REPOST: Improving university teaching, learning theory, and curriculum design

This post relates to my study of CCK11.

I found an article I wrote two years ago regarding improving university teaching, learning theories and instructional (curriculum) design while studying instructional design through UManitoba.  I thought it was relevant to my current study of CCK11, and so am reposting so that it would be included in the CCK11 daily.

While reposting this article, I’ll also link to a more recent blog post I wrote postulating whether learning theories is too much naval-gazing.  In particular, David Jones‘ comments were pertinent to the discussion in my opinion.

Hopefully someone will find this interesting/useful. :)


Is it all just “Naval-Gazing”?

This blog post relates to my study of CCK11 and the study of learning theory.

One of the week 1 readings is a document titled “What is Connectivism?”  George Siemens uses Ertmer’s and Newby’s “five definitive questions to distinguish learning theory” framework to produce a table comparing and contrasting Connectivism with 4 other prominent learning theories:  Behaviourism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism.

I found this to be quite helpful in making sense of learning theories.

While I have studied, albeit in a very small capacity these other learning theories, it occurs to me that in some ways and in some contexts, each of these learning theories makes sense.

For instance, taking a look at how learning occurs in behaviourism, the idea of learning being a black-box and being focused on observable behaviour makes sense.  How do you determine learning without some observable action?  Kind of reminds me of the expression “does a bear shit in the woods?”  Everyone assumes so, but do we really know for sure? :)  Yet, if you look at Constructivism, learning occurs socially and meaning is created by each learner.  This too makes sense to me.  When I say it makes sense, it is something that resonates with me and fits with my experiences – previous patterns in my life.  I’m sure others will have different resonances with this matrix.  I’m interested to hear which parts of the matrix matches their life experiences if you are comfortable sharing as a comment?

If I work my way through the list, there seems very little amongst the learning theories that appear untrue and does not connect with my life experiences.  Some may take precedence over others, depending on the context, but most seem valid.

Taking a step back, does it make sense to have learning theories, or to state “this is how we learn?”  It’s a big call.  Beyond the chemical/physical exchanges and reactions that occur within one’s grey matter, is it really definable?  Are thoughts, ideas; is learning “real”?  I believe context has a vital bearing on how we learn and context, particularly in today’s society is so incredibly diverse, with infinite possibilities.  Is there a taxonomy for learning contexts?  Perhaps there is, I shall googleith and find out.  I’ll make a prediction in saying that if there is a taxonomy, it will be of formally structured learning only, and exclude informal, spontaneous learning.  But always happy to be proven wrong – what do I know? :)

Are all learning theories both right, and wrong at the same time?  I blogged previously about complexity in teaching and my uncertainty about complexity in learning.  Perhaps context is what brings about complexity in both teaching and learning?

Can any of these learning theories be proven right, or wrong?  I am guessing not otherwise theories would have been proven or disproven by now.  This is a social science, and so there are no absolutes.  In which case, is all this discussion of learning theories just naval-gazing and meaningless?

Note, this is a real question (not rhetorical) – I don’t know the answer, but I wonder why we try to categorise/frame/conceptualise/organise and all the other verbs when perhaps its just a futile exercise.  Or maybe I have just invented the defeatism learning theory. :)

Next, my discussion of the big bang theory. :)


Improving university teaching, learning theory, and curriculum design

(Update: This post I wrote two years ago when studying instructional (curriculum) design.  It seems quite relevant to my current study of CCK11, so I thought I would add this reference so that it may be included in the 2011 MOOC offering.)

I read this article by David Jones some time ago, and have been thinking it over.  As an early career curriculum designer, I am trying to find my place in the world of education, and how I can be an effective learning designer.

My understanding is that David in his article argues in order to improve university teaching, we should focus on teacher reflection, rather than learning theories.  Reflection is the lowest common denominator in any improvement of learning and teaching practices.  Without it, the teacher is destined to make the same mistakes over and over.  This is highlighted by Biggs and Tang in their book Teaching for Quality Learning at University 3rd edition, which I am currently (trying to) read, and reflect upon, and is drawn upon in part by David (I believe – it is getting late and I have an assessment due tomorrow :)).  Biggs and Tang state:

Wise and effective teaching is not, however, simply a matter of applying general principles of teaching according to rule; they need adapting to each teacher’s own personal strengths and teaching context… Expert teachers continually reflect on how they might teach even better.

Let us imagine that Susan and Robert graduated 20 years ago [as teachers].  Susan now is a teacher with 20 years’ experience; Robert is a teacher with one year’s experience repeated 19 times.  Susan is a reflective teacher:  each significant experience, particularly of failure, has been a learning experience, so she gets better and better.  Robert is a reactive teacher.  He goes through the same motions year after year …  The kind of thinking displayed by Susan, but not by Robert, is known as ‘reflective practice’.”

It occurs to me that prescribing any particular learning theory (such as constructive alignment) is not the answer, after reading a blog post by Stephen Downes.  Stephen critiques a paper by Dicks and Ives that conducted a study into how instructional designers design.  In particular, Stephen highlights the following quote from Dicks, and Ives:

Our interviews appear to confirm the findings of Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, and Campbell (2004) that instructional designers do not do their work by following established models, nor by basing actions on theory. Instead, our designers’ tactics suggest they view design as an ‘ill-structured problem’ (Jonassen, 2002; Schon, 1987) or ‘wicked problem’ (Becker, 2007) with many possible solutions, which they pursue with a large repertoire of social and cognitive skills.

Stephen had the following to say about this quote:  “Which really forces the question of whether our discipline should continue its ill-founded focus on (this person or that’s) theory. “

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to quite a few different seasoned instructional designers over the past couple of weeks, and I have seen a common theme emerge that is aligned with the findings of Dicks and Ives above:  there is no one ultimate learning theory.  All have stated that while they may have a preferred theory, it is rarely implemented solely to a learning design.  Choice of theory is informed greatly by the context in which the learning is to occur.  No less is the actual teacher of the course a critical factor in deciding which theories are appropriate.  If the teacher has been teaching for many years and has a traditional behaviourist approach to their teaching; trying to model their course design around constructivism or connectivism is not going to prove to be an effective learning design.  This is unless the teacher was motivated to reflect on their practice and consider alternate ways of doing things.

I have been investigating various learning theories over the past week – hardly a deep analysis, but I always considered religion as an appropriate analogy for learning theories.  Everyone has their own view, and they can’t all be right.  However, what I am discovering is that learning theories tend to support one another more so than contradict, which was my former view.  So its probably not so much about which one is right, but which one is right for the given context.

I am finding learning theory absolutely fascinating, yet I do not have sufficient time to study as deep as I would like.  I have decided to remain completely open minded in terms of what tools (theories) I choose to inform my learning designs.  Studying many different theories arms me with many tools, and I hope this will mean I am a more rounded designer.  The skill will be to use these tools in the right combinations to maximise effectiveness.

Definition: Behaviourism

As part of my Certificate in Emerging Technologies for Learning, I am studying 4 popular learning theories. The first theory I am discovering is behaviourism.

I have read an article by Melissa Standridge hosted on the Department of Eduational Psychology and Instructional Technology wiki, from the University of Georgia.  The article begins with a definition of behaviourism, which was stated as:

Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable and measurable aspects of human behavior. In defining behavior, behaviorist learning theories emphasize changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner. Behavior is directed by stimuli. An individual selects one response instead of another because of prior conditioning and psychological drives existing at the moment of the action (Parkay & Hass, 2000).

The article then proceeds with a summary of the work from behaviourism advocates. Much of this work was conducted through experiments on animals.  I wasn’t quite sure what to think at this point.

Work conducted by Skinner involved an approach known as operant conditioning.  Melissa writes:

His model was based on the premise that satisfying responses are conditioned, while unsatisfying ones are not. Operant conditioning is the rewarding of part of a desired behavior or a random act that approaches it. Skinner remarked that “the things we call pleasant have an energizing or strengthening effect on our behavior” (Skinner, 1972, p. 74). Through Skinner’s research on animals, he concluded that both animals and humans would repeat acts that led to favorable outcomes, and suppress those that produced unfavorable results (Shaffer, 2000). If a rat presses a bar and receives a food pellet, he will be likely to press it again. Skinner defined the bar-pressing response as operant, and the food pellet as a reinforcer. Punishers, on the other hand, are consequences that suppress a response and decrease the likelihood that it will occur in the future. If the rat had been shocked every time it pressed the bar that behavior would cease.

While it seemed briefly amusing to think of students as experimental rats in a lab (classroom), the final sentence of this paragraph got me thinking:  “Skinner [B. F. (1904-1990)] believed the habits that each of us develops result from our unique operant learning experiences (Shaffer, 2000).”  I am currently reading Biggs’ Teaching for Quality Learning at University and so I am immersed in learning theories around constructivism.   Biggs’ (2007) states:  “All [forms of constructivism] emphasise that the learners construct knowledge with their own activities, building on what they already know.  Teaching is not a matter of transmitting but of engaging students in active learning, building their knowledge in terms of what they already understand.”  I wonder if these two learning theories compliment each other in some small way.  I’m not quite sure how to define or articulate the link at this point – its just getting too late.  Will need to give this further thought.

Reflecting on my own prior teaching activities, I have employed behaviourist tactics in my classes without even realising it. One of the key aspects of success with behavourism is to understand your learners desires and to select highly attractive and valuable reinforcers.  As Melissa puts it:  “They change behaviors to satisfy the desires they have learned to value.”

Some of the behaviourist designs I have employed include:

Chocolate bars

When I was teaching network security, there was a particular module of learning that students found difficult to remain engaged in.  Without the opportunity to make changes to the design of this learning module, instead I attempted to improve engagement in the material and the class activities through small rewards of the confectionery type.  The class activity was question and answer sessions where I would go around the room soliciting solutions from students.  Those who got the answers correct would receive a chocolate reward.

It was mildly effective.  In subsequent offerings, I redesigned the learning activity which proved more effective.

1Gb Memory sticks

Similar to the situation of the chocolate bars, I made a competition of the question and answer time and kept a tally of correct answers for students.  The top two students received a free 1Gb memory stick.  At the time, 1Gb was quite large, and being IT students, it was an attractive item.  This was more effective than the chocolates.  Seems it was a better reinforcer than the confectionery.

Access to a desirable learning activity

When I was teaching data communications, I included an activity that was popular with students.  The activity was for students to be hands-on with creating their own network cables using Cat 5e UTP cable, connectors and a cable crimper. I organised for network engineers and support staff from the university’s networking team to volunteer their time in my class, and assist with the learning activity.  I split students into groups, and then assigned them a mentor from the volunteers.  Each would then guide the students through the process of connectorising their computer cables. On completion, the students would then attach their cable to a tester and determine if the cable was connectorised correctly.

The first time I ran this activity, students were unable to recall the order in which the individual wires were to be connected, despite setting it as homework.  This delayed the activity and quite a few students resulted in faulty cables.

To improve on this situation, the next time I ran this activity, I set the homework to rote memorise the order of the wires.  They are colour coded.  The students were told that they would have to recite the order of the coloured wires from memory before they were permitted into the activity room.

On the day, I went around the room asking students the order – those who had it correct from memory were permitted into the adjacent room to commence the activity.  Those who couldn’t remember, would have time to revise, and after cycling through the class, I would return to them.  Three quarters of the group had it correct first time round.  The activity ran to schedule and there was only 1 faulty cable at the end.

Similar results were repeated in the following offering of the course. This proved to be an effective design.  Also on reflection, with the inclusion of the volunteer mentors, it was a form of cognitive apprenticeship. :)

Desire to win

It had been suggested to me that nothing will bring out the inner fire of a geek more than a little healthy competition.  This was in response to queries about how to improve engagement from the students.

When I was teaching System Administration, I was looking for a way for students to develop problem solving skills, and at the same time, gain a deeper understanding of how the UNIX shell parses and executes commands.  So I set a challenge and divided the class into two groups.  As teams, they were required to write a UNIX shell command that would perform a specified set of actions with the greatest efficiency, and the minimum exec system calls.  My apologies for the non-geek reader. :)

There was no prize but the glory of being the winner.  Boy were they right.  The students engaged with gusto, searching through documentation, man pages, howtos (even espionage) to come up with the ideal solution.  The winners had bragging rights for weeks to come.  It was also encouraging to see that the score difference between the two groups was by only 1 point, and the winning team’s score was only 1 point short of my own model solution.

It seems to me that behaviourism is not the trendy learning theory of the day, yet in certain circumstances, I believe they can be quite effective.  It is not something however I would use to underpin an entire course design.

Biggs: Ch2 – Constructivism and Phenomenography

Constructivism as a concept is something that I am slowly coming to understand.  Then along comes phenomenography to upset the party.  Biggs provides a very brief discussion of the two and highlights their differences.  Let’s see if I have got it.

Before I get started, I’ll add that my conceptualisation of constructive alignment is ever evolving.  I’ll be keen to revisit this page some time in the future to see how my understanding of this concept has deepened.  In fact, I’ll probably update my conceptualisation of constructivism and constructive alignment as I progress through Biggs.

Everytime I hear the term constructivism, the following picture is what appears in my mind (well not exactly this picture, but you get the picture :).

Metaphor for constructivism

Metaphor for constructivism

Each row of cards is constructed in such a way that it builds upon the cards below it.  It is this scaffolding that underpins constructivism – you construct new knowledge on the basis of what you already know.  Furthermore, hearing about it (transmission – level 1 teacher) is not going to build another row of cards (new knowledge).  Neither is watching someone else demonstrate it (teacher centric – level 2 teacher) – the demonstrator will have constructed a new row of cards (knowledge), but not the learner.  So the other underpinning concept of constructivism is that you construct knowledge through activities that are likely to result in achieving the desired outcomes. It is all about what the learner does (student centric – level 3 teacher). It must be an active learning environment, not passive.

Back to the analogy, each row of cards is constructed in such a way that it fits or aligns with the cards below it.  If we are learning something new and it doesn’t neatly fit with what we have done before (the existing rows of cards), then we reject it, and attempt it another way. Now enter phenomenography.  The learner’s perspective or view of the world influences what they learn.  If a new concept challenges their current understanding (their existing stack of cards), then they will reject it in favour of something that does fit.  Biggs makes the comment that through teaching, it is possible to change (broaden) a learner’s stack of cards (perspective), or to in fact build a new stack of cards to assist learners in constructing knowledge.

Biggs: Revision of Chapter 1 – 3rd Edition

I thought I’d re-read through the initial chapters of Biggs’ 3rd edition to see what has changed.  In fact, there were a couple of particularly interesting discussions added that were absent from edition 2.

Biggs’ has gone to great lengths to explain the history of outcomes-based education (OBE), and to separate his theories around constructive-alignment from more radical, less accepted or country specific practices.  He states:  “Because of the confusion, and the emotion that OBE has aroused, we must clarify what we are talking about, and forthwith.”  Biggs’ has introduced a versioning system for identifying these practices. The version that curriculum alignment belongs to is version 3, which he calls outcomes based teaching and learning.

Something else that I noted in the first chapter was Biggs’ updated description of the current state of Australian Tertiary Education.  Biggs says:

Twenty years ago, public funding paid for virtually 100% of costs of the tertiary sector, but today that is very far from being the case.  Australia, for example, is now heading towards 30% of university funding from the public purse.  The bulk of the missing funding comes from student fees.  That is having profound effects on both students and on university teaching.

However, the reason for the enormous cuts in public funding was not only to save money and keep taxes low, although that was the rhetoric; it was ideological.  It stems from the neo-conservative belief that education is a private good and therefore one should pay for it, like one does for any other goods.  That changes the nature of universities and the university mission:  they became corporatized and competitive for markets.

I believe that succinctly describes the former conservative government of Australia’s attitude towards education.  It’s not one I am particularly fond of.  I hope with the new labor government, this attitude changes.   In my view, education is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a basic human right of man-kind and equitable access should be afforded to all, no matter how wealthy or poor you may be.

On that point, I’ll kick my soapbox back under my desk and get on with things.

Biggs: Teaching for Quality Learning at University – 3rd Edition

I am now back turning the pages with Biggs’ Quality Learning at University.

I have purchased the 3rd edition of Biggs’ bread and butter book on constructive alignment.  Superseding edition 2, I’ll be focusing on this latest edition in my investigation into constructive alignment.

Biggs: My journey – postponed

Other priorities have come up and so I am postponing my Teaching for Quality Learning at University journey for now.  Hopefully I’ll be able to get back to it soon.

Biggs: Reflection – Chapter 1


After reading through Chapter 1 of Biggs “Teaching for Quality Learning at University” 2nd Edn, I found myself identifying with almost everything he had to say.  Due to the size of this posting, I have broken it down into various sections.

The changing landscape of tertiary education

Biggs begins with an explanation of the changing landscape of tertiary education over the past 10 or more years.  My experience is what has become, rather than what was as I have not yet been in academia for 10 years.  So to me, this “has become” is the only reality I have experience of.

However this experience tells me education is increasingly more commoditised, commercial and therefore competitive.  Rather than universities being selective about their students, students are increasingly becoming selective about their university.  “If I go down the road to uni xyz, I can do a similar degree for $x cheaper, and with 2 exemptions… can you beat that?”  From administrators’ point of view, with competition comes the bang per buck mentality.  So we maximise class sizes, and minimise expenses.  Curriculum and learning designs come next.  So educators are expected to do more with less.

Add to this, the pressure to conduct research and be leaders in your field of expertise.  Biggs suggests this is a primary benchmark for academics across most universities.  It is in mine.  So attention to teaching is not given as much priority and our students suffer.

Active vs. Passive Learning

Biggs introduces two student characters that represent two distinct groups of students that comprise a class.  They are also featured in a short film titled Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding.  Their names are Susan and Robert.  Susan is the typical academically minded student.  She comes to classes prepared, including pre-reading class materials, reflection on this material, and questions about her understanding of it.  Then there is Robert.  Robert is characterised as a student who is there out of necessity rather than desire.  He only wants to achieve sufficiently to be able to get a good job.  The course he is doing may not have been his first choice.  He comes to class with little preparation or prior reflection.  He hopes to rote learn and memorise to be able to pass his course.  These two characters form the cornerstone of his theories into the effectiveness of active versus passive learning.

Part of the debate over active learning relates to the effectiveness of the lecture as a form of teaching. Lectures are characterised as passive modes of learning.  The teacher transfers knowledge to the student, and the student listens.  My personal experience as both a student and teacher are not favourable ones.  But I’ll get back to that.

My experience as a student is of both Susan and Robert.  When completing my undergraduate degree, I was to a large extent, Robert.  I would not come to lectures well prepared.  I would rarely do pre-readings or have reflected on material before class.  I had just finished 12 years of schooling and another 3 did not excite me as much as getting out in the real world and doing things.  My undergraduate degree was largely a passive learning experience.  I achieved average grades, and was lucky enough to land a good job.

After working for 6 years and with considerably more maturity and life experience, I went back to university to complete a postgraduate masters degree.  This time, things were different.  I was behaving much more like Susan.  I studied via distance education and so there were no lectures or tutorials.  Only textbooks, and online communication facilities such as email lists.  They were generally very quiet.  This time, I could not rely on my lecturer to tell me what I needed to know (through lectures), so I had to do it myself.  I would read all materials that were recommended, and I would reflect on what I had read.  I completed all tutorial activities as part of the course and put considerable effort into my assessments.  In contrast to my undergraduate degree, I graduated my masters degree with pretty good grades.  Not only that, but for the most part, I really enjoyed it.  My attitude was completely different – I wanted to learn, rather than just attain a piece of paper.

I can identify very well with both Susan and Robert.  As a teacher, I can also recognise students who fell into both of these categories.  So I can easily see Biggs’ point regarding how we teach these two different types of students from both sides – a student and teacher.


So getting back to lectures, as a student, I found them boring and monotonous.  Yet I relied almost solely on these lectures for my learning.  Most of the time I put little effort into tutorial exercises or any other active learning approaches.  I still passed, but I suspect it was more to do with my intellect (or luck) than my effort.  It was easier to sit back and let the lecturer do all the work.  This is what happens in a lecture for the Roberts.

As a teacher, lectures also sucked.  I hated standing in front of the class and banging on about the content.  I was the one doing all the work, not the students.  How could this work?  However, this was the accepted way of doing things.  This is how I was taught, and how (most) lecturers taught.  Being new, I did not want to stray from the accepted practices and so I persevered with it until I developed more confidence.  Then I started to think about how I could do this better.  I started to make my “lectures” more like “tutorials” – more activity based.  I would have students doing things in my lectures instead of only listening.  Fortunately at the time, my local class sizes permitted me to schedule lectures in computer laboratories.  There, I could introduce topics, and then let students loose on their computers.  I could start to see a change in the students, and a change in me.  It was much more fun.  The class was less about me talking and more about the students doing.  The interactions were much more positive.  More on this later.

Student Engagement

Refering back to the Susan and Robert theory, Biggs provides the following diagram in his book which I have redrawn.

Student orientation, teaching method and level of engagement

Student orientation, teaching method and level of engagement (Biggs, 2003, p. 4)

The point that Biggs is trying to make here is that Susans automatically operate at higher levels of engagement using passive techniques, and marginally improve so with active techniques.  While Roberts operate at lower levels of engagement using passive techniques, but they will rapidly adopt more higher levels with active engagement.  The gap between Susans and Roberts using passive techniques (A in the diagram) is significantly higher than using active techniques (B in the diagram).  So using active techniques is a win/win scenario.  But to do this, changes in practice are necessary.  More on this later.

Biggs suggests that the ratio of Robert students to Susan students is widening as our class sizes continue to grow.  The teaching approaches we have always adopted and that worked fine for Susans who in the past comprised most of the student cohort are no longer working with the larger proportion of Roberts.  Yet, to cope with the growing class sizes and reduced resources, Biggs asks the question, how else can we teach but use mass lectures and automated marking techniques?  He promises that his book provides answers to this burning question.  Something I am excited about.

Scholarship of teaching and the Reflective Teacher

So Biggs then discusses the “scholarship of teaching”.  To facilitate change in institutions at all levels – teaching, curriculum designers (or teacher developers), and administrators, we should leverage the existing didactic body of knowledge. Didactics alone is not enough.  We also need to reflect on our own experiences as teachers and identify with which theories of teaching that we relate to and works best for us.  Our own innate theories of practice.  Then combining these two facets, you can then formulate an appropriate strategy for teaching your students.  I was once told that I need to consider what theory of teaching I conform to.  I never really understood why?  Since then, I have started to see why this is important.

Previously, I mentioned that initially I was afraid to be viewed as non-conformist in the way I taught.  It wasn’t until after gaining experience and confidence that I started to reflect and experiment a little with how I taught my students.  This is a good thing and a milestone it would seem for the beginning teacher.  The analogy that Biggs makes with regard to reflection is to consider this:

Now let us go back to Susan and Robert.  They are older now, having both graduated 20 years ago, and they have become teachers.  Susan is a teacher with 20 years’ experience; Robert is a teacher with 1 year’s experience repeated 19 times. (Biggs, 2003, p.6)

Susan’s approach to teaching here can be considered reflective.  She constantly considers the effectiveness of her methods, makes some improvements and then tries again.  I have previously see parallels between reflective teaching and action research.  Validating this thought, Biggs says:  “Reflective practice can be formally encouraged and directed as ‘action research’ (Elliott 1991) or ‘action learning’ (Kember and Kelly 1993).  In essence, action research is being systematic about changing your teaching, and making sure the changes are in the right direction; that your students are now learning better than they used to.” (Biggs, 2003, p.7)

Finally, Biggs highlights the fact that in order to be methodical in our reflection, we need to not only consider our own personal theory of teaching, but have a theory or lens by which we can evaluate our teaching and generate solutions to problems.  The way in which we express a teaching problem must be soluable according to Biggs.  My interpretation of soluable is it can be distilled in such a way that that the solution can be measured and evaluated.  Biggs gives the example of students regurgitating lecture content in their assessments.  He states that the problem expressed as:  “My stuff isn’t get across” is unsoluable.  How do we measure or evaluate this problem?  While “The students are only giving me back what is in my lectures” is soluable.  We can measure how much and how many students regurgitate lecture material and after providing a solution, we can evaluate it to see if it has improved.  I hope this was his intended meaning here.

Continuing, Biggs suggests that to solve a problem, we need to have a framework to assist us in reflecting on our teaching and guide us to solutions.  This is to be introduced in the next chapter.  Can’t wait. :)


Well, I have gone way over time with this posting. However, I think it is worth it.  Chapter 1 provides a great deal of foundation and reflecting (I’m starting to tire of this word) on it will be of great value I believe as I progress through the book.  It has been fun drawing links between Biggs ideas and my own previous experience, both as a student and a teacher.  Let’s see what he has to say next…

Biggs: Teaching for Quality Learning at University – My journey

I am in the process of reading Biggs (2003).  I am going to be blogging my thoughts, ideas, and activities associated with this book as a method of reflection and engagement with the edusphere around constructivism, constructive alignment, and curriculum design. If you are interested, please join me on this journey. :)

Initially I planned to write posts for each chapter. However, after starting on chapter 1, I am realising that each post will become too indigestible and monolithic.  So instead, I will use the “release early, release often” approach, and post separately for individual topics or ideas within a chapter to make my ranting more digestible – with the exception of chapter 1. :)

Biggs, J., (2003), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd Edn, Open University Press, Berkshire.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.