women. Belenky and her co-authors described an initial level of silence in which women feel powerless and intimidated by male authority and forms of argumentation. Following this are four more levels:
Although Gilligan and Belenky and their coauthors make the point that given types of cognitive development are not exclusively male or female, they do note that the above pattern is found more in women than men.
Another researcher, Baxter-Magolda (1992) describes stages that have similarities with those found by Belenky and her coauthors. Baxter-Magolda describes four levels of knowing (absolute,
transitional, independent, and contextual). Within each of these levels, she distinguishes two contrasting approaches, which are gender-related. These are the interpersonal approach (found more commonly in women) and the impersonal approach (more characteristic of men). Interpersonal learners are more concerned than impersonal learners with sharing ideas (rather than debating them), with seeking rapport with the teacher (rather than being challenged by the teacher), with expecting to be evaluated as an individual (rather than receiving standard treatment), and with using personal judgment (rather than logic and research) to resolve uncertainty. Baxter-Magolda asserts that although men and women pass through similar stages at similar rates in developing cognitive complexity, their approaches toward knowledge tend to be different.
The implications for teaching of the research on cognition and gender include the importance of recognizing that women may often feel overwhelmed and silenced by a discourse style that is not comfortable to them; that they may want to trust personal judgment, instincts, and emotions as valid contributions to arriving at a position; and that they may withdraw from argumentation and forced analysis as hostile or unproductive forms of activity. Instructors can make sure that all students have a voice in class by moderating discussion to ensure equal levels of participation and encouragement and providing opportunities for personal forms of expression in papers and projects. Rowe (1986) and Mansfield (1996) provide examples of how an instructor's attention to wait time can ensure gender equity in the classroom.
Another way of describing differences in students is based on the idea that people have different ways of learning. Research in this area has mushroomed in the past several years, producing descriptions of styles based on a variety of organizing ideas. A few of the dominant schemes are described below.
Based on studies on perception, Witkin and Moore (1975) describe a central differentiating characteristic of learners based on the way in which they handle information in context. They describe field independent students as those who try to analyze things into component parts and like to work independently. Field independent students are able to set their own learning goals and prefer the freedom to participate in setting their assignments. They like to work with abstract ideas and prefer to work with a minimum of structure and guidance. Witkin and Moore call learners who perceive in holistic fashion field dependent learners. These individuals rely on external stimuli in approaching a task and have a much more difficult time separating the individual parts within a whole. These students tend to be more social in their interests and like teachers to structure classroom goals for them. They prefer group work and student discussion in class.
David Kolb (1981) posits that four main processes are used in learning:
He states that most people apply these four processes in cyclical fashion as they learn, but that each person engages in some activities more than others. Depending on these preferences, he describes four learning styles:
Convergers rely most on abstract conceptualizing and active experimenting. They like to find specific, concrete answers and move quickly to solution. They are relatively unemotional and prefer dealing with things rather than with people. Convergers often specialize in the physical sciences or engineering. They prefer learning tasks that have specific answers.
Assimilators rely most on abstract conceptualizing and reflective observation. They like to integrate ideas and are more interested in theoretical concerns than in applications. Assimilators tend to gravitate toward math and the physical sciences and like research and planning. They prefer learning tasks that call for them to integrate material.
Divergers rely on concrete experience and reflective observation. They like to generate many ideas and enjoy working with people. They often are attracted to such fields as counseling and consulting. Divergers enjoy class discussion and working in groups.
Accommodators rely on concrete experience and active experimentation. They take risks, are action oriented, like new experiences, and are very adaptable in new situations. They prefer a hands-on approach and often are attracted to technical or business fields, such as marketing and sales.
Several researchers have focused on the extent to which sensory receptors influence learning. In general, they describe the following different types of learners:
As with all of the literature on learning styles, the emphasis with sensory modality preferences is not placed solely on trying to match learning and teaching styles, but on extending the strengths of learners and expanding their range of modalities. A teacher can accomplish this by using a range of activities and having students complete assignments in a variety of formats.
Although learning style is not directly related to race and gender, there are research studies that suggest some patterns (Anderson & Adams, 1992). For example, Irvine and York (1995), in a review of the extensive published research findings on learning styles and culturally diverse students, found that African American, Native American, and Hispanic students often have a learning style referred to as field dependent learners (some writers prefer to use the terms relational, field sensitive, or global learners). This suggests that these students achieve best when working in groups on verbal tasks. Research further indicates that they learn more easily those materials that have humor, social content, and are characterized by the use of imagination. In learning situations, they are most sensitive to the opinions of others. This particular learning style often conflicts with the traditional school environment, which tends to favor individual and competitive learning processes. In contrast, many European American men and Asian American students are field independent learners. Therefore, they tend to perform better on analytical tasks, learn more easily material that is inanimate and impersonal, and not be greatly affected by the opinion of others as they perform (Anderson, 1988).
What students expect from instructors
(based upon preferred style)
| Field Dependent Orientation | Field Independent Orientation |
| To give support, show interest, be emotional | To focus on task and be objective |
| To provide guidance, modeling, and constructive feedback | To provide independence and flexibility |
To provide verbal and nonverbal cues to support words |
To provide commands and messages directly and articulately |
| To minimize professional distance |
To maximize professional distance |
To seek opinions when making decisions and to incorporate affective considerations |
To make decisions based upon analysis of problem and objective criteria |
| To identify with values and needs of students |
To identify with goals and objectives of task |
A Comparison of Teaching Styles Based upon a Similar Orientation
(field dependent and field independent teaching strategies)
| Field Dependent | Field Independent |
Focuses on needs, feelings, and interests of students |
Focuses on task |
| Acts as a consultant or supervisor in the classroom | Fosters modeling and imitation |
Uses an informal approach—elicits class discussion |
Uses a formal, lecture-oriented approach |
| Uses personal rewards | Uses impersonal rewards |
| Encourages group achievement | Encourages individual achievement |
Narrates and humanizes concepts |
Emphasizes facts and principles |
Identifies with class |
Remains emotionally detached |
Teaching in a diverse classroom means that there will be many different learning styles. Effective teaching cannot be limited to the delivery of information, but needs to be based on a model of minds at work. The generative process of learning is most effective when instructors both affirm the presence and validity of diverse learning styles, and also maximize the climate or conditions for learning in the classroom (Anderson & Adams, 1992). While instructors should be aware of differences when identifying learning styles with particular groups, they also should still use a full range of instructional strategies in order to stretch the experience and learning repertoire of all of their students.