I have been studying a course titled "Nature of learning and Teaching". The article by Biggs - considered as an important and influential article is a part of this course. I have tried to analyse this article and I welcome your comments on my analysis.

Biggs, John (1999) 'What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning', Higher Education Research & Development, 18: 1, 57 — 75

I appreciate the bold style of author and use of constructivism paradigm in the writing. The article appears to be very valuable for designing curriculum. The use of classifications (learner types, levels of focus, grading criteria, hierarchy of verbs, suitable list of TLAs and assessment tasks) provides very easy and structured reading. However, some of the classifications/categorizations bring some concerns as mentioned below. Irrespective of concerns and limited focus on curriculum design, the article depicts a good picture of real scenario in terms of teaching approaches and styles being adopted in universities and associated problems and challenges. Another issue evident in writing style of the author is the tendency to be prescriptive and lack of feminist approach. This gives the article a masculine approach. But, higher education itself has developed a heavy masculine characteristic and it is a challenge to use feminist approach in this domain, especially when constructivism itself is considered as a new and developing post-modern approach/philosophy.

Some concerns as a reader:

In this section, I have included my thoughts as a reader first (and less as an educator). However, in the section of logic/reason I have tried to wear the educator’s (perhaps author’s) shoe too. Taking such approach to reading and analysing helped me in observing various perspectives. However, I found that my role as a researcher has dominated my analysis.

1.    Student’s learning approach

1.1     The concern: The first section of the article: “Student Ability and Teaching Method: the pay-off” - presents/describes/acknowledging the idea of existence of two different approaches of students to learning (Superficial and Deep). In addition, the statement: “Students like Robert probably are in higher proportions in today's classes than was the case 20 years ago” (p.58) suggests that the thinking/organizing process of the author may fit the “Level 1. Focus:  what the student is” (p.62). This may bring some confusion due to inherent contradictions in the essence of the article and detailed content/statements in the article. Perhaps, this observation has appeared due to my dominating researcher role where I tend to find some gaps/problems in academic writing.

1.2 The respite (for researcher me): However, at another place in the same article, the statement: ““Lack of alignment is a major reason why students adopt a surface approach to learning” (p.69) suggests that the author may be aware of the reason why a particular student selects a particular approach to learning. The statement clearly signifies the importance of “Level 3 Focus: what the student does” (p.63).

1.3 The logic/Reason: I think that the author was struggling to write in a manner that teachers with all levels of focus can comprehend the article. Therefore, the author adapted the style where he tries to think from the angle of readers. In fact, explaining the constructivism or Level 3 focus of teaching approach is challenging and the author tried best to explain it in writing.

2.      Issue of assessments:

The issue of assessments is the one of the most common issue I frequently grapple with as an educator. Therefore, this section is viewed and analysed using the lens of a scholar and educator.

2.1   The concern: There is a strong emphasis/recommendation on grading (using Criteria referenced System) based on higher level of performance of students reflecting achievement of higher level verbs which are nominated in the objectives (p.65-66). But, at the same time, if the following statements are true:

1. “Teaching/learning activities are chosen that would be likely to encourage students to engage the optimal verbs, and that are practicable within the resources available. Objectives, teaching, and assessment, are now aligned, using the verbs in the objectives as markers for alignment” (p.66),
2. “From our students' point of view, the assessment always defines the actual curriculum” (Biggs p.68, as in Ramsden 1992, p. 187),
3. “In fact, it is difficult to separate a TLA from an assessment task (p.73)”

Is it possible that students get lower grades? It may be possible only if the teacher intentionally designs the assessments which are aimed at creating the differences among students, or, If TLAs are not carefully designed (and in this case, this is the fault of teacher who designed the TLA and not the student who received lower grade).

2.2 The respite (for researcher me): In fact, the solution is provided by the author in the article in the statement “Teachers shouldn't want a "good spread" in grade distributions. Good teaching should reduce the gap between Robert and Susan, not widen it” (Biggs p.69).

2.3 The logic/Reason: The activity of grading students based on spread of grades ranging from Fail to High Distinction or F to A grade, appears irrelevant if the constructivism (as explained by PBL or learning portfolio sections) approach of teaching is applied. But, the fact is university administrators may not be aware of such approach or it may be difficult to ignore the administrative requirements (as mentioned by author also), the inclusion of recommendation (as mentioned in section 2.1) in this article makes sense.

I remember how much time and effort was spent by me in explaining the administration after the last term where all students (12 out of 12) received D and HDs. The first comment from dean was = “is it not our (educator’s) role to demarcate better students from not so good ones!” And, the second comment reflected the distrust that my standard of teaching is not at par because students find it so easy that everyone gets D and HD! It followed with the suggestion to raise the bar at such a level that some students should get C and P grades in next term! I am still not sure what should I have not done so that students would have got P and C too. But, then I think, is it not my duty to strive for excellent performance by all students. Do I need to spend my time and effort to design activities to bring variations in performance of students or do I need to deign activities that are aligned with objectives and design suitable scaffolding, opportunities for skill development of students and contribute to their learning so that all of them achieve an HD ultimately!

Some concerns as an educator:

What’s missing in the article: Strategies to achieve/realize level 3 focus:

These elements are missing because the article primarily deals with the issues of curriculum design, and there is a limited focus on delivery aspects. Detailed description of methods to design the activities in order to encourage students’ engagement by creating a safe and respectful environment was missing. The reason may be that these issues are not directly related to curriculum design components (like objectives, assessments) etc.

3. Creating the engagement and perception on students’ role (Creating a learning community in classroom)

A section on the teacher’s view/perception on students and their role in learning is as important as teachers’ perception of self and their role in learning. 

If teacher perceive students as “children deprived of/dire learning who will become knowledgeable and learned after education” and students’ duty is to just “follow the teacher” so that they can receive the “help of a caring and motherly” teacher in form of pre-structured information (leading to spoon feeding), then obviously, this perception will tend to follow either Level 1 or Level 2 focus only.

But, if the teacher perceive students as mature, responsible and resourceful adults who can be trusted to contribute to learning for each other because of their own set of experiences in their lives, that can realize the formation of learning community in class (and it may be effective in large classes too), the teaching approach will definitely lead to level 3 focus.

Therefore, perception of teachers on students’ role and teachers’ faith and trust on students’ capabilities are pivotal to teaching concept formation and subsequent change of teaching concept.  Empowering students in classrooms is essential for reaching level 3 focus. In addition, mere methods and techniques to engage students while having perception of students as “children deprived of/dire need of learning” may not work effectively.

4. Empowering students

Flexible approach to teaching also supports level 3 focus. Empowering the students so that they take the responsibility of learning of others along with self-learning may result in students actually taking the role of educators effectively. This requires taking a back bench by the teacher during many sessions and perceiving every participant in class as having enough capacity and ability to “teach each other”. Teaching is no more a task to be performed by teacher/instructor/lecturer, but it is a self-automated process driven by all participants according to the context and need. This requires using not only peer assessments and feedback, but involving all the participants select (or design) their assessment components, assessment criteria/rubric for each assessment component and in formation of rules, norm setting. Such empowerment of students has the potential of transforming students no merely active learners but also as responsible facilitators for learning of other participants too.

I invite your feedback/input on this analysis