EDUCAÇÃO NA SOCIEDADE DE INFORMAÇÃO
Learning and Teaching in the 21st Century:Trends and Implications for Practice
*Marcia Baxter Magolda et alii
 
       As contemporary society becomes increasingly diverse and complex, so does the process of preparing young people for life as independent thinkers, productive citizens, and future leaders. The changing nature of students, the collegiate experience, learning, teaching, and outcomes assessment all have substantive implications for altering educational practice. Trends in these five arenas are examined here as a foundation for exploring their implications for research and guiding educational practice in the next century.
The Changing Nature of Students
        The salient characteristics of today's students include their diversity in age, socioeconomic status, gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, and learning and physical ability. Their diversity may be greater today than at any times in the history of American higher education. Indeed, the "traditional" college student--white, male, 18- to 20-years old, attending a four-year, liberal arts college full-time, and living on campus--is now in the minority in higher education. In addition to those students, today's college population also includes significant proportions of older students returning to school due to changes in the economy, women's roles, and work environments. Over half of the undergraduate population is over 21; 41% are over 24 (National Center for Education Statistics, 1994).
        Students vary in many other ways. The socioeconomic status of today's students ranges from those whose families are able to finance their education fully, to adults whose incomes must also cover family expenses, to low-income students who require financial assistance. Growing violence in secondary schools and neighborhoods has affected some students' pre-college educational experiences in ways totally foreign to "traditional" students and most faculty members who were themselves "traditional" college students (Terenzini, et al., 1994; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). Economic and societal conditions during their youth have led many of today's college students to value vocational training over learning for learning's sake (Levine & Cureton, 1998), resulting in a wide array of attitudes and motivations toward learning. Women currently make up the majority of most institutions' undergraduate student bodies; women's changing educational and political interests have expanded in some traditionally male-dominated fields and decreased other, traditionally female-dominated fields; their increased presence and different needs have altered campus services and raised the issue of bias toward particular groups of students (El-Khawas, 1996). Members of historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups -- African American, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American, and foreign nationals -- now constitute approximately a fourth of today's undergraduates (Carter & Wilson, 1995).
        Such heterogeneity in the student body requires the expansion of perspectives taught in higher education. It also requires educational communities open to difference, as well as new and varied pedagogies and assumptions about levels of preparation, learning styles, and available time for study (as opposed to family and occupational responsibilities). Awareness of, and openness to, differences are also crucial to the growing population of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students whose marginalization affects their educational experience. Similarly, students with disabilities--whether physical, learning, or health-related--are attending college in increasing numbers and require accommodations to maximize their educational opportunities. Students are increasingly coming from single-parent homes, have experienced mental or physical abuse, have experienced substance abuse, and seek counseling for personal and family mental health issues during the college years (Upcraft, 1994). Levine and Cureton report that "students are coming to college overwhelmed and more damaged than those of previous years" (1998, p. 95). Their statement is based on increases in use of psychological counseling services, eating disorders, classroom disruption, alcohol abuse, gambling, and suicide attempts. The complexity of this student body produces multiple educational goals, learning approaches, and situational factors that can present instructors and administrators alike with a formidable array of new challenges.
The Changing Nature of the Collegiate Experience
        The increasing complexity of students' backgrounds and educational goals is reflected in the varying approaches students take to higher education. El-Khawas (1996) reports that enrollment in graduate and professional degree programs is growing, as is enrollment in certificate programs of less than two years. Diverse educational goals, as well as varying life and economic circumstances, produce different attendance patterns. Part-time enrollments continue to grow, and while institutions vary in the balance of part-time and full-time enrollment, part-time students make up approximately 40% of the undergraduate enrollment (El-Khawas, 1996). Intermittent study is expected to grow as family, work, and economic resources constrain students' abilities to attend college on a continuous and regular basis. Transfers among institutions are also increasingly prevalent. Thus, higher education tends to be a part of students lives, but in many cases college attendance is not the central or defining activity of their lives. For these students, college must compete with employment and family obligations. Distance learning and increasingly sophisticated technology will also change the possibilities for engaging in higher education and the nature of the experiences encountered. Four or five years of full-time study in a residential college is no longer the most frequently traveled road to a college education.
Our Changing Understanding of How Students Learn
        Both the evolving nature of society and the student body have led to reconceptualizations of learning outcomes and processes. In a postmodern society, higher education must prepare students to shoulder their moral and ethical responsibility to confront and wrestle with the complex problems they will encounter in today's and tomorrow's world. Critical, reflective thinking skills, the ability to gather and evaluate evidence, and the ability to make one's own informed judgments are essential learning outcomes if students are to get beyond relativity to make informed judgments in a world in which multiple perspectives are increasingly interdependent and "right action" is uncertain and often in dispute. Civic responsibility and productive citizenship require not only cognitive complexity but affective complexity and commitment as well. Adults' abilities to manage their own work, nurture their own families, and contribute to their communities hinges on the complexity of their thinking, feeling, and relating to others (Kegan, 1994). Holistic views of learning in which thinking, feeling, and relating to others are integrated are increasingly prevalent.
        As educators, we must now recognize and respond to the fact that "intelligence" is not unidimensional, that people (including students) have "multiple intelligences" (Gardner, 1983), including, for example, linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist "intelligences." Gardner's expansion of the concept of intelligence beyond the cognitive to the affective, social and artistic contributes to a holistic picture of learning. We must also recognize that learning is not unidimensional, that people vary in the ways in which they take in and interpret information--what Kolb (1984) calls learning styles. Students also vary with regard to how goals and expectations motivate them, their beliefs about their ability to succeed, and the reasons to which they attribute their progress in learning (Stage, 1996).
        Moreover, mounting evidence indicates that the sources of influence on students' learning are as varied and interconnected as the ways in which students learn (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). For example, not only are gains in critical thinking ability accompanied by changes in students' self-identities, self-esteem, and an array of attitudes and values, but the sources of influence on the development of critical thinking are themselves varied and interrelated. Some research (e.g., Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora, 1994, 1995) indicates students' out-of-class experiences promote critical thinking skills independent of, and perhaps to the same degree as, students' classroom experiences. These holistic views of learning demand consideration of multiple educational outcomes that include complex cognitive skills, an ability to apply knowledge to practical problems, an appreciation of human differences, practical competence skills, and a coherent integrated sense of identity (ACPA, 1994). Recognizing that students are active participants -- not passive recipients -- in the learning process and in their making of meaning, that students approach this process from multiple frameworks, and that students' academic and cognitive development are shaped by their out-of-class experiences as well as their formal academic experiences all make the educational process's connection to students' experience a central component of learning (Baxter Magolda, 1992). Contemporary conversations across disciplines are focusing not only on knowledge acquisition alone, but also on the processes by which students acquire new knowledge and skills, how they make sense of the new ideas, attitudes, people, and experiences they are encountering in the college experience.
The Changing Nature of Teaching
        Education reform efforts increasingly emphasize that the traditional transmission of knowledge from teacher to student is no longer sufficient for an educated citizenry. Teaching students to actively develop knowledge, to evaluate information and evidence, and to become adept at making informed decisions requires modeling these processes, engaging students in practicing them, and acknowledging students and teachers' subjectivity. Parker Palmer (1997) argues that we bring our selves to the teaching process, just as our students bring themselves to the learning process; he notes that one of the difficult truths about teaching is that it "will never take unless it connects with the inward, living core of our students lives" (p. 20). Trends in undergraduate education in the U.S. suggest some movement in perceptions of the faculty member's role in the classroom away from that of the provider of instruction to that of the facilitator of student learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995). In this conception of effective teaching, students -- with the help and guidance of the faculty member -- discover and learn for themselves, becoming members of learning communities as they make discoveries and solve problems. Feminist teachers advocate bringing students' ideas forward and helping develop them (e.g., Maher & Tetrault, 1994). Similarly, teachers who believe in empowering students advocate helping students analyze the forces in their lives to heighten consciousness and increase productive action (e.g., Shor, 1992). Constructivist teachers emphasize students and teachers discovering and constructing knowledge together (e.g., Twomey Fosnot, 1996). Developmental teachers recognize that students' abilities to construct knowledge hinge on their assumptions about the nature, limits, and certainty of knowledge (e.g., Baxter Magolda, in press; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Kegan, 1993; King & Kitchener, 1994). These schools of thought all embrace the mutual interaction of students and teachers' thinking and learning. They advocate modeling learning based on using one's own experience, expanding that experience through engagement with multiple perspectives, and informed integration of multiple perspectives and existing knowledge in making one's own decisions about what to believe.
        Collaboration, active engagement, and inclusion characterize these contemporary instructional approaches. Teachers and students collaborate, as do students and their peers. The traditional boundaries between the roles, responsibilities, and activities of teachers and learners are blurred, if not eliminated entirely. This collaboration takes place in learning communities in which learners respect one another and work toward common goals for everyone's success. Active engagement involves bringing one's experience to learning, being willing to expand one's understanding, integrating new perspectives into one's thinking, and applying that changed thinking to one's own life. These forms of teaching are inclusive because they invite all students' experiences and thoughts into the learning interaction. The trend toward this type of teaching is not about particular methods but rather about the way educators view knowledge, authority, and learner capability. These trends move toward a new culture of teaching and learning (Hutchings, 1997).
        Finally, how information technologies are reshaping the nature of the instructional process and with what consequences remains a little-known area. It is clear that the availability of a wide array of information technologies have significantly increased students' power and opportunities to learn under conditions with limited (if any) oversight of a faculty member. However, it is not clear how the active engagement and collaboration shown to enhance critical thinking skills might be incorporated into these technological advances. The educational consequences of technology-enhanced classrooms are as yet only little understood.
The Changing Nature of Outcomes Assessment
        Trends in learning outcomes and teaching practices have produced changes in our conceptions and methods of outcomes assessment. The dynamic nature of contemporary forms of teaching and learning require on-going assessment, which is increasingly viewed as an integral part of the teaching-learning process, as a feedback mechanism for teachers and learners alike, not merely an administrative add-on for accountability purposes. Perhaps the most prevalent example of continual assessment is Angelo and Cross' (1993) classroom assessment techniques that help teacher and learner gauge the degree to which they understand each other. Assessment as a continuous process represents a significant conceptual shift that extends beyond a focus on outcomes to examination of the underlying conditions for learning (Hutchings, 1989). It also represents an explicit shift from individual courses or programs and their outcomes to how teaching affects the cumulative understandings of students. Assessing knowledge gains will no longer be sufficient; outcomes in critical thinking, cultural understanding, empathy, citizenship, and social responsibility will also be important (Astin, 1996). Hutchings argues that we need "assessment predicated on a view of learning that is integrated and multi-dimensional" (1989, p. 29). Students' potential for independent learning after college is another intended outcome of the new approaches to teaching and learning and a worthy object for assessment (Wingspread Group, 1993). Assessment must also acknowledge the impact of environment and climate on student learning (Astin, 1996).
Implications for Practice
        The overriding implication of these trends is that conventional assumptions about students, the collegiate experience, learning, teaching, and assessment will not serve higher education well in the 21st century. Collectively, the trends clearly require educators (i.e., faculty members and administrators alike) to re-examine -- and probably transform -- current assumptions about the ways we engage learners in the educational process. This re-examination must carefully scrutinize beliefs about who our students are, how they learn, their level of preparation, other demands being made on their time and attention (e.g., family and work), and their educational and occupational goals. The re-examination must also extend to current beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners, the learning/teaching process and how it can best be facilitated, and how we can create and sustain significant educational communities. Similarly, the re-examination must also include serious exploration of ways to minimize, if not eliminate, the current organizational bifurcation of academic and student affairs. Structurally and functionally, the present boundaries must be blurred to reflect the joint and synergistic effects of students' in- and out-of-class experiences on learning.
        The increasing heterogeneity of the undergraduate student bodies on most college and university campuses will require far more targeted educational interventions than we now have. Dogged persistence in delivering education in the same way we've offered it in the past is unlikely to be productive. The research increasingly reminds us that one size does not fit all, that what is educationally effective for some students may not be so effective for other kinds of students. We must first understand -- and accept -- who our students are and then move to provide instructional experiences in and outside the classroom tailored to meet those students' learning needs.
        Such educational tailoring requires recognition of the fact that learning is holistic, connected to learners' lives, and characterized by multiple intelligences and ways of knowing. That recognition, in turn, requires new pedagogical assumptions. Constructivist pedagogy necessitates respecting students' ways of knowing and learning and incorporating them into the educational process. Further, it emphasizes active and collaborative learning, as well as respecting learners as adults with relevant experience who, with guidance, are capable of making informed judgments about what to believe. In active and collaborative learning settings, teachers--both faculty and student affairs professionals--become guides, collaborators, and facilitators rather than omniscient authorities (the "guide-on-the-side" vs. the "sage on the stage"). Teaching and learning become integrated and interactive processes, no longer the traditional, instructor-centered, "I pitch; you catch." approach to knowledge transmission. In its place is a learner-centered view of informed knowledge construction among teachers and learners. This shift is not merely a modification of current teaching techniques (e.g., adding group work or unstructured activity to a predominantly lecture-driven course). It is a fundamental transformation of assumptions about learners, teachers, and the kinds of interactions that lead to knowledge and skill acquisition and learning.
        Teachers and students learning together implies transforming assumptions about instructional effectiveness, the role of teaching in faculty life, and the role of educator in student affairs. Assessment becomes a matter of gauging progress over time--what Pat Hutchings characterizes as producing a movie rather than a snapshot--to reflect the complexity of holistic learning. Rather than focusing strictly on outcomes, assessment helps create the conditions for learning. Such a conception of assessment will require an extension of the current "pre- and post-program" assessment model to a view of assessment as data gathering and analysis on an on-going basis. Such a more "continuous" model will involve estimation not only of whether learning and development have occurred, but also when. Similarly (if such assessments are to be cost-effective), the "continuous assessment" model will require estimation of the magnitude of the effects of an intervention. It will no longer be adequate to determine whether an educational intervention has a statistically significant effect. Assessments must be able to answer questions about whether an intervention has had a "large enough" impact to be pedagogically or administratively significant and worth the continued investment of scarce resources (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991).
        As our understanding of effective teaching becomes increasingly complex, faculty will need opportunities for dialogue about teaching and rewards for focusing on teaching. Teaching must become "community property" (Shulman, 1993), and systems such as centers for teaching excellence or peer review (Hutchings, 1994) are needed to support faculty in these efforts. Reward systems will also have to be re-examined and restructured to promote the design and implementation of new curricular and pedagogical initiatives the trends outlined above will require. Similarly, student affairs professionals will need opportunities for dialogue about their role in the educational process; administrative reward systems and structures will need transformation to focus on student learning rather than on student services. Dialogue among faculty and student affairs professionals on effective collaboration in promoting student learning will be essential. Nothing less than a systemic change in current academic and institutional cultures will be needed (Ewell, 1997).
        The trends also imply transforming assumptions about students' role in the campus community. Just as new forms of pedagogy call for partnerships with learners, partnerships within the educational community will also be needed. Because many of tomorrow's learners will be adults who balance educational goals with family and professional priorities, collaboratively developing flexible enrollment, advising, and learning options with them will be necessary. Mutually determining appropriate counseling opportunities may be needed given the diversity of prior experiences and multiple roles students bring to campus. Colleges and universities will have to be more open to differences, embracing multiple perspectives in program content, educational practice, and campus service options. The primary change here is from educational practice determined solely by faculty and staff to a joint partnership in which teaching and learning takes advantage of the expertise, experience, and intellectual curiosity of faculty, staff, and students alike.
        For student affairs professionals, the emergence of distance learning has particularly significant implications. The characteristics of students, their needs, and their learning styles that have defined traditional and still-dominant academic and student services' models (which assume students are largely in-residence, accessible on a known schedule, and relatively homogeneous with respect to their academic and personal development goals) are changing. In an "asynchronous learning environment," instruction is delivered at a distance, at a time and place of the learner's choosing, and to learners who are decidedly different from "traditional students." They represent a dramatic contrast and a formidable challenge. They come from vastly different backgrounds, with vastly different learning needs and goals, pursue a college degree or certificate in a fashion significantly different from that of traditional students, and will earn their degrees on a "virtual" campus, far from the residential -- even commuter -- campuses most student affairs divisions are designed to serve. Such an environment will require re-evaluation of the entire panoply of traditional student affairs activities and services as they relate to this student-body-at-a-distance. How student affairs professionals respond to the challenges of serving students in a virtual world and as part of an asynchronous learning environment may well define the profession's future. [M. Lee Upcraft and Patrick T. Terenzini, in their paper for this ACPA Senior Scholars series, entitled "Technology," provide a fuller discussion of the potential effects of distance learning on student affairs.]
        Finally, the changing characteristics of students and what we know about how, when, and where they learn requires re-examination of assumptions underlying our current organizational structures and lines of administrative communication and cooperation. The available evidence clearly indicates that colleges and universities are not currently organized in ways that promote optimal student learning. Indeed, what we know about how students learn and how we organize our institutions have little in common (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1994). The fact that about 85% of students' waking hours are spent outside the classroom (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, et al., 1991), and that an increasing number of students are enrolled part-time, clearly suggest the need to maximize the opportunities colleges and universities have for enhancing students' learning. Service learning, internships, community service, and employment offer important opportunities to link students' out-of-class lives and experiences with what they are studying and learning in more formal instructional settings. More such linkages must be found, and institutional and administrative structures and policies, and status structures must be reshaped to encourage collaboration across academic and student affairs divisional lines. Both have the enhancement of student learning as their major objective, and they will have to function and cooperate accordingly to have the greatest impact.
Implications for Research
        Significant advances have been made in the past 10-15 years in the research on how students learn and the characteristics of effective teaching. Another section in this collection of papers outlines a number of potentially fruitful research questions on teaching and learning for the coming decade. These questions deal with the characteristics of the learner and educators (broadly defined), the conditions for effective learning, and the development and effectiveness of learning communities. In this section, we identify several broad considerations we believe it will be important for scholars to address as they pursue their particular research agenda on teaching and student learning.
        First, we believe several topical areas merit particular attention:
  • Changes in the learning-related attitudes and values of today's students
  • The college experiences and outcomes of part-time and low-income students
  • How students "make meaning" -- the mechanisms they use to structure knowledge
  • The contributions of students' non-classroom experiences to cognitive development
  • Classroom, program, departmental, and institutional structures, practices, and policies that promote learning
  • State policies that promote or impede increased faculty and institutional emphasis on student learning
  • The nature of the learning experiences and its educational consequences in "distance" learning settings
       We also believe scholars should consider the following issues as they select study topics and plan their research:
  • The timing of significant student learning: When does it occur?
  • The magnitude of change: How much do students change as a consequence of any specific educational experience or the college experience as a whole?
  • What are the multiple forces shaping any particular kind of learning? Research designs that focus on specific experiences (e.g., place of residence while in college, a particular instructional method, a specific out-of-class experience) as if they operated independently of other dimensions of students' lives are unlikely to be particularly informative or useful.
  • Is the effect of any given college experience general (i.e., it affects all students to about the same degree) or condition (i.e., the effect depends on the characteristics of the student, such as gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, ability)?
       The next decade offers higher education researchers significant challenges in both the complexity of the topics and the need for methodological rigor. But equally significant opportunities also exist. The sophistication of our knowledge of how students learn and how we can promote that learning has never been greater. The need for increased sophistication has never been stronger. The stakes for colleges and universities -- and for undergraduate education -- have never been higher.

References

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative. Washington DC: Author.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 123-133.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, November/December, 13-25.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (in press). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Carter, D. & Wilson, R. (1995). Thirteenth annual status report on minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
El-Khawas, E. (1996). Student diversity on today's campuses. In S. Komives and D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession, 3rd edition (pp. 64-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (1997). Organizing for learning. AAHE Bulletin, December, 3-6.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Hutchings, P. (1989). Behind outcomes: Contexts and questions for assessment. Washington DC: AAHE Assessment Forum.
Hutchings, P. (1994). Peer review of teaching: "From idea to prototype." AAHE Bulletin, November, 3-7.
Hutchings, P. (1997, November/December). Building a new culture of teaching and learning. About Campus, 4-8.
Kegan, R. (1993). Minding the curriculum: Of student epistemology and faculty conspiracy. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Approaches to moral development: New research and emerging themes (pp. 72-88). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today's college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maher, F.A., & Tetrault, M. K. (Eds.). (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look at how professors and students are transforming higher education for a diverse society. New York: Basic Books.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Digest of educational statistics. Washington DC: Author.
Palmer, P. J. (1997, November/December). The heart of a teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching. Change, 15-21.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, November/December, 6-7.
Stage, F. (1996). Setting the context: Psychological theories of learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37 (2), pp. 227-235.
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1991). Twenty years of research on college students: Lessons for future research. Research in Higher Education, 32, 83-92.
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994, January/February). Living with myths: Undergraduate education in America. Change, 28-32.
Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., & Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35, 57-73.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1994, November). The multiple influences on college students' critical thinking skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36, 23-39.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1-22.
Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Twomey Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Upcraft, M. L. (1994). Teaching and today's changing college students. In R. J. Menges & M. Weimer (Eds.), Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice (pp. 21-41). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative. The Johnson Foundation.

Research Questions On

Learning and Teaching in the 21st Century

Marcia Baxter Magolda, Professor
Educational Leadership
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
Patrick T. Terenzini, Professor
Center for the Study of Higher Education
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania
       Trends in learning and teaching clearly portend significant changes for the 21st century, and the directions of change are evident. However, it is less obvious how educators might go about changing long-standing assumptions, acquire new knowledge about diverse students and their learning, and develop new practice based on both. The questions that follow offer rich areas for study to guide learning and teaching practice in the next century. Many of the questions ask about "interaction effects," the extent to which an educational intervention may have a different effect on some students than on others depending on the characteristics of the student (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, ability, socioeconomic status).
What Do Learners Bring to Learning?
  1. How do students' pre-college characteristics and experiences (e.g., family, community, schooling) affect learning in college?
  2. Do cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, and class dynamics differentially affect learning?
  3. What are the multiple conceptions of knowing, learning styles, learning abilities, intelligences, and levels of development that students possess? How do these mediate learning in particular disciplines and in general?
  4. What possible profiles can be generated to describe the multiple goals, priorities, and purposes of tomorrow's students?
  5. What assumptions about knowledge, learning, and teaching do college students bring from their prior schooling and experience? How changeable are these assumptions?
What Do Educators (i.e., Faculty and Administrators) Bring to Educational Practice?
  1. How does prior experience as a learner and/or educator shape one's approach to educational practice?
  2. What are the multiple versions of knowing, learning style, learning ability, intelligences, and development that educators possess? How do these mediate educational practice?
  3. How does one's cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, and class status affect one's educational beliefs and practices?
  4. What assumptions about knowledge, learning and teaching do educators hold? How changeable are these assumptions?
  5. To what extent are educators clear on the learning goals for their particular educational practices?
  6. What are the goals and priorities of educators in their particular practice?
  7. To what extent do educators understand or have access to knowledge about diverse characteristics of students and their impact on learning?
What Are the Conditions for Learning?
  1. Numerous conditions for meaningful learning that lead to the self-authorship needed in the next century have been summarized above. What forms do these conditions take in particular contexts? How do educators identify additional conditions for meaningful learning particular to their context?
  2. How do conditions for learning differ given students' holistic development, learning styles, learning abilities, and cultural backgrounds?
  3. What is the process for helping educators and learners alter conventional assumptions to facilitate new forms of learning and teaching? What support is needed? What strategies are effective for addressing resistance?
  4. What educational practices that take holistic learning into account appear to be the most effective?
  5. What administrative features (e.g., structures, policies, practices, faculty and student reward systems) are best able to accommodate new attendance patterns, multiple educational goals, and new ways of teaching and learning?
  6. What curricular structures appear to be best able to accommodate new attendance patterns, multiple educational goals, new ways of teaching and learning, and multiple perspectives?
  7. What decision-making practices and models best encourage effective learner partnerships?
  8. Which contemporary forms of teaching (e.g., developmental, feminist, constructivist) most effectively promote "deep learning"? Do they work equally well for students with varying ways of knowing, learning styles, intelligences, abilities, and cultural backgrounds?
  9. How can educators engage students in multiple perspectives yet not foster relativity?
  10. What strategies are effective in removing the effects of negative background experiences as obstacles to learning (e.g., learning disabilities, experience with violence, or experience in a dysfunctional family?
  11. What strategies are effective for using on-going assessment to improve conditions for meaningful learning? What assessment tools are most useful in dealing with the complexity of learners and the learning process?
  12. What strategies are effective for communicating and explaining new approaches to learning to students, administrators, and external constituents? What approaches will work to garner support for these new forms of teaching and learning?
  13. How does the "technology-rich" classroom affect student learning? How does it alter the nature of student-student and student-faculty interaction and with what educational consequences?
  14. How, if at all, do the nature and outcomes of the experience of learning at a distance differ from those of face-to-face, residential instructional setting?
On Creating Learning Communities
  1. The trends collectively demonstrate the need for what Tierney (1993) calls communities of difference for the next century. How are communities that respect and value difference and multiple perspectives created? How are such communities maintained?
  2. How do educators learn to shift from autonomous functioning to collaborative functioning among themselves and with students? What support is needed? What strategies are effective to address resistance?
  3. How do students learn to shift from autonomous functioning to collaborative functioning among themselves and with educators? What support is needed? What strategies are effective to address resistance?
  4. How do educators and students learn to participate effectively in creative controversy to consider multiple perspectives?
  5. Under what conditions are students willing to engage in pursuing multiple perspectives, particularly ones that differ from their own? What support is needed?
  6. The process of racial identity has been described for various racial and ethnic groups, including Whites. How is growth to the more complex stages of racial identity (in which difference is valued) promoted? In what ways can this be integrated into the collegiate experience?
  7. What mechanisms are effective for educators to study their own racial identity development and its impact on educational practice? What support is needed?
  8. Which out-of-class experiences are the most effective in promoting academic and cognitive learning outcomes?
  9. Which forms of academic and student affairs divisional collaboration are the most effective in promoting students' academic and cognitive development?
                                     Authors
           Marcia Baxter Magolda, Professor
Educational Leadership
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
Patrick T. Terenzini, Professor Center for Study of Higher Education
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania
In Consultation with
Pat Hutchings, Director
American Association for Higher Education Teaching Institute
 

Data de publicação no site: 03/09/2010

IMPRIMIR TEXTO
Créditos