FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING

FACILITATING
FACILITATING
PathwaysFACILITATING
DEEP
DEEP LEARNING
LEARNING
to Success for University and College Teachers
DEEP LEARNING

Hermida
Pathways
Pathways to Success
to Success forfor University
University andand College
College Teachers
Teachers

Hermida
Hermida
FACILITATING
Learn howPathwaysto engageto Success
teach sofor University and College Teachers

FACILITATING
FACILITATING

Hermida
and that your students will learn deeply—and for a

FACILITATING
Learn
Learn
lifetime. how howto to
engageengage and and
teach teach so so
that that
your your students
students will will
learn learn deeply—and
deeply—and for for
a a
Learn how to engage and teach so that your students will learn deeply—and for a
lifetime.
lifetime.
Deep learning lifetime.
is a committed approach to learning. It is a process of constructing and
DeepDeep learning
learning
new is aiscommitted
a committed approach
approach to learning.
tomeanings
learning. It isItapeers
isprocess
a process
and of of constructing
byconstructing andand

DEEP LEARNING
interpreting knowledge by negotiating with making

DEEP
DEEP LEARNING
DEEPLEARNING
interpretingDeep
interpreting newlearning
newknowledge is
knowledge a committed
by by approach
negotiating
negotiating
connections between existing and new knowledge, which can be applied in new, to
meanings
meanings learning.
with with It
peers is
peersa process
and and
by by of constructing
making
making and

LEARNING
connections interpreting
connections between
between new knowledge
existing
existing and and
new by
newnegotiating
knowledge,
knowledge, meanings
which which can canwith
be be peers
applied
applied and
in inby
new, making
new,

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

unfamiliar contexts. Deep learning produces learning that lasts a lifetime, and it results in

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers
unfamiliar connections
unfamiliar contexts.
contexts. between
Deep Deep existing
learning
learning and
produces
produces new knowledge,
learning
learning thatthat which
lasts lasts can be applied
a lifetime,
a lifetime, andand in new,in in
it results
it results

FACILITATING
better quality learning and more profound understanding.

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING
FACILITATING
better
better unfamiliar
quality
quality learning contexts.
learning andand moreDeep
more learning
profound
profound produces
understanding.
understanding. learning that lasts a lifetime, and it results in
The purpose of this booklearning
is to show and readers how to create a learning environment that

FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING

better quality more profound understanding.
TheThe
promotes purpose
purpose
promotes
promotesand
theoretical
deep of
The deep
of this
this
learning
purpose
deep
book
of
inbook
learning
learning intools
pedagogical
is toisclasses.
their
this book
in
to show
show
their is to
readers
readers
The
show
howhow
book
readers
to create
to create
will do
how
so by
to
a learning
a learning
providing
create a
classes.to:The book will do so by providing readers with thethe
theirneeded classes. The book will do so by
environment
environment
readers
learning
providing
with that
environment
readers
that
the
with that Pathways
Pathways
Pathways tototo
Success
Success for
Success for
for
promotes
theoretical
theoretical andand deep learning
pedagogical
pedagogical tools in
tools their
needed
needed classes.
to: to: The book will do so by providing readers with the
Pathways
University and to
College Success for
Teachers
Universityand
andCollege
CollegeTeachers
Teachers
• understand the theory of deep learning
• • design
theoretical and pedagogical tools needed to:
•understand
understand thethe theory
theory of deep
of deep learning students to take a deep approach
learning University
University and College Teachers
and implement courses that encourage
• to•design •
design
learning understand
and and implement
implement the theory
courses
courses of
thatdeep
that learningstudents
encourage
encourage students to taketo take a deep
a deep approach
approach
• design engaging and innovative teaching and learning activities that encourage approach
to to• design
learning
learning and implement courses that encourage students to take a deep
•design
• studentsdesign touselearning
engaging
engaging
to andand
higher-order innovative
innovativecognitive teaching
teachingskillsandto and learning
learning
construct activities
activities
knowledge thatthat encourage
encourage
•
students
students design
to
and negotiate meaning to
use engaging
use higher-order
higher-order and innovative
cognitive
cognitive teaching
skills
skills to to and learning
construct
construct activities
knowledge
knowledge that encourage
and and students
negotiate
negotiate to use
meaning
meaning higher-order cognitive
• implement assessment tools aimed at facilitating the deep learning process skills to construct knowledge
•implement
• • support andassessment
implement negotiate andmeaning
assessment toolstoolsaimedaimed at facilitating
at facilitating thethe deep deep learning
learning process
process

DEEP
international other nontraditional students to construct learning deeply.

DEEP
• •support •
support implement
international
international assessment
andand other othertools aimed
nontraditional
nontraditional at facilitating
students
students the deep
to construct
to construct learning process
learning
learning deeply.
deeply.
•
ABOUT THE AUTHOR support international and other nontraditional students to construct learning deeply.
ABOUT
ABOUT THE THE AUTHOR
AUTHOR
Julian Hermida, PhD, is Associate Professor at Algoma University's Department of Law
(Sault Julian
Julian ABOUT
Hermida,
Ste.Hermida,
Marie, THEPhD,
Ontario, AUTHOR
PhD, is Associate
isCanada).
Associate Professor
HeProfessor
has beenata Algomaat Algoma
long-standing University's
University'smember Department
Department
of Algoma's of Law
of Law
(Sault
(Sault Julian
Ste. Ste.
Marie, Hermida,
Marie, Ontario,
Ontario, PhD,
Teaching and Learning Committee, which he chaired for several years. Dr. Hermida has a of Law
Canada). is
Canada).Associate
He He
has hasProfessor
been beena a at Algoma
long-standing
long-standing University's
membermember of Department
of Algoma's
Algoma's

LEARNING
LEARNING
Teaching
Teaching
very (Sault
successfulandand Ste.
Learning
teaching Marie,
Learning Ontario,
Committee,
Committee,
practice Canada).
which
of more which
thanheHe 10has
he chaired
chaired
years been
foroffora long-standing
several
several
full-time years.
years.
teachingDr.member
Dr.
at Hermida
Hermida ofhas
all levels. Algoma's
has
a a
veryvery Teaching
successful
successful and
teaching Learning
teaching practice Committee,
practice of of
moremore which
than than
10 he
10
years chaired
yearsof of for several
full-time
full-time years.
teaching
teaching at Dr.
at
all Hermida
all levels.
levels. has a
Prior to joining Algoma, he taught at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, where he
Prior
Prior to very
to
joining successful
joining Algoma,
Algoma, teaching
he he
taught practice
taughtat at of more
Dalhousie
Dalhousie
was recognized with the 2004-2005 Award of Excellence for Teaching and Learning. than 10
University
University years
in in of full-time
Halifax,
Halifax, Canada,
Canada, teaching
wherewhere heat all
he levels. Julian
JulianHermida
Julian Hermida
Hermida
waswas
A seasoned
A
Prior
recognized
recognized
was
to with
educational
seasoned
joining
recognized
A seasoned educational
with
educational
the Algoma,
the
developer,
with the
he
2004-2005
2004-2005
developer,
developer,
Dr.taught
AwardAward
Hermida
2004-2005
Dr.
Dr. Hermida
atofDalhousie
has
Award
Hermida
ampleUniversity
of Excellence
Excellence
of
has
hasdevelopment
for for
experience
Excellence
ample
ample experience
indesigning,
Teaching
Teaching
for
experience
Halifax,
andand
Teaching
Canada,
Learning.
Learning.
and
designing,
designing,
where he
Learning. Julian Hermida
implementing, and evaluating university-wide faculty programs and
A
implementing, seasoned
implementing, and and educational
evaluating
evaluating developer,
university-wide
university-wide Dr.
initiatives. He has conducted educational development workshops and led seminars Hermida
faculty
faculty has ample
development
development experience
programs
programs designing,
and andon
implementing,
initiatives. He has and
conducted evaluating university-wide
educational development
teaching and learning in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Latin America. He has on
initiatives. He has conducted educational development faculty
workshops development
workshops and and
led programs
led seminars
seminars andon
teaching
teaching initiatives.
and and
learning He
learning has
in inconducted
Canada,Canada, the educational
the United
United States,
won several internal and external grants to fund his Scholarship of Teaching and Learningdevelopment
States, Europe,
Europe, and workshops
and
Latin Latin and
America.
America. led
He seminars
He
has has on
won won teaching
several
several internal and
internal
research projects on deep learning. learning
and and
external in
externalCanada,grants
grants the
to to
fundUnited
fund
his States,
his Europe,
Scholarship
Scholarship of and
of Latin
Teaching
Teaching America.
and and He
Learning
Learning has
research
research won several
projects
projects on internal
on
deep deep and external grants to fund his Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
learning.
learning.
research projects on deep learning.
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
ISBN:
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
978-1-77188-005-3
90000
9 09000000 0
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
90000

9 781771 880053
www.appleacademicpress.com 9 781771
9 781771 880053
880053
9 781771 880053
 FACILITATING
DEEP LEARNING
Pathways to Success for
University and College Teachers
 FACILITATING
DEEP LEARNING
Pathways to Success for
University and College Teachers

Julian Hermida, DCL

Apple Academic Press

TORONTO NEW JERSEY
CRC Press Apple Academic Press, Inc
Taylor & Francis Group 3333 Mistwell Crescent
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Oakville, ON L6L 0A2
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 Canada
© 2015 by Apple Academic Press, Inc.
Exclusive worldwide distribution by CRC Press an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa
business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20140602

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4822-3911-9 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reason-
able efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The
authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in
this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not
been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so
we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.
copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organiza-
tion that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been
granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
For information about Apple Academic Press product
http://www.appleacademicpress.com
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Julian Hermida, DCL

Julian Hermida is Associate Professor at Algoma University’s Department
of Law (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario). He was also the Chair of Algoma’s
Teaching and Learning Committee for several years. Julian has a very suc-
cessful practice of more than 10 years of full-time teaching at all levels.
Prior to joining Algoma, he taught at Dalhousie University in Halifax,
Canada, where he was recognized with the 2004–2005 Award of Excel-
lence for Teaching and Learning.
A seasoned educational developer, Julian has ample experience de-
signing, implementing, and evaluating university-wide faculty develop-
ment programs and initiatives. He has conducted educational develop-
ment workshops and led seminars on teaching and learning in Canada, the
United States, Europe, and Latin America. He has won several internal and
external grants to fund his scholarship of teaching and learning research
projects on deep learning.
Julian Hermida holds master’s and doctoral degrees from McGill Uni-
versity’s Faculty of Law. He did his postdoctoral studies at the University
of Ottawa. He has also received formal education and training in higher
education teaching in a unique and intensive program offered at the Uni-
versity of Montreal as well as in educational development programs in
Canada and the United States. These include the Best Teachers Institute
and Alverno College Assessment workshop, among many others.
Julian has published extensively on a wide array of teaching and learn-
ing topics. Together with his books and journal articles in the legal field,
he has more than 80 publications, including several books.
CONTENTS

Disclaimer .................................................................................................. ix
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... xi
Preliminary Part: The Context ..................................................................xv
Introduction ............................................................................................. xvii

1. The Instruction Paradigm................................................................. 1

Part I: Deep Learning
2. The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge ...... 15
3. Goals ............................................................................................. 49
4. Performances ................................................................................. 77
5. Collaborative Learning .................................................................. 93
Part II: Academic Skills and Deep Learning
6. Academic Reading and Deep Learning ........................................115
7. Deep Writing ................................................................................ 141
Part III: Deep Learning and Diversity
8. Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes ... 169
9. Internationalization and Deep Learning ...................................... 185
10. International Students and Academic Proficiency ....................... 203
Part IV: Deep Learning and Evaluation
11. Evaluating to Learn ...................................................................... 225
12. Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning ....... 253
Part V: Deep Learning and Time
13. Intensive Teaching ....................................................................... 275
Final Part: A New Paradigm
14. The Learning Paradigm ............................................................... 291
Final Summary ...................................................................................... 303
Epilogue ................................................................................................ 309
Appendix ...............................................................................................311
Index ..................................................................................................... 339
DISCLAIMER

The names, affiliations, and certain identifying characteristics of students,

teachers, and administrators whose stories are described in this book have
been changed in order to protect their privacy. In addition, some of the
stories are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons, institutions, or
events is purely coincidental.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank many people who directly or indirectly contributed

to the realization of this book.
I could never have written this book without the challenges, enthusi-
asm, and support of all my students: past, present, and future. My students
have always inspired me to look for different ways to help them succeed
and learn deeply. I embarked on this quest for deep learning for them. I
have been teaching in different capacities, levels, institutions, and even
countries ever since I started college. My thanks go to all of them, par-
ticularly my students at Algoma University, and my students at Dalhousie
University, where I taught full-time for four years before accepting my
position at Algoma.
I am equally grateful to my teachers. I had the privilege to study with
some truly remarkable teachers at both the graduate and undergraduate
levels. They have been fantastic role models. Their teaching practice has
been an inspiration for me. I would like to mention Ram Jakhu and Mi-
chael Milde from McGill University, and Mario Folchi and Aldo Cocca
from the University of Buenos Aires. As part of my master’s degree, I took
a seminar on Teaching and Learning at the University of Montreal led by
Diane Labreche. This seminar awakened a passion in me for the field of
teaching and learning. For this, I will be forever grateful. Merci!
As Chair of Algoma University’s Teaching and Learning Committee
for several years, I have developed a passion for educational development.
The issues, problems, and situations that we have to deal with at the Com-
mittee have had a very positive influence in my research and practice in-
terests. Every single member of the Committee has helped me grow as
a teacher and as an educational developer. I would like to thank every
member whom I have worked with, particularly those with whom I have
worked the closest for several years: Deborah Woodman, Linda Burnett,
Gerry Davies, Jan Clarke, Pedro Antunes and Dave Marasco.
xii Acknowledgments

As part of my educational development practice, I regularly give work-

shops and conferences in North America, Latin America, and Europe. Par-
ticipants in these educational development activities have also influenced
the content of this book. While I can’t name all of them, I would like to
mention Juan Antonio Seda from the University of Buenos Aires, Raul
Farias, from FORES, Flavia Propper who was at the University of Bel-
grano, Juan Cayon Peña from Nebrija, Radhames Mejia of UNAPEC, and
Elena Bogonez from the Autonomous University of Madrid.
Rick Myers, David Schantz, and Arthur Perlini, president, Vice Presi-
dent, and Academic Dean of Algoma University, respectively, have sup-
ported my educational development and teaching practice in ways, which
are remarkable. They have invited me to be part of very interesting uni-
versity projects, such as the block plan initiative and the university foun-
dations program, among many others. These very challenging initiatives
have helped me acquire unique experiences that are reflected in this book.
Two icons of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning have profound-
ly transformed my teaching and educational development practice: John
Tagg and Ken Bain. I met John Tagg at Algoma University, when he came
to visit us as guest speaker for our Teaching Forum. He led a workshop
entitled the “Learning Paradigm University.” His presentation and con-
versations changed the way I see higher education. I met Ken and Marsha
Bain in a teaching conference in Oklahoma in 2007. I then participated in
the Best College Teachers Institute. In addition, I invited Ken Bain to be
the keynote speaker at the 2010 Educational Developers Caucus confer-
ence that I organized at Algoma. Multiple references to John Tagg and Ken
Bain throughout the book reflect the profound admiration I have for them
and the influence they both have had in my professional life.
Florencia Carlino is a deep-learning teacher and educational developer
to whom I am truly grateful for her permanent support. She organizes a
very successful annual Teaching and Learning Conference at Sault Col-
lege and numerous educational development activities. These conferenc-
es, workshops, and seminars have also imprinted a unique mark in the way
I think about teaching and learning. Like with John Tagg and Ken Bain,
the numerous stories and examples I give from Florencia’s teaching prac-
tice throughout the book are a testimony of the impact of her teaching and
educational development practice.
xiii Acknowledgments

My thanks also go to Alejandro Casavalle, a drama teacher and the-

ater director. A constructivist with a wealth of experiences and intellectual
generosity, Alejandro has also left his mark in this book with many experi-
ences from his vast teaching trajectory.
A special big thank you goes to Susan Berardini and Iride Lamartina-
Lens from Pace University in New York for their support and friendship.
I am also truly indebted to Sandra Sickels from Apple Academic Press
for believing in this book from the very beginning when it looked a lot dif-
ferent. Her encouragement made this book possible. I am equally indebted
to Ashish and Rakesh Kumar. Without their support, this book would not
exist.
I am also grateful to Cindy Leibfried from Shepherd Incorporated and
Rakesh Kumar from AAP for proofreading the manuscript. I am also
thankful to the Wishart Library's staff, particularly Anne Beaupre.
Finally, I am truly grateful to my family for their endless support. This
book is dedicated to my two favorite children in the world: Mike Hermida
and Lucas Hermida.
PRELIMINARY PART
THE CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION

Soon after I had finished my doctoral studies, my supervisor asked me to

give two lectures to his undergraduate students. He told me that he would
be absent for a week in order to participate in a conference in Europe. And
since it was the beginning of the term, he did not want to cancel these
classes. He wanted me to cover his classes in the following day and two
days later. I already moved to another city, a few hundred miles away
from my alma mater, as I had obtained a nontenure track teaching posi-
tion in another university. So, I was hesitant at first, because that meant
that I would need to make alternative arrangements with my own students.
But my supervisor insisted. He told me that he had no doctoral students
specializing in space law and that it would be easy for me to teach these
two classes. He convinced me when he told me that he would cover all
my expenses, including executive-class airfare and accommodations at a
five-star hotel. That did the trick. So, I agreed to teach for him. He then
told me that he would send me an email with the topics he wanted me to
explain in each class. I talked to my teaching assistants (a luxury I don’t
have in my current university as a tenured associate professor), and they
agreed to show a video and lead a discussion for me that week. A couple
of hours later, I was flying in executive class for the first time in my life.
As anyone who went to graduate school would know, life as a doctoral stu-
dent is tough. I worked as a research assistant for my thesis supervisor for
minimum wage. This salary and a small scholarship were my main sources
of income. I hardly had money for food, books, and rent.
So, when I arrived at the hotel, I was truly fascinated. I spent hours at
the swimming pool. Then, I tried the sauna, the Jacuzzi, and the fitness
center. I even had a massage at the spa for the very first time in my life
(and so far the only one). Then, I gobbled up a spectacular dinner buffet
like I had never eaten in years. After dinner, I was too tired to check my
email. I didn’t think I would have any problem whatsoever giving a lecture
on any topic of space law to a group of undergraduate students. After all, I
xviii Introduction

had just finished my doctoral dissertation in space law. I had several pub-
lications in the field. I had given presentations on space law in academic
conferences. I had been a research assistant for my supervisor for years.
And I had aced this course as an undergraduate student. What’s more, as
part of my graduate studies, I had also taken advanced courses in space
law. So, I decided to check my email in the morning after breakfast; I also
decided I would mentally outline a lecture on the ten-minute walk from the
hotel to the university. After sleeping like a baby, I had a decadent break-
fast. Then, I checked my email. When I read that my supervisor wanted
me to discuss the technological aspects of outer space that day and the
legal background of the Outer Space Treaty on Thursday, I was shocked. I
literally panicked. I did not remember anything about the technological as-
pects of outer space. The terms apogee and perigee, which my supervisor
wanted me to explain to his students, rang a bell, but I could not remember
what they meant. I had completely forgotten all about the technological
aspects of outer space. Yes, I had aced this course every time I took it.
And such courses always started with an explanation of these and other
technological terms. But I had no idea what they were. Not knowing what
to do, I walked into the classroom and briefly introduced myself. Then,
almost instinctively, I asked students if they had read the chapter from the
casebook on the technological aspects of outer space. Because very few
students raised their hands, I told them to read that chapter for Thursday;
I then went on to explain the legal background of the Outer Space Treaty,
which I knew very well. After class, I ran to the library to prepare for next
class. Although I managed to prepare a decent lecture on apogee, perigee,
and other technical aspects in the following 48 h before the class on Thurs-
day, I had to forget about the swimming pool, the sauna, and the Jacuzzi.
The lecture went well, or so I thought at that moment. But when I came
back home, I was still shocked. I wanted to know why I had forgotten
about something I had studied several times during my undergraduate and
graduate years. How was it possible that I had no idea about something
that I had learned at school not that long ago? What about my own stu-
dents? Was I teaching them in the same way? Would they forget every-
thing I taught them? If so, why? Is there something structurally wrong in
higher education that prevents students from learning in a way that they
will remember the material? Or was I alone in having done something
Introduction xix

wrong that caused me to forget? How could I teach so that my students

would learn for life? What could I do so that students could transfer and
apply what they learn to other situations and contexts? What could be done
to change the existing teaching paradigm? I embarked on a professional
life-long journey to grapple with these questions in search for answers.
At the core of these questions lie two fundamental concepts, which I
ignored at that time: deep learning and surface learning. Deep learning is a
committed approach to learning where learners learn for life and can apply
what they learn to new situations and contexts. Surface learning is a super-
ficial approach to learning where students use knowledge that they acquire
for writing exams or papers and soon forget it. Deep learners discover
and construct their own knowledge by negotiating meanings with peers
and by making connections between existing and new knowledge. Surface
learners receive knowledge passively from their teachers or books. We can
learn deeply, write deeply, read deeply, and engage in any academic task
in a deep way. Similarly, we can approach any academic task in a surface
way.
One of the most shocking research findings about deep and surface
learning reported in the literature in virtually every country and region in
the Western world is that most university and college students approach
learning in a surface way (Biggs & Tang, 2007). In other words, students
forget what they learn and cannot use it meaningfully outside the setting of
higher education. In any other activity, industry, or sector, this would make
headlines all over the world. For example, if car manufacturers produced
cars that ran for a few miles only, if planes flew only a few minutes after
takeoff, or if computers stopped working after a few mouse clicks, it could
not be business as usual in those industries. People would be fired; compa-
nies would be closed down, consumers would file multimillion-dollar law-
suits, and society would demand immediate changes. Fortunately, higher
education is different. We have time to work on our mistakes and fix them.
We have time to go back to the drawing board and teach our courses dif-
ferently. But unfortunately, it takes us too long to realize that things are not
working well and even longer to find a meaningful solution. In the mean-
time, entire cohorts of students are sent out to the world outside academia
having learned only superficially.
xx Introduction

Deep learning is the answer to higher education’s performance prob-

lem. It is what helps students become active protagonists of their own
learning process. It is the key to their success in their future academic and
professional endeavors. Deep learning leads to the attainment of quality
learning goals. It also helps the learner develop cognitively and emotion-
ally. It enables learners to connect, apply, and transfer knowledge to a wide
array of settings and to act effectively in different contexts. Committing
to fostering a deep learning environment in our classes and across higher
education institutions is an urgent imperative. We owe it to our students.
We need to radically change our teaching practice so that all students can
learn deeply and transform their lives.
One of the most powerful research findings is that we teachers play the
most influential role in students’—usually unconscious – decision to take
a deep approach to learning. We can create the environment and conditions
that can encourage our students to approach learning in a profound way.
And this is so, even if we work in institutions that are not learning oriented
and that have strong structural barriers that make innovative pedagogical
changes difficult.
This book aims to show what we can do to create a learning environ-
ment that encourages students to take a deep approach to learning. By
deconstructing the notion of deep learning and by examining every ele-
ment of the teaching and learning system, I will show you how to bring
about deep learning in our teaching practice. After reading this book and
engaging with the proposed activities in the practice corner, you will have
the theoretically grounded and research-supported strategies and tools that
are necessary to implement a deep learning environment across all classes.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

This book is divided into several parts and chapters. The preliminary
part, which contains the introduction and Chapter 1, situates this book
in its context. In Chapter 1, I briefly examine the prevailing paradigm in
higher education. Many teachers, students, and administrators have long
expressed discontent with the status quo. This discontent revolves around
the fact that the Instruction-paradigm University, dominated as it is by the
Introduction xxi

lecture method, produces shallow and superficial learning instead of deep

learning. The goal of that chapter is to raise awareness of the artifacts of
the institutions we work at so that we can effect and implement informed
changes in our classroom teaching.
Part I contains Chapters 2 to 5 and addresses the notion of deep learn-
ing and its major components. In Chapter 2, the focus will be on the an-
swer to the Instruction-paradigm’s structural problem: deep learning. I
will delve into a detailed examination of the elements and factors of deep
learning. Deep learning requires a series of cognitive and metacognitive
interventions at both the individual and the group (social) levels so that
learners can construct new knowledge that results in both a conceptual
change in their cognitive structure and in their position in a community of
knowledgeable peers. I follow a constructivist approach to deep learning,
as this approach is understood by Schwandt and McCarty (2000), who
advanced the idea that “everyone who believes the mind is active in the
making of knowledge is a constructivist” (Graffam, 2003). In this sense,
constructivism is a point of departure, which includes doubts, debates,
criticism, and self-criticism (Carretero, 2009). Constructivism is founded
upon the idea that the individual is not a mere product of the social context
or his or her internal dispositions, but rather his or her own construction
that is produced every day as a result of the interaction between those two
factors. At the same time, my conception of deep learning is compatible
with vygotskian and neo-vygotskian notions of social learning and de-
velopment. It is also compatible with findings in cognitive neuroscience
(Zull, 2002). Cognitive neuroscience deals with research on brain pro-
cesses and structures; it also examines the role that the brain plays in the
learning process (Zull, 2011).
After the analysis of the notion and elements of deep learning in Chap-
ter 2, the rest of the chapters are about how to facilitate deep learning. I
explore the goals of teaching and learning at the classroom and program
levels (Chapter 3) and the ways to reach these goals through student per-
formances (Chapter 4). Deep learning proceeds in a very special way that
changes how we think about goals and objectives. It requires a change in
the fundamental arrangements for teaching and learning. In particular, it
requires that students formulate their own goals or, at least, play an impor-
tant role in creating their own curriculum around their own interests and
xxii Introduction

goals. For this purpose, we need to design activities and performances that
will help them construct their own knowledge.
Learning is both an individual and a collective process. Chapter 5 deals
with the social aspect of learning. Knowledge is conceived as both an in-
dividual and a social construction. At the social level, it implies either the
reacculturation from one community of knowledgeable peers to another or
a move from the periphery of a community to its center. Learning commu-
nities in higher education institutions facilitate this process. This entails a
significant change in our role as teachers. It requires us to give up control
and to become facilitators of student learning.
Becoming academically proficient in a discipline or professional field re-
quires the mastery of some fundamental academic skills, particularly read-
ing and writing. Despite the importance of these skills for academic success,
they are generally taken for granted, and they are seldom taught explicitly
at universities and colleges. Part II, which includes Chapters 6 and 7, deals
with deep reading (Chapter 6) and deep writing (Chapter 7). I will explore
some strategies and methods to help students learn to read deeply and to write
deeply. I will also discuss how to use writing to bring about deep learning.
Part III examines the connection between deep learning and diversity.
This part of the book is premised on the idea that interacting with peers
from different backgrounds and cultures helps learners explore problems
and questions from angles that cannot be considered when social interac-
tion is restricted to interaction with peers from a similar background. But
diversity of backgrounds alone does not automatically lead to deeper lev-
els of learning. This only takes place if these diverse backgrounds are val-
ued and explicitly incorporated into the teaching and learning experience.
The most effective way to achieve this is through the creation of inclusive
deep learning environments, where we incorporate diverse knowledge
modes into our classes and we help students learn from diverse world-
views, cultural perspectives, and languages (Chapter 8). The other two
essential aspects of the deep learning environment are the development of
a global and international education, where students approach the content,
discourse, and strategies of the academic disciplines from a global and
international perspective, and the development of a plurilingual education,
where students learn the academic disciplines in a plurality of languages
(Chapter 9). Chapter 10 deals with one of the most significant challenges
Introduction xxiii

derived from the creation of inclusive deep learning environments: help-

ing nonnative speaking students pursue higher education in a second or a
foreign language.
Evaluation also plays a fundamental role in facilitating deep learning.
Part IV includes Chapters 11 and 12 and explores evaluation from the stu-
dents’ and the teachers’ perspectives. In Chapter 11, I analyze the notion
of evaluating to learn —an approach that conceives of evaluation as an
integral part of the deep learning process. I will examine the main aspects,
characteristics, instruments, and subjects in every phase of the evaluating-
to-learn process. I will also explore the notion of metacognition and how
we can help students use metacognitive strategies to engage in reflection
and self-evaluation. The emphasis of this chapter is on how we can use
evaluation in order to encourage students to take a deep approach in their
discovery and construction of knowledge. Chapter 12 deals with another
aspect of evaluation: student evaluation of courses. Universities and col-
leges have been relying on student evaluation of teaching to assess the
effectiveness of their faculty for decades. Teachers need meaningful feed-
back in order to continue improving their teaching practice. However, the
predominant instruments have no correlation with student learning and are
used for tenure and promotion purposes rather than to give useful informa-
tion to teachers about their practice. The chapter focuses on how to create
a meaningful approach to student evaluation of teaching effectiveness that
assesses teaching effectiveness from a deep learning perspective, where
the emphasis is not on the methods teachers use to teach their classes but
on whether or not teachers help students learn deeply.
Part V consists of one chapter, which explores the connection between
time and deep learning. It also advances the notion and advantages of in-
tensive teaching formats.
The final part of the book explores the Learning paradigm, conceived
as a model for higher education organizations focused on producing deep
learning. Chapter 14 analyzes the main elements of the Learning para-
digm and compares them to those of the Instruction paradigm. The goal
of Chapter 14 is to show that creating an institutional environment that
promotes deep learning is not a utopian dream. It is possible when there is
a concerted effort among all main players involved in the learning enter-
prise, particularly, teachers, students, and administrators.
xxiv Introduction

Finally, the last chapter offers a brief summary of the main ideas of
this book, that is, that deep learning is the answer to higher education’s
performance problem and that the pathways, practices, tools, strategies,
and initiatives developed in this book can foster an environment that is
conducive to deep learning.

KEYWORDS

• deep learning
• higher education
• learning environment
• lecture
• student learning
• surface learning
• teaching

REFERENCES

Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Carretero, M. Constructivismo y Educación; Paidós: Buenos Aires, 2009.

Graffam, B. Constructivism and Understanding: Implementing the Teaching for Understanding

Framework. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 2003, 15.

Schwandt, T.; McCarty, L. In Seductive Illusions: Von Glasserfield and Gergen on Epistemology
and Education; Phillips, D., Ed.; Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opin-
ions on Controversial Issues; Chicago University Press: Chicago, 2000.

Zull, J. From Brain to Mind. Using Neuroscience to Guide Change in Education; Stylus: Ster-
ling, VA, 2011.

Zull, J. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the
Biology of Learning; Stylus: Sterling, VA, 2002.
CHAPTER 1

THE INSTRUCTION PARADIGM

Teaching is not something you can go into the forest and do by
yourself.
— RALPH W. TYLER

CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 2

1.2 Discontent with the Predominant Higher Education Paradigm ....... 2
1.3 The Instruction Paradigm................................................................. 5
1.4 Summary .......................................................................................... 8
Practice Corner.......................................................................................... 9
Keywords .................................................................................................11
References ................................................................................................11
2 Facilitating Deep Learning

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Teachers, students, administrators, and other key players have been show-
ing a discontent with the essential goals of universities and colleges in
North America and across the world. This discontent is manifested through
a myriad of publications, works, reports, and even every-day conversa-
tions, which point out that higher education institutions are not producing
meaningful and long-lasting learning. Instead, they are producing surface
learning. In this chapter, I will briefly examine this discontent. I will also
explore the main characteristics of the prevailing paradigm in higher edu-
cation: the Instruction paradigm. The goal of this examination is to draw
your attention to some taken-for-granted artifacts of our universities and
colleges, which need to be changed if we want to create environments that
are conducive to student deep learning.

1.2 DISCONTENT WITH THE PREDOMINANT HIGHER

EDUCATION PARADIGM

Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the South Tower of the
World Trade Center in New York City housed some of the most sophisti-
cated banks, law firms, insurance companies, engineering firms, govern-
ment departments, investment organizations, transportation companies,
architectural studios, telecommunications service providers, and man-
agement firms. Together, they employed thousands of highly successful
graduates from U.S. and international universities and colleges, including
the most highly recognized higher education institutions, in virtually every
single discipline.
On September 11, 2001, right after the collapse of the North Tower,
the South Tower began evacuation. At that time, the elevators were still
operational, and the stairwells were relatively unobstructed. Some minutes
later, United Airlines’ Boeing 767–222 impacted the South Tower. There
was a very loud and frightening thunderous sound. The building shook;
the lights went out instantly. Cracks started to appear in the walls; as steam
pipes exploded, sending a cloud of hot steam all over the building. There
was debris falling everywhere. The heat was intense, almost unbearable. A
The Instruction Paradigm 3

very strong smoke inundated the building. In the upper floors, the smell of
airplane fuel mixed with the smell of smoke and human panic. It was very
hard to breathe. Every now and then, an elevator door opened violently to
reveal the inevitable: dozens of people had been burned alive inside.
Amid this chaos, one of the stairwells was still clear. It was still pos-
sible to evacuate. Evidently, leaving the building was the only possibility
to remain alive. There was no other way to survive. Strangely enough, of-
ficial announcements emphatically instructed everyone to remain in their
offices and not to leave a soon-to-collapse tower. Instructions were repeat-
ed incessantly over the speakers on every floor. Regrettably, most people
blindly obeyed these orders. They stayed put and started to make frantic
phone calls to loved ones. Even many of those who had begun evacuation
returned to their offices. Only a very small minority dared to challenge
these instructions and left the building to save their lives.
Alfie Kohn (2001) speculates that highly educated professionals ought
to have questioned these instructions and used their reasoning abilities to
find the only possible route to save their lives, which, in this case, was also
the most evident and logical alternative. Kohn (2001) believes that many
deaths in the World Trade Center could have been avoided if our universi-
ties and colleges had embraced a different pedagogical stance. If instead
of insisting on a teaching method that stresses passive absorption of in-
formation, coupled with a hidden curriculum that conveys a message of
intellectual submission to the authority, our higher education institutions
had focused on helping students think for themselves and question basic
assumptions, hundreds of our finest graduates would have saved their lives
in one of the most tragic episodes on North American soil.
Luckily, the consequences of a poor university and college education
do not usually result in such tragic events as this one. But our society still
suffers the consequences of a system that is not doing what it ought to do:
produce meaningful, profound, transformational, and long-lasting student
learning.
Many stakeholders both inside and outside higher education institu-
tions have been voicing their discontent with this somber situation. Em-
ployers usually complain that recent graduates are not adequately prepared
to work in the white-collar job marketplace. They argue that graduates
lack the necessary skills to carry out even the most basic functions; so private
4 Facilitating Deep Learning

and public organizations have to spend millions of dollars in training their

recent hires not only in specific technical aspects of their industries or
activities but also in intellectual skills, which have traditionally been the
exclusive territory of higher education (Millen, Greenleaf, and Wells-Pap-
anek, 2010).
Authors have also shown their concerns about the outcomes of higher
education and have voiced their frustration with university graduates who
have run out of ideas to solve important societal problems and blindly
insist on piecemeal solutions that fail to capture society’s fundamental is-
sues. There is widespread disappointment because not even the bright-
est graduates have the intellectual capacity to question the assumptions
deeply engrained in today’s society (Hedges, 2009).
Students also realize that their universities and colleges are not deliv-
ering the promises they have engraved in their vision and mission state-
ments. When truly transformational learning does not occur, our universi-
ties and colleges become a bureaucratic apparatus of producing grades and
degrees. So, students become disengaged with their own learning process
and focus on obtaining those grades leading to degrees and job opportu-
nities with minimum effort, without fully committing to their education
(Côté & Allahar, 2007).
Teachers—from the most progressive and most prone to radical re-
forms to the most conservative and adverse to changes—also complain
about the status quo. Teachers feel frustrated with a job that is becoming
less fulfilling, because it is harder to motivate and reach out to newer gen-
erations of students. Many teachers believe that students are not interested
in learning and that they only want to pass exams to get good grades and
receive their degrees. Many students, in turn, think that teachers do not
care about teaching them in a way that helps them transform their lives
and that they are only interested in evaluating them and giving them a
final grade so that students can graduate and teachers can gain tenure and
promotions (Cox, 2009).
Although we all know many exceptions and strive to be exceptions
ourselves, the truth of the matter is that the structure of our colleges and
universities has trapped all of us in rigid compartments, which impeded us
from creating the necessary environment to encourage our students to take
a deep approach to learning.
The Instruction Paradigm 5

1.3 THE INSTRUCTION PARADIGM

Let’s have a look at the characteristics of the structural foundations of

higher education. In a seminal work published in Change magazine in
1995, Robert Barr and John Tagg (1995) synthesized the main shortcom-
ings of our higher education institutions. For their analysis, they came up
with two paradigms: the Instruction paradigm and the Learning paradigm.
The Instruction paradigm describes the goals, attitudes, theories, and ele-
ments of the predominant universities and colleges. The Learning para-
digm, which I will explore later in the book, is Barr’s and Tagg’s proposal
to transform higher education institutions into organizations focused on
learning.
The Instruction paradigm is characterized for its emphasis on teaching.
Teaching is the purpose, the object, and the method of higher education
institutions. The main goal of universities and colleges is to produce teach-
ing regardless of whether this leads to student learning or not. Universities
and colleges take a series of measures to ensure that teaching takes place.
But they do not necessarily take similar measures to ensure that students
are learning, let alone that they are learning deeply. So, for example, they
hire teachers; they assign teachers to courses and classrooms, and they
provide them with the resources needed to teach: boards, projectors, and
computers, among others. Even the physical aspects of universities and
colleges tend to privilege teaching and teachers over learning and students.
Most teachers have offices, whereas undergraduate students generally do
not. The classroom usually contains anonymous rows of seats for students;
teachers are given the limelight in front of the classroom. Teachers are
paid, whereas in most cases students have to pay tuition fees, in some
cases even astronomical fees.
Although teaching may take diverse formats, the predominant peda-
gogy is the teacher-centered lecture. The lecture is premised on the fact
that teachers are disciplinary experts who transmit their knowledge to
students and that students absorb it passively. Students’ main role is to
take down notes of that content to reproduce it later in examinations and
papers. Teachers have full control of the teaching experience. Teachers
formulate the objectives, prepare their lectures, make decisions, talk for
the most part in class, determine which students may ask questions or
6 Facilitating Deep Learning

may make some comments, and evaluate their students. The origin of the
lecture dates back to the beginning of modern universities—more than a
thousand years ago—when it was difficult to access books and informa-
tion. So, teachers were the only ones who read books and transmitted the
information to their students. With ample access to information both in
print and in digital form, the reason that led universities to resort to lec-
tures no longer exists.
Teaching in the Instruction paradigm is organized around a rigid atom-
istic structure that consists of one-teacher-per-classroom courses, where
students accumulate credits for courses chosen from a distributional
curriculum, organized on the basis of disciplines and rigid departments
(Hedges, 2009). This emphasis on independent disciplines fossilized in
independent departments has created a disconnection between the work
of academics and the fundamental questions of everyday life. Academics
“rarely understand or concern themselves with the reality of the world.
Works of literature are eviscerated and destroyed. They are mined for ob-
scure trivia and irrelevant data. This disconnection between literature and
philosophy on one hand and the real life on the other is replicated in most
academic disciplines” (Hedges, 2009).
The Instruction paradigm has also produced “a particular, elitist vo-
cabulary —the vocabulary of the discipline specialist, which bars access
to any outsider. It destroys the search for the common good. It dices dis-
ciplines, faculty, students, and finally experts into tiny, specialized frag-
ments. It allows students and faculty to retreat into these self-imposed
fiefdoms and neglect the most pressing moral, political, and cultural ques-
tions” (Hedges, 2009). Along with disciplinary vocabulary, teachers have
adopted a common language to communicate among and across depart-
ments and disciplines, which is as impenetrable and as meaningless for
outsiders as disciplinary jargon. Not surprisingly, this language revolves
around courses. After teaching full-time for more than ten years (and after
being involved in various roles in higher education for my whole adult
life) when I go to department and committee meetings, I still find it hard to
understand the jargon. I hear most of my colleagues talk, and fight fever-
ishly about things such as ECON 305, BIOL 101, ADMIN 1006, SOCI
2087, POLI 2405, and ESPA 1005. I have seen some colleagues get emo-
tional and fight about the differences between joint enrollment and cross-
The Instruction Paradigm 7

listed courses. Some never stop talking about antirequisites. Others always
advocate for splitting courses, and most get angry when the administration
does not enforce prerequisites and corequisites. Every language has cog-
nitive blind spots, that is, concepts for which the language does not have
any terms, or does not have sufficient terms. Student learning and student
transformation sometimes seem to be cognitive blind spots in the language
spoken in higher education.
The Instruction paradigm also embraces an atomistic and one-sided
notion of knowledge, generally presented as objective. “Knowledge is
often accepted as truth legitimizing a specific view of the world that is
either questionable or false” (Giroux, 1983). This has produced a kind
of knowledge that is not socially important. Students do not learn how to
question the fundamental assumptions of our time. They do not learn to
think for themselves, challenge, and criticize the structure and foundations
of our system. The hidden curriculum of the Instruction paradigm, that is,
the byproduct of schooling, what is actually learned even though it is not
explicitly stated in the official curriculum (Vallance, 1983)—teaches stu-
dents to follow orders and play by the rules of the universities and colleges
in order to survive academically.
In the Instruction paradigm, time is the same for every student, even
if students have different learning styles and need different times to con-
struct knowledge. This is so because teaching—and not learning—is of
paramount importance in the Instruction paradigm. Because teachers need
the same time to transmit information to students, courses can have the
same duration for everyone, irrespective of their students’ learning pro-
cesses.
The typical Instruction-paradigm institution tends to absorb large num-
bers of students, particularly because student enrollment determines their
funding. Even in many countries where governments provide taxpayers’
money to fund universities, they do so according to the number of students
registered in programs and courses. So, institutions need to be efficient in
the way they deal with such large numbers of students. For this purpose,
they need uniform and routine practices that apply to everyone regardless
of their actual learning needs. These practices resemble a factory assembly
line conveyor belt that moves students along until they graduate. In the In-
struction paradigm, one of the benchmarks of success is a student graduation
8 Facilitating Deep Learning

rate. Universities and colleges are considered successful if they can gradu-
ate the greatest number of students in the predetermined duration of their
programs. In other words, they are successful if the conveyor belt does not
lose any students throughout the process.
Students’ experience in university and colleges is molded by all of
these elements and artifacts of the Instruction paradigm. Students absorb
these elements through their senses, which shape their mindsets and learn-
ing orientations (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). Students soon realize that
true learning does not really matter. They realize that they have to pass
tests, write papers, and occasionally be in the classrooms and labs. They
also understand that they have to respect their teachers, pay their tuition
fees, and not question the fundamental structures of the Instruction-para-
digm institution. They learn how to play the university and college game.
All this fosters a culture of surface—including strategic—learning.

1.4 SUMMARY

Numerous studies, projects and proposals, which are as diverse as their

authors and proponents, share a discontent with the status quo of colleges
and universities. In one way or another, they all point out the fact that stu-
dents are not learning deeply in higher education.
The Instruction-paradigm, a concept first envisaged by Robert Barr
and John Tagg, captures the predominant goals, attitudes, theories, and
elements of universities and colleges. The Instruction paradigm is charac-
terized by its emphasis on teaching. Teaching is the raison d’être of higher
education institutions. It is at the same time their sole purpose, object, and
method. The Instruction paradigm is also characterized by a curriculum
consisting almost exclusively of courses in academic or professional disci-
plines, which students take without actually addressing the most pressing
and fundamental issues of everyday life. One of the most salient aspects of
the Instruction paradigm is the preponderant role of lectures. The lecture
reflects a traditional conception of knowledge as a fact, which is trans-
mitted from teachers to students. Students’ role is marginal in lectures. It
mainly consists of absorbing and reproducing information. Universities
and colleges today also place strong emphasis on uniform practices. They
The Instruction Paradigm 9

resemble a factory conveyor belt, which processes students quickly and

mechanically from admission to graduation.
Most important, the Instruction paradigm is also characterized by a
complete disregard for student learning, particularly deep student learning.
Educational change requires a transformation of beliefs, teaching ap-
proaches, and instructional resources, which must occur simultaneously
in practice for that transformation to be meaningful (Fulham, 2001). The
following chapters offer the foundations for that change. The next chapter
will focus on the notion and elements of deep learning.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Read your institution’s academic plan, strategic plan, collective

agreement, or other official documents. Identify all of the sections
and clauses that reflect elements of the Instruction paradigm. How
would you change these clauses to help move your institution away
from the Instruction paradigm?
2. Think of the last class you taught. What elements of the Instruction
paradigm were present? What changes can you implement to move
away from the Instruction paradigm the next time you teach it?
How can you make those changes without risking your job?
3. Think of your last department or committee meeting. What ele-
ments of the Instruction paradigm transpired in the discussions?
Did those elements impede any changes to promote students’ deep
learning? If so, how?
4. Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges (2009) argues that academ-
ics “rarely understand or concern themselves with the reality of
the world.” Do you agree? Why or why not? If so, what changes
could you introduce in your courses so that they can become more
relevant for your students’ lives?
5. In an age dominated by easy access to information, what is the
value, if any, of traditional lectures?
6. Think of a successful learning experience, whether in a formal or
informal educational context, where you learned something deeply
that you apply in your personal, social, or professional life. What
10 Facilitating Deep Learning

did you learn? How did you learn it? Were the artifacts of the In-
struction paradigm present? If so, how did they influence your
learning experience?
7. Remember or watch Peter Weir’s 1989 film Dead Poets Society.
What elements of the Instruction paradigm does John Keating reb-
el against? What elements of the Instruction paradigm, if any, does
he embrace?
8. On May 24, 2013 in The View, an ABC show the hosts debated then
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s remark that some students
do not need to pursue higher education and should learn a trade in-
stead. Watch a short clip entitled “Should Mediocre Students Skip
College?” posted on YouTube by ABCTheView (if the copyright
holder has made that video available in your country) and read
Bloomberg’s remarks widely available online. What do you think
of Bloomberg’s position? Do you agree or do you disagree? Why?
What do you think of the arguments debated in The View? Do you
agree or do you disagree? Why? Are there any elements of discon-
tent with the Instruction paradigm? If so, can you identify them?
For those of you who cannot watch the clip, imagine arguments in
favor of and against Bloomberg’s opinion.
9. In a well-known study, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (2011)
conclude that “American higher education is characterized by lim-
ited or no learning for a large proportion of students.” What do you
think the authors mean by “limited or no learning”? What type of
learning do they refer to? Do you agree with this conclusion? Why
or why not? If so, why do you think this happens? If you are not
from the United States, do you think that these conclusions also
apply to higher education institutions in your country? Why or why
not?
10. The vocabulary of the Instruction paradigm is very peculiar. Think
of everyday words and phrases such as final exam, deadline, and
fail. What images do they evoke? Can you think of other words
or phrases used in the Instruction paradigm institution that evoke
similar images? Can you think of any replacement terms that might
be more effective?
The Instruction Paradigm 11

KEYWORDS

• academic disciplines
• courses
• departments
• distributional curriculum
• hidden curriculum
• instruction paradigm
• lecture
• surface learning
• teaching
• uniform practices

REFERENCES

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Bain, K.; Zimmerman, J. Understanding Great Teaching. Peer Review 2009, 11, 9.

Arum, R.; Roksa, J. Academically Adrift. Limited Learning on College Campuses; The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2011.

Barr, R.; Tagg, J. From Teaching to Learning – A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.
Change 1995, 13.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Côté, J.; Allahar, A. Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis; University of Toronto
Press: Toronto, 2007.

Cox, R. The College Fear Factor: How Students and Professors Misunderstand One Another.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2004.

Fulham, M. The New Meaning of Educational Change; Teachers College Press and Toronto:
Irwin Publishing Ltd: New York, 2001.

Giroux, H. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition; Bergin & Gar-
vey: South Hadley, MA, 1983.
12 Facilitating Deep Learning

Hedges, C. Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle; Random
House: Toronto, 2009.

Kohn, A. September 11. Rethinking Schools 2001.

Light, R. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2001.

Millen, E.; Greenleaf, R.; Wells-Papanek, D. Engaging Today’s College Students: What All Col-
lege Instructors Need to Know & Be Able to Do; Greenleaf Papanek Publications: Newfield,
ME, 2010.

Miller, J. The holistic curriculum; OISE Press, Inc: Toronto, 20001.

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.

Prosser, M.; Trigwell, K. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher edu-
cation; Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.

Ramsden, P. Learning to teach in higher education; Routledge: London, 1992.

Sanjurjo, L.; Vera, M. T. Aprendizaje significativo y enseñanza en los niveles medio y superior;
Homo Sapiens: Rosario, 1994.

Shulman, L. Teaching as Community Property. Essays on Higher Education; Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, 2004.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Tussman, J. Experiment at Berkeley Oxford University Press: New York, 1969.

 PART I
DEEP LEARNING
CHAPTER 2

THE DEEP LEARNING PROCESS

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
KNOWLEDGE
The most important form of learning is that which enables us to see
something in the world in a different way.
— JOHN BOWDEN AND FERENCE MARTON
Learning is change.
— JAMES ZULL

CONTENTS

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 17

2.2 Origin of Deep Learning and Other Similar Concepts .................. 18
2.3 Notion of Deep Learning ............................................................... 19
2.4 Analysis of the Elements and Factors of Deep Learning............... 20
2.5 Motivating Problem and Cognitive Conflict ................................. 21
2.6 Connections between New Knowledge and Prior Knowledge
Structures ....................................................................................... 24
2.7 Non-Arbitrary and Substantive Connections ................................. 25
2.8 Higher-Order Cognitive Skills, Competences, and Processes ....... 26
2.9 Collective Negotiation of Meanings .............................................. 28
2.10 The New Knowledge and the Zone of Proximal Development ..... 29
2.11 Conceptual Change ........................................................................ 30
2.12 Perry’s Stages of Development ...................................................... 32
2.13 Changes in or Across Communities of Knowledge ....................... 35
2.14 Evaluation and Metacognitive Reflection...................................... 35
2.15 Safe and Motivating Environment ................................................. 36
2.16 Summary ........................................................................................ 41
16 Facilitating Deep Learning

Practice Corner........................................................................................ 41
Keywords ................................................................................................ 44
References ............................................................................................... 44
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 17

2.1 INTRODUCTION

With their obsessive focus on teaching and lecturing, the Instruction-para-

digm institutions have given rise to a culture of surface learning, neglect-
ing to help students learn meaningfully and for life. Deep learning is the
solution to this problem. Deep learning is an enthusiastic and committed
approach to learning. It is a process of discovery and construction of new
knowledge in light of prior cognitive structures and experiences, which
can be applied to new problems and in different situations (Tagg, 2003).
Deep learning entails a “sustained, substantial, and positive influence
on the way students act, think, or feel” (Bain, 2004). A deep approach
to learning results in better-quality learning and profound transformation
(Tek Yew, 2005). Deep learning produces learning that lasts a lifetime. In
contrast, surface learning involves a dispassionate approach to learning.
The surface learner is not concerned with understanding (Bain and Zim-
merman, 2009). Information acquired is usually lost after examinations;
there is no profound transformation or knowledge construction.
In this chapter, I will develop the notion of deep learning. I will break
down and analyze every element of deep learning as well as the factors
and processes that contribute to produce an environment that is conducive
to deep learning. Although based on the studies first carried out by Marton
and Säljö (1976), my conception of deep learning is broader, as it em-
braces the most important and compatible aspects of other conceptions of
learning, which regard learning as superior and transformational.
Some authors point to the existence of a third category of learning,
which they refer to as strategic (Ramsden, 1979). The strategic learner is
the one who learns the rules of the academic game and acts accordingly.
For example, the strategic learner is the one who comes to class, raises his
or her hand to ask a question with a few words that will sound educated,
and gives the teacher what he or she expects without engaging in a process
of construction of knowledge. Strategic learners focus on obtaining good
grades with the minimum necessary effort. The strategic learner is a kind
of surface learner. Thus, I will treat this type of learning within the general
category of surface learning.
18 Facilitating Deep Learning

2.2 ORIGIN OF DEEP LEARNING AND OTHER SIMILAR

CONCEPTS

The notion of deep learning arose in the 1970’s with a research study con-
ducted at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Marton and Säljö asked
students to read an article written by a professor of education on some pro-
posed university reforms in Sweden. They told students that they would
ask them some questions about the text once they finished reading it. Mar-
ton and Säljömet with the students and asked them open-ended questions
to assess their approach to reading and their understanding of the text.
Additionally, they specifically asked the students how they had gone about
studying the text (Bowden and Marton, 2000). Marton and Säljö(1976)
report that while reading the text, some students simply identified isolated
facts mentioned in the text, which they believed the researchers would
ask them about during the interview, and memorized those facts. These
students could not make any connections between these facts. They even
failed to see any connection to their realities. Another group of students
tried to understand what the author was saying, focused on the underlying
meaning of the text, and sought to integrate the different facts mentioned
in the text. The first group of students focused on the surface level of the
text, whereas the second one adopted a deeper approach. From this ex-
perience, Marton and Säljöcame up with the notions of surface and deep
approaches to learning. Similar research was replicated and expanded in
Europe and Australia during the subsequent decades (Entwistle, 1998;
Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Gibbs, 1992; Ramsden, 1992; Trigwell and
Prosser, 1991).
Although the distinction between deep and surface approach to learn-
ing is relatively new, the idea that teaching and learning may be merely
superficial or may be transformational in the lives of students is quite an
old proposition. This idea has adopted different names—albeit with some
different implications—throughout the history of education. Even Aristo-
tle made references to profound knowledge and transformation (Shulman,
1997). Table 2.1 lists the main contemporary conceptions of transforma-
tional and profound knowledge and their proponents.
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 19

TABLE 2.1 Main contemporary conceptions of transformational knowledge.

Concept of profound/transformational learning Authors

Deep learning: a profound understanding of the underlying mean- Ference Marton and Roger
ing of a text and the integration of the different facts mentioned Säljö(1970).
in a text.

Meaningful learning: a process of attributing meaning to new David Ausubel (1963; 1978).
knowledge by making nonarbitrary and substantive connections
between new and prior knowledge that produces conceptual
change in the learner’s cognitive structure.

Transfer of principles and attitudes: the learning of a general idea Jerome Bruner (1966; 1977).
instead of a basic skill and the recognition of problems, situations,
and examples as specific cases of the general idea.

Teaching for Understanding: the possibility of doing a variety of David Perkins (2009), Tyna
thought-provoking tasks with a topic, such as generalizing, ex- Blythe (1998).
plaining, finding evidence, applying to new situations, and solving
problems.

Learning that lasts: an ongoing process that contributes to the de- Marcia Mentkowski (2000).
velopment of the person. This idea of learning is conceived as an
integration of learning, development, and performance.

Transformative learning: the process of producing change in a Jack Mezirow (1997).

frame of reference by incorporating new information to the exist-
ing frame of reference. This process involves thoughts, feelings,
and dispositions.

Effective learning: a constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, in- De Corte (2010).

tentional, situated, and collaborative process of knowledge and
meaning building. Effective learning enables learners to acquire
adaptive expertise or competence.

Autonomous learning: a process of learning and developing com- Joan Rué (2009).
petences that generates an agency capacity, that is, a feeling of
empowerment and autonomy. This enables learners to apply and
transfer knowledge to a wide array of diverse personal, profes-
sional, and social experiences

2.3 NOTION OF DEEP LEARNING

Deep learning is a process of permanent knowledge construction. It takes

place when a learner faces an exciting problem or question, which cre-
ates a cognitive conflict derived from social interaction with peers that the
learner feels motivated to solve. To do so, the learner makes nonarbitrary
and substantive connections between new knowledge arising from the
20 Facilitating Deep Learning

problem or question (which must be within the learner’s zone of proximal

development) and his or her existing cognitive structure. While making
these connections individually and together with peers, the learner must
access higher-order cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, and
competences, which engage the frontal, integrative cortex of the brain.
If adequately and intrinsically motivated by playing the whole game
of the discipline in a safe and nonthreatening environment, the learner
will change his or her cognitive structures (Piaget’s accommodation) so
as to resolve the problem. In so doing, the learner will incorporate the
new knowledge into his or her cognitive structure (Piaget’s assimilation),
which will produce a conceptual change, that is, a new schema or the
modification of an existing one. The learner will be able to use and apply
this knowledge to new and unfamiliar situations and see the connections
to a larger framework. From a biological point of view, the conceptual
change implies a physical change in the neuronal networks of the learner’s
brain. At the same time, at the social level, this process implies one of the
following changes: a reacculturation from one community of knowledge-
able peers to another (Bruffee, 1999), or a movement from the periphery
of a community of knowledgeable peers to the center, where the learner
achieves full participation by performing the roles and functions that ex-
perts display in the community (Lave and Wenger, 1991). For deep learn-
ing to occur, there must also be an ongoing evaluation and self-evaluation
of the learning process and an awareness of this movement and the result-
ing conceptual change (Piaget, 1969).

2.4 ANALYSIS OF THE ELEMENTS AND FACTORS OF DEEP

LEARNING

Let’s break down the notion of deep learning into its main elements, and
let’s discuss each one. Table 2.2 summarizes the main aspects of deep
learning and the main requirements of each aspect.
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 21

TABLE 2.2 The deep learning process.

Deep Learning Process

Elements Requirements

Problem, question, or situation. Problem, question, or situation must be

interesting for the learner.

Cognitive conflict. It must derive from social interaction.

Non-arbitrary and substantive connections between New knowledge must be within the learn-
new knowledge arising from the problem or question er’s zone of proximal development.
and the learner’s existing cognitive structure.

Higher-order cognitive and metacognitive compe- Individual abstract thinking and collective
tences. negotiation of meanings.

Intrinsic motivation to solve the cognitive conflict. Playing the whole game of the discipline
or professional field.

Safe and nonthreatening environment. Adequate workload.

Enjoyable atmosphere.
No negative factors, e.g., stereotyping and
discrimination.

Conceptual change. Change in the neuronal networks of the

Modification of the cognitive structure to solve the learner’s brain.
problem or to answer the question. Progress through developmental stages.

Changes in or across communities of knowledge. Social interaction.

Negotiations.
Learning communities.

Evaluation. Information.
Initial, simultaneous, and retrospective
evaluation of the deep learning process
and awareness of this movement and the
resulting conceptual change.

Metacognition. General and specific metacognitive cat-

egories.

2.5 MOTIVATING PROBLEM AND COGNITIVE CONFLICT

The first step in the deep learning process is the creation of a problem,
situation, or question that students find exciting to solve or answer (Bain,
2004). This problem or question must include new information or new
22 Facilitating Deep Learning

knowledge that creates a cognitive conflict. A cognitive conflict generates

an imbalance in the learner’s knowledge structures (Pozo, 2008). This is
produced when the learner’s cognitive structure does not coincide with, or
cannot explain, the new knowledge, or cannot explain it in a coherent way.
To solve the conflict, the learner creates responses, asks questions, inves-
tigates, and discovers until the learner constructs knowledge that restores
that balance (Carretero, 2009, Pozo, 2008). Ken Bain (2004), who refers to
a cognitive conflict as an expectation failure, describes it as a situation in
which the attempt to explain the new knowledge by means of the existing
cognitive structures leads to faulty expectations. He argues that “an expec-
tation failure is usually created from some sort of intellectual challenge
or cognitive dissonance” (Bain, 2004). The rationale of the expectation
failure or cognitive conflict lies in the fact that human beings tend to learn
from mistakes better than from achievements (Dewey, 1910).
We need to know the cognitive structures of our students in order to
create cognitive conflicts whereby students face situations that they can-
not solve using their existing knowledge structures. The default student
attitude to a problem or situation is to adopt a surface approach by ignor-
ing the conflict, or by trying to make it fit somehow within their exist-
ing cognitive structures (Bain, 2004). For example, in Aesop’s fable, the
fox tried to grab some grapes that were hanging from a high branch. He
jumped, but he could not reach the grapes. He backed up and jumped
again. He made several attempts to reach the grapes, but he was not suc-
cessful. Then, he gave up and convinced himself that the grapes were sour.
Trying to get the grapes is a conflict (albeit not an academic one) that the
fox tried to solve, as he presumably did in other circumstances (jumping
to get lower hanging fruit). Instead of trying a different approach (getting
a ladder, climbing up a tree, or stepping on a big rock), the fox ignored the
conflict by thinking the grapes were not worth getting. He did not try to
modify his preconceived idea that jumping is the only way to get things
that are quite high. Such outcomes result because we all have a tendency to
try to understand new information in terms of existing knowledge (Bain,
2004). But students can instead take a deep approach to learning if they
modify their cognitive structures while working to solve the problem or
situation. For this to occur, learners must actually care that their cognitive
structures cannot help them deal with the situation or problem. Students
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 23

must be motivated enough to try to solve the problem. Otherwise, they will
not modify their existing mental paradigms.
Vygotsky (1978) understands that a cognitive conflict is produced be-
cause of the learner’s interaction with the social context. For example,
while interacting with peers who are at different levels of cognitive devel-
opment or who have different cognitive structures, the individual learner
will face a conflict that he or she will not be able to solve without modi-
fying his or her knowledge structure. In the example of the fox and the
grapes, probably the fox failed to change his mental models of reality be-
cause the cognitive conflict did not arise from, and did not even have,
a collective instance. From a pedagogical point of view, we can design
situations that will promote the creation of a cognitive conflict by propos-
ing that students work in small groups to solve a problem or answer a
question. Groups must be made up of students with a wide array of diverse
backgrounds and developmental phases. This interaction with students in
different developmental phases will help produce the cognitive conflict.
Some constructivist scholars postulate that the learner’s cognitive
structure may change also as a result of an analogy and not only in cases
of cognitive conflict. They recognize, however, that the literature has paid
considerably less attention to analogies than to cognitive conflicts (Car-
retero, 2009; Duit, 1991). When prior knowledge is fragmented or not
deeply anchored, an analogy may help produce a conceptual change in
the learner’s knowledge structure. When knowledge is organized around
theories or when it is consolidated, the only possibility to produce concep-
tual change is through cognitive conflicts. The analogy pursues learning of
an unknown content from a series of projections, structural or functional,
that are established over another (analogous) known content (Carretero,
2009). We learn new content based on known content with which the new
one shares some structural or functional elements. There are three main
types of analogies: (i) simple, (ii) enriched, and (iii) extended. The simple
analogy compares the target object with an analogous and known concept.
The enriched analogy is more explanatory. It provides the grounds or con-
ditions for the similarity of the analogous concepts. The extended analogy
either compares the target object with several known analogous concepts
or contains a combination of simple and enriched analogies (Duit, 1991).
Analogies can produce new knowledge when used appropriately by stu-
24 Facilitating Deep Learning

dents, as they help students make connections between prior knowledge—

the analogous concept or experience—and new knowledge. The most ef-
fective analogies are the ones that students themselves generate (Harrison
and Treagust, 2006). But also analogies is effective only if teachers are
fully aware of:
• “the suitability of the analogy to the target for the student audience
and the extent of teacher-directed or student-generated mapping
needed to understand the target concept;
• an understanding that an analogy does not provide learners with all
facets of the target concept and that multiple analogies can better
achieve this goal;
• an appreciation that not all learners are comfortable with multiple
analogies because the epistemological orientation of some is to ex-
pect a single explanation for a phenomenon” (Harrison and Treagust,
2006).

2.6 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN NEW KNOWLEDGE AND PRIOR

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES

The deep learner engages in a spiral process of permanent knowledge con-

struction, where he or she interrelates actively with the target object, that
is, the new knowledge created by the problem the learner is grappling
with. Human beings do not act upon reality directly but through their cog-
nitive structures. Thus, while trying to solve the problem or situation that
created the cognitive conflict, the learner engages in a process of relat-
ing and connecting the new knowledge arising from the problem or situa-
tion to some specifically relevant aspect of his or her cognitive structure.
This may be an experience, an image, an already meaningful symbol, a
concept, or a proposition that exists in the learner’s cognitive structure.
From the information received from the external world, the learner selects
only what is relevant for the activated, existing knowledge, and discards
the irrelevant. Then, from this selected information, the learner makes
abstractions and generalizes its meaning (Carretero, 2009). In biological
terms, a learner receives input from the outside world through the brain’s
sensory cortex. This input is transmitted to the back integrative cortex,
which integrates sensory information to create images and meaning. Then,
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 25

the frontal integrative cortex analyzes these images, solves the problem,
and comes up with a solution. Finally, the motor cortex carries out the
solution to the problem by acting out, writing, or speaking the solution to
the problem (Zull, 2002). For example, if, while reading this paragraph,
you try to connect its main idea to your personal experience as a learner,
then you are making a connection between a new idea, that is, the deep
learner’s connection between prior and new knowledge, and an experience
that is already part of your knowledge structure, for example, what you do
as a learner when trying to learn something that interests you in a way that
will last forever. You will also extract the main idea from this paragraph
that activates that prior experience and discard the rest. To give a further
example, imagine a reader who is a bilingual Mexican immigrant who
completed her elementary school in the United States. Such reader may
have related the ideas in this paragraph to the way she used to connect
everything she saw at school with the way her family did things while liv-
ing in Mexico. She will probably associate the ideas of this paragraph with
concepts, theories, and principles of cross-cultural experiences. Another
reader, a drama teacher, who usually emphasizes corporeal and emotional
learning over intellectual learning, may be connecting the idea of deep
learning to the way he acts on the stage and teaches drama. While doing
so, he may be adapting the notion of deep learning to a notion that includes
feelings, emotions, and bodily memory. In both cases, the readers will
be discarding a lot: words, sentences, and examples that are not relevant
to the activated knowledge. The readers will be making generalizations
about the concepts in this paragraph and will remember the generaliza-
tions they made from the connections they were able to make.

2.7 NON-ARBITRARY AND SUBSTANTIVE CONNECTIONS

In order for the connections between new and prior knowledge to produce
deep learning, learners must relate new knowledge to some specifically
relevant existing aspect of the learners’ cognitive structures. Some learn-
ers take the whole new concept as a point of departure; others focus on
parts of the concept, breaking them apart to restructure them in unique
ways (Mentkowski, 2000). In all cases, the connections may not be irrelevant,
26 Facilitating Deep Learning

superficial, or whimsical. For example, if while reading an academic text

on the taxation of imported goods by Organization for Economic Co-oper-
ation and Development (OECD) countries, the reader focuses on the fact
that the font used by the author resembles the font of a children’s book he
used to read when he was in elementary school, this connection will be ir-
relevant to produce deep learning on any aspect of the taxation of foreign
goods. A more relevant connection in this case would be to compare the
gist of the academic text with the taxation regime used in colonial South
American countries, if the reader is familiar with that regime.

2.8 HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE SKILLS, COMPETENCES, AND

PROCESSES

This connection between new and prior knowledge employs higher-order

cognitive skills, competences, and processes. These include critical analy-
sis, synthesis, problem solving, extrapolation, theorization, comparison,
contrast, and application to new situations. So, to continue with previous
examples, the Mexican reader will be doing comparisons while making
connections; the drama teacher will be extrapolating aspects of a notion
to another one. From a biological point of view, all of these functions are
carried out in the front integrative cortex of the brain (Zull, 2002).
Learning is a consequence of thinking, and “knowledge comes on the
coattails of thinking. As we think about and with the content that we are
learning, we truly learn it” (Perkins, 2002). There are many lists and tax-
onomies that help us classify these skills, competences, and processes.
Bloom’s taxonomy is the most widely used set of cognitive skills. The
higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation) may help promote deep learning (Bloom, 1984). Similarly,
Biggs and Tang (Biggs and Tang, 2007) classify these competences as
those that merely help increase knowledge, which they refer to as quanti-
tative and those that help deepen understanding, which are qualitative in
nature. Quantitative competences include identifying, doing simple proce-
dures, enumerating, describing, listing, combining, and doing algorithms,
among others. Qualitative competences include comparing, contrasting,
explaining causes, analyzing, relating, applying, theorizing, generalizing,
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 27

hypothesizing, and reflecting. Quantitative competences usually lead to

superficial learning whereas qualitative ones may lead to deep learning
(Biggs and Tang, 2007). Table 2.3 summarizes Biggs’ SOLO taxonomy.
Appendix II contains an example of how to implement the SOLO tax-
onomy for the assessment of traditional evaluation instruments.

TABLE 2.3 Bigg’s SOLO taxonomy*.

Level Key competences

Unistructural Memorizing, copying, matching, identifying, and recognizing.

Multistructural Classifying, listing, describing, and reporting.

Relational Applying, analyzing, comparing, concluding, and transferring.

Extended abstract Inventing, creating, theorizing, and hypothesizing.

*Biggs and Tang (2007).

These taxonomies are illustrative of the kinds of competences that students

may employ in their learning process. They should not be taken in isolation
from the rest of the principles, factors, and conditions that help create an en-
vironment conducive to deep learning. Neither should they be considered as
static because one competence may activate higher-order cognitive skills in
one circumstance, and that same competence may involve a lower-order skill
in another circumstance. For example, Biggs and Tang (2007) consider writ-
ing as a very basic competence. If used merely to record the first thing that
comes to the learner’s mind, it will probably engage a lower-order skill that
will lead to superficial learning. As I will show in a later chapter, if used in
certain ways, writing can have powerful effects on learning. At the same time,
whereas theorizing is usually considered a higher-order competence, a learner
may generate a very simple and naïve theory that will not necessarily lead to
deep learning.
Another example of the fact that the taxonomies should not be given an
excessive importance other than as a guide to help us encourage students
to employ higher-order competences is the excessive emphasis they place
on critical thinking and the consequent devaluing of other ways of think-
ing, including System 1 thinking. System 1 refers to quick mental reac-
tions and almost instinctive thinking. We have little control over System
28 Facilitating Deep Learning

1 thoughts. System 2 deals with elaborate mental activities and thought

processes. Most of our thoughts, ideas, and perspectives come from Sys-
tem 1. In many cases, “System 2 often endorses or rationalizes ideas and
feelings that were generated by System 1” (Kahneman, 2011). Despite the
importance of System 1 thinking, taxonomies tend to consider it as a low
competence. Thus, it plays a marginal role in university and college teach-
ing, when, in fact, it should be promoted and encouraged along with Sys-
tem 2 thinking. Also, in acting, for example, the actor must start from his
or her visceral, instinctive response to the text and “must reject intellectual
choices at the beginning of his or her work” (Guskin, 2003). This leads to
deep learning in drama. All this shows that the taxonomies are useful only
to guide teachers to promote students’ connections in a very general way.

2.9 COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION OF MEANINGS

Jean Piaget (1969) focused his constructivist theory of learning on the

individual interaction with new knowledge, which produces a process in-
volving assimilation and accommodation. Critics of Piaget’s postulates
criticize the lack of emphasis on the social context. Lev Vygotsky—a
Soviet scholar and another founding father of constructivism—adopted a
position that focused on the importance of the social context as determina-
tive of conceptual change. For Vygotsky (1978), knowledge is a social and
cultural product. All higher-order cognitive processes, for example, com-
munication, language, and reasoning, are first acquired in a social context
and are later internalized (Carretero, 2009). In Vygotsky’s words: “every
function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the
social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (inter-
psychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky,
1978). We have the capacity to reflect and think, that is, to employ higher-
order cognitive and metacognitive processes and competences on an indi-
vidual basis, because we have internalized social conversations (Vygotsky,
1978). In this respect, learning is not an individual activity, but rather a so-
cial activity. It is clear that learners learn more effectively when they do so
in a collaborative context with their peers and have the opportunity to ne-
gotiate meanings with peers and to reflect individually (Carretero, 2009).
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 29

Knowledge is a social construct, a consensus among the members of

a community of knowledgeable peers (Bruffee, 1999). Human thought is
social in its origins, functions, forms, and applications. In this line, “mem-
bership in a knowledge community means everything we do is unhesitat-
ingly correct or incorrect according to the criteria agreed to within that
local community, the community we belong to” (Bruffee, 1999). Because
knowledge is a social consensus among members of a certain community,
who construct it interindependently by conversing with one another, deep
learning must include an instance for the collective negotiation of mean-
ings. Students need to construct and reconstruct knowledge by engaging in
conversations with their peers. In order to be effective in producing con-
ceptual change, this collective negotiation of meanings needs to include
recourse to higher-order cognitive processes, skills, and competences.
Neuroscience confirms that the learning process includes a collective in-
stance, which is produced through the activation of mirror neurons. Mir-
ror neurons are considered intelligent cells that help us understand and
interact with others (Iacoboni, 2005). The same neurons that activate when
an individual carries out an activity also activate when the individual ob-
serves someone else do that activity. “Thus, the mirror system transforms
visual information into knowledge” (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004).

2.10 THE NEW KNOWLEDGE AND THE ZONE OF

PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

There is a level of effective development, which is what the learner can do

independently and a level of potential development, which is constituted
by what the individual is capable of doing with the help of other adults or
more capable peers. Vygotsky referred to this distance between effective
development and potential development as the “zone of proximal devel-
opment.” Learning takes place when students can construct knowledge by
advancing through their zone of proximal development.
Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development was further
elaborated by other scholars. For example, Ausubel (1978) postulates that
for meaningful learning to occur, the target knowledge must be potentially
meaningful, which he refers to as “potentially meaningful material.” This
30 Facilitating Deep Learning

implies that the target material must be relatable to the learner’s cognitive
structure on a nonarbitrary and nonverbatim basis (Ausubel, 1978). Simi-
larly, Krashen (1981) advanced the input hypothesis for second language
acquisition. This hypothesis posits that a second language learner who is
at a certain level of language development—referred to as "level i” must
receive comprehensible input that is at "level i+1" (Cantiello and Fab-
ricant, 1987). In Krashen (1991)’s own terms, “we acquire [a language]
only when we understand language that contains structure that is ‘a little
beyond’ where we are now.”
Vygotsky’s position that more knowledgeable others (teachers, men-
tors, coaches, or even peers who have a deeper knowledge than the learn-
er) help advance cognitive development has led to the theory of situated
learning and legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Situated learning theory claims that learning is not an individual cogni-
tive activity, but rather a social practice, which takes place as the learner
accesses participating roles usually associated with experts within com-
munities of practitioners. In this respect, learning is “a process by which
newcomers become part of a community of practice” (Lave and Wenger,
1991). In this process, “the mastery of knowledge and skills requires new-
comers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of
a community” (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
From a pedagogical perspective, in order to help students construct
deep learning, we must start from the students’ prior knowledge and must
advance through the construction of meaningful learning toward the learn-
ing goals. These must be in the zone of proximal development. If the new
material is too complex, students will not be able to attribute any meaning.
If it is too simple, students will not feel the need to revise and change their
knowledge structures (Carretero, 2009). Because learning is a continuing
process, we need to help students continually move the zone of proximal
development forward (Tagg, 2003).

2.11 CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

The most important aspect of deep learning, and the one that distinguishes
it from other forms of learning, is that it produces conceptual change.
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 31

Conceptual change is a change in the learner’s cognitive structure. Through

the interaction with new knowledge, learners come to incorporate that
knowledge into their cognitive structures and change that knowledge and
their knowledge paradigms forever. Piaget (1969) explained this process
of conceptual change by means of the assimilation and accommodation
principles. Individuals receive continuous stimuli from the environment,
which causes disequilibrium. Individuals will assimilate that stimulus
and incorporate it into their previously existing cognitive structures. This
process, known as assimilation, is subjective, because human beings tend
to modify experience or information to fit it in with preexisting beliefs.
But continuous stimuli from the environment cause disequilibrium, as the
cognitive structures that individuals use to respond to these stimuli are
not useful any more. Thus, there is an adaptation process, that is, the in-
dividual tries to assimilate the new knowledge to the existing cognitive
structures that he or she has and accommodates such structures to the new
situations. Accommodation involves altering existing schemas, or ideas,
as a result of new information or new experiences. New schemas may
also be developed during this process. This tension between assimilation
and accommodation produces cognitive crises due to the contradictions
and incompatibilities between schemas that the individual constructed or
because one or more of the properties of the objects are resistant to being
interpreted with the available strategies. Assimilation and accommoda-
tion are two complementary processes that produce learning (Sanjurjo and
Vera, 1994).
From a biological point of view, learning produces a physical change
in the brain. The brain contains billions of neurons, which receive and
transmit information in the form of chemical or electric signals to other
neurons through synapses. These synapses, that is, the connections be-
tween neurons, form neuronal networks that wire the brain by building up
on other neuronal networks. Synapses are formed in the brain in response
to experiences and learning (Zull, 2002). There is “a neuronal network
in our brain for everything we know” (Zull, 2002). A conceptual change
resulting from a deep learning process forms unique connections between
neuronal networks (Bransford et al., 2008). The conceptual change is a
change in neuronal connections: “more connections, stronger connections,
different connections, or even fewer connections” (Zull, 2002).
32 Facilitating Deep Learning

The conceptual change is not simple or immediate. The learner goes

through a series of intermediate phases in which he or she changes his or
her ideas about the new phenomenon, but these changes do not yet consti-
tute the learner’s final conceptual change. The process of change is very
important for learning and not just its product or result (Carretero, 2009).
There are some conditions for the existence of conceptual change. First,
the existing intuitive idea must be weakened, that is, the learner must real-
ize that this idea may no longer explain a situation or solve a problem that
the learner cares about (Bain, 2004). Second, the new conception must be
intelligible, initially plausible, and fructiferous. An intelligible conception
means that it makes sense and is meaningful for the learner, who must un-
derstand the new conception. Initial plausibility refers to the fact that the
learner must regard the new concept as correct, which permits it to explain
reality in a valid way. The new conception must solve the problems that
the prior conceptions did not solve. It must also be consistent with other
well-established beliefs that the learner holds. A new conception is fruc-
tiferous if it is an instrument with the capacity to explain future problems
and to suggest new approaches to new phenomena and not simply to the
present situation or problem, which the learner is trying to grapple with
(Carretero, 2009).

2.12 PERRY’S STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Closely associated with conceptual change is the notion that higher educa-
tion students go through different developmental stages as they progress
through their university and college years. Students develop cognitive
structures and ways of thinking that evolve as a consequence of concep-
tual changes.
Piaget (1969) introduced the idea of cognitive development. His stud-
ies focused on children; he did not delve into the analysis of university
students. Piaget’s understanding of child development was premised on
the fact that development necessarily precedes learning. In contrast, Vy-
gotsky (1978) argued that social learning precedes development. Thus, an
individual’s epistemological beliefs are created socially (Magolda, 2002).
This has significant pedagogical implications. According to Vygotsky’s
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 33

postulates, students will move from one stage of cognitive development to

the next through the creation of cognitive conflicts.
William Perry (1970) elaborated a theory of cognitive development
specifically focused on university students. He found that students adopt
different epistemological positions with respect to knowledge and learn-
ing. Perry identified the following four stages of cognitive development:
• Dualism: Students see the world in absolute terms and knowledge
as one whole, where things are either right or wrong, true or false, or
good or bad. The authority that the teacher represents is the reposi-
tory of this knowledge, which he or she transmits to the students.
Students view the teacher as always right. Students feel upset when
they have to work in small groups to discuss a situation or solve a
problem. They want their teachers to tell them what they need to
know. Their ideal classroom format is the lecture, where the teach-
er gives them the knowledge they need, and they take down notes,
which they will memorize and repeat the day of the exam. They feel
that listening to other students’ opinions is a waste of their time.
• Multiplicity: Students now begin to understand that knowledge is a
matter of opinion and that any opinion is valid. They incorporate the
idea of uncertainty. Their favorite classroom format is the open dis-
cussion, where they can offer their opinions. They feel upset when
teachers restrict their freedom by imposing constraints to their work,
such as instructions to write papers and limitations on their in-class
assignments. They do not appreciate that these constraints come
from the disciplines. They feel that anything goes.
• Contextual Relativism. Students recognize that every discipline has
distinctive objects, methodologies, language, theories, and princi-
ples. Students are aware of the context, constraints, and possibilities
that academic disciplines provide. They now use the methods and
elements of the disciplines. During this stage, the learners become
active constructors of meaning. They see knowledge as relative and
contextual. They feel comfortable when they can use the discipline
to produce new knowledge.
• Commitment within Contextual Relativism. Students adopt a com-
mitment within their disciplines. They use the disciplines in a variety of
settings both inside and outside the university or college. They apply the
disciplines to solve problems in their everyday lives. Few university stu-
dents reach this development stage during their undergraduate studies.
34 Facilitating Deep Learning

William Perry’s theory suffered criticism because he focused mainly

on male students. An important body of literature that took into account
gender differences (e.g., Belenky et al., 1986/1997, Duell and Schommer-
Aikins, 2001; Hofer and Pintrich, 2002; Magolda, 2002) elaborated upon
Perry’s research. In this line, Belenky and her colleagues came up with a
classification of cognitive development experienced by female university
students. These stages are: (i) silence, (ii) received knowing, (iii) subjec-
tive knowledge, (iv) procedural knowledge, and (v)constructed knowl-
edge. These categories do not fundamentally differ from the ones Perry
described for male students. Epistemological beliefs are not determined—
at least exclusively by gender (LaFrazza, 2005). Thus, Magolda (2002)
asserted that “developmental trends were similar for men and women,
males interestingly adopted more impersonal and individualist ways of
knowing, while women adopted more personal and interindividualist ways
of knowing” (LaFrazza, 2005). The main contribution of research focused
on female cognitive development is the fact that females have a way of
knowing that is related to their self-concept. Women’s epistemological
assumptions are integral to how they perceive themselves and the world
around them (Belenky et al., 1986/1997). Changes in self-knowledge pre-
cede understanding of themselves in relation to knowledge and truth. This
development marches toward a vision where a female student sees herself
as a constructor of knowledge (Hofer and Pintrich, 1997).
Another phenomenon closely connected to cognitive development
deals with nonnative speakers, such as international students taking cours-
es at universities and colleges where English is the language of instruc-
tion (Louis, 2002). Whereas students who are native speakers usually need
a period of four years to become academically proficient in a discipline
(the duration of most undergraduate programs in North America and other
parts of the world), nonnative speakers of English need a period of five
to seven years, provided they are already academically proficient in that
discipline in their first language. Otherwise, this period can even be some-
what longer (Slocum, 2003).
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 35

2.13 CHANGES IN OR ACROSS COMMUNITIES OF

KNOWLEDGE

Deep learning implies changes either across communities of knowledge-

able peers or inside one’s community. The first type of possible change
involves the renegotiation of meanings within the knowledgeable com-
munity the learner comes from and the negotiation of meanings in the new
community (Bruffee, 1999). The second possible result of the learning
process embraces a move from the periphery of a knowledge community
to its center, where the learner achieves full participation by performing
the roles and functions that experts display in the community (Lave and
Wenger, 1991).

2.14 EVALUATION AND METACOGNITIVE REFLECTION

Deep learning requires the learner to reflect about his or her learning
process and the resulting conceptual and social changes. The conceptual
change is not simple or immediate. The learner goes through a series of
intermediate phases in which he or she changes his or her ideas about the
new phenomenon, but these changes do not yet constitute the learner’s
final conceptual change (Carretero, 2009). The learner must be able to
reflect about these intermediate changes as well as the change in the cog-
nitive structure. At the same time, the learner must reflect about his or her
reaccultaration from one community of knowledgeable peers to another or
the move from the periphery of a community of knowledgeable peers to
the center.
Piaget (1969) argues that the learner must be aware of the properties of
objects (empirical abstraction) and the actions and knowledge applied to
the objects (reflective abstraction). The learner must also be aware of the
restructuring of the cognitive structure.
This metacognitive reflection about the learning process must satisfy some
conditions in order to be effective. First, learners must recognize their initial
conceptions. Because most of these conceptions are implicit, the learner must
reflect about them and get to explain them. Second, the learner must evalu-
ate his or her conceptions and beliefs in light of the new conceptions that are
36 Facilitating Deep Learning

being learned. Third, the learner must decide whether or not he or she will
restructure his or her initial conceptions (Carretero, 2009).
From a pedagogical perspective, we need to provide students with in-
formation about their learning processes (evaluation) and create opportu-
nities for students to receive information from multiple sources, includ-
ing peers, disciplinary experts, professionals, and other relevant members
of the community of knowledgeable peers. More specifically, we need to
help students engage actively in this metacognitive process. For this pur-
pose, we need to know students’ prior cognitive structures, the interme-
diate changes that the students go through, and the resulting conceptual
changes (Carretero, 2009).

2.15 SAFE AND MOTIVATING ENVIRONMENT

The creation of a safe and motivating teaching and learning environment

is a fundamental aspect of the deep learning process. Learners learn more
profoundly when they enjoy what they do. They need a stress-free atmo-
sphere to engage in the complex cognitive competences that the process
demands. Neuroscience also confirms the connection between emotion
and learning and the importance of a stress-free environment. There is a
very strong connection between the frontal cortex, which is responsible
for abstract thinking and other higher order cognitive competences, and
the amygdala, which is the emotion hub of the brain (Zull, 2002). “Emo-
tion is probably the most important factor for learning. Our feelings deter-
mine the energy with which we begin new challenges and where we will
direct that energy. The actions we take are determined by how we feel and
how we believe those actions will make us feel” (Zull, 2011). A stressed
environment produces too much adrenaline, which ends up obstructing the
functions of the frontal cortex and in extreme cases even reducing the size
of the cerebral cortex (Meaney et al., 1988).
Several factors contribute to the creation of a teaching and learning
environment. These include “faculty-student interaction, the tone instruc-
tors set, instances of stereotyping or tokenism, the course demographics,
student-student interaction, and the range of perspectives represented in
the course content and materials” (Ambrose et al., 2010).
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 37

I once conducted a very simple experiment with my own classes. I

compared the results of a traditional criminal law course and the same
course on criminal law entirely taught through popular culture. In both
courses, I explored the same criminal law topics, I had the same goals, and
students did the same activities. The only difference was that in the second
course, I exemplified criminal law issues through the analysis of films,
TV shows, songs, and commercials. This created a relaxed and fun atmo-
sphere, which my students and I really enjoyed. I compared the results at-
tained by students in this course to those in the criminal law course taught
without recourse to popular culture. The results show that students learned
more deeply in the course with the more enjoyable atmosphere than in the
traditionally taught course (Hermida, 2013).
Intrinsic motivation plays a fundamental role in the creation of a safe
and enjoyable environment. Intrinsic motivation takes place when students
learn because they want to, because they see the importance of learning for
their own personal growth as human beings. A teaching and learning envi-
ronment that emphasizes learners’ independence and choice is conducive
to intrinsic motivation.
One of the most powerful ways to generate intrinsic motivation is by
helping students play the whole game of the discipline (Perkins, 2009).
Students are motivated when they can actively participate in all aspects of
the discipline through authentic performances and activities.
Another issue to take into account is to prevent the creation of a
negative environment; as this generally leads to surface learning. There
are several factors that contribute to generate a stressful and negative
teaching and learning environment. One of these factors is a very heavy
workload,which students perceive as unmanageable (Prosser and Trig-
well, 1999). A negative environment also occurs when the environment
is influenced by extrinsic motivation. This takes place when learning is
geared by a system of rewards and punishments. Students do not try to
learn because it is important for their lives, but because they are threatened
with punishment or stimulated with rewards. Rewards come in different
forms, usually associated with high grades. But they also include credit
for the course, a diploma or degree, a job offer, a scholarship, honors,
inclusion in the dean’s list, or any other academic prize. Punishment in-
cludes low grades, failing the course, academic probation, and the loss
38 Facilitating Deep Learning

of fellowships. Students will do what they need to get the rewards at the
minimum cost for them, that is, they will study without fully commit-
ting to learning. Once the extrinsic factor disappears, students lose their
motivation to continue, so they tend to abandon the learning enterprise
altogether (Tagg, 2003).
Two other factors that generate a negative environment are stereotyp-
ing and discrimination. Although overt discrimination and stereotyping are
rarer today than a few decades ago, subtler forms of stereotyping, such as
stereotype threat, and discrimination are common in some higher educa-
tion institutions. Stereotype threat is a phenomenon that takes place when
people are reminded of their gender or race when these are associated
with culturally shared stereotypes suggesting negative academic perfor-
mance. In those cases, the performance of such students on certain tasks is
more likely to conform to the stereotype (Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund,
2007). Steele and Aronson (1995) introduced this concept when they no-
ticed that African American undergraduate students did worse than white
students when they were reminded of their race just before completing an
academic task. When there was no emphasis on race they did as well or
even better than white students. Similar results occurred with other mi-
nority groups (Nguyen and Ryan, 2008). For example, Asian female stu-
dents were given a questionnaire before doing a math assignment. Some
students received a questionnaire that focused on Asian ethnicity; other
students received a questionnaire that focused on gender; a third group of
students received a questionnaire that focused on neither. In the United
States, it is a popular stereotype that Asian students are good at math. A
similarly popular stereotype is that males are better than females in math.
Results show that those students who were reminded of their Asian back-
ground performed better than the other groups. Students who received the
questionnaire that focused on gender performed the worst (Shih, Pittinsky
and Ambady, 1999).
Another factor that hinders the creation of a safe environment is a rela-
tively new and subtle discriminatory phenomenon that occurs in some col-
leges and universities in North America. In the name of multiculturalism,
some universities favor one single minority group over all other minority
groups through often well-intentioned diversity initiatives, which tend to
grant privileges to a minority group that has been traditionally considered
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 39

to have been oppressed by the dominant majority group in the geographi-

cal area where the university is located. In many cases, the oppression
has disappeared or substantially diminished, at least when compared to
the oppression and disadvantaged conditions currently experienced by
other minority groups. Members of the favored minority group are seen
as “sainted victims” and are perceived as good regardless of historical
facts and actual individual behaviors. At the same time, the needs of other
minority groups are ignored (Younkins, 2007). Minority groups that have
been equally or—in some cases even more badly repressed both in the past
and in the present—feel doubly victimized by this policy. In many cases,
this attitude is carried over to the classroom where readings, content, ex-
amples, and projects revolve around the favored minority group and/or
the majority group. These actions exacerbate the problems of neglected
minority students.
Even in relaxed, enjoyable, nondiscriminatory, and nonstereotyping
learning environments, challenging and changing longstanding beliefs
may cause learners to experience emotional trauma (Bain, 2004). So, a
safe classroom environment needs to make sure that students receive the
support which they need as they abandon a community of knowledge to
enter a new one.
Table 2.4 outlines some strategies to engage students and to create a
motivating learning environment.

TABLE 2.4 Creating a motivating learning environment.

Know your students’ interests, likes, concerns, and backgrounds.

Design interesting problems and questions for students to solve or answer.

Help students see the connections between the problem or question and their personal and social
lives.

Make sure the problem or question is within the students’ zones of proximal development, that is,
a bit more difficult than their present level.

Create a relaxing atmosphere in the classroom.

Foment intrinsic motivation, that is, encourage students to want to learn and to realize the signifi-
cance of learning for their own personal growth.

Help students play the whole game of the academic discipline or professional field.

Do not implement a system of rewards and punishments to influence student learning.

40 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 2.4 (Continued)

Give students freedom to choose learning goals, the performances to achieve those goals, and the
way to reflect upon the attainment of those goals.

Help students deal with the emotions that they experience throughout the learning process.

Help students reflect about the learning process and provide effective feedback.

Avoid stereotyping your students.

Prevent discrimination.

Be aware of stereotype threat, that is, refrain from reminding students of their gender, race, and
background when these are associated with negative academic performance.

Do not favor any group over all other groups.

Treat every student and every group of students equally.

Include diverse worldviews and cultural perspectives into your course.

Help students develop academic skills, competences, and practices. Help students become aca-
demically proficient in the official language of instruction and in, at least, another language.

Teach from diverse knowledge modes.

Do not create a heavy workload that students may perceive as unmanageable.

Communicate course expectations clearly.

Be fair.

Recognize that some students may have special needs or may be in special circumstances.

Be mindful of the needs of students with learning disabilities.

Foment cooperation among students.

Create learning communities.
Encourage students to construct knowledge and negotiate meanings through social interaction with
peers.

Include diverse teaching and learning activities that cater to different students.
Vary students’ performances.
Design authentic and meaningful student performances.

Recognize the importance of helping students acquire and develop the discourse of the academic
discipline or professional field.

Be mindful of the needs of nonnative speaking students.

The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 41

2.16 SUMMARY

A fixation with teaching and an obsessive emphasis on lectures have given

rise to superficial learning across Instruction-paradigm universities and
colleges. Deep learning is the key to changing this problem. Deep learning
is both an individual and a social process. It is the result of individual and
collective interactions. For deep learning to occur, the learner must face
an exciting problem or question, which gives rise to a cognitive conflict
derived from interaction with peers, and that the learner feels motivated to
solve. To do so, the learner must make nonarbitrary and substantive con-
nections between new knowledge arising from the problem or question
and his or her cognitive structures through recourse to higher order cogni-
tive and metacognitive competences.The new knowledge that the learner
grapples with must be within the learner’s zone of proximal development.
If adequately and intrinsically motivated, the learner will change his or her
cognitive structure through a process of accommodation and assimilation.
This will produce two interrelated phenomena. At the individual level, the
learner will produce a conceptual change. From a biological point of view,
this change will imply a physical transformation of the neuronal connec-
tions in the learner’s brain. At the social level, there will be a reaccultura-
tion from one community of knowledgeable peers to another or a move-
ment from the periphery of a community of knowledgeable peers to the
center. Deep learning also requires an awareness of this movement and the
resulting conceptual change.
The next chapters expand and elaborate on the main aspects of the
deep learning process. The goal of the rest of the book is to show you how
to facilitate deep learning. Chapter 3 explores students’ goals in the quest
toward deep learning.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Think of a class you currently teach. Design a situation or problem

that your students will not be able to solve by using their exist-
ing cognitive structures. How can you ensure that the situation or
problem is within your students’ zone of proximal development?
42 Facilitating Deep Learning

What will you do to help students connect the new knowledge to

their existing knowledge structures and experiences? What kind of
connections can you help your students make? What instances of
collective negotiation of meaning will you plan?
2. You have been asked to prepare a teaching orientation workshop
for new faculty. One of your main learning goals is that workshop
participants demonstrate appreciation for deep learning. What
teaching and learning activities can you think so that participants
will develop appreciation for the importance of deep learning?
3. James Zull (2002), a renowned biology professor and educational
developer, who has studied the relation between learning and the
brain, argues that there is a strong connection between reasoning
centers (frontal cortex) and the emotion centers (amygdala) in the
brain. He claims that “emotions tend to overpower cognition” and
that “our emotions influence our thinking rather than our thinking
influences our emotions.” Zull concludes that this is so because
there are more neuronal “connections that run from the amygdala
to the cortex than the other way.” What implications do you think
this has for teaching? What specific actions and strategies can we
take in our classes in light of these findings? How can we help stu-
dents develop positive emotions in their learning processes?
4. David Perkins (2009) argues that helping students play the whole
game of the discipline leads students to engage in their learning
processes. How can you re-create the whole game—or a junior ver-
sion—of your discipline given the limiting resources and the insti-
tutional constraints of your institution? What can you do in your
classes to help students play that whole game?
5. Think of the last student whose work you evaluated. In what stage
of Perry’s cognitive development is that student? What clues do
you have? Can you think of specific examples of that student’s be-
havior that show his or her stage of cognitive development? What
challenges can you create to help that student progress toward the
next stage?
6. Remember or watch the film Stand and Deliver(1988) directed by
Ramón Menéndez. Do students learn calculus deeply or superfi-
cially? Can you identify instances of deep and/or surface learning?
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 43

What is the students’ motivation? How does Jaime Escalante teach

his students? Are there any cognitive conflicts? Can you spot a
conceptual change in the students?
7. Imagine you are asked to teach a first-year foundation course enti-
tled “Introduction to College Success.” This course aims at helping
students develop skills and strategies for academic success. Stu-
dents learn note-taking skills, exam strategies, study and commu-
nication skills, time and stress management skills, and goal-setting
and organizational skills. You want to create a cognitive conflict
for your students. What problems or situations can you think of that
can lead to a cognitive conflict?
8. Think of the last group activity or project in one of your courses.
Can you identify any instance of stereotype threat? If so, what
changes can you introduce next time to minimize this phenome-
non?
9. John Tagg (2003) and James Zull (2002), among many other au-
thors, argue that grades constitute extrinsic motivation, which ulti-
mately leads to surface learning as opposed to intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation takes place when students learn because they
see the importance of learning for their own personal growth. Re-
flect about the following quote from the book On Your Own, writ-
ten by then Princeton University student Brooke Shields (1985): “I
love to challenge myself –I’m always trying to reach some goals
that I’ve set for myself. And achieving good grades is one of them.
[…] After much hard work I’ve reached my goal; I’ve met my
challenge.” Can these two seemingly opposed ideas be reconciled?
Is it possible that good grades can become an intrinsic motivating
factor under certain circumstances? Or are grades always an extrin-
sic reward? Do grades have any value for students’ deep learning
process? Or are grades mostly a way of complying with accredita-
tion requirements?
10. Listen to the song “Wonderful World” by Sam Cooke. What in-
stances of surface learning can you identify in the song? Now
change the lyrics (and keep the same music) to reflect the story of
a deep learner in a similar context.
44 Facilitating Deep Learning

KEYWORDS

• changes in or across communities of knowledge

• cognitive conflict
• cognitive development
• collective negotiation of meanings
• competences and processes
• conceptual change
• deep learning
• evaluation
• higher-order cognitive skills
• learning environment
• metacognition
• motivating problem
• motivation
• new knowledge
• non-arbitrary and substantive connections
• prior knowledge
• SOLO taxonomy
• zone of proximal development

REFERENCES

Ambrose, S.; Bridges, M.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M.; Norman, M. How Learning Works: Seven
Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010.

Ausubel, D. In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational

Research 1978, 48, 251.

Ausubel, D. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning; Grune and Stratton: New York,
1963.

Ausubel, D.; Novak, J.; Hanesian, H. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View; Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston: New York, 1978.
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 45

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Bain, K.; Zimmerman, J. Understanding Great Teaching. Peer Review 2009, 11, 9.

Barr, R.; Tagg, J.From Teaching to Learning –A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.
Change 1995, 13.

Belenky, M.; Clinchy, B.; Goldberger, N.; Tarule, J. Women’s ways of knowing: The develop-
ment of self, mind, and voice; Basic Books: New York, 1997.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C.Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Blythe, T.; and Associates. The teaching for understanding guide; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
CA, 1998.

Bransford, J.; Brown, A.; Coocking, R. Mind and Brain in The Jossey-Bass Reader on The Brain
and Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2008.

Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

Bruner, J. The Process of Education; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1977.

Bruner, J.Toward a Theory of Instruction; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1966.

Cantiello, M.; Fabricant, H. Natural-Communication Methodology: An up-to-date Guide to the

Teaching of English as a Foreign and Second Language; Ediciones Braga: Buenos Aires,
1986.

Carretero, M. Constructivismo y Educación; Paidós: Buenos Aires, 2009.

De Corte, E. In search of effective learning environments for self-regulation in

mathematics;EARLI SIG18 Educational Effectiveness; 2010, p. 25.

Dewey, J. How We Think; Heath and Co: Lexington, Mass: DC, 1910.

Duit, R. On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science.Science Education 1991,
75, 649.

Entwistle, N. In Improving teaching through research on student learning; Forest, J., Ed.; Uni-
versity teaching: international perspectives; Garland Publishing: New York, 1998.

Entwistle, N.; Ramsden, P. Understanding student learning; Croom Helm: London, 1983.

Gabriel, K. Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in
Higher Education; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, 2008.

Gibbs, G.Improving the quality of student learning; Technical and Educational Services: Bristol,
1992.
46 Facilitating Deep Learning

Guskin, H. How to Stop Acting; Faber and Faber: New York, 2003.

Harrison, A.; Treagust, D. In Teaching and learning with analogies friend or foe; Aubusson, P.,
Harrison, A. and Ritchie, S., Eds.; Metaphor and analogy in science education; Springer:
Netherlands, 2006; pp. 11.
Hermida, J. Teaching Law through Popular Culture, 3rd Annual Popular Culture Association of
Canada, Niagara Falls, Canada, 2013.

Hofer, B.; Pintrich, P. Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and
knowing; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.

Iacoboni, M. Neural mechanisms of imitation.Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2005, 15, 632.

Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow; Doubleday Canada: Toronto, 2011.

Krashen, S. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition; Prentice-Hall International

Ltd: London, 1981.

LaFrazza, G. Domain Specificity of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs about Academic Knowl-

edge, The Florida State University College of Education, 2005.

Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation; Cambridge Univer-
sity Press: Cambridge, 1991.

Light, R. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2001.

Magolda, M. In Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from

age 18 to 30; Hofer, B., Pintrich, P., Eds.; Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs
about knowledge and knowing; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2002.

Marton, F.; Säljö, R. On Qualitative Differences in Learning — 1: Outcome and Process.”British

Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, 46, 4.

Marton, F.; Säljö, R. On Qualitative Differences in Learning — 2: Outcome as a function of the

learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, 46., 115.

Meaney M; Aitkin, D.; Bhatnagar, S.; Van Berkel, C.; Sapolsky, R. Postnatal Handling Attenu-
ates Neuroendocrine, Anatomical and Cognitive Impairments Related to the Aged Hippo-
campus. Science 1988, 283, 766.

Mentkowski, M.; Associates Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and perfor-
mance in college and beyond. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2000.

Mezirow, J. Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Con-
tinuing Education 1997, 74, 5.
The Deep Learning Process and the Construction of Knowledge 47

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.
Perry, W. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Hold,
Rinehart and Winston: Troy, Mo, 1970.
Piaget, J. The Psychology of intelligence; Routledge: London, 1968.
Pozo Municio, J. I. Aprendices y maestros; Alianza: Madrid, 2008.
Prosser, M.; Trigwell, K. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher edu-
cation; Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.
Ramsden, P. Learning to teach in higher education; Routledge: London, 1992.
Ramsden, P. Student Learning and Perceptions of the Academic Environment. Higher Education
1979, 8.
Rizzolatti, G.; Craighero, L.The Mirror Neuron System.Annual Review of Neuroscience 2004,
27, 169.
Rué, J. El Aprendizaje Autónomo en Educación Superior; Narcea: Madrid, 2009.
Sanjurjo, L.; Vera, M. T. Aprendizaje significativo y enseñanza en los niveles medio y superior;
Homo Sapiens: Rosario, 1994.
Shields, B. On Your Own; Villard Books: New York, 1985.
Shulman, L. Professing the liberal arts. In Education and democracy: Re-imagining liberal
learning in America; Orrill, R., Ed.; College Board Publications: New York, 1997.
Slocum, S. ESL Strategies. Facilitating Learning for Students Who Speak English as a Second
Language; Alverno College: Milwaukee, 2003.
Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.
Tek Yew, L. Adoption of deep learning approaches by final year marketing students: A case
study from Curtin University Sarawak. In The Reflective Practitioner, Proceedings of the
14th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth, Murdoch University, 3–4 February 2005.
Trigwell, K.; Prosser, M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning
context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education 1991,
22, 251.
Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.
Zull, J.From Brain to Mind. Using Neuroscience to Guide Change in Education; Stylus: Ster-
ling, VA, 2011.
Zull, J. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the
Biology of Learning; Stylus: Sterling, VA, 2002.
CHAPTER 3

GOALS
Goal setting means continual striving—never letting up on yourself.
— BROOKE SHIELDS (1985)

CONTENTS

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 50

3.2 Terminology ................................................................................... 50
3.3 Outcomes and Accountability ........................................................ 51
3.4 Goals and Deep Learning .............................................................. 53
3.5 Goals and the Unschooling Movement .......................................... 55
3.6 Goals and Oblique Learning .......................................................... 57
3.7 The Goals of Learning ................................................................... 58
3.8 Constructive Alignment ................................................................. 60
3.9 Goals and Curriculum .................................................................... 61
3.10 Traditional Approaches to Curriculum Development .................... 62
3.11 A Deep Learning-Oriented Conception of Curriculum ................. 65
3.12 Summary ........................................................................................ 69
Practice Corner........................................................................................ 70
Keywords ................................................................................................ 73
References ............................................................................................... 73
50 Facilitating Deep Learning

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The deep learning process necessitates a change in the fundamental ar-

rangements for teaching and learning. It requires that students play a cen-
tral role in the design of their own curriculum and the formulation of their
own goals based on their own interests and needs.
This chapter deals with the goals of teaching and learning. It begins
with a clarification of the notion of learning outcomes, which has been
the predominant approach to goals for the last few years. For this pur-
pose, I will briefly contextualize the predominant learning outcomes ap-
proach and explore its negative consequences for the learning process.
Then, I will analyze an alternative to the predominant notion of learn-
ing outcomes, which aims at fostering the construction and discovery of
knowledge. This is premised on the belief that the fundamental goal of the
teaching and learning process is to produce deep learning, that is, to help
students discover and construct knowledge that they will be able to apply
to different contexts and to connect to other knowledge and ideas. Goals
affect both specific courses or other teaching and learning units and the
whole program. In order to examine the role of goals at the program level,
I will examine some perspectives on curriculum development.

3.2 TERMINOLOGY

Governments and higher education administrators, together with some

scholars, have embraced the notion of learning outcomes to advance as-
sessment and accountability initiatives that have little to do with student
deep learning. The conception of learning outcomes that help improve the
learning process differs from the notion of learning outcomes that prevails
in higher education practice and literature. In order to differentiate the
deep learning approach to outcomes from the predominant notion of out-
comes, which focuses on accountability rather than learning, I will refer to
the objectives for student deep learning as “goals” or “learning goals” in-
stead of as “learning outcomes” (Blythe, 1998; Gimeno Sacristán, 2009).
Goals 51

3.3 OUTCOMES AND ACCOUNTABILITY

In the last few decades, the assessment movement took over and influ-
enced higher education in the United States and other Western nations.
The assessment movement focuses on accountability, credit-based curric-
ulum, and quality assurance. It regards degrees and diplomas as commodi-
ties, which may be exchangeable in the marketplace. In order to meet job
market requirements and pressured by accreditation agencies, universities
and colleges adopted institutional outcomes that express what students are
intended to have learned at the end of their higher education studies. These
outcomes are based on the attributes of the ideal university or college grad-
uate. Higher education administration tends to require teachers to teach
for and assess these outcomes in every course (Biggs and Tang, 2007).
These outcomes are not aimed at improving the quality of the teaching and
learning process. They simply aim at facilitating the commoditization of
degrees and diplomas. Furthermore, authors and faculty have long noticed
that the outcome-based education model has been imposed dogmatically;
those who want to work along alternative avenues have been ostracized in
academia (Gimeno Sacristán, 1986; Stenhouse, 1971).
The European Union recently created the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA), after a long negotiation process initiated with the Bologna
Declaration signed on June 19, 1999. This immense area now includes
47 countries—even many states that are not members of the European
Union, such as Russia and Norway. The EHEA adopted several significant
reforms, including the adoption of an overarching framework for qualifi-
cations in the EHEA and national qualification frameworks. The former is
based on three cycles (bachelor, master, doctorate), generic descriptors for
each cycle based on learning outcomes and competences, and credit rang-
es in the first and second cycles. The national frameworks set forth “what
learners should know, understand and be able to do on the basis of a given
qualification as well as how learners can move from one qualification to
another within a system.” The European notion of learning outcomes is
inherited from the conception that predominates in the U. S. assessment
movement (Rué, 2007).
Similarly, Australia adopted the National Protocols for Higher Educa-
tion Approval Processes in October, 2007. The National Protocols aim to
52 Facilitating Deep Learning

ensure consistent criteria and standards across Australia in the recognition

of new universities, the operation of overseas higher education institu-
tions in Australia, and the accreditation of higher education courses to be
offered by non self-accrediting institutions (Australian Government, n/d).
The National Protocols and the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund-
ing embrace the assessment of learning outcomes as a key indicator of
excellence in teaching and learning.
In Canada, Ontario adopted general degree-level expectations as part
of its Quality Assurance Framework, which all Ontario universities have
to follow for the approval and review of new and existing programs, re-
spectively. Provincial authorities require all university programs to adopt
learning outcomes in consonance with these degree-level expectations.
Other Canadian provinces took similar measures.
Learning-outcome-based education, as well as the similar notion of
competence-based education, has been criticized on a number of grounds.
First, it is a harmful proposition that endangers the construction of learn-
ing, as it reduces learning to what is demonstrable and assessable, which
leaves out a lot. For example, I recently witnessed a discussion that re-
volved around the goal of passion in an architecture program. A colleague
held that one of her goals is to instill a sense of passion for learning ar-
chitecture in all her students. Her disciplinary colleagues objected to this
on the grounds that passion cannot be demonstrated. They challenged her
to come up with standards for her students to demonstrate that they are
passionate for the discipline. Because she was able to come up only with
general and vague standards, her colleagues urged her to abandon this goal
for other outcomes that are demonstrable. The same can happen with other
very important objectives of our teaching, such as the development of stu-
dent confidence to embark on certain activities, interest, commitment, and
self-esteem. These are factors that we can understand, appreciate, and feel
the presence of. Any experienced teacher can tell whether their students
are interested in or committed to the discipline, but they cannot easily
demonstrate these qualities empirically. So, reducing learning goals to
what is demonstrable reduces the spectrum of learning opportunities.
Second, outcome-based education has also been criticized, because it
infringes upon academic freedom. Teachers have to adapt the content and
outcomes of their teaching to outcomes set externally at the institutional,
Goals 53

regional, national, and supranational levels. Teachers have less flexibility

to decide what their students can learn. And students have no say in what
they can learn, either. Furthermore, this model tends to reduce the signifi-
cance of the aims of education and to downplay the importance of what
actually happens in the classroom (Stenhouse, 1971).
Third, outcome-based education conceives of education as an efficient
and technical exercise rather than as a process aimed at producing deep
student learning. It is not focused on improving teaching and learning in
the classroom. The main concern of the model is technical and not peda-
gogical (Gimeno Sacristán, 2009). For example, accrediting agencies and
higher education administrations compile long lists of learning outcomes
and verbs to formulate those outcomes. Then, teachers have to use those
verbs in the formulation of the learning outcomes. Teachers who do so are
rewarded and considered effective regardless of whether they actually help
students achieve deep learning. Those who decide to use other approaches
to formulate goals are punished. In Europe and North America, this system
has upset many teachers who are not familiar with how to formulate learn-
ing outcomes (Rué, 2007). A growing industry of self-proclaimed special-
ists emerged to help higher-education institutions reform their programs,
adopt outcome-based education, and assess these outcomes. This focus on
accountability tainted the notion of learning outcomes with a mantra of ef-
ficiency and technicalities, which divorced them from the actual learning
process.

3.4 GOALS AND DEEP LEARNING

In many cases, goals can orient our learning process. If we face a problem
or situation that we cannot solve or deal with, we may experience a need
to be able to reach a solution to our problem or situation. This becomes our
goal, which will orient our tasks to attain it. So, for example, I wanted to
include ideas from Russian and Soviet scholars in this book, particularly
vygotskian and neo-vygotskian. I speak conversational Russian, but I am
not familiar with specific linguistic and pedagogical vocabulary. Thus, I
decided to improve my knowledge of Russian so as to be able to read
Vygotsky and other authors in Russian for this book. I watched shows
54 Facilitating Deep Learning

discussing educational programs on TV and on the Internet. I started to

read university websites to acquire some specific vocabulary and talked
to a student of mine, Sasha, who was born and educated in Russia. In
conversations with Sasha about his everyday life, I picked up a lot of vo-
cabulary that later helped me to understand Vygotsky in Russian. So, my
goal was to improve the level of my command of Russian. I directed a
series of activities toward reaching this goal. Sometimes, while searching
for pedagogical materials in Russian on the Internet, I came up with in-
formation about sports and films. Although I did spend some time reading
and watching these materials, my objective kept me back on track, which
is very valuable, as I have a tendency to procrastinate when I surf the web.
The concept of goals is very simple to grasp, and setting goals is a
relatively simple process. Blythe (1998) defines the notion of goals, which
she refers to as understanding goals, as “the concepts, processes, and skills
that we most want our students to understand. They help to create focus by
stating where students are going. They are usually phrased as statements
and questions.” Blythe (1998) differentiates between unit-long under-
standing goals, which focus on “what we want students to get out of their
work with a particular generative topic” and overarching understanding
goals or throughlines, which “specify what we want our students to get out
of their work with us over a course of a semester or year” (Blythe, 1998).
Students can assume and bring to the learning process two different
types of goals: performance goals and learning goals. The objective of
performance goals is to do better than other students, get better grades,
and receive more recognition than others. The aim of learning goals is to
understand and master new knowledge (Tagg, 2003). Performance goals
invariably lead to surface learning, whereas learning goals may be condu-
cive to deep learning, particularly when students themselves are involved
in formulating their own learning goals. Tagg (2003) recognizes that if
students were completely free to choose their goals, they would probably
choose to play video games or to make money. So, Tagg advocates for
helping students see the connections between what the universities and
colleges offer and students’ own intrinsic interests.
Goals 55

3.5 GOALS AND THE UNSCHOOLING MOVEMENT

The unschooling movement, initiated by John Holt in the 1960’s and

1970’s, is based on the premises that all children—and adults for that mat-
ter—want to learn and that they will learn if given the freedom to pursue
their interests naturally without the constraints of the Instruction—para-
digm school (Holt, 1995). In Holt’s words, “children are by nature smart,
energetic, curious, eager to learn, and good at learning; they do not need
to be bribed and bullied to learn; they learn best when they are happy, in-
volved, and interested in what they are doing; they learn least, or not at all,
when they are bored, threatened, humiliated, frightened.” In her Princeton
University thesis, Brooke Shields (1987), who does not necessarily sub-
scribe to the unschooling movement, argues that “children don’t view the
world about them with preconceived notions. […] They look at the world
with open eyes, and without references.” Similarly, in his study of what
the best college students do, Ken Bain (2012) has found that one common
feature of most successful higher education students is that they rediscover
the curiosity of childhood. These students had a passion for something
while they were growing up, such as taking pictures, building LEGOs®,
or taking care of animals. While pursuing higher education studies, these
successful students find ways of connecting their studies with that passion
and building upon it.
In unschooling settings, the learner is in charge of his or her own ed-
ucation (Taylor, 2007). The learner is the curriculum, the one who de-
cides what and how to learn (Miller, 2001). The learning process in the
unschooling movement imitates real-life learning. Unschooling learning is
learning while we live and pursue our interests in a natural, constraint-free
process. Students learn in the real world. They interact with other peers,
objects, elders, and models (Illich, 1970). Students discover knowledge
and set their own learning goals. They learn at their own pace. They enjoy
learning and learn how to learn. The unschooling class is organic and in-
ternal (Holt, 1972). It grows out of the needs and abilities of the students.
This view of learning is supported by neuroscience studies that argue that
the search for meaning is innate in human beings and in other animals
(Caine Learning Institute, 2005). For example, rats that were offered a
cage-free environment, full of challenging obstacles, objects to play with,
56 Facilitating Deep Learning

and the presence of other rats demonstrated an increase in the size of the
cerebral cortex when compared to rats which were isolated in cages with
regimented tasks (Diamond et al. 1964).
Unschooling education is not an education without teachers. It is an
education without teachers who are the center of the system. The role of
teachers in the unschooling class is that of a resource, someone who is
there to help learners as they progress in the discovery and construction of
their own knowledge. The relationship of each student to the teacher and
to the class changes all the time (Holt, 1972). In the unschooling move-
ment, all goals are permitted. There are no limits. Students have freedom
to set their own goals, even if that means to play video games. The un-
schooling movement understands that even with such nonacademic goals,
students will certainly face some problems that they will not be able to
solve by themselves. Sooner or later, these problems will lead students to
have to grapple with academic issues. For example, a Spanish-speaking
student’s interest in video games may lead him or her to learn about com-
puter programming, English, algorithms, and the history of the Middle
Ages to design an online video game.
Adults also behave like this when they are free from artificial constraints.
For example, like many others, after the September 11 incidents, I became
very interested in learning about security, terrorism, the root causes of terror-
ism, and the political and military responses to terrorism. I had never taken a
course on security in my undergraduate or graduate education. So, I decided
to learn about this. For this purpose, I read some books and journal articles. I
also conversed with some colleagues about these issues. I talked to my friends
about what they thought about terrorism and its causes. I incorporated this
topic in some of my classes and discussed it with my students. I even wrote
an article about terrorism in the aviation field. I wrote when I felt the need to
write, usually after having read an interesting article or book, or after teach-
ing a particularly challenging class. Some sort of teaching was involved, too,
as I attended several academic conferences where I learned from presenta-
tions. But I learned without—formal—teachers, courses, curriculum, credits,
grades, and transcripts. Learning emerged from my personal interests, not
from formal, traditional schooling. I pursued my own path in the construction
of knowledge without external constraints and artificial conditions. Freedom
to pursue learning also meant adapting learning to my own styles, time frame,
Goals 57

and possibilities. It took me a long time to fully understand this topic, not an
academic semester or whatever time period it takes others to learn. Without
artificial constraints, I felt free to learn and progress at my own pace.

3.6 GOALS AND OBLIQUE LEARNING

There are many behaviors that do not have a clear goal, and meaningful
learning may still result from these behaviors. For example, research on the
brain shows that there is a type of learning that is implicit. Implicit learn-
ing means that human beings are capable of learning information without
being aware that they are learning. The brain can process information, but
we are not necessarily conscious of this process. This can be sensed when
we find some facts, people, faces, rules, or even topics familiar, but we
do not know how we came to know them (Blakemore and Frith, 2008).
Whether this implicit learning can amount to deep learning is something
that requires further research. But the point is that an exclusive focus on
goals may leave out many opportunities for meaningful learning that were
not part of the original goal. John Kay (2011), a UK economist, offers the
notion that in many cases learning is achieved from oblique approaches
and that most of our goals, particularly those that are complex and incom-
mensurable, are pursued indirectly. A successful example of oblique learn-
ing from my experience is my discovery of whole-foods, plant-based, and
nutrient-dense healthy eating. Two years ago, I decided to go on a diet to
lose some weight. That was my goal. So, I read several books on weight
loss and dieting. I once came across Dr. Fuhrman’s (2003) Eat to Live book.
After reading it, I decided to read his Super Immunity book (Fuhrman,
2011) and then Campbell’s (2006) The China Study. These books led me
to a pathway of healthy eating, which I continued even after achieving my
desired weight. I now follow a very healthy whole-foods, plant-based, and
nutrient-dense regimen. My intended goal was to lose weight. But I have
achieved not only that goal but also a more powerful one that is learning
to eat healthily. I achieved this latter goal in an indirect way, without ever
consciously intending to achieve it. As Kay (2011) notes,“obliquity is the
idea that goals are often best achieved when pursued indirectly. Obliquity
is characteristic of systems that are complex, imperfectly understood, and
58 Facilitating Deep Learning

change their nature as we engage with them.” According to Kay (2011),

we find out about these complex goals in the process of achieving other—
indirect or oblique—goals. Frank Smith (1988) goes even further and ar-
gues that the most meaningful learning is neither intended nor oblique—it
is incidental, that is, “we learn when learning is not our primary intention.”
Smith illustrates his point with the example of children who learn to speak
their first language because they want to achieve certain other goals such
as getting food. Their purpose is to eat, not to learn a language. So, offer-
ing students the possibility to pursue different goals may lead to the attain-
ment of other, nonintended goals
Let me tell you a story of a student to illustrate this point. Rachel was
a business major. She took a business course, in which she had to create
a company and present it to the whole class. She designed a new online
dating company. While working on her project, she learned about flaws in
the immigration system. She identified issues involving the sponsoring of
prospective spouses and partners. She became particularly interested in
the phenomena of marriages of convenience and spousal abuse of spon-
sored partners. In the following semester, she took courses in psychology,
deviance, and gender violence. She wanted to understand why abuse took
place and how the immigration system could be fixed in order to prevent
abuses. Although she submitted a very sound business proposal for the
online dating company, she never implemented it. Instead, she developed
a very strong interest in abuse suffered by sponsored spouses and partners.
She became a strong advocate for immigration reforms and against trans-
national abuse. She finished her major in business, and then went on to
achieve a master’s degree in human rights. She developed her interest and
knowledge in this new field only indirectly and obliquely while working
on some other project. She had the freedom and opportunity to explore in
the business class, which led her to find her own true goals and interests.

3.7 THE GOALS OF LEARNING

The goal of learning is a capability, which has both a general and a specific
aspect (Marton, Runesson and Tsui, 2004). The general aspect deals with
the nature of the capability and includes analyzing, classifying, comparing,
Goals 59

contrasting, or judging. The specific aspect of learning deals with the con-
tent of what is being learned, for example, Art Deco architecture, the no-
tion of crime, the history of sexuality, the formation of neuronal networks
in the human brain, Italian neorealist films, or the expression of desires
and wishes in Spanish. The general aspect of learning is the indirect object
of learning and the specific aspect of learning is the direct object of learn-
ing (Marton et al., 2004). Teachers focus on both the general and specific
aspects of learning. This is the intended object of learning. As Marton et
al. (2004) note:
“What is important for students, however, is not so much how the teacher in-
tends the object of learning to come to the fore, but how the teacher structures
the conditions of learning so that it is possible for the object of learning to
come to the fore of the learners’ awareness. What the students encounter is the
enacted object of learning, and it defines what is possible to learn in the actual
setting. […] What is of decisive importance for the students is what actually
comes to the fore of their attention, that is, what aspects of the situation they
discern and focus on. […] What they actually learn is the lived object of learn-
ing, the object of learning as seen from the learner’s point of view, that is, the
outcome or result of learning” (Marton et al., 2004).

In some cases, the teacher’s intended object of learning may coincide

with the lived object of learning. But in many other cases, it does not. So,
when designing and teaching a class, it is important to look at the intended
teaching and learning goals from the students’ perspectives. We should try
to imagine how our students’ backgrounds, worldviews, and prior educa-
tional experiences shape their perceptions of the intended object of learn-
ing and other learning situations (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). “Adjusting
the context to afford changes in students’ perceptions may be an important
strategy in improving learning” (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). Let me illus-
trate this phenomenon with an example from a colleague in a Film Studies
Department. She intended students to learn about the common social and
cultural themes in Lucrecia Martel’s first three films (The Swamp, The
Holy Girl, and The Headless Woman). After showing the films in class,
my colleague asked students to identify and discuss common social and
cultural aspects in all three films and to argue whether they constitute a tril-
ogy from this perspective. Most students discussed the unique and carefully
60 Facilitating Deep Learning

planned sound design in all three films, the ubiquitous presence of swim-
ming pools in all of the films, the anticipation of The Holy Girl’s theme in
The Swamp through a song about Dr. Jano (the main character in The Holy
Girl), and the anticipation of The Headless Woman’s theme in The Holy
Girl through a story about a confusing automobile accident (the main plot
in The Headless Woman). These issues are signs of a deep understanding
of the films. They show that students may have achieved instances of deep
learning. But students’ lack of interest and familiarity with Salta’s society
and geography led them to ignore references to societal hierarchical is-
sues, family conflicts, and the role of the landscape in shaping these three
stories, which is what my colleague had actually intended students to learn
about.
Table 3.1 illustrates the goals of learning and their connection to stu-
dent learning.

TABLE 3.1 Goals of learning.

Teacher’s focus Actual student learning

General aspect of learning: na- Indirect object of

ture of the capability as well as learning Intended object Lived object of learning
cognitive processes, compe- of learning (students’ perception of
tences, and skills the object of learning)
Specific aspect of learning: Direct object of
content learning

3.8 CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT

The relationship between goals, performances, and evaluation gives rise

to two different teaching models: constructive alignment and misalign-
ment. In the aligned model, the goals coincide with student performances
and with the evaluation of the attainment of those goals. In the misaligned
model, the goals do not coincide with student performances and/or with
evaluation. For example, suppose that a sociology teacher wants his stu-
dents to critically analyze the labeling theory. The teacher lectures about
this theory in class. He critically examines all aspects of the labeling the-
ory and provides students with many examples. Then, the teacher asks
Goals 61

students to write a research essay to critically examine labeling theory

in the context of crime. Here, the goal and the evaluation are aligned.
They both focus on students’ critical analysis of the labeling theory. But
the activities that the teacher has chosen are not consistent with the goal
and evaluation. The activities require students to listen passively to some-
one else—the teacher—doing the critical analysis. Thus, this course is not
aligned. Research studies show that most university and college courses
are misaligned (Biggs and Tang, 2007).
John Biggs proposes aligned teaching to foster a deep approach to
learning. In aligned teaching, there is maximum consistency throughout
the system and each component supports the other. Biggs (1999) concep-
tualizes constructive alignment as a “fully criterion-referenced system,
where the objectives define what we should be teaching, how we should
be teaching it; and how we could know how well students have learned it.”
There are two basic premises to constructive alignment. First, the teacher
aligns the planned learning activities with the goal and the evaluation.
Second, students construct meaning from what they do to learn.
Although aligning a course is important and may help students adopt
a deep approach to learning when all of the components of the teaching
and learning system (intended learning goals, teaching and learning ac-
tivities, and evaluation) are aimed to encourage deep learning, other fac-
tors also influence the lived object of learning. These other factors include
students’prior experiences, students’ situations, students’ approaches to
learning, and students’ perceptions of their learning situation (Prosser and
Trigwell, 1999). Additionally, a rigid emphasis on constructive alignment
may preclude opportunities for oblique and incidental learning. Construc-
tive alignment helps students take a deep approach to learning when the
teacher also designs opportunities for students to explore goals and de-
velop interests other than those directly or expressly intended.

3.9 GOALS AND CURRICULUM

Goals play a role at both the unit—course in the terminology of the In-
struction-paradigm university—and the program levels. The setting of
goals at the program level is connected to curriculum theory and practice.
62 Facilitating Deep Learning

I will examine the traditional approaches to curriculum development and

then an approach to curriculum development that aims at fostering deep
learning.

3.10 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT

Any of us who has ever participated in or witnessed a department meeting

discussing changes to the curriculum must have noticed that exchanges
concerning curriculum planning and design are often agitated and tense.
Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, argues that this is due
to the fact that the principal role of curriculum discussions is to “protect
traditional faculty prerogatives at the cost of diverting attention away from
the kind of inquiry and discussion that are most likely to improve the pro-
cess of learning” (Bok, 2006). Bok further argues that the focus on course
content usually neglects a pedagogical debate on how to teach courses:
It is relatively easy to move courses around by changing curricular require-
ments. It is quite another matter to decide that methods of pedagogy should be
altered. Reforms of the latter kind require much more effort. Instructors have
to change long-standing habits and master new skills for which many of them
have little preparation. To avoid such difficulties, faculties have taken the prin-
ciple of academic freedom and stretched it well beyond its original meaning
to gain immunity from interference with how their courses should be taught.
In most institutions, teaching methods have become a personal prerogative of
the instructor rather than a subject appropriate for collective deliberation (Bok,
2006).

In some cases, debates about curriculum may reflect a tension between

the established, senior faculty members who cling to traditional pedago-
gies, classic content, and traditional conceptions of education and newer
faculty members who have no investment in the past (Renner, 1995).
There are several approaches to curriculum development in the tra-
ditional Instruction-paradigm university. These include the conception of
curriculum as product, process, and praxis. The product approach to cur-
riculum derives from the works of Tyler and Bruner. Ralph Tyler (1949),
Goals 63

one of the pioneers in curriculum development thought, conceived of the

curriculum as a tangible document that had to be implemented in the class-
room. Tyler proposed four principles for the development of curricula in
educational institutions. These four principles are: (i) the formulation of
goals, (ii) the selection of learning experiences, (iii) the organization of
learning experiences, and (iv) the evaluation of the goals. Tyler (1949)
sees the selection of goals as a matter of value choices made by the edu-
cational institution. For this selection, he recommends a multitiered pro-
cess of elimination of unimportant objectives. The first screen to carry out
this elimination is the institutional mission. Those objectives that are not
significant for the school mission must be discarded. The second screen
is connected to the psychology of learning. Tyler (1949) suggests the se-
lection of goals that are feasible, educationally attainable, specific, con-
nected, and coherent.
Tyler’s ideas dominated the curriculum development approach in
higher education institutions for several decades. It still influences the
practice and methodology of curriculum development even when teach-
ers and administrators approach curriculum development from other per-
spectives (Howard, 2007). This methodology conceives of education as
a technical exercise. Teachers—usually acting through their disciplinary
departments—set the objectives, make a plan, implement it, and measure
the outcomes (Smith, 1996 and 2000). Jerome Bruner (1960) proposed
to focus on the identification of basic structures in the disciplines as the
essential aspect of curriculum design. The basic structures are the funda-
mental concepts and principles of a discipline. Bruner proposed the adop-
tion of a spiral curriculum wherein students are taught these basic ideas at
the beginning of their studies; and then they come back to these ideas in
successive courses. For example, the typical introduction course offers an
overview of the main aspects of the discipline. Upper-year courses in the
same discipline elaborate upon these concepts so that students can get a
more specific and complete understanding.
Curriculum as a process focuses on the interactions that take place in
the classroom. Curriculum as process is “an attempt to communicate the
essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form
that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into
practice” (Stenhouse, 1975). The curriculum process includes three main
64 Facilitating Deep Learning

phases: planning, empirical study, and justification. Planning includes

selection of the content and the teaching methods to teach that content.
Empirical study refers to the evaluation of the progress of teachers and
students, and justification deals with the explicit formulation of curricular
goals so that curriculum can be reviewed and evaluated (Stenhouse, 1975).
An elaboration of curriculum as a process, the praxis perspective on
curriculum focuses on a commitment to deal with the fundamental issues
of human life, such as oppression, discrimination, power, and ethnocen-
trism. It places these fundamental issues at the forefront of the teaching
practice so that teachers and students can examine and renegotiate them
(Smith, 1996 and 2000).
All of these conceptions about curriculum development and practice
have in common that they rely on courses and content. They are docu-
ments and processes about disciplines and topics, which do not take into
account learners’ specific and unique needs. Teachers and departments
develop curricula that are the same for every student, regardless of their
needs, existing abilities, and knowledge (Lattuca and Stark, 2009). There-
fore, students perceive the curriculum as—an arbitrary—collection of
courses that they must take and pass in order to graduate. The emphasis
on individual courses does not permit students to see the whole picture.
These notions of curricula also reflect a conception of Level 2 teaching
that predominates in universities and colleges. The curriculum revolves
around what teachers do rather than focusing on what students learn or
need to learn (Tagg, 2003).
Additionally, this emphasis on content has given rise to an unjustified
link between curriculum reputation (at both the program and course lev-
els) and content. According to Maryellen Weimer (2002), this fallacy holds
that “the more content there is and the more complicated that content is the
more rigorous and therefore the better the course and its instructor are.”
This emphasis on course content has been proved to be ineffective (White-
head, 1929) and to lead to surface learning (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).
Additionally, when universities and colleges implement government-
mandated learning outcomes in this context of curriculum fragmentation
focused on content, “the assessment procedures for measuring students’
learning are often narrow, rigid, or at a surface level—using, for example,
simplistic right-or-wrong quiz questions or isolated behavioral checklists.
Goals 65

So even where applied, learning outcomes have had a somewhat check-

ered past with every mixed reviews and levels of successes or satisfaction
in higher education” (Hubbal and Gold, 2007). Additionally, focusing on
content and subject matter expertise is usually done to the detriment of
academic skills and competences that students will need throughout their
careers. Content in and of itself will probably become outdated and irrel-
evant soon after students graduate.

3.11 A DEEP LEARNING-ORIENTED CONCEPTION OF

CURRICULUM

A deep learning approach to curriculum “has its pedagogical roots in con-

structivism and context-based learning theories and places emphasis on
learning communities, curriculum cohesion and integration, diverse ped-
agogies, clearly defined learning outcomes, and the scholarship of cur-
riculum practice,” which has to be conceived of, negotiated, adopted, and
assessed in a scholarly fashion (Hubbal and Gold, 2007). Fundamentally,
a deep learning approach to curriculum conceives curriculum as what stu-
dents do in order to learn. And what students do may or may not include
taking courses. Like in unit-level goals, the unschooling movement offers
a perspective on curriculum that focuses on student learning and facili-
tates learning by shifting the emphasis away from traditional courses and
the traditional role of teachers. Students acting individually and socially
formulate their own curriculum while interacting with each other and with
the world around them without the constraints of formal courses, tradition-
al teachers, summative evaluations, and organized activities. The student
becomes the curriculum. He or she decides what and how to learn (Miller,
2001). Students set their own goals. Students even discover the learning
goals while engaging in learning experiences. This can take them to places
no one—neither teachers nor students—imagined.
The unschooling movement’s perspective on curriculum and curricu-
lum development reflects real life learning outside the artificial constraints
of the Instruction-paradigm university’s artifacts. Although the unschool-
ing movement’s perspective on curriculum development may sound too
radical for many, it is an approach that many of us follow for our own
66 Facilitating Deep Learning

faculty development after we finish our doctoral studies and accept posi-
tions at universities and colleges. For example, although I did take courses
on education and teaching and learning during both my formal undergrad-
uate and graduate studies, after finishing my formal education, I learned
by myself most of what I know now about teaching and learning. When I
started to teach full time, I was not happy with many aspects of my teach-
ing practice, which I could not act upon with the resources I developed
during my formal education. My education was very successful. I gradu-
ated from top schools. But I needed to have new resources, new lenses to
understand and improve my teaching practice and my students’ learning.
So, I started to read, talk to my colleagues, and do action research. I did not
have clear objectives other than improving teaching in a very general way.
While in the process of reading, attending conferences, and participating
in workshops, I came up with questions and topics I wanted to learn more
about. For example, I came across Kenneth Bruffee’s work while trying
to find out how to improve student small-group work. I unconsciously set
the goal of learning more about nonfoundational approaches to knowl-
edge. This, in turn, led me to other problems. I occasionally took some
courses. I attended presentations by teachers and educational developers.
I embarked on research projects based on ideas that I took from the litera-
ture, presentations, and conferences. I implemented the results of these
research projects into my classroom, evaluated those results, and changed
them. I also wrote a lot to contribute to the conversations among teachers
and educational developers. I even facilitated many workshops, seminars,
and courses on teaching and learning. I learned deeply from all these ex-
periences. I negotiated meanings and constructed knowledge with mem-
bers of the teaching and learning community. I gradually moved into the
community as another active member. This process was not predefined
in any document. This process was not constrained by artificial time lim-
its. It took me years, not eight semesters segmented in 90-minute classes
twice a week. This process did not need formal summative evaluations
and grades. Many activities were judged by peers, such as every paper I
submitted to a conference or manuscripts I sent to journals. I also sought
feedback from the participants who attended my workshops and presenta-
tions. But I was the one who evaluated every step in the learning process
and the whole learning process itself. Some of you may think that this is
Goals 67

possible because of my extensive formal education. I would claim that

it is possible despite my formal education. The unschooling movement’s
approach to curriculum development is the natural way we learn. We are
constantly engaged in a multitude of activities. We learn when we face
a situation or a problem that we cannot deal with or solve. We negotiate
meanings with our peers and reflect on the problem or situation by con-
necting it to our own experiences until we change the way in which we
see the problem. In this process, we receive information and feedback in
different ways and reflect upon the process itself. The unschooling move-
ment gives us the theoretical framework to help our students set their own
goals and to pursue learning directly and obliquely.
Table 3.2 summarizes the main differences between a deep learning
approach to curriculum and traditional conceptions of curriculum. Table
3.3 lists the types of syllabi that are used in courses that promote a deep
learning environment and those that are used in traditional Instruction-par-
adigm courses. Appendix I contains an example of a promising syllabus.

TABLE 3.2 Deep learning approach vs. traditional approaches to curriculum.

Deep Learning Approach to Cur- Traditional approaches to
riculum curriculum

Goal Student learning. Teaching.

Formulation of cur- Students. Teachers.

riculum

Learning goals Open. Discovered by students while Predetermined.

interacting socially.
Some goals may be negotiated with
teachers.

Role of students Central. Marginal.

Constructors of their own knowledge Receptors of knowledge con-
veyed by teachers.

Role of teachers Marginal. Central.

Designers of learning environments Conveyors of knowledge.
and experiences.

Degree of freedom Ample freedom. No freedom.

System of rewards and punish-
ments.
68 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 3.2 (Continued)

Deep Learning Approach to Cur- Traditional approaches to

riculum curriculum

Resources Anything that helps students learn Lectures.

deeply.

Main artifacts Social interaction with peers. Courses.

Degree of flexibility Flexible. Rigid.

Evaluation Reflection. Summative evaluation and

grades.
Metacognition.

Theoretical foundations Constructivism. Tyler.

The Unschooling movement. Brunner.

TABLE 3.3 Types of syllabi.

Syllabus Content Characteristics

Minimalist syllabus List of basic information only. It creates a high-anxiety

environment.

Content-based syllabus Focus on information and content. It reduces learning to content.

Lists of topics and readings.

Graphic syllabus Graphic representation of the course. It aims at attracting students’

attention. It is premised on
(Linda Nilson, 2007) Topical organization of the course.
the belief that text syllabi are
Focus on content. not attractive for students.

Outcomes-based syl- Intended learning outcomes and It claims to be student-cen-

labus student goals. tered, but its focus on techni-
cal issues does not promote
Course objectives.
student deep learning.
Relation between course and program
It is too rigid. No room for
learning outcomes.
oblique and incidental learn-
Constructive alignment. ing.

Demanding syllabus Students’ obligations in the course. Extrinsic motivation.

Course policy. Based on a system of rewards
and punishment.
Course objectives.
Evaluation.
Penalties.
Goals 69

TABLE 3.3 (Continued)

Syllabus Content Characteristics

Maximalist syllabus Coverage of every aspect of the Rigid. Lack of freedom.

course. No room for improvisation.
Inclusion of all the information that
No room for oblique and
students need for the course. incidental learning.
Detailed course policy.
Explanation of topics.
Main theories, principles, methods,
and other aspects of the discipline.
Glossary of terms.

Learning-centered syl- Resources to help students in their It helps students navigate the
labus learning processes. course.
Reading guides. It helps students reflect upon
their learning processes.
Links to useful information.
It promotes deep learning.
Learning and study tools.
Metacognitive categories.

The promising syllabus A promise to students about the Engaging.

course.
(Ken Bain, 2004) Intrinsic motivation.
An invitation to the performances that It promotes deep learning
will fulfill the promise.
A conversation about the learning
process.

Based on Petkanas, B. The Course Syllabus: A Report, 2005.

3.12 SUMMARY

Higher education administrators and governments in North America and

Europe have been placing the adoption of learning outcomes at the fore-
front of the curriculum. This has led to a rise in a technical—and bureau-
cratic—practice that has little to do with deep learning. Students need to
be able to formulate their own curriculum around their interests and goals
and to actually engage in a series of activities and performances in order
to construct their own deep learning. This may lead to oblique learning, a
phenomenon that takes place when learning is achieved indirectly while
pursuing other goals. The unschooling movement offers an interesting
70 Facilitating Deep Learning

framework to help our students set their own goals and attain deep learn-
ing. It is also important to be aware of the role of the lived object of learn-
ing, that is, the object of learning as seen from the learner’s point of view,
as in many cases it is students’ perception of their situation in the learning
context that influences their—deep or surface—approach to learning.
The traditional approach to curriculum development focuses on cours-
es, content, and subject matter expertise. In contrast, a deep learning ap-
proach to curriculum focuses on what students do in order to learn, which
may or may not include courses.
The next chapter deals with the ways to reach deep learning goals:
performances.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Watch the video The Five-Minute University widely available on-

line. If Father Guido Sarducci hired you to teach your discipline
at the Five-Minute University, what big questions would you like
your students to answer? What skills will your students need to an-
swer that question? How will you encourage your students’ interest
in those questions and skills?
2. In a department meeting, the dean says that according to new gov-
ernmental policy, the department needs to adopt learning outcomes
for its major and include these learning outcomes in all course syl-
labi. You disagree with the dean’s objective behind this mandate,
but you also see this opportunity to move from a curriculum and
courses focused on content to a curriculum and courses focused on
the goal of achieving deep learning. What can you do (and say in
the meeting) so as to achieve this objective?
3. John Kay (2011) argues that in some cases, researchers find out
about what they are trying to do in the process of doing. Simple
models, such as those advocated by the assessment movement,
cannot help achieve complex goals. Do you agree with John Kay’s
argument? Why or why not? Compare John Kay’s ideas and John
Holt’s unschooling postulates. Are there any similarities? Are there
any differences? Is the unschooling movement the best approach
Goals 71

to implement John Kay’s ideas? Can they be implemented in tra-

ditional courses? If so, how? John Kay (2011) also argues that the
pursuit of some complex goals is achieved obliquely through indi-
rect goals. How can you translate this into your own courses? Think
of some complex goals in your field and design some strategies for
students to achieve these goals. Can you plan the achievement of
indirect goals? How can you foster a culture of free exploration of
goals in your courses?
4. Suppose you teach a course on human sexuality. Your intended
goal is to change your students’ attitudes toward homosexual and
transgender individuals. All of your students are heterosexuals, and
most are homophobic. What teaching and learning activities can
you design to achieve this goal? What assessment strategies can
you think of to evaluate the achievement of this goal?
5. All of your colleagues in your department at a large state univer-
sity think that the best way to improve the department’s program
is by looking into the programs of Ivy League and other reputa-
ble universities and adopting those programs. They reason that if
these institutions are regarded as offering the best programs, the
department should not reinvent the wheel and simply import these
programs. Are there any flaws in this argument? Are there better
ways to develop your own curriculum? What steps can you design
to come up with a curriculum that will help your own students
achieve deep learning in your program? What instances of resist-
ance can you anticipate? How can you overcome this resistance?
6. Loretta and Les Jervis (2005) argue that constructive alignment
is a “marriage between a straight jacket of obsessive alignment,
rigid preset learning outcomes and philosophical confusion.” They
further argue that curriculum alignment reflects a behaviorist ap-
proach rather than a constructivist perspective. What do you think
about these arguments? What is the value of constructive align-
ment? What are the disadvantages, if any, of constructive align-
ment? Can aligned teaching help promote deep learning? If so,
how?
7. Remember or watch Randal Kleiser’s (1980) film The Blue Lagoon.
Analyze Richard’s and Emmeline’s learning in light of the
72 Facilitating Deep Learning

unschooling movement. What are their goals? Can you identify

any instances of deep learning? If so, what leads to Richard’s and
Emmeline’s deep learning? Can you identify examples of oblique
and indirect learning? How can you incorporate some elements of
the unschooling movement into your own courses without risking
your position?
8. Prosser and Trigwell (1999) recount the perceptions of two students
they interviewed after they finished a course on physics. One of the
students told these researchers that she thought that the professor
only lectured and all that she did was to take down notes from the
lecture and from what the professor wrote on the blackboard. The
other student in the same course emphasized how the professor
tried to make them think and discuss the topics in small groups by
looking at the reasons behind the issues discussed. How is this pos-
sible? How can two students in the same course have completely
different perceptions of what happened in the course? What factors
influence students’ perception of the same experience? What does
this finding tell us about our own courses? What can we do to en-
sure that our students will perceive the learning goals as we intend
them?
9. Design a professional development plan to improve your teaching
practice. Include short-term, mid-range, and long-term goals. Be
as specific as possible. Effective development goals are those that
deal with a relevant area of your teaching practice. Think of goals
that you can accomplish. Link your goals to the activities that will
help you get there. Give room for oblique and incidental learning.
10. Quinn Cummings (2012), who homeschooled her daughter, writes
“I remember that I spent weeks and weeks trying to teach Alice
how to tie her shoes. Then, one afternoon at a playdate, a four-year
old friend taught her how to do it perfectly. I was less qualified to
educate my child than someone who had to be reminded not to lick
the class guinea pig.” How can you explain this learning incident
in light of the unschooling postulates? How can you explain it in
light of Vygotsky’s theories? What is Quinn Cummings role, if any,
in this learning event?
Goals 73

KEYWORDS

• accountability
• actual student learning
• assessment
• constructive alignment
• curriculum
• deep learning
• deep-learning conception of curriculum
• goals
• goals of learning
• learning outcomes
• oblique learning
• outcome-based education
• praxis
• process
• product
• syllabus
• traditional approaches to curriculum
• types of syllabi
• unschooling movement

REFERENCES

Australian Government. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Programs/StudentSupport/NationalProtocols-
forHEApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx(accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Bain, K. What the Best College Students Do; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2012.

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University;Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.
74 Facilitating Deep Learning

Blakemore S.J.; Frith U. The Learning Brain: Lessons for Education; Blackwell Publishing:
Oxford, 2005.

Campbell, T. C.; Campbell, T. M.The China Study. Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss
and Long Term Health; Benbella Books: Dallas, 2006.
Cummings, Q.; The Year of Learning Dangerously: Adventures in Homeschooling. Perigee
Books: New York, 2012.

Diamond M. C.; Krech D.; Rosenzweig, M. R. The effects of an Enriched Environment on the
Rat Cerebral Cortex. J. Comp. Neurol. 1964, 123, 111–119.

Fuhrman, J. Eat to Live: The Amazing Nutrient-Rich Program for Fast and Sustained Weight
Loss; Little, Brown and Company: New York, 2003.

Fuhrman, J. Super Immunity: The Essential Nutrition Guide for Boosting Your Body’s Defenses
to Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free; Harper Collins: New York, 2011.

Gimeno Sacristán, J. Educar por competencias, ¿qué hay de nuevo?; Morata: Madrid, 2009.

Gimeno Sacristán, J. La Pedagogía por Objetivos: Obsesión por la Eficiencia; Morata: Madrid,
1986.

Hubbal, H.; Gold, N. The Scholarship of Curriculum Practice and Undergraduate Program Re-
form: Integrating Theory into Practice. In Curriculum Development in Higher Education:
Faculty-Driven Processes and Practices; Wolf, P.; Christensen Hughes, J. Eds.; Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco, 2007.

Kay, J. Obliquity: Why Our Goals Are Best Achieved Indirectly; Penguin Press HC: East Ruth-
erford, NJ, 2011.

Lattuca, L. R.; Stark, J. S. Shaping the College Curriculum. Academic Plans in Context; Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco, 2009.

Marton, F.; Runesson, U.; Tsui, A.The Space of Learning. In Classroom Discourse and the Space
of Learning; Marton, F. Tsui, A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2004.

Nilson, L. B. The Graphic Syllabus and the Outcomes Map: Communicating Your Course.An
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Petkanas, B. The Course Syllabus: A Report, 2005. http://www.wcsu.edu/celt/syllabus.asp (ac-

cessed Aug 13, 2013).
Prosser, M.; Trigwell, K. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher edu-
cation; Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.

Renner, K. E. The New Agenda for Higher Education. Choices Universities Can Make to Ensure
a Brighter Future; Detselig Enterprises: Calgary, 1995.
Goals 75

Rué, J. Enseñar en la Universidad. El EEES como reto para la Educación Superior; Narcea:
Madrid, 2007.

Shields, B. On Your Own; Villard books: New York, 1985.

Shields, B. The Initiation. From Innocence to Experience: The Pre-Adolescent/Adolescent Jour-

ney in the Films of Louis Malle, Pretty Baby and Lacombe Lucien,B.A. Thesis, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ, 1987.

Smith, F, Joining the Literacy Club. Further Essays into Education; Heinemann Educational
Books: London, 1988.

Stenhouse, L. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development; Heinemann: Lon-

don,1975.

Stenhouse, L. Some Limitations of the Use of Objectives in Curriculum Research and Planning.
Paedagogica Europaea. 1971, 6, 73–83.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Whitehead, A. The Aims of Education and Other Essays; The Free Press: New York, 1929.
CHAPTER 4

PERFORMANCES
For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by
doing them.
— ARISTOTLE

CONTENTS

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 78

4.2 Performances ................................................................................. 78
4.3 Frameworks for Student Performances.......................................... 79
4.4 Dialogue ......................................................................................... 79
4.5 Questions ....................................................................................... 81
4.6 Problem-Based Learning ............................................................... 82
4.7 Student Teaching ............................................................................ 84
4.8 Teaching with Your Mouth Shut .................................................... 85
4.9 Out-of-Class Performances ............................................................ 86
4.10 Whole Learning ............................................................................. 87
4.11 Summary ........................................................................................ 88
Practice Corner........................................................................................ 88
Keywords ................................................................................................ 90
References ............................................................................................... 90
78 Facilitating Deep Learning

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The deep learning process calls for the design of activities and perfor-
mances that help students discover and construct their own knowledge.
Students need to engage in authentic and meaningful performances that
emulate the activities that members of the communities of knowledgeable
peers that they aspire to join routinely carry out.
This chapter explores the ways to achieve deep learning goals: perfor-
mances. First, I will analyze the characteristics of student performances
that help attain deep learning goals. I will also examine some general
frameworks that foster these types of performances. This is not an inven-
tory of different student activities. Rather, it is an analysis of general cat-
egories of performances, which may be implemented in a multitude of
class activities and class contexts.

4.2 PERFORMANCES

Students need to actively engage in a series of activities in order to dis-

cover and construct knowledge. These activities are performances or ac-
tions that students carry out. In order for these performances to produce a
motivating learning environment conducive to deep learning, performanc-
es have to be frequent, continual, connected, and authentic (Tagg, 2003).
These activities or performances must be visible and meaningful to others.
Activities that have significance only in the classroom are not helpful in
promoting deep learning. Examples of performances that are meaningful
outside the confines of the classroom include producing a play, writing a
letter to a newspaper editor, building a shelter, writing a book, construct-
ing a website, designing an application for a smartphone, healing an ani-
mal, or giving advice to a multinational corporation. It is important for
students to be engaged in authentic activities, which is the kind of work
that people do in situations outside school settings (Tagg, 2003). Listening
passively to lectures does not qualify as authentic. Neither does writing a
paper based on lectures for the teacher to read. People do not listen to lec-
tures and do not have to write papers about theories discussed by a teacher
outside academia.
Performances 79

While engaging in authentic activities, students should be playing the

whole game of their discipline (Perkins, 2009). For example, in a sociol-
ogy course, students can do sociological research where they apply socio-
logical research methods to deal with a certain societal problem instead of
doing an activity where they simply discus articles or textbook chapters
dealing with research methods used by sociologists. So, the teaching and
learning activities that are effective are those that professionals, scientists,
scholars, and experts carry out in their everyday professional lives.
These performances include the following components (Shulman, 1997):
• Activity: students should actively engage in tasks, particularly ex-
perimentation, inquiry, writing, dialog, and questioning.
• Reflection: the activity alone is insufficient for learning; “we do
not learn by doing; we learn by thinking about what we are doing.”
(Shulman, 1997).
• Collaboration: working cooperatively with colleagues deepens the
understanding of ideas.
• Passion: deep learning needs an emotional commitment to ideas,
processes, and activities; and
• Community: the learning processes should occur within learning
communities.

4.3 FRAMEWORKS FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCES

I will analyze some general frameworks for student performances that promote
deep learning and that cut across a wide array of disciplines and interdisciplin-
ary fields. These are not simple classroom activities. They are comprehensive
approaches that underlie a myriad array of diverse activities. They all have in
common that they offer an active, independent, and authentic role for students
and the possibility to create an environment conducive to deep learning. Some
of these approaches are embedded within larger educational philosophies.

4.4 DIALOGUE

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator whose ideas extended throughout the

world, espoused his Pedagogy of the Oppressed in the 1970s. Freire’s
80 Facilitating Deep Learning

(1970) pedagogy is a general theoretical framework that attempts to ex-

plain the role, structure, and objectives of education. It is not a classroom
method. Freire (1970) analyzes the characteristics of mainstream educa-
tion, which he refers to as the banking education. It consists of an “act of
depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the
depositor.” The main goal of this system is to perpetuate oppression and
domination of the oppressed. The teacher, who represents the oppressor,
acts as a clerk, who knows everything; the students know nothing. In this
role, teachers help to dehumanize their students. The clerk teacher teaches,
thinks, and is the subject of the learning process. In contrast, the students
listen passively, are taught, and are the objects of the learning process
(Freire, 1970).
Freire (1970) proposes a different approach to education, which he
terms as liberation education. Its main goal is to achieve liberation from
oppression. In order to attain this goal, Freire proposes the pedagogy of the
oppressed. Instead of lectures where the teacher deposits knowledge onto
students’ minds, the predominant teaching method in liberation education
is the dialog, where teachers and students teach each other and learn to-
gether by “posing the questions of human beings in their relations with the
world” (Freire, 1970). This dialog has the word at its core, which has two
fundamental dimensions: action and reflection. Freire postulates that re-
flecting on cognizable objects and acting upon reflection lead to liberation.
This pedagogy also places teachers and students on the same hierarchical
level, which is characterized by horizontal and noncompetitive relations
(Torres, 1995). Students and teachers engage in dialogs and learn from
each other. In these dialogs, students and teachers ask the fundamental,
big-picture questions about humankind. Freire (1970) assigns teachers the
role of revolutionary leaders who engage in dialogs and actions to liberate
the oppressed from domination and oppression. This dialog is not merely a
conversation or discussion about readings or lecture topics between teach-
ers and students. It is not a tutorial, either. Freire’s dialog is a more pro-
found approach to teaching and learning. It is a radical deconstruction and
reconstruction of fundamental ideas. It is a dialog that teachers foment so
that students will take ownership of these fundamental ideas. In order to
be effective, the dialog must lead to actions that aim at transforming real-
ity. For example, Jaime Escalante, the famous high school teacher whose
Performances 81

practice was immortalized in Ramón Menéndez’s 1988 film Stand and De-
liver, employed Freire’s dialogs with his students to discuss stereotyping,
domination, and oppression in his advanced calculus class. This dialog
included students’ parents, grandparents, siblings, and friends. It was a di-
alog that helped transform students’ reality and perceptions of themselves.

4.5 QUESTIONS

Questions play a fundamental role in the process of construction of knowl-

edge. Questions identify holes in our knowledge structures and help us
make connections with prior experiences and knowledge (Bain, 2004).
Questions also contribute to the construction of what Ausubel (1978) re-
fers to as relevant anchorages. Questions may also produce a cognitive
conflict. If students care enough to answer a challenging and motivating
question, that question can produce an expectation failure, which can trig-
ger the learning process.
Bain (2004) goes even further and claims that “we cannot learn until the
right question has been asked.” Emerging adults (Searight and Searight,
2011) show a tendency not to ask questions because of peer pressure. In
the Western culture, particularly in North America, some young adult stu-
dents regard the asking of questions as an admission of ignorance rather
than as a sign of learning. So, they prefer to remain silent than to ask
a question—even a superficial one. Other young adult students in North
America feel that if a student asks questions in class, he or she is asking
questions only to look smarter than the rest. So, these students exert subtle
pressure, as a result of which the student may end up not asking any more
questions.
Bain (2004) identifies a related problem: students are not in charge of
asking substantive questions in higher education. It is the teacher that usu-
ally decides on the topics, content, and materials to discuss. We could cre-
ate spaces for students to pose their own questions throughout their learn-
ing processes. Several teaching methods can be used in the classrooms
that embrace dialogs and questions. These methods will only be effective
if they include and respect all the identified elements of the deep learn-
ing process. For example, the Socratic method can help in this direction
82 Facilitating Deep Learning

when properly used. The Socratic method is generally associated with the
method that predominates in North American law schools, as perpetuated
in James Bridges’s 1973 film The Paper Chase. But this use of the method
has little to do with the true spirit of the Socratic method.
[This method is a shared] dialog between teacher and students in which both
are responsible for pushing the dialog forward through questioning. The dialog
facilitator asks probing questions in an effort to expose the values and beliefs
which frame and support the thoughts and statements of the participants in the
inquiry. The inquiry progresses interactively; and the teacher is as much a par-
ticipant as a guide of the discussion. Furthermore, the inquiry is open-ended.
There is no predetermined argument or terminus to which the teacher attempts
to lead the students (Reich, 2003).

The following are essential components of the Socratic method:

• Questions are used to examine the values, principles, and beliefs of
students.
• The focus is on fundamental questions about how we ought to live.
• The classroom environment is characterized by “productive discom-
fort.”
• The goal is to demonstrate complexity, difficulty, and uncertainty
(Reich, 2003).
A variation of the Socratic method is student-based inquiry, where students
discover and construct knowledge by asking their own questions and seeking
answers. This helps students learn the methods of inquiry of the disciplines
they are trying to master. The learning process can be stimulated when stu-
dent-based inquiry is carried out in small groups, and students have access to
the resources they need to work on the questions (Vella, 2008).

4.6 PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Another method that encourages students to engage in dialogs that are

conducive to a deep learning process is problem-based learning, or PBL.
PBL is a process where groups of students work with authentic—or simu-
lated—problems (Barrows and Wee Keng Neo, 2007). In their attempt
to solve these problems, students engage in a process of discovery and
creation of knowledge. They apply what they already know to the analysis
Performances 83

and solution of the problem. Students further seek, acquire, and use a wide
array of resources to grapple with the problem. For this purpose, they do
research, discuss their findings, and learn about issues that are needed to
solve the problem. Students immerse themselves in discussions about so-
lutions to the problem with their group members. Then they determine a
solution and communicate it to the rest of the class. The rest of the class
gives them feedback, which the students may incorporate into a revised
solution of the problem (Barrows and Wee Keng Neo, 2007).
Perkins (2009) suggests that working on the hard parts of a discipline is
important, provided students also get the big picture from the start. PBL is
an effective method that permits students to focus on both the big picture
and the hard parts. For example, Florencia Carlino, a Spanish language
teacher with a doctoral degree in education, immerses students in the
Spanish language from the beginning. She recognizes that native English
speakers sometimes have problems with reading scientific articles pub-
lished in Spanish. In one of her class activities, she asks students to figure
out the best diet for different types of patients (e.g., athlete, child, healthy
adult, obese adult, etc.) according to nutrition principles developed in arti-
cles authored by well-known Latin American nutritionists, such as Alberto
Cormillot and Máximo Ravenna. Students focus on charts, pictures, and
tables to figure out the meaning of these articles. At the same time, a series
of questions that patients ask students shifts the attention to very specific
parts of the articles and the language that Florencia wants their students to
grapple with. This approach is also consistent with Ausubel’s position that
practice “increases the stability and clarity, and hence the dissociability
strength, of the emerging new meanings in cognitive structure” (Ausubel,
1968).
As with questions, the main disadvantage of PBL is that teachers pose
the problems. So, students do not learn how to find problems. We see this
phenomenon when we teach graduate students. Many brilliant students
have a hard time finding a research problem to work on for their theses.
They generally have a very good knowledge of the whole discipline, but
they have not been educated to find problems. An alternative approach to
structuring PBL in the class is to ask a group of students to create a prob-
lem for another group to solve. Finding and writing problems for others
to solve are also meaningful performances that may lead to deep learning.
84 Facilitating Deep Learning

4.7 STUDENT TEACHING

Many of us who have been teaching for a few years recognize that we have
learned more and more profoundly about our discipline by teaching rather
than by spending years as students in formal higher education. Teaching
the discipline to our students forces us to think of the discipline’s big pic-
ture and small details at the same time. It makes us anticipate questions
and analyze potential problems. It encourages us to think of different ways
of communicating the same ideas to reach a diverse population of students
(Perkins, 2009). It helps us see new angles of and entry points to the dis-
cipline. Teaching encourages us to read new authors and to discover new
ideas in known texts.
Encouraging our own students to teach something to real learners (oth-
er than their fellow students in the course) is a meaningful experience that
helps students approach the discipline in a deep way and apply what they
learn to other settings. Shulman (1997) argues that “every undergraduate
who is engaged in liberal learning should undertake the service of teaching
something they know to somebody else.” For example, a colleague asked
his social psychology students to identify a real (small) problem outside
academia. He then asked them to do research based on the theories and
principles they analyzed in class to try to come up with a solution. Then,
students had to present their research findings in the community and try
to convince relevant community stakeholders to implement the proposed
solution, which they had to negotiate with community members. In this
context, a group of students visited a youth criminal justice corrections
facility. They noticed that some of the members were isolated and de-
tached. They wanted to see if the notion of mindfulness could be applied
to that context and if it could improve the lives of inmates. Mindfulness is
an approach to life that is characterized by a state of being fully present in
the present moment (Siegal, 2007). Students wanted to conduct a research
project with youth inmates by giving them a pet to take care of. Students
expected that taking care of the pet would help inmates achieve a state
of mindfulness. The most difficult aspect of this project was to convince
correctional authorities of the value of mindfulness. Students made a pre-
sentation to correctional officers. They prepared a video showing some ex-
amples of positive results derived from mindfulness. They also discussed
Performances 85

the advantages and disadvantages of this approach with correctional offi-

cers. Finally, they agreed to let students carry out this project—albeit on a
very limited basis. Correctional authorities permitted inmates who wanted
to participate in this experience to take care of an abandoned pet. Those
young people who agreed showed a remarkably positive change in their
behavior compared to those who did not want to adopt a pet. This activ-
ity provided students with the possibility of transferring their learning to
a real-life situation and to teach the benefits of an approach and practice
to people outside academia. Students not only taught the benefits of this
theory, but they also applied the theory, research methods, and examples
that they had discussed and learned about in class.

4.8 TEACHING WITH YOUR MOUTH SHUT

Teaching with your mouth shut is an approach that encourages students

to engage in productive dialogs that foster motivating and deep learning
environments. It shares many of the features of problem-based learning
and the Socratic method. But it may be used with a variety of activities.
Teaching with your mouth shut is not a method but a philosophy of teach-
ing and learning. Donald Finkel (1999) developed this approach, which he
contrasts with traditional teacher-centered teaching. In the traditional ap-
proach, teachers teach mainly by telling students what they are supposed
to know; students are expected to listen passively. In teaching with your
mouth shut, students do the talking. They discuss their readings, solve
problems together, engage in discussions, and even write together. Fin-
kel (1999) suggests extending this dialog to writing. He recommends the
adoption of a community of writers, where students talk to each other not
only in the classroom but also through the exchange of written texts.
Finkel (1999) further suggests the adoption of inquiry-centered teach-
ing to implement the teaching-with-your-mouth-shut framework. This
consists of the investigation of a problem or question, complemented with
the reading and discussion of books in an inquiring spirit.
The teaching with your mouth shut approach can be adopted with sev-
eral other formats and pedagogical methods. For example, a few years
ago, I had to teach two sections of a course entitled Culture, Rights, and
86 Facilitating Deep Learning

Power. So, I carried out an action-research program to test Finkel’s ideas. I

taught one section as a traditional lecture, where I did most of the talking.
Students’ role was limited to taking notes and asking questions, which I
answered extensively. In the second section, I made a point of not speak-
ing throughout the whole term, which is taking Finkel’s method to the
extreme. Finkel does not advocate for teachers to keep their mouths shut
literally. This is a metaphor for giving students an active role. Still, I knew
that if I spoke, sooner or later, I would end up speaking too much. So, I
imposed on myself the prohibition to talk in class. I only allowed myself to
speak with students in this section in my office during my office hours to
talk about serious problems if they arose. I made it clear that I did not want
to discuss content or methodology. So, students had to figure out a method
for teaching the course. The only limitation that I set was that they were
not supposed to become traditional lecturers. Students decided to divide
in 8 groups of four to five members. Each group selected one or two top-
ics from the course syllabus and taught those topics over one class. This
course—like the first section—met once a week for a three-hour period.
Students presented the materials in different ways. Most included student-
centered activities, such as role-playings, debates, mock trials, games, col-
lective writing, film discussions, and collective research projects. Students
even designed the evaluation tasks. I must admit that students in both sec-
tions had taken a course with me the previous year, so they were familiar
with a student-centered approach. I analyzed the evaluations between stu-
dents in Sections 1 and 2 carefully. In this evaluation, I focused not only
on the grades, but also on signs of deep learning. Section 2students clearly
outperformed those in Section 1.

4.9 OUT-OF-CLASS PERFORMANCES

Many students identify their out-of-class experiences, such as being in-

volved in a research project with a teacher, participating in a school play,
or playing varsity sports, as some of the most important aspects of their
education (Light, 2001). Some students even believe that they learn more
from conversations with their peers in dorms than from years of formal
education with top-notch professors (Bruffee, 1999; Perry, 1970).
Performances 87

Whereas we carefully plan student activities in class, we seldom plan

or coordinate their out-of-class activities. Given the fact that meaningful
and significant student learning takes place out of class, we could also
design learning environments that help students learn deeply outside of
the confines of the classroom walls. For example, we could actively and
systematically involve all of our students, particularly undergraduate, in
research programs. We could also encourage them to attend conferences,
prepare and participate in film debates and book clubs, visit museums, and
participate in the activities that members of the knowledgeable communi-
ties of peers that we want them to join regularly participate in.

4.10 WHOLE LEARNING

David Perkins (2009) advances a series of principles (some of which I have

discussed before) that are applicable to a wide array of active, student-cen-
tered activities. These principles are: (i) playing the whole game of the dis-
cipline; (ii) making the game worth playing; (iii) working on the hard parts;
(iv) playing out of town; (v) uncovering the hidden game of the discipline;
(vi) learning from the team and the other teams; and (vii) learning the game
of learning. These principles can inform many activities. For example, some
of my colleagues from the biology department regularly take students to a
research facility in another state (playing out of town) so that students can
engage in actual research (playing the whole game). Students spend a few
weeks in the summer in that research facility with their teachers. They live
in bungalows; they eat there, and they organize fun activities (making the
game worth playing). The research facility is relatively isolated. So, they
spend all of their time there. Students do research and discuss their meth-
ods and findings among themselves and with their teachers (working on
the hard parts). Teachers act as their mentors, give them feedback about
their research processes, and help them reflect about their progress and the
discipline. Students also make presentations to teachers and students from
the university associated with that research facility and attend presentations
from these students (learning from the team and the other teams). Being im-
mersed in actual biological research for several weeks permits students to
get remarkable insight into the discipline (uncovering the hidden game of
the discipline).
88 Facilitating Deep Learning

4.11 SUMMARY

Our role as educators is to facilitate the deep learning process by encour-

aging students to engage in the performances that scholars and profes-
sionals carry out in the communities that students aspire to join. A series
of performances, such as Freire’s dialog, Bain’s questions, Finkel’s teach-
ing with your mouth shut, Barrows’ problem-based learning, Shulman’s
student teaching, Light’s out-of-class performances, and Perkins’s whole
learning, offer concrete opportunities for us to help students pursue their
interests, discover their goals, and construct deep learning.
The next chapter deals with the social aspect of learning and the non-
foundational nature of knowledge.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Watch or remember How I Met Your Mother’s “Field Trip” epi-

sode (2011, S7 E 5) directed by Pamela Fryman. In this episode,
Ted Mosby, who teaches architecture 101, wants to take his class
on a field trip to a construction site to inspire students to become
architects. Ted discusses his plans with his friend Barney. Barney
tells Ted that you are not supposed to ‘Stand and Deliver’ an in-
tro course. What do you think Barney means by this reference to
Ramón Menéndez’s 1988 film? Do you agree? Why or why not? Is
a field trip to a construction site a meaningful and authentic perfor-
mance for students of architecture? Why or why not? What other
performances can you think for Ted Mosby’s students?
2. Freire proposed the dialog as the main pedagogy to achieve lib-
eration education. This consists of asking fundamental questions
concerning humankind. Think of a course you are teaching or one
that you have recently taught. How can you adapt this pedagogy to
your course? What specific student performances can you think of
to implement in your course?
3. Watch or remember Friend’s episode entitled “The One Where
Joey Loses His Insurance” (1999, S6 E 4) directed by Gary
Performances 89

Halvorson. In this episode, Ross prepares to teach his very first

class on sediment flow rate theories for the paleontology depart-
ment. He has planned a lecture and wants to read from his notes.
His friend Joey reluctantly listens to Ross and advises to include
jokes and pictures of “naked chicks” (sic). What do you think of
Ross’s decision? What do you think of Joey’s suggestion? What
would you do differently if you were Ross? What performances
can you think of for Ross’s class?
4. Think of a course you are currently teaching or a course you have
recently taught. How can you implement Finkel’s teaching with
your mouth shut approach? What student performances can you
design to implement this approach?
5. The first and last classes of any course are very important. We usu-
ally think of the first class and prepare carefully for it. We do not
tend to give the same careful thought to the last class. Think of a
course you are currently teaching or a course you are going to teach
soon. What student performances can you design for the last class?
6. Remember or watch Mike Newell’s (2003) Mona Lisa. Focus on
the scenes when Katherine Anne Watson finds out that her students
have read the entire textbook for the very first class. On the follow-
ing class, Katherine decides to launch a discussion about art and its
connections to life. What do you think of this strategy? What other
student performances can you design for Katherine’s students?
7. Think of a course you are currently teaching or a course you have
recently taught. How can you implement the playing-out-of-town
concept given the existing resources at your institution? What out-
of-class performances can you design to complement the in-class
performances of this course?
8. Suppose you are asked to lead a workshop on teaching and learning
for new faculty members at your university or college. You want
the workshop participants to master the notion of deep learning.
What authentic and meaningful performances can you design for
the workshop participants?
9. For many of our students, particularly the digital natives, social
media plays a central role in their lives. Think of a course you are
teaching or one that you have recently taught. What meaningful
90 Facilitating Deep Learning

and authentic performances can you think of that involve social

media?
10. Remember or watch Susan Seidelman’s 2013 film The Hot Flash-
es. Focus on Nurse Morrey’s lecture on menopause. Beth does not
seem to be engaged. If you were the lecturer, what performances
can you think of to motivate your audience to learn about meno-
pause deeply? What performances can you design so that your au-
dience will change their attitude toward menopause?

KEYWORDS

• dialogue
• framework for student performances
• out-of-class performances
• Pedagogy of the Oppressed
• performance
• problem-based learning
• questions
• student teaching
• teaching with your mouth shut
• whole learning

REFERENCES

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Barrows, H.S.;Wee Keng Neo, L. Principles and practice of a PBL; Pearson Prentice Hall: Sin-
gapore, 2007.

Finkel, D. Teaching With Your Mouth Shut; Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth, NH, 1999.

Light, R. (2001) Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.
Performances 91

Reich, R. The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the Classroom. Speaking of
Teaching [Online] 2003, 13, http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/Fall2003 (accessed Aug 12,
2013).

Searight, B.; Searight, H.The Value of a Personal Mission Statement for University Undergradu-
ates.Creative Education,2011,313–315.
Shulman, Lee S. (1997). Professing the liberal arts. In Education and democracy:Re-imagining
liberal learning in America; Orrill, R., Ed.; College Board Publications: New York, 1997.

Siegal, D. J.The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of Well-Being.
W.W. Norton and Company: New York, 2007.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Vella, J. On Teaching and Learning: Putting the Principles and Practices of Dialogue Education
into Action; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2008.

Whitehead, A. The Aims of Education and Other Essays; The Free Press: New York, 1929.
CHAPTER 5

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these
apples, then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these
ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
— GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

CONTENTS

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 94

5.2 Foundational Knowledge Perspective ........................................... 94
5.3 Non-Foundational View of Knowledge: Social Construction ....... 95
5.4 Knowledge and Language ............................................................. 96
5.5 Authority and Foundational Knowledge........................................ 98
5.6 Situated Learning and Discourse ................................................. 100
5.7 Deep Learning and Social Interaction ......................................... 102
5.8 The Institutional Level: Learning Communities .......................... 103
5.9 Classroom-Level Pedagogical Implications ................................ 105
5.10 Students’ Attitude to Collaborative Learning .............................. 106
5.11 Summary ...................................................................................... 107
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 108
Keywords ...............................................................................................110
References ..............................................................................................110
94 Facilitating Deep Learning

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Learning is both an individual and a collective process. The deep learn-

ing process requires instances of individual and collective reflection. And
it results in changes at the individual and collective planes. Knowledge
plays a central role in the deep learning process. Learners construct knowl-
edge, they relate new knowledge to existing knowledge structures; and
they negotiate with peers.
The aim of this chapter is to examine the social aspect of learning and
the nature of knowledge. I will begin with an examination of the predomi-
nant knowledge epistemology in current higher education institutions.
Then, I will analyze an alternative conception of knowledge: the nonfoun-
dational approach, which understands knowledge as a social, collaborative
construction. I will then explore the notion of learning communities and
some ideas to implement collective instances of negotiation of meanings
at the classroom level. This chapter is premised on the fact that knowledge
is a social construction, and learning entails both an individual and a col-
lective process.

5.2 FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE PERSPECTIVE

The traditional or foundational notion of knowledge conceives of knowl-

edge as something absolute, as a fact that exists out there in the world and
that the individual mind can apprehend. Under this conception, knowledge
so captured by the human mind can be transmitted from one person to an-
other. In the classroom, teachers can cover it, explain it, and transmit it to
students through lectures and other similar teaching methods. Students can
receive knowledge by listening to lectures, summarize it by taking notes,
and reproduce it in papers, reports, presentations, and exams. Teachers can
also evaluate students’ reception of knowledge and measure how much
knowledge students retain.
Knowledge authority is grounded on some universal truth, such as sound
reasoning. In ancient civilizations, knowledge was located in God. Those who
were closer to God, the clergy, were the ones who were regarded as the highest
knowledgeable authorities. In modern times, scientists and other researchers are
Collaborative Learning 95

considered to be closer to that universal truth. They are invested with knowl-
edge authority, as knowledge is deemed to be discovered through the scientific
method and the methods used in social sciences that derive—directly or indi-
rectly from the hard sciences (Bruffee, 1999).
The foundational perspective on knowledge is based on a male ap-
proach to knowing (Cross, 1998). Males tend to conceive knowledge as
objective, impersonal, and detached. Men tend to look for evidence to
support their arguments and beliefs.
This foundational epistemology is the conception of knowledge that
predominates in the Instruction-paradigm university, which is structured
around a teacher who is considered the expert and students who need to
learn from the experts by attending lectures and reproducing the expert’s
knowledge (Tagg, 2003). A foundational conception of knowledge, with
its emphasis on expert discovery and transmission to novices, does not
promote the sophisticated processes required for deep learning. The em-
phasis on transmission and expertise merely gives rise to surface learning.

5.3 NON-FOUNDATIONAL VIEW OF KNOWLEDGE: SOCIAL

CONSTRUCTION

At the other side of the epistemological spectrum, there is another view

of knowledge—the nonfoundational perspective—that considers knowl-
edge as social construction, that is, as the result of the consensus among
communities of knowledgeable peers. This nonfoundational epistemology
derives from Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) thesis on the revolution in scientific
paradigms. Kuhn argued that changes in paradigms arise from conversa-
tions about and negotiations of meanings among members of a scientific
community. The same process takes place for maintaining knowledge.
Members of knowledgeable communities are immersed in an ongoing
conversation to negotiate meanings and justify beliefs (Bruffee, 1999). For
example, for centuries and even millennia there was a consensus among
most civilizations that the Earth was flat. There are historical records show-
ing that some astronomers recognized that the Earth was spherical, which
date as far back as to Pythagoras in the sixth century BC. But for most
people, even astronomers and geographers, the Earth was flat. The members
96 Facilitating Deep Learning

of these communities interdependently constructed a notion of the Earth

as flat. Those who followed Pythagoras’s spherical conception were not
members of these communities. They were members of a different com-
munity of knowledgeable peers. Whether the Earth is spherical, flat, or has
another shape is irrelevant for the communities of knowledgeable peers.
It is the consensus that counts. “Knowledge is not absolute and universal.
It is local and historically changing. We construct it and reconstruct it,
time after time, and build it up in layers” (Bruffee, 1999). This does not
mean that there may not be changes within a community or that members
may not exit communities. Communities may negotiate new meanings and
abandon certain beliefs—even their most central. But this process is again
a collective negotiation of meanings that results in a new consensus. Mem-
bers who cease to adhere to consensus leave their original communities to
join others. For example, Alejandro Casavalle, a renowned stage director
and drama teacher, fully subscribed to “method acting,” a pedagogy de-
veloped by Lee Strasberg based on Stalinavsky’s principles and theories.
Casavalle even participated in Lee Strasberg’s Theatre Institute in New
York. But a few years after he returned to his hometown from New York,
he distanced himself from some aspects of method acting, particularly af-
ter getting in contact with other acting teachers and directors from Europe.
So, perhaps unconsciously, he began participating in conversations, fora,
congresses, and theater festivals with directors and teachers who adhered
to other methods. In his classes now, Casavalle does not follow method
acting (or, at least, not every aspect of the method) and follows an acting
approach that members of this new group also adhere to.
Most students leave—or renegotiate the meanings in—some of their
original communities of knowledgeable peers when they enter the univer-
sity or college setting. In most cases, they gradually distance themselves
from beliefs and ideas long held in their original communities to take part
in new ones (Bruffee, 1999).

5.4 KNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGE

Under the nonfoundational perspective, knowledge is social communica-

tion, which is carried out through linguistic and paralinguistic discourse
Collaborative Learning 97

negotiated by and shared among members of knowledgeable communi-

ties. Each knowledgeable community has its own distinctive language and
paralanguage. Without the distinctive language and paralanguage of the
community, members are unable to negotiate meanings, justify beliefs, and
construct knowledge in that community of knowledgeable peers (Bruffee,
1999). Discourse is an essential aspect of learning. We engage in discourse
in order to create and validate knowledge. Discourse is “a dialog devoted
to assessing reasons presented in support of competing interpretations, by
critically examining evidence, arguments, and alternative points of view”
(Mezirow, 1991). In other words, we need to master the language—and
the system of paralinguistic symbols—of the knowledgeable community
in order to construct knowledge. We see this, for example, when we try
to discuss some teaching and learning aspects with our colleagues who
are not interested in teaching and learning issues. Some faculty members
are only interested in doing research in their own base disciplines and see
teaching as an obligation that they want to get out of the way as soon as
possible to go back to their disciplinary research. Although they are high-
ly educated and proficient in English—or whatever other language they
speak—they lack the vocabulary to think about teaching and learning is-
sues. I remember that when I gave a teaching demonstration for my current
position, I wanted to engage in a conversation with a member of the hir-
ing committee about my teaching demonstration. I talked about construc-
tive alignment, cognitive conflicts, metacognition, contextual relativism,
conceptual change, and even teaching and learning activities. He looked
at me as if I was speaking in a foreign language. He often stopped me to
require clarification. At one point, he even asked me, “What do you mean
by teaching and learning activities?” I thought that maybe he did not fol-
low John Biggs and preferred to follow David Perkins’s terminology and
referred to class activities as “performances of understanding.” So, I gave
him an explanation of the differences and similarities between Biggs’s and
Perkins’s conceptions. I later learned that his questions aimed at some-
thing even more basic. For him, teaching is giving lectures that students
have to reproduce in final exams. He honestly did not understand what I
was saying. This means that we belonged to different knowledge commu-
nities. His community does not have the vocabulary—the language—that
mine has. So, we do not share the same knowledge or vocabulary. Neither
98 Facilitating Deep Learning

he nor I is correct or incorrect. Neither community is better than the other.

We are both right in our own communities and according to the standards
negotiated among the members of our communities. “No one is a relativist
locally. Locally, we are all foundationalists. By definition, membership in
a knowledge community means everything we do is unhesitatingly correct
or incorrect according to the criteria agreed to within that local commu-
nity, the community we belong to” (Bruffee, 1999).

5.5 AUTHORITY AND FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Under the nonfoundational perspective, knowledge is not something that

can be transmitted from an expert to novices, from teachers to students, as
there is no knowledge out there waiting for the human mind to apprehend.
Knowledge is communication; as such it is not subject to transmission—
only to negotiation and renegotiation. In this respect, knowledge author-
ity does not lie in the expert. It is justified in the consensus negotiated
by members of the community. For example, our authority as teachers
does not come from knowing the content of our discipline or by doing
research in the discipline but from central participation in the community
of knowledgeable peers in our base disciplines as well as in the commu-
nity of teacher scholars or the academic community of our universities or
colleges.
The nonfoundational model of knowledge is closer to the way females
approach knowledge. Cross (1998) refers to this approach as “connected
learning,” where knowledge is considered a connected conversation in a
learning community. Unlike males, females are not concerned with look-
ing for evidence to support arguments and claims. They are interested in
seeing the connections and experiences that lead to ideas. Table 5.1 sum-
marizes the main differences between nonfoundational and foundational
conceptions of knowledge.
Collaborative Learning 99

TABLE 5.1 Foundational vs. non-foundational knowledge.

Foundational view of knowledge Non-foundational view of knowledge
Knowledge is something absolute; it is a fact. Knowledge is social construction.
Knowledge is objective, impersonal, and de-
tached.
Knowledge is something that the individual mind Knowledge is the result of the consensus among
can apprehend. communities of knowledgeable peers.
Knowledge is absolute and universal. Knowledge is local and historically changing.
Knowledge can be captured by the human mind Knowledge is the result of consensus from col-
and can be transmitted from one person to an- lective negotiations of meanings.
other.
In the classroom, teachers cover it, explain it, and Students move from a community of knowl-
transmit it to students. edgeable peers to another one, or they move
from the periphery to the center within a com-
munity of knowledge.
Knowledge is communication. It is not subject
to transmission. It is negotiated.
Students receive knowledge passively and repro- Knowledge is social communication carried out
duce it. through linguistic and paralinguistic discourse
negotiated by and shared among members of
knowledgeable communities.
Students need to master the language—and
the system of paralinguistic symbols—of the
knowledgeable community in order to construct
knowledge.
Teachers can also evaluate students’ reception of Knowledge is not measurable.
knowledge and measure how much knowledge
students retain.
Teachers as experts and students as novices. Teachers’ authority comes from central par-
ticipation in the community of knowledgeable
peers in their base disciplines and in the com-
munity of teacher scholars.
Knowledge is justified in the consensus negoti-
ated by members of the community.
Experts discover knowledge. Members of knowledgeable communities con-
verse and negotiate meanings within their com-
munities.
Knowledge is constructed and built up in layers.
Male approach to knowledge. Female approach to knowledge.
Men tend to look for evidence to support their Females tend to be interested in seeing the con-
arguments and beliefs. nections and experiences that lead to ideas.
Instruction paradigm. Learning paradigm.
100 Facilitating Deep Learning

Based on Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Inter-

dependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

5.6 SITUATED LEARNING AND DISCOURSE

Deep learning implies—geographical—changes either across commu-

nities of knowledgeable peers or inside one’s own community. The first
type of possible changes entails a reacculturation from one community of
knowledgeable peers to another (Bruffee, 1999). The second implies mov-
ing from the periphery of a community to the center (Lave and Wenger,
1991).
The first possibility involves a process of moving from one community
of knowledge to another. College and university teachers help students
leave—or renegotiate meanings of—their original communities to join the
academic community of a certain discipline or profession. They do so by
helping students acculturate in the linguistic and paralinguistic discourse
of the academic community that they try to join. In this process, students
do not necessarily come from the same communities of knowledgeable
peers (Filene, 2005). This has significant implications for our teaching
practice. Students may hold diverse beliefs, principles, traditions, and
even vocabulary.
Notice that different negotiations take place in the process of social
construction of knowledge (Bruffee, 1999). These include the following:
• Negotiation among members of a community of knowledgeable
peers: peers engage in normal discourse to reinforce and reify the
beliefs, standards, language, and principles of the community. Frank
Smith (1988) refers to communities of knowledge as literacy clubs
and argues that learning takes place when we perceive ourselves as
members of the club.
• Negotiation at the boundaries among knowledge communities: dif-
ferent communities negotiate meanings in a language that is not their
own. They adapt their discourse so that it may be understood by the
other community of knowledge.
• Negotiation at the boundaries between communities and outsiders
who want to join them: a teacher adapts and translates the discourse
Collaborative Learning 101

of the community his or her students aspire to join. For teachers, stu-
dents’ discourse is nonstandard; and for students, teachers’ discourse
is also nonstandard (Bruffee, 1999). The reason is that students and
teachers belong to different communities of knowledge. Yves Che-
vallard (1985), a professor from Université d’Aix-Marseille II, ar-
gues that this discourse translation gives rise to a phenomenon that
he refers to as didactic transposition. Didactic transposition is the
transition from the language (academic knowledge) of the learn-
ing community of knowledgeable peers of a certain discipline to
the language used to teach and learn in the community of peers that
takes place in the classroom (taught knowledge). This transposition
is a social construction negotiated by members of different learn-
ing communities (academics, disciplinary organizations, professors,
government, university administration, faculty associations, and oth-
er organizations) who define what is to be taught in the classroom.
This negotiation takes place in a virtual space known as noosphere
(Chevallard, 1985).
The second possible consequence of deep learning at the social level
involves moving from the periphery or margins of a community of knowl-
edge to the center, where the learner achieves full participation by per-
forming the roles and functions that experts display in the community
(Lave and Wenger, 1991). The center of the community of knowledgeable
peers is occupied by routine or classic experts, that is, those experts who
know the rules, routines, and procedures of their discipline or profession
and are highly respected for their expertise and professionalism (Hatano,
1982). The most prominent and central role is occupied by adaptive ex-
perts, that is, those experts who, on top of their—routine—expertise, can
also rewrite the rules of the game. They can understand why their routines,
rules, and procedures work, they can change them when necessary, and
they can invent new ones to solve new problems when the existing rou-
tines, rules, and procedures are ineffective (Hatano and Inagaki, 1986).
When students transition from their original communities to join aca-
demic and disciplinary communities of knowledge, they do so gradually.
They observe the way their teachers talk, question, respond, and think.
They also observe written disciplinary conventions. They interact with
their peers. They negotiate meanings within this community and construct
knowledge. Eventually, they move to the center as they adopt the linguistic
102 Facilitating Deep Learning

and paralinguistic language of the experts in the community. They em-

brace the beliefs, ideas, methods, and principles of the learning commu-
nity. Usually this takes place when students reach Perry’s (1970) state of
commitment within contextual relativism state or Magolda’s (2002) con-
structed knowledge.

5.7 DEEP LEARNING AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

Whereas knowledge is social—that is, a social construction—learning is

both an individual and a collective enterprise. Learning requires individ-
ual cognitive and metacognitive processes, which result in individual—as
well as collective—changes (Ausubel, 1978; Bruner, 1997; and Piaget,
1972). But learning also needs and entails social interaction and negotia-
tion of meanings. “We learn together by analyzing the related experiences
of others to arrive at a common understanding that holds until new evi-
dence or arguments present themselves” (Mezirow, 1991).
Social influence in the construction of knowledge is seen at every step
of the learning process. But so are individual actions, practices, compe-
tences, skills, and processes. In order to identify these individual and col-
lective aspects of learning, it is useful to recall some key aspects of the
notion of deep learning. Deep learning requires nonarbitrary and substan-
tive connections between new knowledge and existing prior knowledge
that activate higher-order cognitive processes and skills. These processes
are possible because we converse with others. These connections are both
individual and social in nature. First, there is a collective negotiation of
meanings through the use of higher-order cognitive processes. Peers car-
ry out this negotiation by analyzing, critiquing, comparing, contrasting,
applying, theorizing, evaluating, and discussing. Second, there is also a
process of individual reflection, which also includes these higher-order
cognitive processes, that is, analysis, critique, comparison, contrast, ap-
plication, theorization, evaluation, and discussion. Higher-order thoughts
are continuations of these conversations in our minds. Individually, we can
resort to these cognitive processes, because we have internalized the con-
versations with others. If we do not have the opportunity to interact with
others and use higher-order cognitive skills in these social interactions,
Collaborative Learning 103

then we cannot use them individually. “Every function in our cultural de-
velopment appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the indi-
vidual level, that is, first between people and then inside” (Bruffee, 1999).
But, both social and individual instances are essential for the construction
of deep learning.
As discussed earlier, deep learning also requires a cognitive conflict,
that is, a situation or problem that an individual is unable to deal with or
resolve with his or her existing cognitive structure. Cognitive conflict is
produced socially. It is the interaction with our peers who operate in dif-
ferent zones of development that leads to problems that we cannot solve
individually with our existing knowledge structure (Vygotsky, 1978). The
deep learning process results in a conceptual change, which is an indi-
vidual result—triggered by social interaction—with consequences at the
collective level. Deep learning also requires an awareness of this restruc-
turing or conceptual change, which in turn needs both individual and col-
lective reflection.

5.8 THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL: LEARNING COMMUNITIES

The best way to adopt a nonfoundational approach to knowledge in uni-

versities and colleges is through the creation of learning communities that
gives students an active role in the creation of knowledge and the collec-
tive negotiation of meanings. A learning community is a group of students
and teachers who associate themselves for a common purpose: learning.
In learning communities, students can negotiate their meanings interde-
pendently by conversing with other students and teachers. In attempting
to understand others’ meanings, students try to fit these understandings
into their own knowledge structure (Cross, 1998). A learning community
requires students to have an active role in the creation and negotiation of
knowledge, which includes questioning, challenging, and interrogating.
The traditional Instruction-paradigm university has been adverse to the
creation of learning communities. Students register for courses individu-
ally. They attend lectures, take down notes, study, and take exams indi-
vidually. Collaboration in assignments and exams is even penalized with
severe sanctions. To change this situation, in the last few years, several
104 Facilitating Deep Learning

universities and colleges have adopted a learning community program. In

many cases, this is limited to asking groups of students to register together
in the same courses. In other cases, these students also live in the same
residence. Other universities and colleges, such as La Guardia Community
College in New York, Evergreen State College in the state of Washington,
Georgia State, and Iowa State University, have long-established learning
communities for their first-year students and in some cases for other stu-
dents as well. A true learning community is formed when teachers and stu-
dents participate in a learning community together and engage in a process
of collective negotiation of meaning and construction of knowledge in an
interdependent fashion. If students simply register together for the same
courses, but the courses emphasize lectures and individual exams, there
is no true learning community. Effective learning communities have three
essential features: (i) shared knowledge, that is, learners construct a shared
academic experience, usually around a theme rather than a discipline; (ii)
shared knowing, that is, students develop socially and intellectually to-
gether; and (iii) shared responsibility, that is, students become responsible
to each other in the learning experience (Tinto, 1994).
Learning communities help students succeed in their university and
college studies. They reduce attrition and have proved to help students
who have lower connections to their university settings, such as part-time
students who do not live on campus (Tinto, 1995 and Tinto and Russo,
1994). Learning communities also help students achieve levels of deep
learning that cannot usually be attained when students work in isolation
(Tinto, 1995). The single most powerful influence on a student’s cognitive
and social development is other students (Tagg, 2003).
Learning communities at universities and colleges become more ef-
fective when they promote legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and
Wenger, 1991). Learning communities enhance deep learning “when they
give students more freedom to negotiate the rules and processes, when they
maintain a balance between reification and participation in the process of
negotiating meanings, and when they allow students to move developmen-
tally toward more mature participation” (Tagg, 2003). This full partici-
pation takes place when we teachers join learning communities together
with our peers to negotiate the meaning of teaching and learning and the
Collaborative Learning 105

resources we use in our practice, and we join learning communities with

students to learn together by negotiating meanings interdependently.
The Experimental College, founded in the 1920s by Alexander Meikle-
john at the University of Wisconsin, and Berkeley’s Experimental Pro-
gram, created four decades later by Joseph Tussman, one of Meiklejohn’s
disciples, are examples of highly successful learning communities made
up of teachers and students engaged in the learning process together. These
initiatives aimed at analyzing big historical and contemporary questions
through the discussion of classic works of literature. Meiklejohn’s cur-
riculum consisted of studying the Athens civilization during the first year
and nineteenth century America during the second year. It was not a cur-
riculum about civilizations. It was a flexible curriculum about problems,
issues, and themes experienced in those civilizations. The goal was for
students and teachers to become immersed in those civilizations as resi-
dents and not as foreign tourists who see only the landmark buildings and
touristic sites. The curriculum aimed at encouraging students and teachers
to discuss, solve, and deal with fundamental human problems.
The teachers were not content experts. They were drawn from a wide
diversity of backgrounds. Alexander Meiklejohn was a philosopher fo-
cused on free speech. Tussman was a political scientist. Because they
were not content experts, their role was not to transmit their expertise to
their students, but rather to learn together with their students. And they did
so by reading classical texts together, discussing the texts, embarking on
broad projects, and, most important, by living together on campus.

5.9 CLASSROOM-LEVEL PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The nonfoundational approach to knowledge has significant consequences

for our teaching practice at the classroom level. If knowledge is socially
constructed, then we need to create opportunities in our classes so that
our students can negotiate meanings collectively and construct knowledge
interdependently. In his examination of current pedagogical approach-
es in the classroom, Bruffee (1999) distinguishes two types of teaching
practices: lecture conventions and recitation conventions. In the lecture
convention pedagogy, which includes traditional lectures, question-and-
106 Facilitating Deep Learning

answer discussions, and some types of lab sessions, teachers are the center
of the teaching practice. Teachers are seen as the knowledge authority; and
students’ questions and participation reinforce this role of the teacher as
expert. Teachers control the classroom interactions. And teachers evaluate
students’ learning. The recitation convention includes seminars, tutorials,
and writing seminars, where students present their work to the teacher, who
still controls, evaluates, and performs. The nature and knowledge author-
ity vested in the teacher and the classroom’s hierarchical social structure
remains unquestioned. Students, even when purportedly talking to other
students or commenting on other students’ work, are actually performing
for the teacher. Their contributions are influenced by students’ perceptions
of the teacher’s requirements. Furthermore, the teacher retains the pre-
rogative to lecture at any time, even if he or she does it subtly while com-
menting on a student’s paper, answering a question, or giving instructions.
True collaborative activities emphasize the collective negotiation of
meanings among students as members of a community of knowledge or as
candidates to join a new community of knowledge. This requires a radical
shift in our role as teachers: from traditional evaluators to facilitators of
student learning. In Bruffee (1995)’s terms, we can do this by “organizing
students into transition communities for reacculturative conversation.”
An effective way of implementing truly collaborative learning in the
classroom is Donald Finkel’s (1999) teaching-with-your-mouth shut ap-
proach, which we discussed earlier, where students learn by actively en-
gaging in dialogs and conversations among themselves. Students discuss
their readings, solve problems together, engage in discussions, and even
write together. The teacher’s participation consists of becoming a noncon-
trolling facilitator of this dialog or joining the community as another mem-
ber in order to learn from this ongoing process of collective negotiation of
meanings and social construction of knowledge.

5.10 STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Richard Light (2001), a professor in the Graduate School of Education at

Harvard University, conducted interviews with hundreds of students on
their attitudes and opinions about their role at university. He was
Collaborative Learning 107

interested in understanding what those students who have a positive ex-

perience do and value during their university studies. Many of the ideas
revealed in this study revolve around collaborative learning. Light has
found that students value collaborative work. Students noted that work-
ing in small groups and study groups have a very positive impact in their
university experience. They also appreciate close contact with faculty who
act as mentors, whether in a mentored internship, small class, or research
experience. Students also noted that participating in activities with teach-
ers and other fellow students has a profound impact in their academic ex-
periences. This is especially so when students and teachers work together
on a specific academic project, such as a research endeavor.
Light’s work does not mean that all students value collaborative
learning. The Instruction paradigm disfavors collaboration and collec-
tive negotiation of meanings. Many students identify with the Instruction
paradigm’s emphasis on individualism. Many other students are at a de-
velopmental phase where they understand knowledge as an entity that is
out there and subject to transmission rather than collective construction.
This generally translates into student resistance, both passive and active.
These students refuse to work in groups, or their contributions to the group
are generally superficial (Weimer, 2002).

5.11 SUMMARY

Knowledge is a social construction, a negotiation among members of a

community of knowledgeable peers. It is not an entity that exists in the
world and that can be covered, transmitted, received, and reproduced in
exams, papers, and presentations. Learning is both an individual and a col-
lective process. It needs both individual and group instances of meaning
negotiation and reflection. At the social level, learning implies either the
reacculturation from one community of knowledgeable peers to another
or a move from the periphery of a community to its center. This entails a
significant change in the role of teachers. This new role requires us to give
up control and to become facilitators of student learning. The teaching-
with-your-mouth shut approach is a useful framework to implement this
change.
108 Facilitating Deep Learning

Students’ attitude toward collaborative experiences is generally favor-

able. But some express resistance, as they are influenced by the Instruction
paradigm’s excessive focus on individualism.
Learning communities in higher education institutions facilitate col-
laborative learning. The Experimental College at the University of Wis-
consin and Berkeley’s Experimental Program are interesting examples of
successful learning communities where teachers and students learned to-
gether and negotiated meanings to construct knowledge.
The next two chapters explore academic reading and writing—two of
the most fundamental competences needed to succeed in academic and
professional fields.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. How can you help your students reacculturate from their commu-
nity of knowledgeable peers to the community of knowledgeable
peers in your discipline? What emotional implications may this
have for your students, particularly for first-generation university
students?
2. Bruffee (1999) argues that an important role of teachers is to adapt
and translate the discourse of the community his or her students
aspire to join. What does this mean in your own courses? Think
of specific examples of this discourse adaptation and translation.
What are some implications of this role?
3. As teachers, we participate in the community of knowledgeable
peers in our base disciplines as well as in the community of teacher
scholars or the academic community of our universities or col-
leges. Think of your own process in becoming a faculty member.
Describe this process in terms of movement from the periphery of
a community to its center. Can you think of other communities of
knowledgeable peers that you belong to? Does your participation
in one or some of these communities shape or affect your participa-
tion in others?
4. Remember or watch the film The Weekend (1999) directed by
Brian Skeet. It offers a very clear example of situated learning. Can
Collaborative Learning 109

you identify the community of knowledgeable peers? Who are the

members of this community? Can you identify the reacculturation
process? Can you identify the movement from the periphery to the
center of the community? Who experiences the deepest changes?
What are examples of the linguistic and paralinguistic discourse
shared by members of the community of knowledgeable peers in
the film?
5. Remember or watch the film 12 Angry Men (1957) directed by Sid-
ney Lumet. This film also offers a clear example of situated learn-
ing. Can you identify the community of knowledgeable peers?
Who are the members of this community? Can you identify the
reacculturation process? Can you identify the movement from the
periphery to the center of the community? Who experiences the
deepest changes? What are examples of the linguistic and paralin-
guistic discourse shared by members of the community of knowl-
edgeable peers in the film? Remember or watch the film 12 (2007)
directed by Nikita Mikhalkov, a Russian remake of the original
Sidney Lumet film. Do you see any differences in the movements
between communities of knowledgeable peers or from the periph-
ery to the center with respect to the original film?
6. Bruffee (1999) argues that “no one is a relativist locally. Locally,
we are all foundationalists.” What does he mean? Do you agree?
Why or why not? Can you think of specific examples of Brufee’s
assertion from your own experience as a member of a community
of knowledgeable peers?
7. It has been argued that the nonfoundational model of knowledge
is closer to the way females approach knowledge. Do you agree?
Why or why not? Do females approach knowledge differently than
males? If so, how? What implications, if any, does this have in our
classes?
8. The editor of a teaching and learning journal has asked you to con-
tribute a one-paragraph analysis on the importance of collaborative
learning in the promotion of deep learning for a section entitled
“Collaborative Pedagogy.” The editor would also like you to think
of examples of classroom collaborative activities that foster deep
learning. Write this paragraph and the examples.
110 Facilitating Deep Learning

9. The Instruction paradigm favors individualism. Consequently,

many students resist working in groups with other students or work
superficially without committing themselves to true collaborative
learning. What can you do to overcome this resistance?
10. Bruffee (1999) argues that the nature of recitation conventions
(e.g., seminars, tutorials, and writing seminars) is essentially the
same as that of the lecture conventions. It can be inferred from this
argument that recitation conventions also lead to surface learning.
Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not? Can you think
of a context for which recitation conventions might be conducive
to deep learning?

KEYWORDS

• authority
• changes in or across communities of knowledge
• collaborative learning
• deep learning
• foundational knowledge
• knowledge and language
• learning communities
• nonfoundational knowledge
• situated learning
• social construction
• social interaction

REFERENCES

Ausubel, D. In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational

Research 1978, 48, 251.

Ausubel, D.; Novak, J.; Hanesian, H. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View; Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston: New York, 1978.
Collaborative Learning 111

Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

Bruffee, K. Making the most of knowledgeable peers. Change, 1994, 26, 3.

Bruffee, K. Sharing our toys. Change, 1995, 27,1.

Bruner, J. The Process of Education; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1977.

Chevallard, Y. La transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné(Recherches en

didactique des mathématiques); Pensée sauvage: Grenoble, 1985.

Cross, K. Why Learning Communities? Why Now? About Campus, 1998, 3, 4.

Filene, P. The Joy of Teaching. A Practical Guide for New College Instructors; University of
North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 2005.

Finkel, D. Teaching With Your Mouth Shut; Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth, NH, 1999.

Hatano, G. Cognitive Consequences of Practice in Culture Specific Procedural Skills. Quarterly

Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 1982, 4, 15–18.

Hatano, G.; Inagaki, K.Two Courses of Expertise. In Child Development and Education in Ja-
pan; Stevenson, H.; Azuma, H.; Hakuta, K., Eds.; Freeman: New York, 1986.

Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago,
1970.

Lave, J.; Wenger, E.;Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge Univer-
sity Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991.

Light, R. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2001.

Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1991.

Mezirow, J. Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Con-
tinuing Education 1997, 74, 5.

Perry, W. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Hold,
Rinehart and Winston: Troy, Mo, 1970.

Piaget, J. The Psychology of the Child; Basic Books: New York, 1972.

Smith, F, Joining the Literacy Club. Further Essays into Education; Heinemann Educational
Books: London, 1988.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Tinto, V. Learning communities, collaborative learning, and the pedagogy of educational citi-
zenship.American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 1995, 47(7), 11–13.
112 Facilitating Deep Learning

Tinto, V.; Russo, P. Coordinated Studies Program: The Effect on Student Involvement in a Com-
munity College. Community College Review, 1994,22(2), 16–25.

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.
Weimer, M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice; Jossey-Bass: San Fran-
cisco, 2002.
 PART II
ACADEMIC SKILLS AND
DEEP LEARNING
CHAPTER 6

ACADEMIC READING AND

DEEP LEARNING
We learn a lot from what we read; we learn a lot more from what
we say to one another about what we read.
— KENNETH A. BRUFFEE

CONTENTS

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................116

6.2 Surface and Deep Approaches to Reading ....................................116
6.3 Reading Academic Texts Deeply ..................................................117
6.4 Motivating Problem and Cognitive Conflict ................................118
6.5 Higher-Order Competences: Individual and Collective
Learning ....................................................................................... 120
6.6 Whole Game ................................................................................ 122
6.7 Conceptual Change and Situated Learning .................................. 122
6.8 Evaluation .................................................................................... 123
6.9 Categories of Analysis ................................................................. 123
6.10 Discipline-Specific Reading Styles ............................................. 130
6.11 Specific Categories of Analysis: An Example from the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning ........................................ 131
6.12 General Study Strategies .............................................................. 132
6.13 Constructive Alignment ............................................................... 133
6.14 Summary ...................................................................................... 135
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 136
Keywords .............................................................................................. 138
References ............................................................................................. 139
116 Facilitating Deep Learning

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Reading is the key to the door that opens academic and professional com-
munities of knowledge. It lets us see how members of these communities
organize and express their thoughts. It also helps us understand how they
negotiate meanings and construct knowledge. Despite the significant role
that reading plays in academic and professional communities, university
and college teachers generally take the teaching of reading skills for grant-
ed and seldom teach these skills, assuming that all students already learned
how to read academic texts either as part of their high school studies or
elsewhere at university or college (Erickson, Peters, and Strommer, 2006).
Students, in turn, tend to resist those rare instances when teachers do at-
tempt to help them learn to read academic texts, because they believe that
they already know how to read. Students ignore that the reading skills that
are required to read academic and professional texts greatly differ from the
skills that they have been using to read other texts, such as books for plea-
sure, news, and texts assigned in high school. Consequently, most students
employ nonuniversity strategies to read academic texts, which results in
students taking a surface approach to reading.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the difference between a sur-
face and a deep approach to reading, which parallels that of surface and
deep learning. Then, I will explore the elements of the deep learning pro-
cess as they apply to academic reading. I will also discuss the categories
of analysis needed to read academic texts. Finally, I will look at some
strategies and factors that contribute to an environment conducive to deep
reading.

6.2 SURFACE AND DEEP APPROACHES TO READING

Since members of most academic disciplines and professional fields com-

municate their thoughts in writing, reading academic and professional
texts is essential to learn the conventions, discourse, methods, and practic-
es of communities of knowledge (Erickson, Peters and Strommer, 2006).
Mastering these conventions and practices will help students become part
of the knowledge community of the discipline they aspire to join and will
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 117

eventually allow them to move to the center of this community. But, this
is only possible if students take a deep approach to reading. A deep ap-
proach to reading is an approach where the reader focuses on the author’s
message. Deep readers critically examine this message, challenge it, and
recreate it by making connections to other texts, their existing knowledge,
and disciplinary concepts and principles (Maleki and Heerman, 1992). In
contrast, a surface approach to reading is the tacit acceptance of informa-
tion explicitly mentioned in the text. Surface readers usually consider this
information as isolated and do not make any connections between the new
information and their own background. This leads to superficial retention
of materials for examinations and does not promote deep understanding or
the application of that information to new contexts and situations (Hermida,
2009). Simply put, surface readers focus on the sign, that is, the text itself,
whereas deep readers focus on what is signified, that is, the meaning of the
text (Bowden and Marton, 2000).

6.3 READING ACADEMIC TEXTS DEEPLY

Reading is a complex and sophisticated process of actively working with

the text. This process is shaped partly by the text, partly by the reader’s
background, and partly by the situation the reading occurs in (Hunt, 2004).
Reading a text deeply requires readers not to stop at the information ex-
plicitly contained in a text. “The explicit meanings of a piece are the tip
of an iceberg of meaning; the larger part lies below the surface of the text
and is composed of the reader’s own relevant knowledge” (Hirsch, 1987).
The deep reading process is only possible if the reader uses a series of
categories of analysis, some of which are common to most academic and
professional communities of knowledge (general categories of analysis)
and some of which are specific to each academic discipline or professional
field (Carlino, 2005). The expert reader has incorporated these categories
and applies them almost intuitively. But most students—particularly low-
er—year students ignore them. So, we need to teach both the general ana-
lytical tools and the discipline-specific values and strategies that facilitate
disciplinary reading and learning (Bean, 1996). Additionally, deep reading
requires acting on every aspect of the reading process. When we engage
118 Facilitating Deep Learning

students, foster students’ connections with their knowledge background,

and explicitly teach students these categories of analysis, students improve
their reading effectiveness considerably (Hermida, 2009b; Munro, 2003).
Learning how to read academic texts deeply also necessitates the same
steps and elements analyzed earlier for any deep learning endeavor. Like
any other intellectual task, reading also presents specific issues that must
be taken into consideration when creating an environment that helps stu-
dents learn to read deeply. Let’s have a look at the elements of the deep
learning process as they apply to reading academic texts.

6.4 MOTIVATING PROBLEM AND COGNITIVE CONFLICT

After the initial evaluation of the students’ academic reading abilities

(which I will discuss in a later chapter devoted to evaluating to learn),
the first step in a deep learning process is the creation of a problem, situ-
ation, or question that students will feel intrinsically motivated to solve
or answer (Bain, 2004). This problem or question must create a cognitive
conflict that students may only solve by reading academic texts deeply.
So, for example just asking questions to check comprehension of the text
or to answer teachers’ interests or concerns will not encourage students to
read and analyze a text in a profound way. We need to create a problem
that students find motivating enough to resolve by reading academic texts.
The best way to do so is by creating authentic performances that let stu-
dents play the whole game of the discipline (Perkins, 2009). Reading in a
discipline is just one aspect of the whole game. Students need to engage in
all the activities that professionals and scholars in the discipline immerse
in. Students will be motivated to read an academic text deeply when they
actively participate in all aspects of the discipline. For example, a history
student will be motivated to read a history text on the fall of the Soviet
Union if he or she also does research on the historical causes that led to
the decline and demise of the Soviet Union, presents in a conference on
Eastern European history, teaches a class on this topic, and has to give ad-
vice to a museum curator preparing an exhibition on life and politics in the
former Soviet Union. This student will approach the reading of academic
texts on this topic with enthusiasm. He or she will feel the need to read the
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 119

texts deeply. This motivation will increase if the student can make—by
himself or herself or with the teacher’s help—connections between the
readings and his or her personal life.
In my Introduction to Private Law course, I wanted students to learn to
read law review articles deeply. For anyone not familiar with this genre,
a law review article is a strange animal full of authority for every ques-
tion of law and every matter of fact in the form of hundreds of footnotes
with references to judicial cases and other law review articles, and with a
writing style that is as dense as it is unique, even when compared to other
legal publications. I chose some very arduous texts on the legal aspects of
comparative advertising. I knew that if I simply asked students to read the
articles they would not do so, or they would do so superficially. So, I asked
them to create a comparative advertising campaign for small local compa-
nies (a sushi restaurant, a pizza store, and a bakery). They had to produce
a magazine ad, a TV commercial, and an online ad. They had to meet with
the store owners to discuss the characteristics of their businesses, to deter-
mine the competition, and to get as much information about their products
as possible. After that, they had to work on the campaign, and then present
it to their clients. During the initial interview, the owners not only provid-
ed students with the required information, but they also asked them lots of
questions about the legal consequences of the comparative campaign. All
groups had read the texts superficially or had not read them at all. So, they
were not able to answer their clients’ questions accurately. After these in-
terviews, students felt the need to read the texts again. Also, while working
on the comparative campaign, they had doubts about the legality of cer-
tain aspects of the campaign, such as when they could use a competitor’s
trademark, what tests they had to run before making comparative claims,
and what disclaimers they needed to use. This task provided students with
an interesting problem to solve, a cognitive conflict derived from social
interaction; and the motivation to resort to texts to solve the problem.
Similarly, a colleague who teaches a cross-listed course on European
history and politics wanted students to read Stéphane Hessel’s (2011) Time
for Outrage deeply. Time for Outrage is a political manifesto, which urges
readers to rescue the French spirit of the WWII resistance to the Nazi Ger-
many and apply it to fight capitalist power and to embrace democratic so-
cial values. The book inspired the Indignados movement in Spain, which,
120 Facilitating Deep Learning

in turn, inspired other protests around the world, including the Occupy
Wall Street movement. My colleague wanted to use this book as a step-
ping stone to other history and political science authors who are more dif-
ficult to understand and who write in a more detached and nonpassionate
language. She asked students to adapt Time for Outrage to a theater play,
which students had to perform on stage before a real audience. My col-
league asked students to adapt Hessel’s 40-page work into a fictional play,
a love story, which had to respect the spirit of the book. In order to adapt
it, students had to examine Time for Outrage very carefully and capture
its philosophy and the spirit of resistance and fight. Students also had to
consult the other texts to come up with a story that transpired Europe’s
contemporary political, economic, and social crisis. The play motivated
students, most of whom knew very little about the crisis, to read the texts
proposed by their teacher as well as to consult other academic texts on the
topic.

6.5 HIGHER-ORDER COMPETENCES: INDIVIDUAL AND

COLLECTIVE LEARNING

The second step in the deep reading process is students’ use of higher-
order cognitive and metacognitive competences while they make nonar-
bitrary and substantive connections between new knowledge and their
cognitive structures both individually and collectively. This requires the
use of general and discipline-specific categories of analysis on the indi-
vidual and collective planes. We need to create situations where students
will make connections to what they already know alone and together with
other peers. For example, in the adaptation of Time for Outrage, students
worked from what they knew about the Occupy Wall Street movement.
This movement was in the news and in social media. Some students had
even joined local groups of protesters. But they had not read the book, and
they did not know what the situation was in Europe. My colleague had
suggested that students read the book together on the stage and that they
discuss ideas to adapt it. In these discussions, students talked about the
spirit of the book, its meaning outside the specific context in which and
for which it was written, and how this book could affect a young couple in
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 121

Europe. They chose to tell the story through the eyes of a twenty-six-year
old Spanish male history graduate, who had been underemployed and un-
employed since he graduated from university and through a twenty-five-
year old Greek female political science graduate, who meet in the mythical
Puerta del Sol during one of the protests. This forced students to make
connections between what they knew about the employment and financial
crisis in North America and the new information they were discovering
about Europe. Students contacted recent graduates and other students in
Spain, Greece, Italy, and other European countries through social media.
They discussed the situation in Europe and how it affected them on a per-
sonal level. The connections they made between new knowledge and their
existing notions of financial crises, resistance, and protest were possible,
among other things, because the new knowledge was within their zone of
proximal development. Another factor that facilitated these connections
was the fact that my colleague introduced the notion of categories of anal-
ysis, which I will analyze in more detail in a later section, to help students
read and discuss academic texts.
More conventional activities to help students resort to higher-order
cognitive competences to make connections to the text include the use of
double-entry journals and reading logs. Table 6.1 lists examples of teach-
ing and learning activities that foster a deep approach to reading.

TABLE 6.1 Deep reading activities.

• The Amazing Race. Students in teams have to run from the classroom to the library, then
to the computer lab, and then back to the classroom. In each of these stops, they have to
analyze academic texts and answer some questions about those texts.
• The Apprentice. Teams have to read some articles and books in order to give a presentation
on a given topic. Teams are given some reading guides that help them evaluate, judge, com-
pare, and synthesize information from these texts. Students then have to make a presentation
to the rest of the class. The worst teams are fired; and the best one is hired.
• Twitter. Students are given a text; and they have to tweet their reactions to the text. Or they
can pretend that they are the author of the text or the subject whom the author discusses.
They have to tweet their comments while they read the text. For example, if students have
to read about a scientific experiment, they can pretend that they are that scientist and they
tweet what that scientist thinks while conducting the experiment and making the discovery.
• Facebook. Students need to create a Facebook profile based on assigned readings and post
information to their wall. For example, if students read about Lucrecia Martel’s films, they
have to choose a character and imagine that character’s favorite songs, films, books, and
friends not explicitly mentioned in the article or film. They also have to like pages and com-
ments that the chosen character may be interested in. Or if students read about the theoretical
models of criminal justice, they have to imagine a criminal justice agent that is enrolled in
one of the theoretical models and build his or her Facebook profile.
122 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 6.1 (Continued)

• Treatment. Students need to read an article on a topic discussed in class. Then, they need to
write a treatment (script outline) for a documentary about the content of the article and pitch
the idea for funding to executives from a film company.
• Double-entry journal. Students take down notes of their readings and enter them in a col-
umn. In a parallel column, students enter their reactions to their readings. These entries may
include comments, questions, connections to their personal experiences, and relations to
other issues discussed in class.
• Concept mapping. Students represent their understanding of a text by producing graphs
that display the relationships between concepts and ideas. Students use concept maps to
link concepts, develop interrelationships, create meaning schemes, connect their previous
experiences, and construct knowledge.
• Reading journals. Students record their comments on the assigned readings in their jour-
nals. Students may react, question, argue, provide additional examples, or write about what
the readings mean to them personally.

6.6 WHOLE GAME

In the previous examples, students’ roles were not restricted to reading

texts and answering questions from their teacher. Students played the
whole game of experts. They immersed themselves in authentic perfor-
mances; they relied on academic texts to achieve a task that they found
highly motivating. They felt the need to read and understand the texts
deeply in order to carry out the proposed task. By encouraging students
to use the theater stage and by providing students with a real audience for
the play, the teacher helped create an air of reality and authenticity, which
increased students’ motivation.

6.7 CONCEPTUAL CHANGE AND SITUATED LEARNING

As a result of their involvement in the adaptation and staging of the play,

students changed their notions of the effects of the contemporary capitalist
crisis and the meaning of resistance and protest. On the individual plane,
their cognitive structures changed. They came to see the protest move-
ments in a different way, and they had new theoretical lens to examine
these movements. On the social plane, students became members of this
movement. Some became more active than others. Students communi-
cated with other members of these groups and joined them in different
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 123

respects. Students also joined the communities of individuals who read

history and political science authors and who discuss these movements
from theoretical and scholarly perspectives. Students could now engage in
conversations with these authors by reading their articles and books.

6.8 EVALUATION

After the staging of the play, the group of students met again on the stage
to reflect about their learning processes and how they had changed as a
result of having gone through this process. My colleague facilitated these
discussions and asked them to write personal reflections about their learn-
ing processes and their impact in their personal lives. For this purpose, she
pretended to be a journalist who interviewed her students by email about
their experiences in adapting the book and staging the play.
Another activity to foster evaluation and reflection of the learning pro-
cess is the use of concept maps. Concept mapping is a technique where
students represent their understanding of a text by producing graphs that
display the relationships between concepts and ideas. Students use concept
maps to link ideas, develop interrelationships, create meaning schemes,
connect their previous experiences, and construct knowledge (Novak,
1984). Barbara Daley (2002) quotes a student who used concept mapping
and explains her experience with this technique: “[it] is a way to take the
idea, apply it, and get a deeper meaning out of it at the very end. It is not
just a matter of learning a concept, learning about theory, defining a word
and spitting back a definition. It is actually applying it to what you know
so that it makes more sense in the actual world.” Concept mapping helps
students understand their own learning and fosters a learning-how-to-learn
approach.

6.9 CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS

Categories of analysis are tools that help readers think, discuss, and inter-
act with academic texts. Some categories of analysis, known as general
categories, apply to virtually any academic reading situation. Apart from
124 Facilitating Deep Learning

these general categories, each discipline has its own specific categories of
analysis, which reflect the particular way experts in a discipline think and
express thought.
General categories of analysis to interact with academic texts include
the following: (i) purpose; (ii) connections to other texts and deconstruc-
tion of assumptions; (iii) context; (iv) author’s thesis; (v) evaluation of the
author’s arguments; and (vi) consequences of the author’s arguments.

6.9.1 PURPOSE

Expert readers approach an academic text with a specific purpose, for ex-
ample, to explore learning theories to improve their teaching practice, to
examine the effects of invasive species in a certain ecosystem, to under-
stand the role of the clergy in medieval Europe, to analyze the formation
of new synapses in the human brain, to understand the application of a
theory, to analyze the use of swimming pool images in Lucrecia Mar-
tel’s films, or to examine the characteristics of dysfunctional families in
Alejandro Casavalle’s theater productions. As novice readers in academic
disciplines, when students—particularly lower-year students—read an
academic text, they do not have a purpose of their own. They read because
their teachers tell them to read. They read because the course syllabus
contains a list of assigned readings. And they read because they will be
tested on the assigned texts. So, we need to create problems, situations,
or questions that students will feel motivated to solve or answer, and for
which finding the solution or answer will create the need to read academic
texts. In this case, students will approach a text in order to do something
other than read the text to comply with external requirements.
Continuing with the previous examples, my students read the law re-
view articles to learn about the legality of comparative advertising. They
needed to know what may and may not be compared legally in order to
design an advertising campaign. My colleague’s students approached the
reading of Time for Outrage to capture the spirit of resistance in the book
and adapt it to a romantic play. In these cases, the texts are a means to
achieve an end that students care about. In traditional Instruction-para-
digm classes, reading academic texts is an end in itself in many cases.
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 125

A useful tool to help students understand the purpose of their reading

is the elaboration of reading guides in the form of questions. The reading
guides help students navigate through the texts and focus on their funda-
mental issues. They may also be helpful to preview the readings in class
and explain their relevance and purpose. But reading guides are effective
only if they are part of the deep learning process. If we simply assign texts
for students to read and give them reading guides, students will still ap-
proach the reading of those texts superficially.

6.9.2 CONNECTIONS TO OTHER TEXTS AND

DECONSTRUCTION OF ASSUMPTIONS

Academic texts are never written in isolation. They have implicit and
explicit connections to other texts. The author refers to other articles or
books in the literature review and elsewhere throughout the texts. Unlike
authors of textbooks specifically designed for the college classroom, the
author of an academic text makes reference to other theories, debates, and
ideas that are part of the discipline without necessarily explaining them for
nonexperts. The author of an academic text writes for other disciplinary
expert readers, that is, peers in the community of knowledge. The expert
reader is fully aware of these conversations and discourses. So, the au-
thor takes for granted that his or her readers know these debates and the
works of other authors that he or she is referring to. Thus, the meaning of
a text does not depend solely on the content of the text itself. It depends
in large part on its relations with these other—prior, contemporary, and
subsequent—discourses (del Rosal, 2009). But students, particularly those
in the lower years who are novices in the discipline, ignore most of these
disciplinary conversations. So, they need to become aware of the impor-
tance of identifying these connections and assumptions and learn how to
deconstruct them. They need to be aware that if they ignore a theory, idea,
or argument that the author is alluding to without explaining it, they need
to consult other texts, such as textbooks, encyclopedias, reference books,
other academic texts, or reliable web sites. This will help them uncover
and understand those ideas and arguments. Similarly, if the author refers to
a debate in the discipline or is responding to another article or book, they
126 Facilitating Deep Learning

need to briefly read about these debates or articles in other publications.

Table 6.2 defines the possible connections of a text with other texts and its
environment. Although some of these connections are genre specific and
may not be present in all academic texts, awareness of these possible con-
nections which a text may have facilitates deep reading.

TABLE 6.2 Connections of a text.

Text The information explicitly provided by the author.

Context The historical, cultural, political, and social background of the text.

Subtext The author’s purpose, agenda, and voice.

Inter text The connections between the text and other texts.
• Horizontal inter text: the connections between the reader and the
writer.
• Vertical inter text: the connections between the text and other texts
(prior, contemporary, and subsequent).

Hypertext The links to other texts or to other parts of the text.

Pre-text The ideological assumptions, that the reader brings to the text.

The repressed text The texts that the author consciously or unconsciously fails to consider and
incorporate in his or her text.

6.9.3 CONTEXT

Understanding the context helps students understand the background, en-

vironment, and circumstances in which the author wrote the text. In order
to analyze the context of any given text, students need to be encouraged to
do some research about the author. They need to understand whether the
author’s opinion usually reflects the mainstream school of thought in the
discipline or whether the author writes from the margins of the discipline
(Carlino, 2008). Students need to analyze the audience of the text as well
as when and where the text was written. In order to truly appreciate the
context, it is helpful to encourage students to read two or three articles
written by the same author. For example, a colleague, who teaches Intro-
duction to Contemporary Philosophy for majors and nonmajors, asked his
students to read an article written by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky wrote
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 127

this article mainly for academic scholars. The article transpires a certain
political agenda, which students find difficult to identify by reading only
this text. My colleague’s students found it useful to read a few articles
that Chomsky wrote on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for a general
educated audience but not necessarily for experts. The themes of these
articles were closer to the students’ experiences and backgrounds. This
helped them get a unique insight into Chomsky’s ideas. When reading the
assigned article, this familiarity with Chomsky’s ideas became very help-
ful in understanding the assigned text. Another important factor in helping
readers become immersed in the deep reading process is knowledge back-
ground. Hirsch refers to this knowledge background as cultural literacy,
which he defines as “the network of information that all competent read-
ers possess. It is the background information, stored in their minds, that
enables them to pick up a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of
comprehension, getting the point, grasping the implications, relating what
they read to the unstated context, which alone gives meaning to what they
read” (Hirsch, 1987).We need to know where students are and help them
both activate and increase their knowledge background. The richer their
knowledge background is, the deeper their understanding and recreation
of the text are.

6.9.4 AUTHOR’S THESIS

Students also need to learn how to identify the author’s thesis, main
claims, and arguments dealing with the issues they are interested in. For
this purpose, it is important to encourage students to try to understand
what the author intends to do. They need to consider whether, for example,
the author intends to challenge an existing position, he or she wants to
examine a variable that previous researchers have missed, or intends to
apply a theory or a concept in a new way. Students need to learn how to
identify the different positions used by the author as well as the arguments
and evidence used to support these positions.
Bean recommends an activity where students are asked to write what a
paragraph says and what it does. This exercise helps students identify the
purpose and function of academic texts (Bean, 1996).
128 Facilitating Deep Learning

6.9.5 EVALUATION OF THE AUTHOR’S ARGUMENTS

One of the most important aspects of reading academic texts is evaluating

the strength or validity of the author’s arguments. Many students, espe-
cially those who are in Perry’s (1970) dualism stage of cognitive develop-
ment or in Belenky’s (1997) silence or received knowledge stages, tend to
see academic texts as authoritative and defer to whatever ideas the texts
express without ever questioning them. Thus, students need to recognize
the importance of not taking the author’s argument at face value; and they
need to learn to challenge the author’s arguments.
For this purpose, we need to help students learn to judge the argu-
ment’s effectiveness in making its claims and considering the evidence the
author offers in support of his or her claims. Students also need to assess
the logical reasoning followed by the author and how to ponder possible
counter-arguments. Furthermore, they need to assess any inconsistencies
of thought and the relevance of examples and evidence.
One reading strategy that usually helps students evaluate the strength
of the author’s thesis and arguments is to focus on the text structure (Col-
lins, 1994). Knowledge of the text structure permits readers to identify the
organization of the text. This, in turn, helps readers see how the author
develops his or her arguments, how he or she makes connections between
arguments, and the hierarchy of these arguments. For example, in many
academic texts—particularly those reporting research studies—topics,
main ideas, and details are organized hierarchically into superordinate, co-
ordinate, and subordinate ideas (Caverly, 1997). Prediction and inference
of the content of the text are also helpful. The reader may anticipate the
content by looking at the title, organization, abstract, and any visual in-
formation, such as charts, tables, and appendixes. This permits the reader
to look for additional information in other texts and skip the parts of the
texts that are not relevant for the reader’s purpose. It also allows readers
to anticipate any gaps in their knowledge, which may lead to comprehen-
sion failures. Solving comprehension failures involves recognizing that as
readers we do not always know everything about a text and that we need
to come up with solutions to deal with these deficiencies. Collins (1994)
identifies the following techniques that readers use to remedy compre-
hension failures: “forming a mental image, rereading, adjusting the rate
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 129

of reading, searching the text to identify unknown words, and predicting

meaning that lies ahead.”
Another factor that helps students evaluate the author’s arguments con-
sists of identifying the hidden or repressed texts. In most academic and
professional texts, the author consciously or unconsciously ignores or fails
to consider other texts such as books, articles, theses, conference presen-
tations, and papers that directly or indirectly deal with the author’s argu-
ments. These other texts may offer a different perspective to the author’s
arguments. They may elaborate upon opposing views. In some cases, these
repressed texts may point to flaws in the arguments under analysis. In oth-
er cases, they may even contradict the author’s arguments. So, uncovering
these repressed texts helps students better assess the author’s arguments
by considering the full spectrum of ideas, theories, and concepts that sur-
round the arguments the author is trying to make.

6.9.6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE AUTHOR’S ARGUMENTS

Finally, it is important to help students consider the nonimmediate conse-

quences of the arguments used by the author. This includes helping stu-
dents reflect about the implications and applications of the author’s thesis.
As for the other categories, it is also necessary to help students make con-
nections to other texts, to relate the arguments to other topics learned in
class, and to relate the author’s arguments to their own experience. For ex-
ample, a colleague who teaches a course on terrorism in a political science
program asks students to read an article on terrorism in the aviation indus-
try where the author proposes a series of measures to prevent terrorist acts.
Although these measures may undoubtedly deter new terrorist attacks, a
careful look at the author’s proposal leads to the—unstated—conclusion
that if this proposal were adopted, very few people would qualify to fly.
So, students usually argue that measures that will exclude the majority of
passengers from flying are not a very sensible way of controlling terror-
ism.
Atwell (2007) cautions that the teaching of these categories of analysis
should not be done at the expense of removing students from what she
refers to as the “reading zone,” a state when readers are captivated by the
130 Facilitating Deep Learning

text. Atwell’s concern is allayed when reading is done in a context of a mo-

tivating problem or question, authentic performances, and the discipline’s
whole game.

6.10 DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC READING STYLES

Each discipline—or to be more precise each community of knowledge-

able peers organized around a discipline or some aspects of a discipline,
or around a discipline in one particular context, such as geographic—
has its own specific way of reading texts. For example, when reading a
medical text describing a patient’s symptoms, the community of knowl-
edgeable peers of American physicians tends to figure out the causes of
those symptoms by the ease with which relevant examples come to mind
(Groopman, 2007). A community of Islamic scholars tends not to question
academic texts, particularly when those are somehow derived from sacred
texts. Method actors, who follow Strasberg’s teachings and Stalisnavsky’s
ideas, have a very distinct way of approaching a text, which differs from
the way actors from other communities of knowledge read texts. Method
actors approach a text by immersing themselves in an intellectual process
of analysis of the character’s motives and goals. They read a text in or-
der to figure out each character’s—unstated—history, motivation, relation
to other characters, and his or her objective in each scene (Stanislavsky,
1936). For communities of knowledge formed by nonmethod actors, such
as those that follow Harold Guskin’s teachings, the process of deep read-
ing is a process of letting words activates the unconscious repertoire of
images, ideas, and thoughts.
[First,]“the actor looks down at the phrase and breathes in and out while he
(sic) reads the words to himself, giving himself time to let the phrase into his
head. Then he looks up from the page and says the line, no longer reading but
speaking. Taking […] time to breath in and out while […] looking down at the
page to read the phrase for [oneself] allows [the reader/actor] to access what-
ever unconscious thoughts or images it evokes” (Guskin, 2003).

Brooke Shields (1987) compares the reading process of scripts with the
making of suits. She argues that actors and directors need to be prepared
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 131

to modify the text if the actor does not feel comfortable with it. Shields
(1987) asserts that “when you put [the text/suit] on an actor you have to
adjust it because it doesn’t necessarily fit.” Guskin (2003) uses a different
metaphor to exemplify the same idea. He equates this reading method with
Freud’s notion of word association.
When reading an academic text, it is important to help students identify
and embrace the reading style of the community of knowledgeable peers
they are trying to join.

6.11 SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS: AN EXAMPLE FROM

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

In order to analyze texts within a certain community of knowledgeable

peers, it is also necessary to employ some categories of analysis that re-
flect the way in which members of that community read texts, think, and
express thoughts. A disciplinary category of analysis is a framework to
evaluate those thoughts and the discourse from within the discipline. As
with general categories of analysis, a disciplinary expert reader has incor-
porated these categories. He or she analyzes an academic text by uncon-
sciously sifting through the text with a colander of categories of analysis.
In order to understand how specific categories of analysis work, let’s
look at an example from the scholarship of teaching and learning. When
reading about pedagogical practices, we can employ categories that can
help us assess the effectiveness of the teaching method, initiative, or prac-
tice analyzed in the text. These categories, which are specific to communi-
ties of knowledgeable peers involved in teaching in higher education, can
include the following categories formulated as questions:
• Does the practice foster a deep approach to learning?
• Does the teaching practice take into account students’existing cogni-
tive structures?
• Does the teaching practice create an adequate cognitive conflict?
• Does the teaching practice help students use higher-order cognitive
skills?
• Does the practice promote metacognition?
• Does the teaching practice intrinsically motivate students?
132 Facilitating Deep Learning

• Does the teaching practice help students discover knowledge by

themselves?
• Does the teaching practice help students make connections to a larg-
er framework?
Shulman’s (2004) signature pedagogy dimensions are also helpful for
this purpose, even if the teaching practice under analysis is not consid-
ered signature. These categories include the analysis of the teaching prac-
tice’s (i) surface structure, that is, the observable behavioral features of
the teaching practice; (ii) deep structure, that is, the underlying intentions,
rationale, or theory that the practice models; (iii) tacit structure, that is, the
values and dispositions that the practice implicitly models; and (v) shadow
structure, that is, the absent aspects of the practice.
These categories of analysis help the reader examine an academic text
on teaching and learning profoundly. In the example, the categories of
analysis help us assess the effectiveness of a teaching method described
in a text. These categories are not to be understood as rigid. For other
texts in the scholarship of teaching and learning, one can think of varia-
tions of these categories and even different categories. Ideally, as students
become more expert readers they should learn to formulate their own spe-
cific questions and to reformulate and adapt these categories of analysis to
their specific purposes.

6.12 GENERAL STUDY STRATEGIES

The use of general study techniques also helps students read texts deeply,
provided they are taught within a deep reading context and not merely as
isolated tools. Effective readers employ a myriad of useful general study
techniques when reading. These include: underlying, highlighting, making
notes on the text, drawing, taking notes, producing outlines, transcribing
main ideas, and crossing out irrelevant information. Like the categories
of academic text reading, these general strategies need to be taught and
practiced in the university and college classroom. A popular method that
helps practice some—but not all—of these strategies is known as SQ3R.
First, students learn to survey a text; that is, they have a quick glance at
the title, summary, and conclusion in order to have a general idea of the
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 133

content of the text. Then they formulate questions about the main aspects
of the text. After that, students read the text—or a part of it—to look for
the answers to these questions. Finally, they recite the answers to these
questions, that is, they paraphrase the answers, write them down, and think
of the implications and consequences of those answers. A variation of this
method includes the addition of other steps, such as relating, or, making
connections, reviewing the answers to those questions, and writing about
these answers. Research studies show that although this method may be
effective, students achieve deeper reading levels when all strategies are
taught simultaneously and several methods are combined (Hermida, 2009;
1997; Munro, 2003).

6.13 CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT

Another factor that helps promote a deep reading environment is construc-

tive alignment. As discussed before, John Biggs proposes aligned teaching
to foster a deep approach to reading and learning. In aligned teaching, “the
objectives define what we should be teaching, how we should be teaching
it; and how we could know how well students have learned it” (Biggs and
Tang, 2007). So, in order to promote a deep approach to reading, we need
to design a course where the main goals should be to encourage students
to take a deep approach to reading, to use higher-order cognitive and meta-
cognitive skills to understand and process academic texts, and to negotiate
meanings with the author of academic texts. It is important to make those
goals explicit to students, as most students tend to see only information as
the sole content of courses (Herteis, 2007). Similarly, as students tend to
value what happens in class over what takes place outside class, we should
give time for students to read in class. Otherwise, students may perceive
that reading academic texts is a marginal activity done only in isolation.
In order to promote students to take a deep approach to reading, the
teaching and learning activities have to be designed in consonance with
the proposed goals. If, for example, we lecture from the textbooks, stu-
dents will probably not read the texts, as they will rely solely on our oral
explanations and the notes they take from these lectures (Hermida, 2009).
The evaluation has to measure whether students use higher-order cognitive
134 Facilitating Deep Learning

skills to read assigned materials, whether they can effectively negotiate

meanings with the author, whether they can evaluate the strength of the
author’s arguments, whether they can deconstruct hidden assumptions in
the texts, and whether they can see the nonimmediate implications and ap-
plications of the author’s arguments (Carlino, 1999).
However, as discussed earlier, aligned teaching should not become an
inflexible and rigid tool. We should make room in our classes for oblique,
indirect, and incidental learning through reading. We should also allow
students ample opportunities to freely formulate their own reading and
learning goals.

TABLE 6.3 Media literacy: Learning to produce and interpret media texts.
Media texts
The revolution in media and global communications in the last few decades has transformed the
way we apprehend reality, the way we express thought, and the way we communicate. It has also
shaken the structure of societies globally. In addition, it has radically altered the dissemination and
production of information and knowledge.
Media texts are pervasive in the professions and academic disciplines. At a general level, media
texts influence and even define key concepts of the disciplines and professions. For example, media
texts contribute to define the public notion of health. There is a perceived expectation among both
the general public and health professionals that the ideal healthy body must conform to images
routinely shown in Hollywood films, American television shows, and fashion magazines. At a more
specific level, members of the knowledgeable communities use social media, online articles, blogs,
documentaries, and TV news programs to construct knowledge and negotiate meanings.
Media Literacy
Media literacy places audiovisual and other media languages at the forefront of classroom teaching
and not as mere supplements to traditional classroom and print-based education. Media literacy is
“the process of critically analyzing and learning to create one’s own messages – in print, audio,
video, and multimedia, with emphasis on the learning and teaching of these skills through using
mass media texts” (Hobbs, 1998). It also includes the cognitive and affective processes involved
in viewing and producing audiovisual materials. Media literacy recognizes the unique advantages
that audiovisual media have as powerful transforming tools. When used as a tool in the classroom,
the power of audiovisual media enables a level of interactivity and critical thinking not seen in
traditional schooling (Goldfarb, 2002).
Media Literacy and Media Texts at the Margins of University and College Education
The Instruction-paradigm universities and colleges were laid in an era of nearly total print domi-
nance. The central educational concepts articulated were print-centered, where the main objective
has been to transmit knowledge contained in books and articles in the form of lectures for students
to reproduce in print form through exams and essays.
Although there is a history of media education in Europe and North America that dates back to the
end of the Second World War, media education has been at the margins of formal university and
college teaching. Media literacy was developed in primary and secondary schools, as well as
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 135

TABLE 6.3 (Continued)

in vocational schools. In the last two decades, pedagogical authors have been advocating for the
development of media literacy across the university and college curricula (Goldfarb, 2002; Hobbs,
1998). However, at the university setting, media literacy was relegated to some communications
or film studies programs. It has not yet entered the curriculum in the majority of disciplines. Very
few teachers regularly help students learn the conventions of media language in their disciplines.
The Importance of Teaching Media within the Disciplines
Members of knowledgeable communities are involved in the production and analysis of media texts
in a wide array of academic disciplines and professional fields. These texts have both a general
common language and a specific language that is unique to each discipline and field.
Because of the importance that media has in these fields, the university and college curricula should
include the teaching of media literacy. Teaching the conventions of media language, alongside the
analysis of substantive disciplinary contents, gives students the necessary tools to both “read” and
produce media texts. From a pedagogical point of view, a focus on media texts motivates students,
who are immersed in a visually and-technologically oriented culture. At the same time, this helps
students acquire the skills, competences, and practices that are necessary to become fully fledged
members of the communities of knowledgeable peers that they aspire to join.

6.14. SUMMARY

Learning how to read academic texts deeply requires the same actions
needed to learn any other task in a profound way. The deep reading pro-
cess begins with a careful evaluation of the learner’s cognitive structure.
Then, it needs the creation of an interesting and motivating problem, situ-
ation, or question that produces a cognitive conflict in the students. This
cognitive conflict, which derives from interaction with peers, must lead
students to feel that they need to interact with academic texts in a profound
way by discussing texts together with their peers and by making nonarbi-
trary and substantive connections between new knowledge and their exist-
ing cognitive structures. These connections must activate students’ higher-
order cognitive and metacognitive competences, which requires the use of
general and discipline-specific categories of analysis on the individual and
collective planes.
Categories of analysis are tools that help readers analyze an academic
text. General categories of analysis apply to any academic reading situa-
tion. These include: (i) purpose; (ii) connections to other texts and decon-
struction of assumptions; (iii) context; (iv) author’s thesis; (v) evaluation
of the author’s arguments; and (vi) consequences of the author’s argu-
ments. Apart from these general categories, each discipline has its own
136 Facilitating Deep Learning

specific categories of analysis, which reflect the way experts in those dis-
ciplines think and read.
The deep reading process is possible only if students are intrinsically
motivated to engage in this process. Helping students play the whole game
of disciplinary experts facilitates their intrinsic motivation. Engagement in
this process leads to conceptual change and a move from one community
of knowledgeable peers to another one or from the periphery of a com-
munity to its center. For the change to be meaningful, it requires a careful
evaluation of the whole process.
When we design an aligned course that places academic reading at the
forefront of the course and encourage students’ interaction with academic
texts through categories of analysis and general study strategies in a deep
learning environment, students tend to take a deep approach to reading.
The next chapter will deal with writing. It will examine both how to
write in order to learn deeply and how to learn to write deeply.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Think of a course you are teaching or one that you have recently
taught. What specific changes could you introduce to promote a
deep approach to reading? How can you motivate students to take
a deep approach to reading?
2. Each community of knowledgeable peers has a particular way of
reading academic texts. For example, social workers read texts dif-
ferently than physicians. Engineers read texts differently than lin-
guists. How do members of your discipline read an academic text?
Think of your own approach to an academic text in your discipline
or specialized field. Try to identify what you do and what you think
when reading a text. What are the specific categories of analysis in
your discipline or area? Can you formulate these categories in the
form of questions?
3. As suggested in Table 6.3, apart from reading books and articles,
one can also read films and other media texts. Are there any films
or other media texts in your discipline or about your discipline that
have a discipline-specific language or categories of analysis? How
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 137

can you help students develop media literacy in your academic dis-
cipline or professional field?
4. Soccer players and coaches “read” a soccer match. They can “read”
what their opponents are doing, the players’ tasks and functions,
changes in ball possession, and what strategies the opposing team
is following to attack and defend, among many other issues. Think
of your favorite sport (or another sport if soccer is your favorite
one). Watch a game and discuss how to “read” the game. What
specific categories of analysis can you come up with in order to
“read” the game? How can you use the analogy of “reading” a
sports game in the college or university classroom?
5. Think of international students with limited fluency in English tak-
ing a course in your discipline together with native speakers of
English. What strategies can you adopt so as to encourage the non-
native speakers to read academic texts deeply in English?
6. Learning is both an individual and a collective enterprise. Design
collaborative reading activities so that students can read together
and negotiate meanings collectively in your discipline.
7. In The Actor Speaks, Patsy Rodenburg (2000) describes the mean-
ing of “owning words” as a process of knowing words “on three
different levels: in the head, in the heart and then in the whole
body.” As part of this process, an actor knows words deeply and
thoroughly and can feel words coming to him or her from different
places. How can you know words (and a text) on these three levels?
Is it possible to own words while reading an academic text outside
the realm of theater and literature? What does owning words mean
in your discipline or in your specific area of specialization? Is own-
ing words part of the deep learning process?
8. How can you incorporate social media to help students read aca-
demic texts deeply? Think of an article or a series of articles you
want your students to read and a corresponding activity involving
social media.
9. Evaluating the author’s arguments is an essential aspect of deep
reading. Suppose you teach an introductory course in your dis-
cipline for first-year students. All of these students are in Perry’s
(1970) dualism stage and in Belenky’s (1997) silence stage. How
138 Facilitating Deep Learning

can you help these students challenge an author’s arguments in an

academic text in your discipline? What can you do so that students
will approach the text in a deep fashion?
10. In the Los Angeles version of the play Leap of Faith, written by
Janus Cercone and Glenn Slater and directed by Rob Ashford,
Marla McGowan, signs the song I Can Read You like an Open
Book. What do you think the song means? Can you “read” a per-
son? If so, how? What role, if any, plays System 1 thinking in
“reading” people? What role, if any, plays System 2 thinking in
“reading” people? What signals can you look for in order to “read”
people? Should universities and colleges teach students how to
“read” people? Should you teach how to “read” people in your dis-
cipline? If so, how can you teach students to “read” people deeply?

KEYWORDS

• academic reading
• academic skills
• academic texts
• categories of analysis
• constructive alignment
• deep learning
• deep reading
• deep reading activities
• discipline-specific categories of analysis
• general categories of analysis
• general study strategies
• media literacy
• reading styles
• surface reading
Academic Reading and Deep Learning 139

REFERENCES

Bain, K. What the Best College Students Do; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2012.

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Bain, K.; Zimmerman, J. Understanding Great Teaching. Peer Review 2009, 11, 9.

Bean, J. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1996.

Belenky, M.; Clinchy, B.; Goldberger, N.; Tarule, J. Women’s ways of knowing: The develop-
ment of self, mind, and voice; Basic Books: New York, 1997.

Biggs, J. What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research
and Development, 1999, 18. 1.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (2000) University of Learning. London: Routledge.

Carlino, F. Evaluación Educacional: Historia, Problemas. Aique: Buenos Aires, 1999.

Carlino, P. Do we write only to teach how to write? Tools to write in foreign language courses.
Textos. Didáctica de la lengua y de la literatura, 2008, 49.

Carlino, P. Escribir, Leer y Aprender en la Universidad. Una Introducción a la Alfabetización

Académica; Fondo de Cultura Económica: Buenos Aires, 2005.
Caverly, D. Teaching Reading in a Learning Assistance Center, Proceedings of the 17th and 18th
Annual Institutes for Learning Assistance Professionals, Tucson, AZ, 1996–1997, 27–42,
University of Arizona: University Learning Center, 1997.

Erickson, B. L., Peters, C. B.; Strommer, D. W. Teaching First-Year College Students; Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco, 2006.

Gabriel, K. Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in
Higher Education; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, 2008.

Gibbs, G. Improving the quality of student learning; Technical and Educational Services: Bris-
tol, 1992.

Groopman, J. How Doctors Think; Houghton Mifflin Company:New York, 2007.

Guskin, H. How to Stop Acting; Faber and Faber: New York, 2003.
140 Facilitating Deep Learning

Hermida, J. Strategies to Promote a Deep Approach to Reading. Tomorrow’s Professor Digest,

2009, 31, 3 (b).

Hermida, J. The Importance of Teaching Academic Reading Skills in First-Year University

Courses.Proceedings of the Association of Atlantic Universities Teaching Showcase, 2009.
Herteis, E. Content Conundrums. PAIDEIA: Teaching and Learning at Mount Allison Univer-
sity, 2007, 3,1.

Hessel, S. Time for Outrage; Twelve: New York, 2011.

Hirsch, E. D. Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know; Houghton Mifflin: Boston:
1987.

Hunt, R. A. Reading and Writing for Real: Why it Matters for Learning. Atlantic Universities’
Teaching Showcase, 2004, 137–146.

Light, R. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2001.

Marton, F.; Säljö, R. On Qualitative Differences in Learning — 1: Outcome and Process.”British

Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, 46, 4.

Millis, B.J. Using Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) to Promote Student Learning,
Oklahoma Higher Education Teaching and Learning Conference, Oklahoma, April 9–11,
2008.

Munro, J. What Learning Means. International Journal of Learning, 2003, 10.

Novak, J.; Gowin, B. Learning How to Learn; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA,
1984.

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.

Perry, W. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Hold,
Rinehart and Winston: Troy, Mo, 1970.

Rodenburg, P. The Actor Speaks; Palgrave MacMillan: New York, 2000.

Shields, B. The Initiation. From Innocence to Experience: The Pre-Adolescent/Adolescent Jour-

ney in the Films of Louis Malle, Pretty Baby and Lacombe Lucien,B.A. Thesis, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ, 1987.

Stanislavski, C. An Actor Prepares; Theatre Arts: New York, 1936.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.
Wendling, B. Why is there Always Time for Their Facebook but not my Textbook?, Oklahoma
Higher Education Teaching and Learning Conference, Oklahoma, April 9–11, 2008.
CHAPTER 7

DEEP WRITING
If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.
— ELMORE LEONARD

CONTENTS

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 142

7.2 Connection between Writing and Learning ................................. 142
7.3 Writing to Learn Deeply .............................................................. 145
7.4 Students’ Attitude about Writing.................................................. 146
7.5 Teaching Students How to Write Academic Texts ....................... 147
7.6 The Problem or Situation ............................................................. 149
7.7 Reasons for not Engaging in a Process of Changing Writing
Styles ............................................................................................ 149
7.8 Higher-Order Cognitive Processes, Skills, and Competences:
Encouraging Revision .................................................................. 151
7.9 Playing the Whole Game of Expert Writers: Real Readers ......... 154
7.10 Absence of Grades ....................................................................... 156
7.11 Fighting with Your Neighbors ..................................................... 156
7.12 Collaborative Learning ................................................................ 158
7.13 Teacher Feedback and Metacognition ......................................... 158
7.14 Problems with Teachers’ Comments ............................................ 159
7.15 Summary ...................................................................................... 161
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 162
Keywords .............................................................................................. 164
References ............................................................................................. 165
142 Facilitating Deep Learning

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Until the 1970s, writing had traditionally been relegated to the margins of
university and college instruction. Academic writing was a pervasive ac-
tivity, but teachers did not pay any attention to the writing process in their
classes. They simply requested students to write essays for exams and as-
signments and to write for occasional projects without actually teaching
students how to write. Teaching writing was the responsibility of college
composition and English classes for first-year students.
With the writing across the curriculum movement in the 1970s and
1980s in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries, writ-
ing became the focus of much attention in higher education. Today, many
teachers usually refer to writing as an essential skill that students need to
master. Few, however, actually teach writing in a way that helps students
learn deeply how to write. Still fewer teachers effectively teach students
how to write in order to learn deeply.
In this chapter, I will first analyze the connection between writing and
deep learning. I will then discuss what we can do to help students write
to learn deeply in our disciplines. Finally, I will explore strategies to help
students learn deeply how to write academic texts in the disciplines.

7.2 CONNECTION BETWEEN WRITING AND LEARNING

There is a heated debate about whether or not writing produces learn-

ing and whether deep learning necessitates an instance of writing, that
is, whether writing texts leads to deep learning and whether students can
learn deeply without writing. Janet Emig (1977) argues that writing consti-
tutes a unique mode of learning. She claims that “writing serves learning
uniquely because writing as a process-and product possesses a cluster of
attributes that correspond uniquely to certain powerful learning strategies.
Higher cognitive functions, such as analysis and synthesis, seem to devel-
op most fully only with the support system of verbal language—particu-
larly, it seems, written language.” Emig’s claims gave rise to a movement
known as Writing to Learn. Its main tenet is that writing enhances learning
(Durst and Newell, 1989). Although this proposition is quite attractive,
Deep Writing 143

empirical research has not demonstrated the validity of its claim (Acker-
man, 1993; Newell, 1998). There are some studies that show that in cer-
tain specific circumstances writing can help improve the learning process.
However, there are other studies—sometimes even conducted by the same
researchers—that show contradictory results (Klein, 1999).
There are four models that try to explain the connection between writ-
ing and learning (Klein, 1999). Two of the following four models appear
to help writers learn deeply, at least under some circumstances:
• Point-of-utterance model: writers spontaneously generate knowl-
edge without planning and revision. In the point of utterance model,
the writer simply writes whatever was already on his or her mind,
almost as if he or she were speaking. This model coincides with Be-
reiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) knowledge-telling approach. The
basic steps include the mental representation of the writing task, the
generation of topic identifiers, and the use of these topic identifiers
as cues to retrieve information through a process of “spreading acti-
vation.” The writer tends to retrieve and write down all the ideas he
or she has, until the use of the cues is exhausted. At the same time,
the writer draws on appropriate identifiers of discourse knowledge to
match the task (e.g., opinion essay). The knowledge-telling model,
although appropriate for routine writing tasks, does not foster the
generation of new knowledge, because it relies on already estab-
lished connections between content elements and readily available
discourse knowledge. From a biological perspective, it does not gen-
erate new neuronal connections in the brain. The point-of-utterance
model does not promote learning and does not result in any concep-
tual change (Gonyea and Anderson, 2009).
• Forward-search model: writers externalize ideas in text, reread the
text, and then make new inferences based on the text. This model
does not lead to deep learning, either. In this model, the writer pol-
ishes the coherence and consistency of the text, but there is no fun-
damental change in the writer’s cognitive structure.
• Genre model: writers use genre structures to organize relation-
ships among discursive elements of the text and connect elements
of knowledge. “A genre is distinguished by a rhetorical intention,
expressed through discourse elements that form particular relation-
ships with one another” (Klein, 1999). Each discipline implements
genre in its own distinctive way, with different norms about discursive
144 Facilitating Deep Learning

elements. Klein (1999) himself recognizes that not all genres force
writers to engage in a deep learning process. Even within those
genres that promote deeper understandings, students have to adopt
the goal of composing a text in that specific genre, and they have to
implement a strategy involving higher-order cognitive skills to real-
ize this goal in order to produce new knowledge. Similarly, Gonyea
and Anderson (2009) find that the genre-based model emphasizes
the reorganization of existing knowledge rather than the production
of a conceptual change in the students’ cognitive structures.
• Backwards-search model: writers set rhetorical goals. They de-
rive content subgoals from rhetorical goals and problem-solving
goals from content goals.The backward-search model explains the
creation of rhetorically good writing and may lead to deep learn-
ing in certain circumstances. This model is similar to Bereiter and
Scardamalia’s (1987) knowledge-transforming model. When writers
engage in the knowledge-transforming model of writing, they in-
crease their knowledge acquisition through content-processing and
discourse-processing interaction. In the content space, the problems
of knowledge and beliefs are considered, whereas in the discourse
space, the problems of how to express the content are considered.
The output from each space serves as input for the other, so that
questions concerning language and syntax choice reshape the mean-
ing of the content, and efforts to express the content direct the ongo-
ing composition. It is this interaction between the problem spaces
that provides the stimulus for reflection in writing. The dynamic
relationship between the content space and the rhetorical space in
the knowledge-transforming model may lead to instances of deep
learning.
These models show that when writing is articulated as a cognitive strat-
egy, such as in some types of the genre model and in the backward-search
model, students may profit from writing in order to learn deeply (Klein,
1999). Similarly, Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) knowledge-transfor-
mation model may contribute to deep learning. Bazerman (2009) argues
that “it is not simply the act of writing that leads to learning. […] Learning
takes place because of the practices that are engaged as one produces the
text. The produced text itself is not that relevant.” So, although it may not
be affirmed that all writing leads to learning or that there may be no deep
learning without an instance of production in writing, these arguments
Deep Writing 145

show that when writing is embedded in a deep learning process, it may

enhance the quality of learning. It is not the amount of writing that matters
when it comes to achieving the higher-order learning goals. Instead, it is
the amount of writing that promotes deep learning that actually matters.
The inconclusiveness of research on the relation between writing and
learning also shows that writing in itself is not an essential aspect of the
discovery and construction of knowledge. In other words, someone can
learn a discipline deeply without routinely engaging in writing. This con-
clusion is supported by those studies that found deep learning where there
was not an instance of production of knowledge in writing (Marton and
Saljo, 1976).

7.3 WRITING TO LEARN DEEPLY

What can we do in the classroom to use writing to enhance the learning

process? There are various writing formats and types of texts that have
shown to enhance learning. Learning can profit from writing if writing
takes place within the deep learning context and process that I have dis-
cussed throughout the book. This implies that in order to be effective,
students must be presented with a problem, situation, or question that gen-
erates a cognitive conflict (that arises from interaction with peers) between
the new knowledge embedded in the situation, problem, or question and
the students’ cognitive structure, which the learner is motivated to solve.
In order to resolve that conflict, the learner must make—nonarbitrary and
substantive—connections between the new knowledge (which must be
within the learner’s zone of proximal development) and the learner’s prior
cognitive structure. While doing so, the learner must employ higher-order
cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, and competences both at the
individual and collective levels.
To illustrate this point, I will refer to my own experience in using writ-
ing to solve a problem. A few years ago, I was invited to lead a full-week
educational development workshop abroad for full-time faculty in the
sciences. I mentioned the importance of including an instance of writing
production in our sessions so that participants could learn deeply about an
aspect of teaching and learning. Kaitlyn, who had invited me to lead this
146 Facilitating Deep Learning

workshop, was hesitant about this and did not want me to ask participants
to do a writing project. Kaitlyn showed me some research results reported
in the literature indicating that writing does not lead to learning (those that
I cited earlier, but which at that time I ignored). I mentioned to Kaitlyn that
there were other studies showing the opposite results. But I must admit
that I was intrigued about Kaitlyn’s argument and the line of research she
referred to. So, I promised her that I would look into the articles she told
me about and that I would report the results of my research back to her and
the workshop participants before asking them to do a writing project. So, I
had a problem that I was very motivated to solve: whether writing always
leads to deep learning or not. I carefully read the articles that Kaitlyn had
given me. While reading them, I made notes. My notes were not verbatim.
I wrote the gist of each article; I also made connections to the articles I
had read and my own experience as a teacher and educational developer.
While making these connections, I critically evaluated the research find-
ings, I challenged the authors’ claims, I compared the research findings, I
formulated some hypotheses, and I came up with some preliminary theo-
ries. I wanted to report back my analysis of the research findings and my
theories to the workshop participants. So, I wrote workshop notes, follow-
ing a style that I find interesting to communicate to teachers in educational
development events. While writing my analysis and conclusions, I went
back to the articles. After I finished the notes, I reread them. I noticed some
inconsistencies. I called Kaitlyn, and we had a lengthy discussion. I also
had conversations with other colleagues. Then, I felt that I needed to read
some research studies that Kaitlyn had not given me. I revised the text
again and incorporated the ideas I had while discussing and reading the
new material. I finally came up with a text that I could share with Kaitlyn
and the workshop participants about my new understanding of the prob-
lem, that is, that writing does not always enhance learning, but it may do
so if writing is embedded in the deep learning process.

7.4 STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE ABOUT WRITING

In a study of the attitudes and activities of Harvard University students,

Richard Light (2001) argues that students value good writing and suggestions
Deep Writing 147

to improve it. They particularly appreciate courses that emphasize writing.

However, this conclusion is not found in other studies focusing on non-
elite universities and colleges. For most students—and faculty—writing
is painful. They tend to avoid writing and postpone it until the deadline.
Most experience writer’s block and feel frustrated when writing (Boice,
2000).
These feelings are exacerbated when students read teachers’ comments
on their papers. Teachers tend to read students’ papers as if they were final
products for publication. Teachers respond to most writing as if it were a
final draft, thus reinforcing an extremely constricted notion of composing.
As I will develop later in this chapter, these comments often reflect the
application of a single ideal standard rather than criteria that take into ac-
count how composing constraints can affect writing performance. Further-
more, teachers’ marks and comments usually take the form of abstract and
vague prescriptions and directives that students find difficult to interpret.
These comments rarely seem to expect students to revise the text beyond
the surface level. These responses to texts give students a very limited and
limiting notion of writing, for they fail to provide students with the un-
derstanding that writing involves producing a text that evolves over time.
For these reasons, many students dread writing papers for university and
college.

7.5 TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO WRITE ACADEMIC TEXTS

In this section, I will discuss the process of how to help our students learn
to write in the disciplines we teach. Here, the writing is the specific target,
not the discipline’s content.
Students learn how to write in the same way they learn other com-
petences, skills, and practices. But, writing—like many other complex
processes—presents also some specific issues that need to be taken into
account.
In order to learn how to master disciplinary writing deeply, students
need to be faced with a problem or situation, that their current disciplinary
literacy level is not sufficient to solve or to effectively deal with the situa-
tion faced, that is, students’ writing is the problem and the new knowledge
148 Facilitating Deep Learning

arising from the problem or situation is about a different writing style (or
a higher level of writing) that students have not yet mastered. Addition-
ally, students need to be motivated to do something about this conflict.
The challenge—in this case learning to write at the new disciplinary lev-
el—must be within the students’ zone of proximal development. While
working to solve this conflict, students need to make—nonarbitrary and
substantive—connections between the new writing genre and style and
their current writing style. This process must encourage students to use
higher-order cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, practices, and
competences. Students also need to negotiate meanings collectively with
their peers. They also need to reflect about the process of the construction
of their new disciplinary literacy and the resulting conceptual changes. For
example, a colleague of mine teaches a Communications Systems course
in an electrical and computer engineering undergraduate program. His stu-
dents were motivated to discuss the possible changes to energy efficiency
standards for information and communications technology equipment
that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) was considering.
The ITU in Geneva launched an invitation to stakeholders from across
industry and civil society to provide input about the changes in energy-
efficiency standards. My colleague’s students were particularly interested
in providing input about the energy-efficiency metrics and measurement
methods for small networking equipment used in homes and small enter-
prises. So, my colleague encouraged them to make a written presentation
to the ITU. The students worked hard on the content and submitted their
report to the ITU. An ITU officer contacted the students. He told them that
he was impressed with their work, but he had to reject their presentation,
because it did not comply with many—discursive—formalities. Their
teacher explained to the students that their writing style did not coincide
with the style usually used in industry communications with international
intergovernmental organizations. So, students decided to resubmit their
presentation. They asked their teacher for presentations to standardization
processes. Students deconstructed, analyzed, and discussed the language
style of these presentations. Students compared them with the format and
style of their original presentation. They made changes. They read them
several times. They made revisions and discussed their changes. Then,
they gave a new draft to their teacher. Students expressly asked the teacher
Deep Writing 149

to comment on the language of the presentation. The teacher gave them

feedback, which students incorporated. Then, students submitted the new
version of their proposal, which was accepted. Finally, the teacher helped
students reflect about their learning process. Students reconstructed every
step they took until they submitted the new version of the proposal. They
even reflected about the conventions of presentations related to standard-
ization matters.
Now let’s break down the process of helping our students write in a
number of steps; as well, let’s analyze each of these steps, as we did earlier
with the deep learning process.

7.6 THE PROBLEM OR SITUATION

Expert academic writers generally engage in writing in order to find a

solution to a problem (Bean, 1996). Designing a problem for our students
to solve is one of the most important elements of teaching writing. The
problem has to attract students’ attention. Students need to care enough to
want to resolve the problem. The problem has to lead students to recognize
that their existing literacy skills and knowledge are not sufficient to solve
the problem or face the situation.

7.7 REASONS FOR NOT ENGAGING IN A PROCESS OF

CHANGING WRITING STYLES

When faced with a problem or situation that requires students to change

the way they write, students may or may not engage in a process of learn-
ing to write differently. In other words, they may or may not adopt the
goal of composing a text in a new genre (Klein, 1999). There are several
reasons for this phenomenon, which are worth exploring.
First, the problem or situation that we create to help students change
their writing styles may not deal with a situation that leads students to re-
alize that they need to change the way they write. This happens when, for
example, a teacher assigns students a situation where they have to resolve
a problem or express their opinions, or even research a theory. These are
150 Facilitating Deep Learning

all issues that may lead to student learning if appropriately embedded in

the deep learning process, but students will not necessarily change the way
they write to solve a problem, express their opinion, or research a theory if
the task in question does not help them see that they need to modify their
writing. Students tend to believe that they can already write clearly and ef-
fectively. After all, they have been writing since they were in grade school.
So, the problem or situation must lead them to discover that the way they
write is in fact ineffective to accomplish the task.
Second, the problem may not be motivating enough for students to
want to engage in a process of changing their writing. Recall that Ken
Bain (2004) argues that students will embark on a deep learning process
only if they face a problem, question, or situation that they find significant,
intriguing or beautiful. Students need to come to understand for them-
selves the importance of changing their writing. One of the most powerful
motivating factors is when students feel the need to become part of the
community of knowledgeable peers or, as Smith (1988) puts it, to join the
club. For example, when I taught twelfth-grade English as a foreign lan-
guage in South America in an all boys’ high school, I designed an activity
where students were matched with pen pals from the United States. Those
boys who were matched with girls found that their writing was not enough
to impress these girls, which all wanted to do. So, they worked hard at
improving the way they wrote in English.
Third, the new level of writing may be outside the students’ zone of
proximal development. For example, in a first-year college course, stu-
dents who still write as high school students may not all of a sudden write
like experienced disciplinary experts. This literacy level is completely out-
side their zone of proximal development. We need to carefully evaluate
the writings level of our students and take them gradually to higher levels
within their zones of proximal development.
Fourth, the cognitive conflict does not arise from social interaction.
Students need to come to the realization that their writing capabilities are
not effective to deal with the situation or problem through interaction with
their peers. When the conflict is perceived as purely individual or exclu-
sively as something induced by the teacher, it will not produce the desired
effect of encouraging students to embark on a deep learning process to
change their approach to writing.
Deep Writing 151

Fifth, the problem or situation is not clear for students, or it gives so

many instructions that it restricts students’ freedom to engage in meaningful
writing. We need to define boundaries clearly. “Good assignments clearly
define the boundaries within which students are free to write. Writers must
have some freedom to take positions, develop ideas, and choose language
that communicates what they have to say. Freedom becomes meaningful
and constructive only within boundaries, and unclear boundaries tend to
restrict freedom by making every move seem potentially a wrong move”
(Gottschalk and Hjortshoj, 2003). Gottschalk and Hjortshoj (2003) cau-
tion us about the inclusion of counterproductive clarifications in writing
assignments. They argue that “teachers often obscure the boundaries of
an assignment by offering suggestions, hints, examples, and clarifications
that imply a hidden agenda and thus qualify the freedom that they have
previously defined. Students should know where your role as the teacher
ends and where their roles, choices, and responsibilities as writers begin.”
Finally—and this applies to every single step of the teaching writ-
ing process—deep learning will not occur if the teacher does not create a
stress-free, safe, and enjoyable climate. An encouraging and trusting en-
vironment is essential for any learning endeavor. If teachers do not care
about their students, if they do not trust that they can achieve the fullest
potential, and if they do not hold very high expectations of their students,
then students will probably not embark on the challenging deep learning
process.

7.8 HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE PROCESSES, SKILLS, AND

COMPETENCES: ENCOURAGING REVISION

Expert writers engage in several cognitive activities while writing. After

having identified a problem, expert writers obtain data from other sourc-
es, interview people, talk to colleagues, make notes, write several drafts,
reread their drafts, revise, take some time off to think about their ideas,
and make new revisions (Bean, 1996). These activities usually imply that
writers employ higher-order cognitive skills, such as reading critically,
analyzing, applying, evaluating, and theorizing. Expert writers also edit
their drafts, but they generally do so when they consider that their drafts
152 Facilitating Deep Learning

are ready to be published. Editing for spelling, punctuation, grammar, and

even sentence structure does not require the use of higher-order cognitive
skills and competences.
We need to encourage students to engage in the process of critically
analyzing the problem, finding a solution, writing, rereading, revising, and
reformulating their ideas in writing, because this is the process that expert
writers follow to write effectively. Students need to learn how to embrace
this process in order to be able to write as experts.
The problem with many students is that they tend not to engage in this
process. Students tend to consider that their first draft is the last one and
that this draft is ready to be handed in to the teacher, who, after all, will
know what it means. So, students’ first and only drafts usually look like
the first drafts of expert writers, that is, there is no clear solution to the
problem, thoughts are disconnected, the organization is poor, and there
are many editing problems. The main difference is that the first drafts of
expert writers are drafts that only the writers read; these drafts will un-
dergo several layers of revisions in ideas, focus, structure, organization,
and even spelling and grammar. Table 7.1 shows the very first draft of this
chapter. As you can see, it is full of mistakes, inconsistencies, unfinished
ideas, and structural problems.
So, it is very important to help students understand the importance of
rereading and making extensive revisions. How can we do this? First, we
need to bear in mind that there are two kinds of revisions: (i) personal
revisions, where the expert writers revise their drafts before submission to
an editor for publication, and (ii) editor-or reviewer-mandated revisions,
where the expert writer must incorporate the suggestions and make the
changes indicated by the editors and reviewers. “Most experienced writers
revise their work extensively as a malleable substance before they submit
a complete draft” (Sommers, 1982). Once expert writers feel that their
work is ready for the readers to read, they submit it for publication. In
academia, most publications need to be peer reviewed. And in commercial
literature, most publications have to be approved by several editors. Peer
reviewers and editors usually offer many suggestions for changes. After
all, it is their job to do so. Many expert writers are reluctant to introduce
these changes. Not because they are nonsensical—although anyone who
has submitted a manuscript to a journal or publisher knows that in many
Deep Writing 153

cases they are—but because the expert writer feels that he or she has al-
ready decided that the text is done. The writer had finished the text before,
when he or she sent it for publication. Nancy Sommers (1982) refers to this
moment as the point in which the text solidifies. At this point, the text is no
longer malleable. It is solid. Except for a few typos here and there, expert
writers refuse to revise the text. Most still do, of course, as otherwise their
texts will not be published. But, they do so reluctantly without much effort
and, in many cases, without employing those higher-order cognitive and
metacognitive processes that they did employ while revising their texts
before they solidified. “Student writing, by contrast, solidifies at the mo-
ment it hits the page. The student has never lingered in the first stage of
writing during which revision usually takes place for experienced writers”
(Sommers, 1982). This problem is compounded by the type of suggestions
we usually offer our students for revision. Nancy Sommers (1982) vividly
exemplifies this process: “when we simply give students the opportunity
to revise their papers without little guidance, they tend to make only cos-
metic changes. When we offer detailed suggestions, students confine their
revisions to the changes we recommend, leaving us in the awkward posi-
tion of evaluating the fruits of our own labor. Peer reviews from other stu-
dents often yield superficial revisions.” So, Sommers proposes delaying
that sense of completion of the student submission. Again, how can we do
this? How can we delay this feeling that the text is prematurely finished?
Finkel (1999) suggests creating a dialog on paper between the student
and the teacher and among students themselves (Finkel, 1999). John Tagg
(2003), who was an English teacher at Palomar Community College, sepa-
rates the grade from the comments on his students’ papers. He believes
that if he gives students a grade accompanied by comments on their pa-
pers, students will look at the grades and not the comments; or they will
read the comments superficially without acting upon them, particularly
if the grade corresponds to their expectations. Katherine Gottschalk and
Keith Hjortshoj (2003) recommend that we need to tell our students how
well their papers worked and offer suggestions that might be useful in
further revisions.
These are all very interesting but partial solutions to the problem of
teaching writing. We have all tried them in one way or another in our own
classes. Still, students do not always seem to engage in further revisions.
154 Facilitating Deep Learning

The key to this problem is to fully understand the whole process of expert
writers and not to focus only on revisions and suggestions for revisions.
The whole game includes real readers, absence of grades, and a myriad of
academic and nonacademic activities.

7.9 PLAYING THE WHOLE GAME OF EXPERT WRITERS: REAL

READERS

The most substantial difference between expert writers and students is that
expert writers write to communicate with real readers. In contrast, students
write, at best, to communicate with their teachers, and, at worst, to get a
grade in a course. Even when we ask the other students in the class to act
as peer reviewers, the student writer feels this is still a very artificial pro-
cess. So, we cannot ask students to engage in the process of revisions and
reformulations that expert writers follow when we deprive our students of
the most important aspect of this process: real readers.
Giving students the possibility of having a real audience is an essen-
tial aspect of what David Perkins (2009) refers to as playing the whole
game. You can’t play soccer without a ball. You can’t write like expert
writers without real readers. Perkins suggests that if you cannot let your
students play the whole game, you need to create for them at least a junior
version of the whole game. For example, if you want your students to
learn how to play soccer, instead of playing 11 on 11 in an 80-by-120-yard
(73.15-by-109.72-meter) field with a professional No. 5 ball in two half-
times of 45 min each, you mayplay 8 on 8 in a smaller field with a No. 4
ball. But students will still be playing soccer. They can still play soccer if
they play for 30 min periods instead of 45. They can even play without the
offside rule, as I did when I was a child growing up in a soccer-intensive
culture. But no one can play soccer without a ball. It would not be soccer.
Likewise, no writer can play the game of expert writers without real read-
ers. We need to provide authentic opportunities for our students to reach
their own readers.
My colleague Jane teaches a fourth-year undergraduate course for ma-
jors in any discipline who plan to apply to graduate programs. She asked
her students to write an admissions essay to their program of choice. She
Deep Writing 155

told her students that she would give them plenty of advice on their writ-
ing, and if they wanted they could submit that essay as part of the admis-
sions application. She made it clear to her students that she would give
them the kind of advice that is appropriate in the circumstances and that
she would not suggest ideas or even correct spelling mistakes as this might
be incompatible with the admissions process. The results were extraor-
dinary. Students engaged in a writing process resembling that of expert
writers. She simply created the problem, which was connected to their
lives. She helped them realize that they needed to improve their writing to
be accepted into graduate school. In addition, she encouraged their revi-
sion without becoming any of the types of graders that Katherine Gott-
schalk and Keith Hjortshoj (2003) refer to, that is, grading machines, who
read papers only to determine the grade; instructive graders, who want to
be helpful by providing comments, corrections, and questions in the text
while they read, along with more general summary comments and sug-
gestions at the end; or copy editors, who mark and correct everything that
conflicts with their personal literary taste. My colleague’s role was to be
there for her students to read their drafts and to answer students’ questions.
Most of her students wanted to know if their papers made sense and if their
style coincided with the expected style. Some asked her for extra sources
on writing admissions essays in their disciplines. A few asked her for her
opinion on the quality of the essays. Students were eager to act upon their
teacher’s feedback and make changes to their essays. They cared about
their work. They wanted their essays to be powerful and effective. They
revised their essays several times, as they wanted to impress their readers:
the graduate admissions officers.
Similarly, in a fourth-year undergraduate course, I asked my students
to send their essays for publication to an academic publishing company.
My role was to be that of a supportive coach who is there to help students
with the questions they have during their writing process rather than to
give grades and lots of comments that students are unable to process. The
essays were accepted for publication, subject to substantive revisions sug-
gested by the reviewers. Students worked hard at improving their writing,
because they wanted readers to learn about the causes they were research-
ing and writing about. The essays were finally published in a book.
156 Facilitating Deep Learning

If asking your students to send their essays to an academic journal

or publishing company is not feasible, then encourage them to play in
a smaller field. Maybe they can present their papers in an academic or
professional conference, or even in a student conference. Or they can post
their texts in a blog. The essential aspect is to seek real readers outside the
university or college.

7.10 ABSENCE OF GRADES

Another essential element of playing the whole game of expert writers is to

bear in mind that readers do not grade their writers. So, as John Tagg (2003)
suggests, the writing process should be divorced from summative evaluation
and grades. We should not assign a grade to students’ texts. This does not
mean that we should refrain from commenting on the quality of students’
work. But we can do so in a way that is responsive to students’ needs and in
a way that helps them improve. Real readers do judge the quality of expert
writers, too. They buy books from some authors and refuse to buy books
from others. They may write reviews online. Some readers may recommend
their friends and family to buy some books and not buy others. But no reader
ever gives a grade to the writer.

7.11 FIGHTING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS

Playing the whole game also means engaging in a variety of activities that
are usually not fostered in the classroom. Expert writers in academia are
not simply writers—they are mathematicians, sociologists, historians, le-
gal scholars, anthropologists, biologists, engineers, architects, or psychol-
ogists, for example. These scholars play a game where writing is only one
aspect. It is not the whole game. I write a lot about teaching and learning
issues. I also write a lot about law. So far, I have around 80 publications,
including several books. I consider myself quite productive. But I am not
writing all the time. Writing is one—important—aspect of what I do. As a
teacher and educational developer, I spend a lot of time in the classroom
and the Teaching and Learning Center. I teach students; give workshops to
Deep Writing 157

faculty; supervise theses; present in conferences; talk to colleagues; attend

workshops and seminars; give consulting services for universities and
colleges about their educational development programs; organize confer-
ences; review articles for journals; produce educational videos; conduct
empirical research; buy books for the Teaching and Learning Center; read
books, articles, and newsletters; invite colleagues to speak at our Teaching
Forum; deal with budgetary issues; and even get to give input on the build-
ing renovations of our Teaching and Learning Center. Many of these ac-
tivities require that I travel extensively. Except for dealing with budgets, I
love all that I do. I learn from these activities. I find problems that feed my
research and writing. For me, the whole game of teaching and learning and
educational development is very attractive. I feel the same passion when I
work in legal issues. I engage in lots of different activities, such as going
to court, talking to lawyers and clients, and participating in arbitration and
contract negotiations—to name but a few. Even those professional writers
whose jobs consist of writing play a game that is broader than just writing.
Lucrecia Martel—a world renowned and acclaimed screenwriter—says
that in order to write good scripts, she needs to be actively involved in
everyday life. In her own words, “I have to go to the supermarket, take the
bus, and fight with my neighbors. Otherwise, I cannot write. I cannot write
if I am isolated” (Sarmiento Hinojosa, 2010).
Because of institutional constraints, we usually deprive our students
of all, or most of, these other activities. We simply ask them to read and
write. This makes the game less attractive for students. But it also makes
it quite artificial. Students lack the learning experience that comes from
engaging in the full spectrum of activities that constitute the academic
profession. Our role as teachers is to re-create all of these aspects of the
game not only to make it worth playing (Perkins, 2009) but also to give
students the full experience, so that they can engage in the same kinds of
activities that create cognitive conflicts and create opportunities to negoti-
ate meanings collectively and to reflect about their learning process. The
confines of the classroom walls do not help re-create the wide array of
diversely rich experiences of expert writers. So, we need to be as creative
as possible in order to help students engage in these experiences within the
existing institutional and financial constraints.
158 Facilitating Deep Learning

7.12 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Writing requires an instance of collaborative learning. Assigning an essay

topic to students for them to work on individually, receive comments from
us, and then revise their drafts to hand them in is a recipe for failure. Learning
to write requires extensive negotiation of meaning with members of the com-
munity of knowledgeable peers and other people interested in the topics we
write about. Professional writers engage in conversations with a diverse array
of people. They need to fight with their neighbors. So, we need to provide our
students with plenty of opportunities to engage in a multitude of conversa-
tions. Donald Finkel (1999) suggests the creation of a community of writers
to foster a dialog on paper, where the teacher assumes the role of an experi-
enced peer, and students exchange drafts and review drafts. Many teachers
use peer review of drafts with their students, where students read, comment,
and incorporate feedback they receive into their texts. Although this certainly
helps students with their learning process, student peer review is a rather lim-
ited—albeit valuable—conversation. We need to open up these conversations
so that students can talk to a wider community. Florencia Carlino matched
Spanish language students from Sault College (Sault Ste. Marie, Canada) with
Spanish language students from Dalhousie University (Halifax, Canada). Stu-
dents conversed about different topics, many of which they later included in
their writing performances. Students also discussed the obstacles they found
in their writing processes. Florencia Carlino also connects her students with
Spanish native speakers in Sault Ste. Marie. Her students meet with them to
talk about different issues. These conversations also find their way into the
students’ writing projects. Occasionally, students may ask a native speaker
about a grammar rule or how a phrase sounds to them. This extended con-
versation re-creates the collective negotiation of meanings that is necessary
for any learning process. It also emulates the fighting-with-your-neighbors
experience that professional writers continually engage in.

7.13 TEACHER FEEDBACK AND METACOGNITION

Feedback is an essential aspect of the writing process, just like it is of any

aspect of the learning process. The characteristics and elements of effec-
Deep Writing 159

tive feedback discussed later in the book apply to feedback about writing.
In order to be effective, we need to evaluate students’ initial knowledge,
attitudes, and conceptions about the particular genre and style we want
them to develop. We also need to observe their composing process. And
we need to reflect about the learning-to-write process and the resulting
conceptual changes. More important, we also need to provide our students
with the necessary metacognitive skills so that they can monitor their own
writing. And we need to do this in an encouraging climate while letting our
students play the whole game.

7.14 PROBLEMS WITH TEACHERS’ COMMENTS

As mentioned while discussing the writing-to-learn approach, teachers’

prevailing way of providing feedback about student writing is through
comments made onto student papers. Studies about teacher’s comments
have proved that teachers’ comments do not enhance student writing.
These studies also show that in some circumstances comments may even
be harmful (Sommers, 1982). The most important characteristic of prevail-
ing teacher comments is that they do not encourage revision. They tend to
treat students’ drafts as final. They do not offer clear and motivating text-
specific reasons for students to profoundly revise their drafts. They do not
create cognitive conflicts that will force students to reaccommodate their
conceptions about writing (Sommers, 1982). Teachers’ comments identify
grammar, spelling, and organization errors, which students feel compelled
to fix. This is because some of us do not always know how to help students
embark on a learning process that will take them from novice writers to
expert writers. So, for many of us, it is easier to concentrate on surface er-
rors. Joseph Williams (1981), an English language professor, writer, and
grammarian, wrote a famous article where he argues that teachers find
lots of errors in students’ papers because they are looking for errors. He
claims that when those teachers read articles from scholars they do not
find errors. To prove this point, Williams has identified errors in the text
of well-reputed writers who wrote texts on grammar and style. At the end
of the article, Williams reveals that he has sprinkled his text with 100 er-
rors. He imagines that readers have not identified so many errors because
160 Facilitating Deep Learning

they were not expecting to find them. Readers probably engaged with the
message rather than with surface-structure errors. Furthermore, for Wil-
liams many of the errors that teachers find in student papers have to do
with style choices and preferences rather than with actual violations of
grammar rules.
Teachers’ comments sometimes offer contradictory messages to stu-
dents. We may ask students to develop ideas and fix surface structure er-
rors at the same time. If students need to develop these ideas, they will
probably delete entire sentences and paragraphs in later drafts. So, cor-
recting grammar and organization errors may contradict the message that
students need to revise, that is, read, reread, delete, reorganize, write, and
rewrite.
In some cases, those surface-level errors may even be a sign of learning
progress. Learning to write is a process where learners experience ups and
downs. They make progress, and then they retrocede. This is particularly
evident when students begin to write in a new discipline or about a new
topic or when they try to resolve a more complex problem. For example,
studies show that when law school students—who were proficient writers
during their undergraduate years—start to write about Law in Law School,
their writing suffers from grammar, spelling, and organization errors that
were not present in those students’ texts in their last years of undergradu-
ate university studies. So, these errors are actually a sign of learning prog-
ress. If we penalize those errors, what we might be doing is actually hin-
dering our students’ natural learning process toward becoming effective
writers. If we do so, students will probably focus on sentence-level errors
instead of grappling with the new challenges offered by a new discipline
or problem. This approach will lead to less effective texts in the long run
(Gottschalk and Hjortshoj, 2003). Another example is that of students who
learn to write well in an English writing course that they take in their first
year of higher education but who cannot write a good essay when they
take second-year courses in their disciplines (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).
Another aspect that is common to many teachers’ comments is that
these comments tend to deprive students of the ownership of their own
texts. The teacher pushes students in directions that he or she would like to
see instead of trying to understand and respect each student’s path (Som-
mers, 1982). We should try to see the logic behind students’ papers rather
Deep Writing 161

than dismiss them for lack of clear logic; particularly because, in many
cases, we do this simply because the students’ logic differs from our own
(Lindemann, 1995).
Finally, in some cases, teachers write their comments to justify the
grade they assign to the students’ texts rather than as mechanisms to help
students learn how to write effectively. This emphasis on grades and ex-
cessive comments may produce student reactance. Expert writers do not
receive written comments—let alone a grade—while they compose their
texts. They receive feedback in many different ways. Some writers may
give their drafts to colleagues they trust to look for accuracy in an aspect
of the discipline. Others may give some parts of their manuscripts to a
spouse or friends to look for clarity. Expert writers also rely on metacogni-
tion strategies. Classroom feedback should emulate this process. Students
should receive feedback and comments from a wide variety of sources—
not just their teachers and classmates.

7.15 SUMMARY

There are four models that attempt to explain the connection between writ-
ing and learning: point-of-utterance model, forward-search model, genre
model, and backward-search model. These models show that writing in
itself does not necessarily lead to deep learning. Only when writing is ar-
ticulated as a cognitive strategy, such as in some types of the genre model
and in the backward-search model, may it help students learn deeply. In
other words, writing leads to deep learning only when student writers en-
gage in the—individual and collective—cognitive processes associated
with deep learning. The key is to re-create the writing process in the class-
room and make it as authentic as possible.
When learning to write as expert writers, students need to play the
whole game, that is, they need to be engaged in the full spectrum of ac-
tivities that expert writers do, which goes beyond reading and writing.
In Martel’s words, they need to fight with their neighbors. Students also
need real readers; they also need to be encouraged to revise their drafts as
experts do before their texts solidify.
162 Facilitating Deep Learning

Excessive teachers’ comments, grades, and lack of authentic experi-

ences associated with writing do not contribute to this process. We need to
develop more appropriate responses for commenting on student writing.
We need to facilitate revision by responding to writing as a work in prog-
ress rather than judging it as a finished product. We also need to bear in
mind that writing is a nonlinear process, where students experience prog-
ress and regression. In many cases, errors in writing may reflect signs of
learning.
The next chapter will analyze the connection between diversity and
deep learning. It will focus on the need to create deep learning environ-
ments to help all students achieve deeper levels of learning.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. You want your students to write a relatively short paper. You want
them to revise and rewrite their drafts several times. You know that
you need to help students rewrite their texts before they solidify.
But how can you do this? What specific actions can you take so
that students will rewrite their texts several times?
2. You assign a term paper to your students. You know that students
need real readers for their drafts. You do not want to ask other
students in the class to read the papers, because students will prob-
ably try to be nice to their classmates and will offer only cosmetic
suggestions. What can you do to provide students with real readers
to critique their papers and offer meaningful recommendations to
improve them?
3. You want your students in your introduction to your discipline
course for nonmajors to play the whole game of the experts in your
discipline and write an academic or professional paper. What can
you do to help your students play the whole game of disciplinary
experts?
4. In Girls Talk, a play written and directed by Roger Kumble, Lori
is a screenwriter and stay-at-home mom whose everyday, simple
tasks do not let her write. Think of the multiple constrains that
Deep Writing 163

your students may face that may prevent them from writing deeply.
What can we do to help them overcome these constraints?
5. It has been argued that the framework of assigning an essay topic
to students for them to work on individually, receiving comments
from us, and then revising their drafts to hand in is a recipe for
failure. Do you agree with this assertion? Why or why not? Why do
you think this practice is so widespread at universities today? What
changes can we make to this widespread practice?
6. The chair of the department wants all students to improve their
writing skills in the discipline. He does not know what to do. He
comes to you for suggestions to come up with a department-wide
plan to help students deeply learn how to write in the discipline.
What can you suggest? What will the plan consist of?
7. In a scene in Theresa Rebeck’s (2012) play Seminar, Leonard, an
accomplished novelist who is paid $5,000 by five aspiring writers
to teach a private seminar, tells one of his students to get him-
self kidnapped in an African country before writing a novel. What
do you think he means by this? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Would you tell something similar to your students before having
them write papers for your class? How can you create a meaningful
experience in your course so that students can immerse themselves
in your discipline before writing a paper?
8. A former undergraduate student of yours emailed you to tell you
that he had just started a master’s program in a cognate discipline.
He had to write a paper for one of his first-semester classes. He was
asked to rewrite his paper because he had made too many gram-
matical and organizational errors. The student was very surprised,
as he had always got very high marks on papers and other written
assignments while he was an undergraduate in your program. What
happened to your for mer student? How can you explain his prob-
lem in terms of the deep learning process? What can you tell him?
What advice can you give him?
9. A colleague of yours is very disappointed with the quality of her
students’ papers. She comes to see you for advice. She tells you that
in her third-year undergraduate course, every week she assigned a
journal article for students to discuss in small groups. Toward the
164 Facilitating Deep Learning

end of the class, each group reported on the discussion. Your col-
league occasionally lectured on the context of each reading. At the
end of the term, she assigned a 20-page paper on one of the dis-
cussed readings. While most students had very good ideas, accord-
ing to your colleague, their writing was very poor. What happened?
Why? What advice can you give to your colleague?
10. The dean sends you an email that reads as follows: “The issue of
academic integrity is one that is becoming increasingly important
to faculty given the easy access of online sources, paper mills, and
essay-writing services available to students. I would like to know
if your department is interested in acquiring a plagiarism detection
software tool. As many of you know, these tools compare submit-
ted essays against a database of millions of previously submitted
papers and perform a thorough search of Internet resources.” Is
there a connection between writing and plagiarism in the Instruc-
tion-paradigm University? Why or why not? Why do some students
resort to plagiarism? Why are some teachers vehemently opposed
to plagiarism? What is the biological explanation for plagiarism?
How would you answer the dean?

KEYWORDS

• academic skills
• deep learning
• deep writing
• learning to write deeply
• students’ attitude
• teacher feedback
• teaching writing
• writing to learn
Deep Writing 165

REFERENCES

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Bazerman, C. Genre and Cognitive Development: Beyond Writing to Learn. Pratiques, 2009,
143–144.

Bean, J. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1996.

Bereiter, C.; Scardamalia, M. The Psychology of Written Composition; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ,
1987.

Boice, R. Advice for New Faculty Members. Nihil Nimus; Allyn and Bacon: Needham Heights,
2000.

Carlino, P. Escribir, Leer y Aprender en la Universidad. Una Introducción a la Alfabetización

Académica; Fondo de Cultura Económica: Buenos Aires, 2005.

Durst, R. K.; Newell, G. E. Monitoring Processes in Analytic and Summary Writing. Written
Communication, 1989, 6, 340–363.

Emig, J. Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 1977, 28,
2, 122–128.

Finkel, D. Teaching With Your Mouth Shut; Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth, NH, 1999.

Gonyea, R.; Anderson, P. Writing, Engagement and Successful Learning Outcomes, Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 14, 2009,
http://writing.byu.edu/static/documents/org/1144.pdf (accessed Aug. 12, 2013).
Gottschalk, K.; Hjortshoj, K. The Elements of Teaching Writing; Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston,
2003.

Klein, P.D. Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 1999, 11, 3, 203–270.

Light, R. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 2001.

Lindemann, E.A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995.

Marton, F.; Säljö, R. On Qualitative Differences in Learning 1: Outcome and Process.” British
Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, 46, 4.

Meiers, M. Writing to learn. Research Digest, 2007, 1. http://www.vit.vic.edu.au (accessed Aug.

12, 2013).
166 Facilitating Deep Learning

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.

Prosser, M.; Trigwell, K. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher edu-
cation; Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.
Rebeck, T. Seminar; Samuel French: New York, 2012.

Sarmiento-Hinojosa, J. Lucrecia Martel: Interviewed. http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=QFITzNaygkE (accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Smith, F, Joining the Literacy Club. Further Essays into Education; Heinemann Educational
Books: London, 1988.

Sommers, N. Responding to Student Writing.College Composition and Communication, 1982,

33, 2, 148–56.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Williams, J. The Phenomenology of Error.College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32,

152–68.
 PART III
DEEP LEARNING AND DIVERSITY
CHAPTER 8

INCLUSIVE DEEP LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS AND KNOWLEDGE
MODES
We make the assumption that everyone sees life the way we do.
— MIGUEL RUIZ

CONTENTS

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 170

8.2 Connection between Diversity and Deep Learning ..................... 171
8.3 Knowledge Modes ....................................................................... 173
8.4 North American Knowledge Mode and Academic Skills ............ 174
8.5 Non-Western Knowledge Modes and Academic Skills ............... 174
8.6 Crossing Over Knowledge Modes ............................................... 175
8.7 Strategies for Creating an Inclusive Deep Learning Environment .... 177
8.8 Summary ...................................................................................... 179
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 180
Keywords .............................................................................................. 182
References ..............................................................................................183
170 Facilitating Deep Learning

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Students achieve the highest degree of deep learning when they interact
with peers from diverse backgrounds, and when teachers incorporate these
backgrounds into the class to help students explore answers to questions
and solutions to problems from diverse perspectives.
This depth in student learning does not occur spontaneously, even in
those classes made up of a large percentage of students from different
backgrounds and from different parts of the world. It requires the creation
of inclusive deep learning environments that take into account and privi-
lege students’ diverse knowledge modes. A knowledge mode is the frame
of reference through which we see the world around us. It helps us con-
struct, understand, and interpret reality. It also affects the way we create,
organize, and express thought. Non-traditional students, particularly stu-
dents from non-Western societies, have a way of seeing the world around
them that greatly differs from the mainstream North American academic
knowledge mode.
In an inclusive deep learning environment, these different knowledge
modes are incorporated into the classes, and students learn from diverse
worldviews, perspectives, and languages, including their own.
This approach contrasts with the predominant practice in the Instruc-
tion paradigm, which teaches from a single knowledge mode and pushes
all—traditional and nontraditional—students to learn from a mainstream
disciplinary perspective and to adopt mainstream academic skills. In the
Instruction-paradigm institutions, when mainstream North American
teachers judge nontraditional students’ work, they tend to perceive it as
inferior, without realizing that this work simply reflects a different knowl-
edge mode and worldview perspective.
I begin this chapter with an analysis of the connection between di-
versity and deep learning. This first part of the chapter will answer the
question “How does diversity enhance the deep learning process?” Sec-
ond, I will explore knowledge modes from the perspective of both main-
stream and nontraditional students as well as the perceptions that teachers
and students have when they cross over knowledge modes. Finally, I will
examine some strategies to create inclusive deep learning environments.
This discussion will be complemented in Chapter 9 with the examination
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 171

of other components of the deep learning inclusive environment that also

enrich the deep learning process, that is, an international and plurilingual
education.

8.2 CONNECTION BETWEEN DIVERSITY AND DEEP LEARNING

There is a strong—albeit not necessarily evident at first glance—connec-

tion between diversity and deep learning. As discussed throughout the
book, the deep learning process requires a cognitive conflict. This cogni-
tive conflict is generated through social interaction with peers (Vygotsky,
1978) who are at different developmental stages (Magolda, 2002; Perry,
1970). The cognitive conflict is produced because the learner interacts
with peers who offer ideas, examples, perspectives, angles, concepts, top-
ics, or methods that the learner has not thought of or has not fully explored
individually. When the learner interacts with peers who have very different
backgrounds, the exploration of the problem or question that the learner is
trying to solve or answer will be richer than if he or she only interacts with
peers who come from the same cultural background.
Let me illustrate this point with a personal example. When I was writ-
ing this book, I gave the first draft to a very close friend. We grew up to-
gether. We went to the same high school. Then, we also went to law school
together. We both went into teaching after completing graduate studies.
We both delved into the scholarship of teaching and learning at similar
times in our teaching careers. My friend gave me useful advice on how to
improve the manuscript. I learned deeply about some ideas and concepts
that my friend and I discussed. But I did not radically change the approach
to this book. Nothing my friend told me led me to fundamentally trans-
form the way I see the world of teaching and learning. Then, I gave the
draft to three other colleagues. Like my friend, all of them are seasoned
higher education teachers and educational developers. But, they have very
different backgrounds. One is a neuroscientist by training, the other one is
a cultural communication expert, and the third one is a writing specialist.
One of them is from Eastern Europe, the other one is from India, and the
third one is from China. Their native languages are very different from
mine. And their teaching experiences in other disciplines and countries
172 Facilitating Deep Learning

also differ from mine. Like my friend, they all made comments to my
draft. Because these comments reflected their cultures, trajectories, and
backgrounds, they made me look at most of the concepts in the origi-
nal draft of this book from angles that I had never thought of. These col-
leagues are not smarter than my friend. They do not know more than my
friend. But they have a background that is very different from mine and
my friend’s. The interaction with these three colleagues resulted in a fun-
damental change in the way I see the discipline of teaching and learning.
In Vygotsky’s (1978) terms, they made me change my cognitive structure
in a way that was not possible when my conversations included only my
friend who grew up seeing and interpreting the world as I did.
Similarly, another colleague teaches script writing in a film studies pro-
gram at an American university. In the fall and spring terms, she teaches
regular classes attended mostly by American students and only a handful
of international students. During the summer, this program brings students
from all over the world to an intensive 12-week seminar. For one of the ac-
tivities, she asked her students in the summer course to discuss the notion
of “child” and to write a script for a film about childhood. My colleague
seemed genuinely interested in learning about students’ diverse cultures
and encouraged them to share the conceptions of child and childhood from
their own cultures. She had students with very different backgrounds.
Students came from China, South America, Mexico, India, Europe, the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Kenya, among many other coun-
tries. Some of these students were religious. They represented virtually
every major religion. My colleague also had nonreligious students. Some
of the students were mature, whereas others were fresh from high school.
They spoke different languages as their native tongues. And they grew up
in very different cultures. During the discussions, each offered radically
different notions of child and childhood. The discussions—at times quite
heated—forced every student to think very deeply about what a child is
and what childhood means. It forced students to look at these notions from
angles that they would not have considered if the discussions had been
among students from the very same culture. The scripts they wrote were
quite sophisticated and reflected these rich discussions. She tried the same
activity in her fall and spring courses where most of the students were from
the United States. Students were highly motivated. The discussions were also
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 173

heated, and the resulting scripts reflected instances of deep learning. But
the discussions and the scripts were not as rich, complex, and nuanced as
the ones in the summer course.
So diversity plays a very important role in the deep learning process.
But this role is only possible if teachers actively and explicitly recognize
and incorporate diverse worldview perspectives into the classroom. If,
on the contrary, even when there is a diverse group of students, teachers
repress students’ backgrounds, experiences, and cultures, they insist on
teaching from a single cultural perspective, and they reject diverse ways
of generating and expressing thought, then the cognitive conflict and the
resulting conceptual change will be significantly poorer.
Additionally, as I will discuss in the next chapter, helping students ex-
amine problems, questions, and situations in several languages and from
a global or international perspective—both within and outside the class-
room—also enriches the connections that students make in the process
that leads to a change in their cognitive structures.

8.3 KNOWLEDGE MODES

People have different ways of seeing and understanding the world around
them. And they do so through a frame of reference that shapes their under-
standing of what they see (Ruiz, 2009). This frame, referred to as knowl-
edge mode, permits people to see, interpret, and understand the world
(Haigh, 2009). It shapes behavior by judging everybody and everything
we do. It also influences the way people speak, write, listen, think, and
interact with others.
Every culture has its own knowledge mode. The knowledge mode
in one culture may be similar to the knowledge mode in other cultures,
such as the predominant knowledge modes in North America and Western
Europe. Other knowledge modes, such non-Western ones, may be radi-
cally different when compared to others, for example, the North American
knowledge mode.
174 Facilitating Deep Learning

8.4 NORTH AMERICAN KNOWLEDGE MODE AND

ACADEMIC SKILLS

Most teachers in North American higher education institutions approach

the teaching of disciplinary content, academic skills, and thought pro-
cesses from traditionally Western and North American perspectives or
knowledge modes. For example, the predominant knowledge mode in
North America is external, socially mitigated, and objectively measurable
(Haigh, 2009). So, subjective, relational, and nonmeasurable approaches
are considered unworthy of the mainstream university classroom. Criti-
cal thinking, which is conceived of as a self-directed, self-disciplined,
self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking mode in which the thinker
analyzes, assesses, and reconstructs evidence (Bok, 2006), displaced other
forms of thinking, such as creative and integrative (Boyer, 1990; Clark,
2009). Teaching writing has been reduced to teaching disciplinary thesis-
based writing, where students learn how to develop a thesis, pose ques-
tions, gather and weigh evidence, and construct arguments as members of
a certain discipline (Bean, 1996).
The North American knowledge mode is a very particular—even elit-
ist—way of interpreting the world around us. It is by no means universal.
It does not coincide with ways of producing and expressing thought in
other cultures. Furthermore, it has been criticized within North American
academic circles for being patriarchal and for distorting the way of know-
ing (Bean, 1996).

8.5 NON-WESTERN KNOWLEDGE MODES AND

ACADEMIC SKILLS

Non-traditional students have a way of seeing themselves and understand-

ing the world that derives from their own cultures and traditions. These
differ from the perspectives that predominate in North American univer-
sities. Like for their mainstream colleagues, this different ways of see-
ing the world have repercussions in most academic areas. They influence
the way students think, express themselves, interact in the classroom, and
think in the disciplines. For example, many nontraditional students tend
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 175

to see things in a subjective, inward-looking fashion (Haigh, 2009). Other

students from non-Western societies are holistic in their thoughts. They
tend to emphasize and value how things are interconnected. They tend to
give contextual and emotional information. Some even show a tendency
to digress when writing.What is important in their written works is “see-
ing, feeling, and being situated in the web of relations that surround the
subject” rather than developing a thesis (Fox, 1994). In an analysis of the
way highly educated Sri Lankan and other non-Western scholars write
academic research papers, Canagarajah (2002) notices that introductions
are generally brief, and citations are used only to provide definitions of
key terms and to endorse the writer’s own positions. Prior works are usu-
ally mentioned but not discussed in length. Similarly, the methodology is
only briefly alluded to in the final lines of the introduction but not fully
explained in the paper. The discussion is generally “a linear exposition
or narration of the key issues surrounding the subject in a very personal
voice by the author” (Canagarajah, 2002). Along the same lines, Arabic-
speaking scholars tend to express the same idea in more than one way, usu-
ally with a colorful vocabulary (Leki, 1992). Latin American students and
scholars show a tendency to digress, to give colorful contexts, to repeat
ideas, and to argue in circles.

8.6 CROSSING OVER KNOWLEDGE MODES

When a student or teacher from a certain tradition, who lacks experience

and education in appreciating knowledge diversity, crosses knowledge
modes, he or she tends to judge different knowledge modes in a very neg-
ative way (Haigh, 2009). Thus, nontraditional students tend to perceive
North American academic writing as inferior, arbitrary, and disrespectful
of the audience. For example, according to a Chilean student reported in
Helen Fox’s (1994) book, when he “reads something written by an Ameri-
can it sounds so childish.” Other non-Western students consider that North
American writers belittle their audience by making explicit their argu-
ments and by making explicit connections between different arguments.
Students from highly contextual societies interpret the North American
linear discursive style as simple and arrogant: “simple because it lacks
176 Facilitating Deep Learning

the richness of detail necessary to establish context, and arrogant because

the speaker is deciding what particular points you should hear and then
what point you should draw from them” (Bennett, 1998). Another example
quoted by Fox shows that for non-North American students it should be
the responsibility of the audience —not the writer—“to do the analysis,
to draw meaning from the context. [The writer does] not [even have the]
responsibility to make sense” (Fox, 1994). For Sri Lankan scholars, papers
written by American authors
lack the esthetic and emotional appeal that comes from a more relaxed devel-
opment of the thesis […] that simply annihilating the views of others doesn’t
necessarily mean that [the American authors’] view is superior […] that pa-
pers displayed an aggressive individualism that bordered on unseemly pride,
attention-grabbing, and self-congratulation, and that the need to pit one’s own
research against that of others leads to unnecessary, hair-splitting arguments
that end up confusing and baffling the audience (Canagarajah, 2002).

In most cases, nontraditional students, particularly non-Western, feel

that following North American conventions is against “what everything
inside you is telling you to do” (Fox, 1994).
At the same time, mainstream North American teachers—and those
minority teachers educated in mainstream Western higher education in-
stitutions—perceive nonmainstream student writing and other academic
skills as signs of unpreparedness for university studies (Côté and Allahar,
2007; Gabriel, 2008). For example, when nontraditional students write
an essay where they do not cite a few sentences they borrowed from an
author, or when they digress instead of supporting the thesis with argu-
ments and evidence, most teachers do not understand that these students
are responding to the way in which they have been brought up to see and
understand the world. Teachers tend to believe that these are signs of low-
quality learning and lack of academic preparation for higher education.
When students and teachers came to university from the same privi-
leged and homogeneous social backgrounds, they shared similar values
and principles (Bowden and Marton, 2004). So, there was no difference of
perspective between teachers and students and among students, which re-
sulted in poorer social interactions and less profound learning experiences.
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 177

8.7 STRATEGIES FOR CREATING AN INCLUSIVE

DEEP LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The deepest degree of learning takes place when university and college
teachers encourage, include, and value the cultures of both minority and
mainstream students and incorporate them into their classes. “By becom-
ing aware of other people’s ways of seeing various phenomena one’s un-
derstanding is enriched and therefore becomes more powerful; one can see
one’s own way of seeing exactly as a way of seeing (rather than ‘seeing
what something is like’)” (Bowden and Marton, 2004).
In practice, this entails encouraging students to interact, exchange,
and share their perspectives with their peers while dealing with problems,
questions, and situations so that everyone can explore answers and solu-
tions from a wide array of diverse perspectives.
In an inclusive deep learning environment, all students engage in
conversations that promote rich connections between new and existing
knowledge, which results in a profound change in their cognitive struc-
tures at a level that cannot be achieved when the social interaction takes
place between peers that have the same cultural background or when the
teacher consciously or unconsciously represses the knowledge modes of
nontraditional students, or when he or she approaches the teaching process
from a single worldview paradigm.
Table 8.1 contains inclusive teaching strategies to create an inclusive
deep learning environment in our classes.

TABLE 8.1 Inclusive teaching strategies.

• Place student learning of diverse knowledge modes and ways of generating, organizing,
and expressing thought at the forefront of the curriculum. Include these within the course
intended learning goals. Make explicit to your students that they must learn to approach the
discipline and to generate, organize, and express thought from multiple traditions.
• Align your course so that the evaluation and teaching and learning activities match your
intended learning goals. Make sure you also give ample room for oblique and incidental
learning to maximize opportunities to learn from diverse world perspectives.
• Change the preconception that non-Western ideas are exotic. Introduce non-Western knowl-
edge modes, academic skills, and disciplinary content as something normal.
• Help your students see the intrinsic value of acquiring diverse, nontraditional ways of see-
ing the world. Include a wide array of non-Western and nontraditional worldviews and
values, even if you do not have students from a certain culture. For example, even if you do
not have aboriginal students, teach your students how to transmit knowledge through stories
as is done in aboriginal communities.
178 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 8.1 (Continued)

• Show your students how useful it is to be prepared to live and work in different cultures.
• Teach multiple ways of writing instead of restricting writing to North American academic
styles. For example, teach your students how to organize thoughts and express ideas as is
done in Chinese culture. Ask a Chinese graduate student who completed his or her under-
graduate education in China to show you how Chinese scholars write academic papers, or
invite that student to your class to talk to your students. Then, ask your students to write a
short paper in English following an academic Chinese structure and organization.
• Vary pedagogical methods, that is, teach as is taught in other cultures and traditions. For
example, use story-telling, organize circles, potlucks in—or ideally outside—the classroom
to acknowledge aboriginal traditions. Or base part of your pedagogy on notions of Dharma,
which emphasizes personal introspection, self-awareness, self-realization, and self-im-
provement (Haigh, 2009).
• Include texts in foreign languages that some of your students speak as alternative or supple-
mentary to texts in English. Even if you do not read in a foreign language, as disciplinary
expert, you are probably familiar with the text and the author, or you probably read an
English translation. Most foreign language journals bring an abstract in English. So, it is not
very difficult to know the content of an article in your discipline, even if you do not speak
that language. Invite the students that read those articles to comment them in class. Unilin-
gual speakers will see the value of reading the discipline in other languages.
• Invite guests from nonmainstream traditions, such as an aboriginal elder, a visible minority
professional, or a foreign religious leader. They can discuss topics related to your course,
and your students can gain insight into their worldviews.
• Organize student presentations where students discuss a problem from their own tradition.
A variation of this activity is to ask students to present a topic from a tradition that is dif-
ferent from their own.
• Discuss disciplinary content that interests diverse groups of students. For example, recent
immigrant students want to see issues related to immigration, assimilation, and heritage
discussed in class. If you teach American literature, you can include Chicano authors’ short
stories dealing with problems faced by Latino immigrant families, such as stories by Fran-
cisco Jimenez. If you teach contracts, you can include the notion and formation of contracts
found in legal traditions outside North America.
• Assess whether students can generate, organize, and express thought in a multitude of di-
verse ways. Assessment is the component in the aligned teaching system that most greatly
influences the approach students take to learning (Gibbs, 1999). So, if your assessment
actually evaluates whether and how well students have mastered a wide array of knowledge
modes, diverse academic skills, and nontraditional disciplinary perspectives, students will
probably achieve your intended learning goals (Biggs and Tang, 2007).
• Design assessment tasks that are representative of different cultures and traditions. Do not
restrict your assessment tasks to exams, multiple-choice tests, research papers, and group
presentations. Adopt assessment tools used in other cultures, such as informal dialogs, ho-
listic evaluation of student performance throughout the course, or self-evaluation. Another
alternative is to ask your students to gather evidence that is customary in their traditions to
show how well they have achieved the intended learning goals.
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 179

8.8 SUMMARY

The deep learning process is closely connected to and necessitates diver-

sity of worldview perspectives, cultural approaches, and a plurality of
languages. Diversity enriches the social interaction of learners with their
peers and helps them grapple with problems and questions from a wide
array of angles that cannot be considered when teaching from one single
worldview, cultural approach, and language.
The demographic of today’s classroom has changed drastically in the
last decades. Today, significant numbers of nontraditional students have
gained access to higher education. This increase in participation has not
translated into deep student learning, as teachers insist on teaching from
one single perspective. Furthermore, teachers tend to perceive nontradi-
tional students as academically underprepared. Students’ preparation re-
flects their own cultures, traditions, and beliefs. Non-traditional students
have been prepared to see the world and express thought in ways that
differ from those of North American mainstream teachers and students.
In the Instruction paradigm, the predominant approach to dealing with a
diverse student population has been to ignore or repress nonmainstream
backgrounds, cultures, and voices.
The inclusive deep learning environment recognizes and incorporates
diverse knowledge modes, thought processes, and expressive styles into
the classroom, as they enrich the social interaction that leads to more
complex and sophisticated cognitive conflicts and the resulting concep-
tual changes. Additionally, an inclusive deep learning environment pre-
pares both mainstream and minority students to succeed as interculturally
knowledgeable citizens in today’s globalized world.
The next two chapters delve into other essential aspects of the inclusive
deep learning environment. Chapter 9 focuses on international and pluri-
lingual education. Chapter 10 explores one of the most important chal-
lenges of the creation of inclusive deep learning environments: teaching
nonnative speaking students and helping them achieve academic profi-
ciency in the disciplines in their second or foreign language.
180 Facilitating Deep Learning

PRACTICE CORNER

1. It has been argued that the deepest degree of learning takes place
when teachers include the values and cultures of both minority and
mainstream students in their classes. Do you agree with this state-
ment? Why or why not? Can you think of examples from your
teaching practice where you saw a connection between diversity
and deep learning? How can the argument that diversity enhances
the deep learning process be reconciled with Bruffee’s notion of
movement from one community of knowledgeable peers to anoth-
er?
2. Think of a course you are currently teaching or a course you have
recently taught. What specific changes could you implement to
incorporate diverse worldviews and academic cultures in your
course? How can you deal with resistance from traditional stu-
dents?
3. What institutional changes, if any, are required to create inclusive
deep learning environments and to promote diversity in your uni-
versity or college? How would you implement these changes? Can
you anticipate resistance from colleagues and administrators? If so,
how could you deal with resistance?
4. Miguel Ruiz (1997), a Mexican aboriginal healer and educator, ar-
gues that every society has a dream, which includes all of society’s
rules, beliefs, laws, religions, and cultural norms. Individuals, in
turn, also have a personal dream, which is the internalization of
society’s dream through a process of socialization. According to
Ruiz, children do not have the possibility to choose their beliefs.
They have to agree with the system that is transmitted to them by
their parents, teachers, priests, and other adult members of society.
Can Ruiz’s arguments be used to explain diversity in university
and college classrooms? Why or why not? If so, what negotiations
can we make between individual and collective dreams? Is it legiti-
mate for higher education teachers to change individual and soci-
etal dreams?
5. A colleague, who teaches business and marketing courses, has sev-
eral Mexican students. He has heard about inclusive deep learning
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 181

environments, but he is reluctant to let the Mexican students write

business reports following the digressive and high-context style of
native Spanish speakers. He says to you: “I am not going to encour-
age them, or anyone else, in my class to follow this writing style.
I talked to these Mexican students; and they all want to be pro-
fessionals in Canada or the United States. So, they really need to
write in English as we all do. What’s the use for Mexican students
to practice this digressive writing, anyway? And for my English
speaking students? They will never learn to write properly if I let
them experiment with other styles.” Do you agree with your col-
league? Why or why not? What would you do in this case? What
can you tell your colleague?
6. A student from Pakistan, who completed his undergraduate degree
in Karachi and is studying in North America seeking a second de-
gree, approaches you and says: “I know how you want me to write,
but when I sit down in front of my laptop, I just can’t. I feel I am
betraying myself. I cannot write as you want.” What would you say
to this student? Why do you think he feels this way? What can you
do so as to prevent his sense of betrayal?
7. Watch or remember the film Sahara (1983), directed by Andrew
McLaglen, about a young American female who participates in a
car race in Africa and is abducted by a Muslim sheik. Can you
identify instances of cultural miscommunication in the film? What
role do cultural and gender stereotypes play in intercultural com-
munication in the film? Are there any instances of remedial teach-
ing? Can you identify any instances of deep learning?
8. What specific actions can you take to create an inclusive deep
learning environment in your classes? Which of the strategies sug-
gested in Table 8.1 can you include in your courses? How would
you implement them? Which of those strategies would you not in-
clude? Why?
9. A colleague of yours teaches history. He is a First Nations aborigi-
nal professor. In his classes, he introduces Aboriginal issues and
teaches from an aboriginal perspective. He had his students sit in a
circle to discuss their thoughts on the history of Canadian immigra-
tion. He brought an eagle feather to class and each student would
182 Facilitating Deep Learning

pass it along after speaking his or her thoughts on this topic. Before
this activity started, he proceeded to talk to the class about the men-
strual cycle. He explained that this is a special time in the month
and under no circumstances can menstruating women touch the
eagle feather because of the sacred and special time in a woman’s
life. So students who happened to be at that time of the month had
to put the feather down. Most of the female students were very em-
barrassed and felt left out when they had to put the feather down.
You are the department chair. These students come to complain to
you. What can you do? What can you say to the students?
10. Juhua is a third-year exchange student from China. She wrote a
paper for a history course. The ideas in the paper were her own,
but she used words and expressions from the textbook because she
felt that her English was not good enough and the author’s words
sounded better than hers. Her professor accused Juhua of plagia-
rism. You are a member of the Disciplinary Committee who re-
ceives the plagiarism complaint. Why do you think this happened?
What role, if any, did Juhua’s knowledge mode play in this inci-
dent? What would you tell your colleague? What would you say to
the student? What decision would you make in this case?

KEYWORDS

• academic skills
• deep learning
• diversity
• inclusive deep learning environment
• inclusive teaching
• inclusive teaching strategies
• knowledge modes
• non-Western knowledge modes
• North American knowledge mode
Inclusive Deep Learning Environments and Knowledge Modes 183

REFERENCES

Arkoudis, S. Teaching International Students. Strategies to Enhance Learning; Centre for the
Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/
international.pdf (accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Bean, J. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1996.

Bennett, M. J. Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective. In Basic Concepts of In-

tercultural Communication: Selected Readings; Bennett, M. J., Ed.;Intercultural Press: Yar-
mouth, ME: 1998.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C.Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Bok, D. Our Underachieving Colleges; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2006.

Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (2004) University of Learning. London: Routledge.

Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate; Jossey Bass: San Francisco,
1990.

Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

Canagarajah, A. S. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pitts-

burgh, 2002.

Clark, M. Beyond Critical Thinking.Pedagogy, 2009, 325.

Côté, J.; Allahar, A.Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis; University of Toronto
Press: Toronto, 2007.

Crockett, D. S. Advising Skills, Techniques, and Resources; ACT National Center for the Ad-
vancement of Educational Practice: Iowa City, Iowa, 1984.

Cummins, J. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum

age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 1979, 19, 121–129.

Fox, H. Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing; NCTE: Urbana, IL, 1994.

Gabriel, K. Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in
Higher Education; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, 2008.

Gibbs, G.Improving the quality of student learning; Technical and Educational Services: Bristol,
1992.
184 Facilitating Deep Learning

Haigh, M. Fostering Cross-Cultural Empathy with Non-Western Curricular Structures. Journal

of Studies in International Education, 2009, 13, 2. 271.

Krashen, S. D.Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning; Prentice-Hall In-
ternational: New York, 1988.
Krashen, S. D.The Input Hypothesis and its Rivals. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Lan-
guages; Ellis, N., Ed.; Academic Press: London,1994.

Krashen, S. D.; Brown, C. L. What is Academic Language Proficiency? Singapore Tertiary Eng-
lish Teachers Society Language and Communication Review, 2007, 6, 1.

Leki, I. Understanding ESL Writers. A Guide for Teachers; Boynton/Cook Publishers: Ports-
mouth, NH, 1992.

Magolda, M. In Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from

age 18 to 30; Hofer, B., Pintrich, P., Eds.; Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs
about knowledge and knowing; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2002.

Perry, W. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Hold,
Rinehart and Winston: Troy, Mo, 1970.

Ruiz, M. The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom; Amber-Allen Publish-
ing: San Rafael, CA, 1997.

Seidman, A. The community college: A challenge for change. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 1995, 19(3), 247–254.

Slocum, S. ESL Strategies. Facilitating Learning for Students Who Speak English as a Second
Language; Alverno College: Milwaukee, 2003.

Tinto, V. Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success in
higher education. Journal of Institutional Research.2000, 9(1), 48–53.

Tinto, V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition; University Of
Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994.

Tinto, V. Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First Generation Students;
The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education: Washington DC, 2008.

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.
Weimer, M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice; Jossey-Bass: San Fran-
cisco, 2002.
Zeegers, P.; Martin, L.A learning to learn program in a first-year chemistry class. Higher Educa-
tion Research and Development. 2001, 20(1), 36–52.
CHAPTER 9

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND DEEP

LEARNING
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page.
— SAINT AGUSTINE

CONTENTS

9.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 186

9.2 Brief Historical Overview of Internationalization of
Universities and Colleges ............................................................ 186
9.3 Need to Change ............................................................................ 188
9.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 198
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 199
Keywords .............................................................................................. 200
References ............................................................................................. 201
186 Facilitating Deep Learning

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The examination of problems, questions, and situations from diverse

knowledge modes creates the possibility of richer interactions that en-
hance the deep learning process. This process is also enriched when we
help our students examine these problems, questions, and situations from
global and international perspectives and in a plurality of languages. Thus,
an international and a plurilingual education constitutes an essential aspect
of the inclusive deep learning environment.
This chapter focuses on international and plurilingual initiatives that
help students maximize learning. It begins with a brief historical overview
of internationalization efforts of universities and colleges. I will then focus
on four key aspects that promote an international and plurilingual educa-
tion: internationalization of the curriculum, integration of study abroad
programs, cultural preparation of students, and plurilingual teaching.

9.2 BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

International education is a crucial element of any postsecondary educa-

tional endeavor. An international perspective helps students achieve deep
learning, as it stretches them to see the world from a different and global
viewpoint (Bowden and Marton, 2004). It also helps students become in-
ternationally knowledgeable citizens who are capable of succeeding in a
globalized world (AUCC, 2008). International education is “that learning
which enhances the individual’s ability to understand his or her condition
in the community and the world and improves the ability to make effective
judgments” (Hanvey, 2004).
Internationalization is not a new phenomenon in higher education. It
was an essential aspect of the universities when they were created in Eu-
rope over a millennium ago. Academics and students traveled from all
over Europe to participate in medieval universities (Stier, 2002). These
universities constructed knowledge that was essentially international. For
centuries, universities showed an interest in ideas, theories, and problems
that had a clear international focus.
Internationalization and Deep Learning 187

Most used Latin as a common language of instruction to attract students

from all over Europe. During medieval times, it was customary for uni-
versity graduates to travel to other European universities to complete their
education. These trips were known as cavalier journeys. At the beginning,
they had an explicit educational component. For example, these journeys
included meetings and discussions with university professors and other
students, as well as visits to the library. Later, these journeys dropped the
formal educational component, as it was understood that simply visiting
other countries and experiencing diverse cultures were sufficient edu-
cational experiences. John Amos Comenius, one of the most influential
educators of the seventeenth century, argued that university education has
to be complemented by travel. “In this country, there is not a nobleman,
who has not seen, at least Holland, France, and Italy; and really they have
to travel because education, which they receive, is not exactly the best”
(Charles-Louis, 1734).
With the emergence and consolidation of the modern national state,
universities retreated from an international focus to a more national ap-
proach. During this time, universities began to teach in local languages
(e.g., French in France and Spanish in Spain). The content itself also be-
came more local. As a way of illustration, faculties of law began to teach
the law governing the jurisdiction where the university was located (e.g.,
French law in France and Spanish law in Spain) instead of Roman law or
cannon law, which were considered more universal.
With the advent of globalization, universities and colleges have been
looking to embrace an international perspective again. European and
North American higher education institutions have been implement-
ing internationalization plans. Europe leads the way with long-standing
ERASMUS and SOCRATES programs and with the recent creation of the
European Higher Education Area. International mobility, exchanges, for-
eign languages, and European ideas are integral components of university
education in Europe. Internationalization constitutes part of a large-scale
political process of European integration (Stier, 1998).
North American universities and colleges have been designing and
implementing internationalization initiatives in part to compete with their
European counterparts. In North America, most of these initiatives revolve
around the adoption of student exchange programs and the adoption of
188 Facilitating Deep Learning

some courses or programs with international content. “The piecemeal ap-

proach—a language requirement here, some study abroad there, and an
internationally focused course or two—has not succeeded in deeply inter-
nationalizing higher education institutions or student learning” (Greene,
2002). Study abroad programs tend to fail when students do not speak the
language of the country, spend too much time with their fellow students
from their home university or college, and when they participate in field
trips that resemble tourist excursions rather than exploration activities
(Brewer and Cunningham, 2009).

9.3 NEED TO CHANGE

The internationalization of universities and colleges needs a radical cultur-

al change in higher education institutions, particularly in North America.
It needs a commitment from the administration to foster an international
ethos across campus and the necessary funding to support international
initiatives. It also requires teachers to foster an international perspective
in their own courses and programs (AUCC, 2008). “It is not easy to at-
tain cross-cultural awareness or understanding of the kind that puts you
into the head of a person from an utterly different culture. Contact alone
will not do it. Even sustained contact will not do it” (Hanvey, 2004). The
solution lies in a 180-degree change in the way students, teachers, and ad-
ministrators approach international and intercultural issues. “There must
be a readiness to respect and accept, and a capacity to participate.[…] And
the participation must be sustained over long periods of time.[…][O]ne
may assume that some plasticity in the individual, the ability to learn and
change, is crucial” (Hanvey, 2004).
Apart from the creation of inclusive deep learning scenarios as dis-
cussed earlier, this change toward full internationalization requires the
internationalization of the curriculum, the integration of study abroad pro-
grams with an internationalized home-campus curriculum, a thorough cul-
tural preparation of students before they travel abroad, and a plurilingual
education across campus. Let’s examine each of these key factors.
Internationalization and Deep Learning 189

9.3.1 INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM

A significant aspect of internationalization of universities and colleges is

the internationalization of the curriculum. An international curriculum is
“a curriculum with an international orientation in content, aimed at pre-
paring students for performing (professionally and socially) in an interna-
tional and multicultural context and designed for domestic students and/or
foreign students” (Stronkhorst, 2005).
The content must reflect the questions, problems, situations, and the-
ories that transcend the boundaries of the region the university or col-
lege is situated in. That content must be approached from an ethnorela-
tive perspective, that is, it must be addressed as people in other regions
and countries deal with those problems, questions, and situations. For ex-
ample, the typical undergraduate criminology curriculum in the United
States and Canada focuses on North American criminal problems. Crime
in Latin America or in Africa is different from crime committed in North
America. The typical curriculum simply ignores criminal phenomena
in the developing world. The theories that tend to explain criminality in
North America fail to explain criminal events in other parts of the world,
even if they claim otherwise; and the curriculum generally ignores the
vast and rich theories generated outside North America, Europe, and other
mainstream regions. In science, the typical medical schools’ curriculum
in North America and Europe is dominated by a pharmaceutical and al-
lopathic conception of medicine. Chinese, Indian, and aboriginal notions
of medicine are either ignored or treated as marginal.
This international content needs to be accompanied by readings from
authors from other countries, including authors from non-Western parts of
the world. Authors who do not write in English usually offer a perspec-
tive that reflects ideas generated in their cultures that are not tainted by
Western thought. If you don’t read foreign languages, you can ask interna-
tional students and international colleagues (even from other disciplines)
to help you identify and translate (if necessary) key readings. For example,
a colleague of mine who teaches nutrition at the graduate level wanted
to incorporate nutritional approaches from different parts of the world,
particularly those that are not well known in North America and West-
ern Europe. She traveled throughout South East Asia, South America, and
190 Facilitating Deep Learning

Central America and incorporated nutritional habits from those regions in

her curriculum. She used Internet translation websites to translate stories,
recipes, and texts from those cultures. Then, she edited those translations
and asked members of the community who were born in those regions to
check for accuracy. Her students also helped her with nutritional perspec-
tives from their families and their own travels. She has been doing this for
years; her courses benefit from a fairly extensive collection of nutritional
trends from all over the world.

9.3.2 INTEGRATED STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS

In Europe and North America, most higher education institutions have

study abroad components. However, in North America, few universi-
ties and colleges include study abroad programs as part of their required
curricula. In most cases, study abroad is disconnected from the campus
curricula. In some other cases, students even find it hard to have credits
earned abroad be recognized as part of their majors. This is because the
Instruction-paradigm university revolves around credits and courses that
are considered unique—and essentially nontransferrable.
The most successful study abroad programs are those, which integrate
the home campus curriculum, as it is the home curriculum that is the most
influential in shaping students’ educational experience. In these integrated
curricula, students learn to recognize and value international approaches
to the disciplines they learn in their home institutions.
Integration between the home program and the study abroad program
requires the coordination and articulation of both programs. Ideally, both
should be seen as two aspects of the same program. At the institution-
al level, this requires negotiation of a common curriculum between the
home and the foreign programs. This should be accompanied by a cultural
change cutting across the entire campus—from the president to the cafete-
ria employees and including teachers, students, educational developers,
and staff. This cultural change must be expressed in institutional values,
policies, funding, support, recognition of learning, and other inclusive
practices throughout the university or college (AUCC, 2008).
Internationalization and Deep Learning 191

At the classroom level, we can coordinate with the department or

teachers receiving our students the kind of learning experiences that our
students need in order to make the most of the study abroad program.
As with most other aspects of the learning process, teachers play a fun-
damental role in students’ international education. When we are interested
in international projects and incorporate them in our classes, students are
more likely to want to complete their studies abroad. Teachers’ interest
usually increases when we had an international education as students or
when we go abroad to do research, teach a course, or participate in a work-
shop.
Another essential aspect of the integration of the home curriculum with
the study abroad program is the adoption of measures to incorporate in
our classes the experiences of students while they are studying abroad and
when they return (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009). For example, I usu-
ally ask students studying abroad to Skype® into my classes so that they
discuss their experiences with the students taking my courses. I sometimes
ask them to prepare a short talk on something they are learning. I also
ask my students to interview the students who are studying abroad. This
generally encourages students to want to do a study abroad program. At
the same time, the students already studying abroad feel connected to their
home institution and feel that what they are doing is valued at home.
It is also important to give continuity to what the students learned
abroad. One way of doing this is to offer a seminar or workshop where
returning students can continue exploring the topics or issues that they
learned abroad. Another way to give continuity is to offer a course in the
language in which students studied abroad. For example, if chemistry stu-
dents went to Russia to do part of their program there, the department
could offer a chemistry course in Russian so that students can keep using
Russian and will not forget it.
The other side of the coin in integrated study abroad programs is the
accommodation of the curriculum of the host institution that receives in-
ternational students. This, too, requires a permanent open dialog with the
sending university or college. This dialog has to make sure that the hosting
university understands the learning goals and academic needs of the inter-
national students it receives. For this purpose, it is essential to get to know
the students as well as possible. Clinical interviews, one-on-one conver-
192 Facilitating Deep Learning

sations, placement tests, observations, and the range of initial evaluation

strategies suggested later in the book constitute effective methods to attain
this objective. These methods can help the host institution plan the learn-
ing experiences for the students coming for their study abroad programs.
These experiences can include courses, dedicated workshops, advising,
and out-of-class performances.

9.3.3 STUDENT PREPARATION AT THEIR HOME

INSTITUTIONS

If students see study abroad programs as life-changing experiences, the

home curriculum must adequately prepare them for this transformation
and, especially, must acknowledge and value this transformation upon
their return (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009).
A successful study abroad program requires students to be develop-
mentally ready to embark on educational experiences abroad and to be
fully prepared to make the most of these experiences (Brewer and Cun-
ningham, 2009). Like with Perry’s (1970) cognitive developmental pro-
cess, there are also developmental stages in cultural adaptation. When in-
teracting with other cultures, we usually go through the following stages:
(i) denial: we are unable to perceive significant cultural differences;
(ii) defense: we assign negative characteristics to cultural differences;
(iii) minimization: we perceive cultural differences, but we minimize
them by thinking that they are not significant, that essentially we
are all the same and we all want the same things;
(iv) acceptance: we accept existence of cultural differences even when
we do not like them;
(v) adaptation: we internalize a different cultural frame of reference
and become bicultural or multicultural;
(vi) integration: we reconcile the internalized conflicting frames of ref-
erence and become intercultural mediators; we become intercultur-
alists and multiculturalists (Bennett, 1998).
The first three stages are considered ethnocentric; the last three are eth-
norelative. Students have to be in one of the ethnorelative stages of inter-
cultural development in order to profit from the study abroad experience.
Internationalization and Deep Learning 193

The move from ethnocentric to ethnorelative stages of cultural adap-

tation requires preparation by the home university. Adequate preparation
entails embracing the creation of inclusive deep learning environments as
discussed earlier. It also requires helping students develop ethnographic
and participant observation skills (Edwards, 2000) and helping them un-
derstand the history, culture, arts, and politics of the country that they will
study in (Pusch and Merrill, 2008). An adequate level of acquisition of the
language of the foreign country is also essential, as is the students’ ability
to learn experientially (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009).
Students also need to have the intercultural resources to be able to un-
derstand “the nature of intercultural dynamics and the cognitive, behavioral,
and affective dimensions of the experience” (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009).
These resources include cognitive aspects, that is, place-specific knowledge,
knowledge about oneself, and knowledge about intercultural theory. Place-
specific knowledge can be developed through projects, readings, case studies,
and other student performances focused on the country and culture that the
students will visit. Knowledge about oneself can be developed through reflec-
tive journals, scenarios, role-playing, and other activities focused on explor-
ing oneself and how one relates to situations involving people from different
cultures. Intercultural theory helps students understand other human beings
when they do not share a common cultural experience by focusing on identi-
fying and analyzing the factors that influence our experience of other cultures
and cultural phenomena (Bennett, 1998). These factors include stereotyping
and generalization processes, such as deductive and inductive stereotyping,
intercultural communication processes, perceptual reality, verbal and nonver-
bal behavior, communication styles, values, and assumptions (Bennett, 1998).
Students also need to be equipped with ethnorelative attitudinal re-
sources such as the ability to suspend judgment, tolerance of ambiguity,
curiosity, and confidence (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009). In addition,
adequate preparation needs to focus on the skills and competences that
students need to develop in order to be prepared to make the most of their
study abroad experiences. These include the abilities to listen, observe, de-
scribe, interpret, and reflect from ethnorelative perspectives (Brewer and
Cunningham, 2009). When these resources and knowledge are embedded
throughout the home curriculum, students will be able to apply them easily
and in a natural way in their study abroad experiences.
194 Facilitating Deep Learning

9.3.4 PLURILINGUAL EDUCATION

Learning the academic disciplines or professional fields in a plurality of

languages is another essential aspect of both a rich deep learning process
and the inclusive deep learning environment. It permits learners to examine
them from angles that cannot be considered when analyzing problems or
questions from a single language. This is so because language is a system of
representation for perception and thinking (Bennett, 1998). Thus, learning a
discipline in a second language enables learners to achieve a degree of depth
that cannot be achieved when teaching and learning in only one language.
Knowledge of more than one language is also crucial to compete with
graduates from universities in Europe and other countries that have ex-
tensive foreign and second language policy programs. For example, the
Council of Europe adopted policy that recommends its member states to
adopt a plurilingual approach to education at all levels. Within this frame-
work, authorities have to ensure that language instruction is fully integrat-
ed within the core of the educational aims of universities and to consider
and treat each language not in isolation but as part of a coherent plurilin-
gual education for all students across the entire curriculum (Council of Eu-
rope, 2008). A plurilingual education also fosters an increased awareness
of and sensitivity for multicultural issues (Haigh, 2009).
From a biological point of view, exploring academic issues in a plural-
ity of languages increases the neuronal networks in the prefrontal cortex
of the brain (Kaushanskaya and Marian, 2007). Additionally, research has
shown that being plurilingual, or even bilingual, can have positive effects
on the brain, improving cognitive abilities beyond language and protecting
against brain diseases in old age. These benefits apply not only to those
who acquire a language during childhood but also to adults who learn a
second language (Bhattacharjee, 2012).
With notable exceptions, most of North American undergraduate educa-
tion is unilingual. Unlike in European higher education institutions, plurilin-
gual education, that is, the acquisition and development of several second
languages, is not a priority in North American universities and colleges. In
1991, 35 percent of Canadian universities required a second language for
undergraduate graduation. This percentage plummeted to 9 percent in 2006
(AUCC, 2008). A similar situation takes place in the United States, where
Internationalization and Deep Learning 195

foreign language education at the postsecondary level has been considered

scandalous (Panetta, 1999). Although the United States and Canada are mul-
ticultural societies (and Canada is also a bilingual country) with a plurality of
languages and immigrant minorities, instruction in North American colleges
and universities is essentially unilingual. This has resulted in two interrelated
phenomena. First, unilingual students do not acquire a second language. In
Canada, most students graduate without even speaking the other official lan-
guage. Second, students who are already bilingual —mostly first—and, to a
lesser extent, second-generation immigrants—do not become fully literate in
their first language, because higher education institutions do not give them the
possibility to pursue part of their education in their first language.
In the United States and Canada, we have relegated the teaching of sec-
ond languages essentially to literature or modern languages departments. Al-
though these play a very important role in higher education, their efforts do
not guarantee a plurilingual education for all students. The result has been that
languages are treated as subjects like any other discipline “in terms of time
allocation, organization of curriculum time, and assessment and certification,
as if languages were objects of study like other subjects. Languages there-
fore compete with other subjects for curriculum time and learners’ attention”
(Council of Europe, 2008). This parallels the development of writing in U.S.
and Canadian universities (Kearns and Turner, 2008). When teaching writing
was confined exclusively to English departments, students did not achieve
writing literacy in the disciplines. Disciplinary departments had to assume the
role of teaching students how to write in their fields. And some still do so re-
luctantly. Learning a second language necessitates similarly coordinated and
massive efforts across the curriculum. In the meantime, we teachers in the
disciplines need to assume responsibility for helping our students acquire a
second language. We need to help our students obtain an education that will
fully prepare them to succeed in today’s interconnected world.
Those of us who teach in nonlanguage disciplines may think that we are
not prepared to help our students learn a second language. Those who are
unilingual may find this even ludicrously unattainable. I suggest that we can
help our students develop a second language in the long-term, even if we do
not speak it fluently, by making small but constant changes aimed at introduc-
ing and fostering the development of a second language in our courses, while
maintaining the core of instruction in English. Table 9.1 includes some practi-
cal suggestions to adopt plurilingual teaching in our classrooms.
196 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 9.1 Plurilingual teaching strategies.

• Choose a second language (L2) and connect it to your course.
o Choose the language that you want your students to develop according to your and
your students’ preferences and the resources available in your community. Then,
connect your substantive course to the target L2. Make it a natural path for students
to learn that L2. For example, if you teach nutrition and there is a food laboratory
whose holding company is in France, include discussions on French and European
food policy into your course.
• Start small and introduce changes gradually.
o The first time you teach a course, you cannot expect unilingual students to become
fully proficient in the L2. This will never happen in one single course. But you
may aim at instilling in students an awareness of the importance to learn a second
language throughout their university studies. You can be more ambitious in future
courses. Additionally, try to see the big picture. Most of us have the same students
in different courses throughout their university years. So, maybe we can try to help
students develop a very basic notion of a second language in the introduction to
our discipline course and progressively aim at slightly higher levels in subsequent
courses.
• Educate yourself about theories of second language acquisition.
o Become familiar with the theories of second language acquisition and the predomi-
nant methods for teaching second languages. If you are already familiar with learn-
ing theories and effective teaching methods, you will have strong foundations to
understand second language theories easily.
• Provide input in the L2
o Learners acquire a second language when they receive input in the second language
that is within their zone of proximal development (Vigotsky, 1978), which is known
as input + 1 (Krashen, 1988). Give students plenty of appropriate input in the L2.
o For example, introduce yourself in the L2, write the agenda for the class in the L2
on the board, and give students a short and simple text about your discipline in the
L2, preferably one with photographs, graphics, charts, figures, and other nonlinguis-
tic information. Ask them to infer the content based on linguistic and paralinguistic
clues. If one or two students already speak the L2, ask them to present a topic in the
L2 at a simple level for other students to follow.
o If you don’t speak the language, look for alternative sources of input, for example, a
short video, or invite a student who speaks the L2 in your class to do so.
Internationalization and Deep Learning 197

TABLE 9.1 (Continued)

• Encourage your students to use the L2 in class.
ο After the initial silent period (Krashen, 1988), you should encourage your students to
start using the L2 in class. For example, if they have to give an oral presentation in
English, ask them to introduce themselves and the presentation in the L2 or encour-
age them to ask a simple question in the L2 during a lecture.
• Help students experiment with the L2.
ο Devote a few minutes every class to discuss specific aspects of the language. Help
students deduce a grammatical aspect of the L2. For example, if students are trying
to express opinions in the L2, show some examples of how people do so in the L2
and ask them to discuss and deduce the grammatical forms in small groups. Then,
you can write students’ conclusions on the board. Let students experiment with these
forms. If you don’t speak the L2 ask a student or a friend who does to help you. Re-
member it is the students who need to negotiate meaning and construct knowledge in
the L2.
• Take them out to the field.
ο Show your students the importance of speaking the L2 in the real world. Plan field
trips to visit companies, organizations, and people that speak the L2. For example, if
you teach accounting arrange a visit to a company whose head office is in a country
where people speak your target language. Meet with a manager in the accounting de-
partment who speaks the L2, Ask your students to talk to him or her in English and,
if possible, in the L2. Ask the manager to show a balance sheet or other accounting
documents written in the L2. Even if your students have a rudimentary knowledge
of the L2, they will be familiar with a balance sheet and will be able to deduce the
information written in the L2. Encourage the manager to explain accounting terms in
the L2. It is by making connections between new knowledge (L2) and their existing
knowledge (accounting) that students will learn the L2.
• Hook them up with other L2 learners and native speakers of the L2.
ο Learning is a collective enterprise. It implies an acculturation in communities of
knowledgeable peers (Bruffee, 1999). So, encourage students to connect to other
speakers of the L2. You can match them with learners of the L2 from other universi-
ties so that they can exchange emails about general issues related to your discipline.
You can ask your students to tweet in the L2 and to follow a native speaker, who
tweets about your discipline in the L2
198 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 9.1 (Continued)

• Deal proactively with natural resistance.
ο You will meet resistance from the administration, colleagues, and students. The best
way to do deal with resistance from your colleagues and administrators is by en-
gaging in action-research projects to collect data about the success of your courses.
Share the results in presentations at your institution or publish them (Weimer, 2002).
Research shows that students are more enthusiastic about unconventional teaching.
If you communicate your goals clearly, you are passionate about the learning en-
terprise, and treat them fairly, students will soon embark with your linguistic goals.
• Take risks and have fun!
ο If we do not take these risks, our students in unilingual universities will not have the
possibility of a plurilingual education that may help them fully prepare to work and
live in an increasingly globalized world.

9.4 SUMMARY

An international and plurilingual education is an essential aspect of the

inclusive deep learning environment and contributes to enhance the con-
nections that learners make while engaged in the process of construction
of knowledge, which leads to a richer and more profound learning experi-
ence. The Instruction-paradigm universities and colleges, particularly in
North America, have failed to develop an international and plurilingual
education. At the classroom level, the implementation of an international
and plurilingual education requires the internationalization of the curricu-
lum, the integration of study abroad programs with an internationalized
home-campus curriculum, cultural preparation to help students move from
ethnocentric to ethnorelative stages, and the development of, at least, more
than one language.
In the next chapter, I will address a related issue: how to help students
who speak English as a foreign language who come to North American
universities and colleges to study in English.
Internationalization and Deep Learning 199

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Think of a course you are teaching or one that you have recently
taught. What changes can you make to include a more international
perspective? What changes can you make to integrate your course
with study abroad programs? What pedagogical adjustments, if
any, would you have to make to accommodate these changes?
2. What specific actions can you take to encourage more students to
participate in study abroad experiences? How can you promote
study abroad programs in your classes?
3. How can you help returning study abroad students continue with
their learning experiences initiated abroad? What can you do to
help them maintain a foreign language learned abroad? How can
you help them reintegrate back to your courses and program? What
can you do in your courses so that returning study abroad students
can share their experiences with other students?
4. It has been argued that students need to move from ethnocentric to
ethnorelative stages to make the most of their experiences abroad.
What specific actions and initiatives can you think of to help stu-
dents in the defense stage move to acceptance or adaptation stages?
5. What can you do in your program to internationalize the curricu-
lum? What institutional factors can help in this effort? What insti-
tutional factors can hinder this effort?
6. Suppose you want to review your program to introduce interna-
tional components in the curriculum. A colleague with no inter-
national experience vehemently opposes this idea and is trying to
convince untenured faculty to oppose it, too. What can you do to
deal with this opposition and resistance?
7. Remember or watch Endless Love (1981) directed by Franco
Zeffirelli. David refers to Jade as an international student who has
just come from the People’s Republic of China to study capital
investments in the United States. Suppose that you teach this class
and that Jade is in fact a foreign exchange student from China.
What can you do to maximize her experience in your course? What
can you do to learn about her learning goals and curricular needs?
200 Facilitating Deep Learning

What can you do so that your local students will learn from this and
other visiting and foreign exchange students in your courses?
8. What specific actions can you take to promote a plurilingual educa-
tion in your program? Which of the teaching strategies suggested
in Table 9.1 can you include in your courses? How would you im-
plement them? Which of those strategies would you not include?
Why?
9. It has been argued that the main factors that contribute to a global
education are: internationalization of the curriculum, integration
of study abroad programs, cultural preparation of students, and
plurilingual teaching. Can you think of other factors that may also
contribute to a global and international education? What classroom
and institutional actions are needed in relation to those factors?
What kind of support is needed?
10. An essential aspect of cultural preparation for international experi-
ences is the development of ethnorelative attitudinal competences
and skills, such as the ability to suspend judgment and tolerance of
ambiguity. How can you include the teaching of these skills into
your courses? How can you help students develop these skills?

KEYWORDS

• deep learning
• integration
• internationalization
• internationalization of the curriculum
• plurilingual education
• student preparation
• study abroad programs
• teaching strategies
Internationalization and Deep Learning 201

REFERENCES

AUCC (2008). Internationalization of the curriculum: A practical guide to support Canadian

universities’ efforts.http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/curriculum-primer_e.pdf
(accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Bennett, M. J. Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective. In Basic Concepts of In-

tercultural Communication: Selected Readings; Bennett, M. J., Ed.;Intercultural Press: Yar-
mouth, ME: 1998.

Bhattacharjee, Y. Why Bilinguals are Smarter. New York Times, March 17, 2012.

Bowden, J. and Marton, F. University of Learning. London: Routledge, 2004.

Brewer, E.; Cunningham, K.Integrating study abroad into the curriculum: Theory and practice
across the disciplines; Stylus Press: Sterling, VA, 2009.

Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

Council of Europe (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers

to member states on the use of the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism.

Edwards, J. The “other Eden”: Thoughts on American study abroad in Britain. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 2000, 6, 83–98.

Green, M. F. Internationalizing undergraduate education: Challenges and lessons of success;

American Council on Education: Washington, DC, 2002.

Haigh, M. Fostering Cross-Cultural Empathy with Non-Western Curricular Structures. Journal

of Studies in International Education, 2009, 13, 2, 271.

Hanvey, R. G. An Attainable Global Perspective.The American Forum for Global Education,

2004.http://www.globaled.org/an_att_glob_persp_04_11_29.pdf(accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Kaushanskaya, M.; Marian, V. Age-of-acquisition effects in the development of a bilingual ad-

vantage for word learning. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development. Cascadilla Press; Somerville, MA, 2007.

Kearns, J.; Turner, B. The Historical Roots of Writing Instruction in Anglo-Canadian Universi-
ties.European Journal of Writing. 2008, 1–8.

Krashen, S. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning; Prentice-Hall

International: New York, 1988.
202 Facilitating Deep Learning

Panetta, L. Foreign Language Education: If ‘Scandalous’ in the twentieth century, What Will It
Be in the twenty-first century? Foreign language study in American universities at the end of
the twentieth century, Stanford University conference, June 2, 1999. https://www.stanford.
edu/dept/lc/language/about/conferencepapers/panettapaper.pdf (accessed Aug 12, 2013).

Perry, W. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Hold,
Rinehart and Winston: Troy, Mo, 1970.

Pusch, M.; Merrill, M. Reflection, reciprocity, responsibility, and committed relativism: Inter-
cultural development through international service learning. In Developing intercultural
competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international educa-
tion; Savicki, V., Ed.; Stylus: Sterling, VA, 2008.

Stier, J. Dimensions and Experiences of Human Identity: An Analytical Toolkit andIllustration.

Monograph 69, Department of Sociology, Goteborg University, Goteborg. 1998.

Stier, J. Internationalization in higher education: unexplored possibilities and unavoidable chal-

lenges, European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 11–14
September, 2002.

Stronkhorst, R. Learning outcomes of international mobility at two Dutch institutions of Higher

Education.Journal of Studies in International Education, 2005, 9(4), 292–315.

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.

Weimer, M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice; Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, 2002.
CHAPTER 10

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND

ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY
Language is not a genetic gift, it is a social gift. Learning a new
language is becoming a member of the club—the community of
speakers of that language.
— FRANK SMITH

CONTENTS

10.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 204

10.2 Demographics .............................................................................. 204
10.3 Challenges and Concerns ............................................................. 205
10.4 Academic Proficiency .................................................................. 206
10.5 Language Acquisition Process ..................................................... 207
10.6 Strategies to Help ESL Students .................................................. 210
10.7 Obstacles to Academic Proficiency in a Second Language ......... 213
10.8 Summary ...................................................................................... 215
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 216
Keywords .............................................................................................. 221
References ............................................................................................. 221
204 Facilitating Deep Learning

10.1 INTRODUCTION

A related issue to inclusive deep learning environments and an internation-

al and plurilingual education is teaching students whose native language
does not coincide with the language of instruction of the university or
college. Although the ideas of inclusive deep learning environments such
as respect and recognition of diverse cultures, traditions, and worldviews
apply here and are the main factors to help nonnative-speaking students
succeed in the classroom, I will further address some specific aspects of
this phenomenon.
The chapter begins with a brief examination of nonnative student de-
mographics in North America to contextualize this phenomenon. Then,
I describe the challenges and concerns arising from teaching nonnative
speaking students, particularly those from the non-Western world. Then,
I explore the concept of academic proficiency and some relevant aspects
of second language acquisition theories. Finally, I will delve into strate-
gies to help nonnative-speaking students achieve academic proficiency in
the disciplines as well as common practices that hinder the attainment of
academic proficiency.
I will focus the discussion on nonnative-speaking students studying
in universities and colleges where the language of instruction is English.
However, all of the challenges, theories, and strategies in this chapter also
apply to nonnative-speaking students studying in any second or foreign
language. As in the previous chapters dealing with diversity and learning,
the goal is to explore opportunities to maximize student deep learning.

10.2 DEMOGRAPHICS

First of all, it is important to bear in mind that nonnative speakers of English

constitute a large percentage of the student population in North American
higher education institutions. This group is made up of diverse students
with varied skills, backgrounds, and levels of language proficiency. Non-
native English speakers include: (i) international students who come to do
an entire academic program for two, three, or four years, some of whom
may settle down in North America, whereas others return to their home
International Students and Academic Proficiency 205

countries; (ii) foreign exchange students, who come for one or two semes-
ters and then return to their home institutions; (iii) recent immigrants who
have been living in an English speaking country for a few years; (iv) citi-
zens of the country who normally speak a language other than English at
home and have been educated in that language or mainly in that language
rather than English during their primary and secondary schooling, such
as Francophone Quebeckers in Canada and some aboriginal students who
speak their native language in the United States or Canada; and (v) some
students who speak an English dialect that is not considered standard for
mainstream North American academics are often included in this category,
even if technically they are native speakers. These include certain Asian
and African variations of English.

10.3 CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS

Two years ago, a small, undergraduate university—located in a relatively

isolated and predominantly unilingual, homogeneous, and white town in
northern Canada—received hundreds of students from the Middle East.
This massive influx of students dramatically changed the demographics of
the campus and even the city.
These students met all the admissions requirements. They had good
TOEFL scores, comparable to scores that would give them access to virtually
any university in North America, including some elite institutions. They also
had very good grade-point averages (GPAs) from their high schools. Although
some teachers, particularly those with an international background, welcomed
these students, most faculty members reacted very negatively. They claimed
that Middle East students were not prepared to study in North America. They
argued that they could not speak English correctly, that they did not have the
critical thinking skills to analyze complex materials, and that they could not
write essays in English (as if local students could in first year). Some even
claimed that the TOEFL test and other similar standardized tests were inef-
fective to measure English language proficiency. Others came up with sto-
ries that they claimed to have read online that getting a decent grade in high
school in the Middle East is simply a matter of giving expensive presents to
the teachers. Others vociferated that they felt intimidated by groups of Middle
206 Facilitating Deep Learning

East male students speaking in Arabic in the hallways. Some of these faculty
members informally and formally raised some of the strangest proposals in
various academic organs. These proposals ranged from stopping admitting
international students (except for students coming from England, the United
States, and Australia) to segregating Middle East students into courses with no
local students.
Even in larger universities and colleges, many teachers frequently
complain that it is difficult to teach their disciplines to students who do not
understand English and who cannot communicate in English. Although
this may seem to be a legitimate concern, I believe it is not the case. Most
English as a second language (ESL) students have a basic knowledge of
English. They have passed standardized English language tests, have lived
in the country for a few years, or have received some education in English.
What they often lack is academic proficiency in the disciplines in English.
Incidentally, most domestic students also lack academic proficiency in the
disciplines even if they are native speakers of English.

10.4 ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY

Academic proficiency, a concept first proposed by Cummins (1979),

means having the capacity to use language efficiently in academic set-
tings. For example, you can use language to formulate a hypothesis, to
discuss the literature in an academic discipline, to write a thesis, to engage
in a debate about opposing theories, or to present at a conference. This is
in contrast to basic interpersonal communication skills, which deal with
language use in everyday situations such as ordering coffee, talking about
the weather with a neighbor, or commenting about a sports game. Most
ESL students have basic interpersonal communications skills, albeit at dif-
ferent levels of competence.
Academic proficiency consists of three aspects: (i) knowledge of aca-
demic language, that is, the discourse of the academic disciplines or pro-
fessions; (ii) knowledge of specialized subject matter, that is, the content
of the discipline or profession; and (iii) strategies, that is, a series of ac-
tions that contribute toward the acquisition and development of both aca-
demic language and subject matter content (Krashen and Brown, 2007).
International Students and Academic Proficiency 207

As mentioned before, it takes nonnative speakers of English longer to be-

come academically proficient than their native counterparts. ESL students
who are already academically proficient in their first language need a pe-
riod of five to seven years to become academically proficient in English
(Slocum, 2003). So, this means that ESL undergraduate students will prob-
ably not become academically proficient until, and if, they go to graduate
school. This period is even longer for those ESL students who are not aca-
demically proficient in their first language, such as international students
who come fresh from high school to study a discipline that they have not
studied in their home countries (Slocum, 2003).

10.5 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROCESS

It is important to understand the process of second language acquisition in

order to best help our ESL students achieve academic proficiency in our
disciplines.
Succinctly, we acquire a second language in the same way we have
acquired our first language. This implies a process of communicating and
interacting in the target language. Krashen (1981), a specialist in second
language teaching and learning, has developed five hypotheses about the
second language acquisition process. These five hypotheses are described
next (Krashen, 1988).

10.5.1 THE ACQUISITION-LEARNING DISTINCTION

The process of acquiring a second language is similar to the process by

which we learn our first language as children. We learn the language in
a subconscious way while we are engaged in multiple natural activities.
Language learning is a formal, conscious process that focuses on the lan-
guage itself—its rules, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Formal language
learning does not result in the development of a second language. So, for
example, focusing on correction of grammatical errors does not help ESL
students improve their English competence.
208 Facilitating Deep Learning

10.5.2 THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS

Learners acquire language structures in a progressive order, that is, there

is a natural order in the acquisition of different aspects of the language,
such as grammatical structures. This implies that there is no point in forc-
ing students to use certain grammatical structures when they are not yet
developmentally ready.

10.5.3 THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

Acquired language leads to fluency; and learned language produces cor-

rectness. Learned language acts as a monitor or editor and corrects spon-
taneous use of language. Some students over use the monitor and find
themselves correcting themselves all the time or simply not speaking so
as to avoid using language incorrectly. Other students underuse the moni-
tor and hand in written assignments full of mistakes that they could have
easily corrected.

10.5.4 THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

Learners acquire a second language when they receive comprehensible and

meaningful input in the second language that is within their zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978), which Krashen (1987) refers to as input+1.
Understanding language that uses grammatical structures that are beyond the
students’ language level is possible when students can make use of the con-
text, nonlinguistic information, and outside knowledge to understand the mes-
sage, that is, the input. When ESL students are forced to produce in English at
a level beyond their knowledge, their production is regarded as incorrect and
inappropriate by native English professors. Moreover, this hinders students’
progress in the process of learning the language.
The input hypothesis contradicts the skill-building hypothesis, which
is an approach that still persists in the Instruction paradigm. The skill-
building approach focuses on helping students “to consciously learn their
‘skills’(grammar, vocabulary, spelling). […] Only after skills are mastered
International Students and Academic Proficiency 209

can [students] actually use these skills in real situations” (Krashen, 2004).
This approach to language learning is not conducive to language acquisi-
tion and hinders the process toward academic proficiency.

10.5.5 THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS

Learners can only acquire a second language if they find themselves in

a motivating and low anxiety environment. A stressful and high anxiety
environment hinders the language acquisition process. For example, an
environment that is perceived by students to be too demanding or that does
not give students freedom to express will prevent students from receiving
the input, which will in turn hinder acquisition. Although we may do our
best to create a friendly and relaxing atmosphere, we need to be aware
that the context in which some ESL students find themselves may create a
high affective filter. For example, in The Girl Who Wouldn’t Sing, Kit Yuen
Quan (1990), a Chinese immigrant who emigrated to the United States at
the age of seven, recounts her experience with the English language.
It was really hard deciding how to talk about language because I had to go
through my blocks with language. I stumble upon these blocks whenever I
have to write, speak in public or voice my opinions in a group of native English
speakers with academic backgrounds. All of a sudden as I scramble for words,
I freeze and am unable to think clearly. Minutes pass as I struggle to retrieve
my thoughts until I finally manage to say something. But it never comes close
to expressing what I mean. I think it’s because I’m afraid to show who I really
am. I cannot bear the thought of the humiliation and ridicule. And I dread hav-
ing to use a language that has often betrayed my meaning. Saying what I need
to say using my own words usually threatens the status quo (Quan, 1990).

So according to Krashen (1981), “the best methods [for helping stu-

dents acquire and develop a second language] are therefore those that sup-
ply ‘comprehensible input’ in low-anxiety situations, containing messages
that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early pro-
duction in the second language, but allow students to produce when they
are ‘ready’, recognizing that improvement comes from supplying com-
municative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting
production” (Krashen, 1981).
210 Facilitating Deep Learning

10.6 STRATEGIES TO HELP ESL STUDENTS

The fact that ESL students need long periods of time to become academi-
cally proficient does not mean that we have to sit down and do nothing for
five years. Neither does it mean that we have to punish our students for be-
ing quiet in class or for not writing in English correctly. What we do need
to do in order to support ESL students in their process toward becoming
academically proficient in English is to employ some teaching strategies
founded upon the principles of second language acquisition. Equally im-
portant, we also need to refrain from adopting practices that hinder second
language development.
All college or university teachers can help their ESL students acquire
high levels of academic proficiency in their disciplines. Most of the ac-
tions needed to help ESL students reach academic proficiency are the same
as the ones analyzed earlier to help non-ESL students. The main difference
is that ESL students come from different communities of knowledgeable
peers than students who are native English speakers. So, we need to be
aware of the needs, backgrounds, knowledge, and discourse abilities of
members of these communities of knowledge. And we need to help them
acculturate in the community of knowledge of our discipline by providing
them with appropriate input in a low-anxiety environment so that they can
gradually develop their English language skills and eventually become
academically proficient in our disciplines. Table 10.1 discusses some spe-
cific classroom strategies to help ESL students in this process.

TABLE 10.1 Strategies to help ESL students.

• Provide opportunities for students to receive input+1.
ο Students need to receive appropriate comprehensible input in English about our dis-
ciplines. For this purpose, we need to identify students’ current levels of competence
and provide them with input that they can understand with the help of extralinguistic
clues, such as visual aids, or with the help of peers. As students progress in their
language abilities, input needs to become more challenging.
ο Krashen (2007) suggests a strategy that he refers to as narrow reading, where stu-
dents focus on reading a series of texts by one author or a series of texts about the
same topic. This helps students receive comprehensible input. At the same time, it
International Students and Academic Proficiency 211

TABLE 10.1 (Continued)

provides students with enough background knowledge to make that input more com-
prehensible. Krashen (2007) argues that experts follow the narrow reading approach to
become competent in their fields. Additionally, narrow reading motivates readers to focus
on the message and results in deep reading. After a considerable time focused on one
area, ESL students can gradually move to a closely related area and transfer the acquired
knowledge, structures, and vocabulary to the new area (Krashen, 2000).
• Create a nonthreatening environment.
ο The creation of a learning environment where students feel comfortable and safe to
communicate in English is essential for their progress toward academic proficiency.
ο Speaking, writing, and thinking in English cause emotional stress to speakers of
other languages. It is important to acknowledge the feelings and emotions that ESL
students experience while expressing in English.
ο It is also important to recognize the perceptions that foreign students have of North
Americans. For example, for Indians, North Americans are selfish and self-centered
and do not speak English properly (Ramisetty-Mikler, 1993). For Chinese students,
Americans are arrogant and aggressive, and the United States is regarded as hegem-
onic (Johnston and Stockman, 2005). South Korean students perceive Americans as
unfriendly (Won, 2005). Other cultures regard North Americans as frivolous, naïve,
and even false (Louis, 2002). Studies show that achievement of academic proficien-
cy in a second language is dependent on the student’s favorable attitude toward na-
tive speakers of that language (Clément, Gardner and Smythe, 1977).
ο In order to soften the negative effects on the development of academic proficiency in
English, Louis recommends employing performative pedagogy (Louis, 2002). Performa-
tive pedagogy “combines performance methods and theory with critical pedagogy in an
effort to carry out the dual project of social critique and transformation. Performance
offers an efficacious means of completing this project by privileging students histori-
cized bodies, by implementing contingent classroom dialog, and by exposing students to
the value embedded in performance risk” (Louis, 2002). For Elyze Pineau, performance
pedagogy is more than a teaching method, “it is a location, a way of situating one’s self
in relation to students, to colleagues, and to the institutional policies and traditions under
which we all labor. Performance Studies scholars and practitioners locate themselves as
embodied researchers: listening, observing, reflecting, theorizing, interpreting, and repre-
senting human communication through the medium of their own and others’ experienc-
ing bodies” (Pineau, 1998).
212 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 10.1 (Continued)

o Performative pedagogy may be used to encourage ESL students, particularly those
coming from societies, which feel oppressed by North American governments and
corporations, to create performance spaces to voice their oppressions and rehearse
solutions to remove obstacles hindering their English language acquisition (Louis,
2002).
• Give students time.
o Because it takes years for students to achieve academic proficiency in a second lan-
guage, in a Learning Paradigm university or college, ESL students should be given
ample periods of time to reach academic proficiency that exceed the traditional se-
mester or academic year. These periods of time should extend to several years in
order to respect the natural order hypothesis (Krashen, 1988). During these extended
periods of time, teachers should not force production in English beyond ESL stu-
dents’ zone of proximal development and should suspend judgment until ESL stu-
dents reach a sufficiently high level of language proficiency.
o In the current Instruction Paradigm, the traditional scheduling formats do not per-
mit teachers to suspend ESL students’ grading. In many cases, this translates into a
forced acceleration of ESL students’ natural development, which hinders the process
of language acquisition and promotes language learning and does not facilitate the
achievement of academic proficiency.
• We should help students become optimal monitor users.
o We should help students acquire and develop metacognitive strategies that are spe-
cific and appropriate for second language learners.
o We should also teach our students to use these monitoring strategies when using them is
contextually appropriate and, most important, when this fosters language acquisition.
o The effective use of communication strategies can also help students improve their aca-
demic proficiency (Faerch and Kasper, 1980). Communication strategies are classified
as (i) reduction strategies, such as topic avoidance, message abandonment, and mean-
ing replacement; (ii) achievement strategies, for example, cooperative strategies such as
circumlocution, approximation, and appeals for assistance; and (iii) uncooperative strate-
gies, for example mime, restructuring, language switch, borrowing, literal translation,
exemplification, and word coinage (Ting and Phan, 2008). Faucette (2001) argues that
the recommended strategies that teachers should encourage ESL students to master are
those that help the learner to communicate the intended goal and facilitate language ac-
quisition. These include approximation, circumlocution, and word coinage, together with
appeal for assistance if verbal and in English. The non-recommended strategies are the
reduction and the uncooperative strategies (Faucette, 2001).
International Students and Academic Proficiency 213

10.7 OBSTACLES TO ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY IN A SECOND

LANGUAGE

Apart from the strategies aimed at supporting ESL students’ acquisition of

the English language and development of academic proficiency in English,
we need to refrain from taking actions that hinder their process toward
academic proficiency in English. One of these obstacles is the overcorrec-
tion of mistakes. This may take place in the form of express comments to
grammatical, vocabulary, and spelling mistakes on papers and other writ-
ten assignments or in more subtle ways, as when teachers paraphrase a
question or comment made in class by an ESL student when they never do
so for statements made by native English speakers. Correction of mistakes
does not lead to any improvement in ESL students’ language progress.
Language acquisition is a natural process that requires comprehensible
input in a nonthreatening environment for long periods of time. Many
teachers believe that they help ESL students when they identify their mis-
takes, when in actuality this practice has the opposite effect, as it produces
an overuse of and overdependence on their language monitors (Krashen,
1988). Similar consequences arise when we refer ESL students to writ-
ing labs or writing centers so that writing tutors will help students correct
their mistakes and hand in error-free papers. These effects are exacerbated
when teachers punish ESL students for these mistakes, such as when they
give lower grades for papers or exams that have language mistakes.
Forcing output, whether in written or oral form, also hinders the pro-
cess toward academic proficiency. Research has long demonstrated that
learners do not develop a second language by producing outcomes. Learn-
ers will be able to produce in their second language when they are de-
velopmentally ready to do so after having received sufficient, appropri-
ate, and comprehensible input (Krashen, 1998). Written output such as
the production of essays and the writing of exams “do[es] not contribute
directly to language acquisition” Krashen (2007). Furthermore, according
to a wide array of research studies, “we can develop extremely high levels
of language and literacy without any language production at all” (Krashen,
2007). Moreover, forcing premature output can give rise to anxiety and
can create a negative environment, which also impedes language acquisi-
tion and academic proficiency (Krashen, 1994).
214 Facilitating Deep Learning

Another practice that also hinders the academic proficiency process is

isolating ESL students in courses that only ESL students take instead of
integrating them into mainstream courses. Some universities and colleges
offer these courses as a sort of transition before allowing ESL students to
take regular courses with local students.
Remedial courses also produce negative effects. These courses tend
to focus almost exclusively on language learning as opposed to language
acquisition and tend to encourage the acceleration of the natural order in
language acquisition, which is not conducive to academic proficiency in a
second language.
Additionally, it is important to bear in mind that learning in general
is not linear. Some of the errors that ESL students make while producing
in English, whether in writing or orally, are actually signs of progress.
Repressing these errors hinders ESL students’ process toward becoming
academically proficient. Error analysis is a field that views errors as an
integral part of language acquisition. It deals with the differences in the
way second language learners and native speakers speak (Richards, 1971).
Understanding ESL errors gives us a unique insight on where our ESL stu-
dents are in their academic proficiency process. Jack Richards (1971) has
compiled a taxonomy of errors committed by ESL learners that helps us
identify ESL students’ stage in this process. According to Richards (1971),
errors can be attributed to one of the following factors:
(1) interference, the use of aspects of another language at a variety of levels; (2)
strategies of learning such as over overgeneralization and analogy by means
of which the learner tests out his (sic) hypotheses about the structure of the
language; (3) strategies of assimilation, in which the learner makes his (sic)
learning task easier; and (4) strategies of communication, whereby the learner
adapts what he (sic) knows into an efficient communication model, producing
an optimal utility grammar from what he (sic) knows of the language (Rich-
ards, 1971).

Apart from these errors, it is important to distinguish between perfor-

mance and competence errors. Performance errors are “occasional and
haphazard and are related to such factors as fatigue and memory limi-
tations. [Competence errors] are systematic and may represent either a
transitional stage in the development of a grammatical rule or the final
International Students and Academic Proficiency 215

stage of the speaker’s knowledge” (Richards, 1971). In order to under-

stand ESL students’ stage in the process toward academic proficiency in
English, we should focus the error analysis solely on competence errors.
When conducting error analysis, it is important to bear in mind that for
some aspects of English language acquisition such as some function words
(words that have little lexical meaning and whose purpose is to signal
grammatical relations in a sentence) the order of acquisition is substantial-
ly the same across ESL learners, despite their first language backgrounds
(Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 1974). Furthermore, research studies show
that “second language errors are not, by nature, different from those made
by children learning English as a mother tongue, hence they should not be
of undue concern” (Richards, 1971).

10.8 SUMMARY

Many students in our university and college classrooms speak English as a

second or foreign language. These students need longer time periods to be-
come academically proficient than native speakers of English. Being aca-
demically proficient means having the capacity to use language effectively
in academic environments. Academic proficiency encompasses three as-
pects: (i) knowledge of academic language, (ii) knowledge of specialized
subject matter, and (iii) strategies to develop both academic language and
subject-matter content.
Knowledge of the process of second language acquisition becomes an
important tool to help ESL students attain academic proficiency in the
disciplines. Concisely, one learns a second language in the same way as
one acquired the first language, that is, by receiving comprehensible input
in the target language.
Strategies that respect the natural order in the process of acquisition
of language tend to facilitate ESL students’ acculturation in disciplinary
communities of knowledgeable peers. Forcing ESL students to produce
output in English and overcorrecting errors tend to hinder the process to-
ward academic proficiency.
216 Facilitating Deep Learning

The next two chapters focus on evaluation. They deal with the evalua-
tion of student performances and the evaluation of teaching effectiveness
from a deep learning perspective.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Think of a course you are currently teaching or a course you have

recently taught. What teaching strategies can you implement to
help ESL students in their path toward academic proficiency in
your discipline? What specific teaching practices do you think may
hinder ESL students’ academic proficiency? What changes, if any,
would you make to this course next time you teach it?
2. Why do you think that the admission of Middle East students to the
small, undergraduate university recounted earlier in this chapter
caused so much resistance? Read the measures that the university
took that are described in Table 10.2 at the end of this chapter.
What do you think of these measures? Do you agree? Why or why
not? What, if anything, would you have done differently? What
do you think of the placement test? Does it reflect an inclusive or
an exclusive pedagogical perspective? Why? What changes could
you make to the test? What other method would you adopt to know
your international students better? What institutional changes, if
any, are required to help ESL students become academically pro-
ficient in the disciplines in English at your university or college?
How would you implement these changes? Can you anticipate re-
sistance from colleagues and administrators? If so, how could you
deal with resistance?
3. It has been argued that correction of mistakes does not lead to any im-
provement in ESL students’ language acquisition process. What does
this argument mean in practice? Do you agree? Why or why not? If so,
what implications does this argument have in our classes?
4. Watch or remember the film Our Italian Husband (2004) directed
by Ilaria Borrelli. Focus on the scene when Maria, a recent Italian
immigrant, and her children first meet Charlene in New York. What
strategies do they use to communicate? Which of these strategies
International Students and Academic Proficiency 217

foster communication? Which strategies, if any, may hinder com-

munication? What other factors foster/hinder communication? If
Maria and her children were students in your class, what would
you do to help them become academically proficient in English?
5. One of your colleagues has problems with a Korean student whose
command of English is very limited. Your colleague says to you:
“I agree with inclusive teaching goals and with trying to respect
everybody’s background. But this student does not speak English.
What can I do? Shouldn’t she go to a remedial ESL class and then
come back to take my course when her English is better?” Do you
agree with your colleague? Why or why not? Aren’t there any other
alternatives? What would you suggest in this case?
6. Watch or remember The Simpsons “The Crepes of Wrath” episode
(1990, S1 E 11) directed by Wesley Archer and Milton Gray. In
this episode, Bart Simpson goes to France as a foreign exchange
student. Can you analyze Bart’s process of second language ac-
quisition? What can Bart do at the end of his trip to France that he
could not do at the beginning? Why is this possible? How can this
be explained in light of the academic proficiency process? What
strategies did Bart use to communicate in French?
7. A second-year student from Cambodia has written a paper worth
60 percent of the final grade. Although her ideas were interesting
and reflected an understanding of the topics discussed in class, her
professor failed her because the essay had many grammatical mis-
takes. The student does not understand why she did not get a better
grade. In Cambodia, professors are regarded as substitute parents.
Students never question their teachers. So, she does not ask her
professor why she failed the essay. You are the department chair.
The student decides to drop the course and asks for your authoriza-
tion. What would you say to the student? Would you talk to your
colleague? If so, what would you say? What can you do so that the
student will not drop the course?
8. A colleague of yours teaches a course where students have to
give presentations to external judges—mostly CEOs and manag-
ers from large corporations. He wants all his students to use “cor-
rect” English. He penalizes students who speak with regional or
218 Facilitating Deep Learning

foreign accents. Although most domestic students can control their

regional accents, international students from South America can-
not do anything about their accents. The external judges find the
South American students’ presentations quite interesting, but your
colleague penalized these students with a low mark for speaking
with a Spanish accent. The students are taking another class with
you. They do very well, and you have good relations with them.
They come to see you to talk about the situation in your colleague’s
class. They are very upset. What can you do? What would you
say to the students? Would you talk to your colleague? If so, what
would you say?
9. A Japanese student completing a four-year business administration
degree in the United States is taking a course with one of your col-
leagues. The student reads English quite well and speaks English
fluently. She is usually quiet in class. While giving a lecture on
negotiating business deals, your colleague asks her the following
question: “What do you think about the differences between nego-
tiations in Japan and the United States?” The student looks embar-
rassed and does not answer. Your colleague tells you about this in-
cident. Why do you think the student did not answer the question?
What can your colleague do if he wants the student to contribute
to the class discussions? What would you say to your colleague?
Would you talk to the student if you knew her? If so, what would
you say to her?
10. A fourth-year journalism student from Bolivia is always prepared
for class and has very interesting questions that he thinks of while
reading the assigned texts before class. His questions reveal a
deeper understanding of the materials than the questions his fel-
low domestic students ask. Every time the student asks a question
in class or makes a comment, his professor repeats the question or
comment for the whole class. The professor does not do the same
when the questions or comments come from domestic students.
The student feels frustrated and blames himself for speaking with
a strong accent. So, he decides not to participate in class any more.
The student discusses this with you, the department chair. Why do
you think your colleague repeats the student’s questions? What can
International Students and Academic Proficiency 219

you do to help this student? What would you say to him? Would
you talk to your colleague about this? If so, what would you say to
your colleague?

TABLE 10.2 Placement test and other measures taken for international students at a
small, undergraduate university.
With more students coming from the Middle East in the following semesters, the university de-
signed a strategy to reach a compromise between campus constituencies that had differing views on
what to do. The compromise consisted of raising the standards for admission for students from the
Middle East and creating three types of courses: foundation, transition, and regular courses. Foun-
dation courses are courses in general academic skills and in mathematics. Students are introduced to
basic North American academic skills that they need to have in order to succeed in regular courses.
The emphasis of the academic skills courses is on reading, writing, problem solving, critical think-
ing, and presentation skills.
The emphasis of mathematics foundation courses is on basic arithmetic operations and problems.
Transition courses are dedicated courses for international students in the disciplines that are taught
for more hours than the traditional three hour-a-week courses. The goal is to have more time to
work with the materials and to have more time in class to work on teaching and learning activities.
Teachers can also work on vocabulary and cultural issues that domestic students generally take for
granted. Regular courses are traditional courses taken with domestic students and other interna-
tional students.
In order to best recommend students the most appropriate type of course to take, the university
designed two placement tests for all incoming international students: a literacy and academic skills
assessment and a numeracy assessment. The former aims at evaluating general academic skills that
students need in order to succeed in traditional university courses in North America. It simulates
the types of activities that students have to do in most first-year courses in their majors, including
watching a lecture, reading an article, writing an essay, solving a problem, and preparing a presenta-
tion. The numeracy assessment evaluates students’ command of basic arithmetic competences. Be-
fore taking the placement test, students are encouraged to take a workshop where teachers discuss
the expectations of the placement tests and go over basic North American test-taking strategies.
Literacy and Academic Skills Assessment
INSTRUCTIONS
Write your name neatly in capital letters on your test and booklet. Read all questions and instruc-
tions carefully. Write all answers in complete sentences for each section of the test.
Use your own words and complete all sections. Label your answers in the test booklet.
Hand in all test questions and booklets when you are finished.
Section One: Article (8 points total)
Read the article “The Arab World Wants its MTV” and summarize its main idea. (2 points)
Then, answer the following questions about the article. (6 points)
1. What is MTV’s strategy for its new MTV Arabia channel?
2. Why are so many media groups going to the Middle East?
3. What does the author mean by MTV’s localization strategy?
220 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 10.2 (Continued)

Section Two: Lecture
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION 2
You will view a video recording of a university lecture. During the viewing, take notes as if you
were in an actual university class. Try and capture the key points of the lecture. You will use your
notes to complete the written exercises below. You will view the lecture twice in a row and then will
have one hour to complete the entire exercise.
Section Two, question one: Questions about the lecture (10 points)
Answer the following questions based on the lecture you have just watched. You can consult the
notes you took while you watched the lecture. Use complete sentences.
1. What is the main objective of the lecture?
2. Why is MTV a good case study for international business?
3. What is MTV’s target audience? How many viewers does MTV have around the world?
4. How much did MTV make in 2005?
5. What is MTV’s business plan for the near future? What is their main goal for the near future?
Section Two, question Two: One minute-paper about the lecture (5 points)
Answer ONE of the following questions in full sentences. Your answer should be one paragraph
in length. You will be marked on format and content.
• What was the most surprising and/or unexpected idea expressed in the lecture?
OR
• What interesting questions remain unanswered about the lecture’s topic?
Section Three: Writing (8 points)
Write a one-paragraph introduction of an essay entitled “The successful MTV business model.” You
will be marked on explanations (content), format, and using complete sentences.
Section Four: Problem (12 points)
You are the project manager for MTV Arabia. Your group has to give a presentation to MTV’s CEO
about the plan for prime time programming. Everyone agreed to have his or her part of the plan
drafted by the time your team met today. What would be an appropriate response to each of the
following incidents at today’s meeting?
Alex did not have his part ready. This is the first time he has not done his job on time.
Identify what you think is the problem.
a) How would you talk to the group member? What would you say to the group member that
would be respectful and helpful to you and to the group member?
b) In general, how can you resolve the conflict that happens when someone does not do his/her
part of the work?
1. Donald texted you saying that he had to miss the meeting because he was working on a report
for MTV’s vice-president.
2. Identify what you think is the problem.
a) How would you talk to the group member? What would you say to the group member that
would be respectful and helpful to you and to the group member?
b) In general, how can you resolve the conflict that happens when someone does not do his/her
part of the work?
International Students and Academic Proficiency 221

TABLE 10.2 (Continued)

Section Five: Presentation (5 points)
Prepare a PowerPoint-slide presentation entitled “The successful MTV business model.” Use the
information you learned from the article and lecture to help you. The presentation should have at
least five slides. You must include a title and an outline in your answer. You can use the slides on
the following paper or you can draw the slides in your exam booklet.

KEYWORDS

• academic proficiency
• ESL students
• international students
• language acquisition
• language learning
• second language
• teaching strategies

REFERENCES

Bailey, N.; Madden, C.; Krashen, S.D. Is There a “Natural Sequence” in Adult Second Language
Learning? Language Learning, 1974, 24, 2, 235–243.
222 Facilitating Deep Learning

Clément, R.; Gardner, R. C.; Smythe, P. C. Motivational variables in second language acquisi-
tion: A study of Francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science/
Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 1997, 9(2), 123–133.
Cummins, J. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum
age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 1979, 19, 121–129.
Faerch, C.; Kasper, G. Processes and Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Communica-
tion. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin–Utrecht, 1980, 5, 47–118.
Faucette, P. A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies: Benefits of Training and
an Analysis of English Language Teaching Materials. Second Language Studies,2001, 19, 2.
Krashen, S. D.Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning; Prentice-Hall In-
ternational: New York, 1988.
Krashen, S. D. The Case for Narrow Reading. Language Magazine, 2000, 3(5), 17–19.
Krashen, S. D.The Input Hypothesis and its Rivals. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Lan-
guages; Ellis, N., Ed.; Academic Press: London,1994.
Krashen, S. D. Why support a delayed-gratification approach to language education? The Lan-
guage Teacher, 2004, 28(7), 3–7.
Krashen, S. D.; Brown, C. L. What is Academic Language Proficiency? Singapore Tertiary Eng-
lish Teachers Society Language and Communication Review, 2007, 6, 1.
Louis, R. M. Critical Performative Pedagogy: Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed in the
English as a Second Language Classroom. Ph.D. Thesis, Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2002.
Pineau, E. L. Performance Studies across the Curriculum: Problems, Possibilities, and Projec-
tions. In The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions; Dailey, S. J., Ed.; Na-
tional Communication Association: Annandale, VA, 1998.
Quan, K. Y. The Girl Who Wouldn’t Sing.In Living Languages.Contexts for Reading and Writ-
ing.Buffington, N.; Moneyhun, C., Diogenes, M.; Eds.; Prentice Hall: Paramus, NJ 1997.
Ramisetty-Mikler, S. Asian Indian Immigrants in America and Sociocultural Issues in Counsel-
ing. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 1993, 21, 1, 36–49.
Richards, J.C. A Non—Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis.Journal of ELT, 1971, 25, 204–
219.
Slocum, S. ESL Strategies. Facilitating Learning for Students Who Speak English as a Second
Language; Alverno College: Milwaukee, 2003.
Ting, S.; Phan, G. Y. L. Adjusting Communication Strategies to Language Proficiency. Pros-
pect: An Australian Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lan-
guages (TESOL),2008, 23, 1.
Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.
Won, H. K. South Korean Students’ Attitudes toward Americans. The Social Science Journal,
2005, 42, 2, 301–312.
 PART IV
DEEP LEARNING AND
EVALUATION
CHAPTER 11

EVALUATING TO LEARN
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count;
everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.
— ALBERT EINSTEIN

CONTENTS

11.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 226

11.2 Historical Development ............................................................... 226
11.3 Problems Associated with Summative Evaluation ...................... 228
11.4 Evaluating to Learn ...................................................................... 230
11.5 Initial Evaluation.......................................................................... 231
11.6 Simultaneous Evaluation ............................................................. 233
11.7 Retrospective Evaluation ............................................................. 237
11.8 Subjects Involved in Evaluation to Learn .................................... 238
11.9 Metacognitive Reflection and Self-Evaluation ............................ 240
11.10 Summary .................................................................................... 246
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 246
Keywords .............................................................................................. 249
References ............................................................................................. 249
226 Facilitating Deep Learning

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Evaluation is one of the most controversial issues in higher education. It

has generated heated debate, mainly because of the consequences it im-
plies. The results of evaluation have direct impact in the promotion of
students, attrition, graduation, accreditation, access to graduate and pro-
fessional schools, financial assistance, fellowships, and access to the job
market.
I begin this chapter with a brief overview of the historical development
of evaluation in order to show that summative evaluation and the grading
system are relatively new phenomena in universities and colleges. This is
followed by an analysis of the problems associated with summative evalu-
ation. I will then explore the notion of evaluating to learn and its three
phases: initial, simultaneous, and retrospective. For each phase, I will con-
sider its main aspects, characteristics, instruments, and subjects involved
in evaluation. Finally, I will explore the notion of metacognition and its
role in the evaluating-to-learn process as well as the main metacognitive
categories and tools to facilitate deep learning.

11.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The history of education shows that the grading system and summative
evaluation as we know them today are relatively recent phenomena. Be-
fore the rise of the modern university, formal summative evaluation and
grades were literally unknown. Socrates did not assign grades to Plato;
Plato did not give grades to Aristotle. In Roman times, a “widely stan-
dardized and highly socially embedded web of educational practices could
function, without formal examinations, by means of high levels of com-
petition and other less formal means of assessment” (Morgan, 2001). The
modern university is over 1,000 years old. For the most part of its history,
teachers did not have to formally evaluate student achievement of educa-
tional goals. Teachers did not have to assign grades or fail students. The
quality of the education students received was largely associated with the
prestige of their professors.
Evaluating to Learn 227

Summative evaluation and grading developed with the Industrial Rev-

olution in England. The first recorded evidence of summative evaluation
by means of grades is linked to Cambridge University and William Farish,
a professor of Chemistry. Farish began using letter grades to evaluate stu-
dent papers in 1792. He modeled his grading system after the practice used
at that time in factories to evaluate the quality of manufactured goods. The
practice gradually extended to the rest of the university and Oxford.
In North America, teachers assumed the task of evaluating in the late
1800’s. The current system was first adopted in 1897 at Mount Holyoke
College. Harvard and Yale had begun using similar systems—albeit in iso-
lated fashion—a few decades earlier. The grading system consolidated in
the twentieth century. So, for the first 900 years of university education,
there were no formal summative evaluation and grading systems.
Despite its relatively short existence, formal summative evaluation
based on a grading system seems to be a permanent, unchangeable feature
of the modern university. Teachers who do not adhere to this system are
sanctioned by their university administrations. For example, teachers who
do not follow grading policies have been denied tenure or have even been
dismissed from the university. I remember that when I started to work in
my current university, the division and department chairs gave me an Ex-
cel spreadsheet with the average grades in each department and told me to
keep my grades within those averages. They stressed this throughout the
year and repeated this process with every new faculty member. In my pre-
vious university, the department chair asked me to go to his office and told
me about the importance of keeping grades within a certain range. When
I went for reappointment, the tenure and promotion committee in my cur-
rent university wrote me a letter saying that I was to be reminded of the
importance of grades. I still do not know what the committee meant exact-
ly. Senior administrators regularly press my department to discuss grade
averages and to come up with an understanding of a common approach to
grading students. This experience, which is quite common in many uni-
versities and colleges, shows that summative evaluation and grades are
perceived as essential artifacts of the Instruction-paradigm.
228 Facilitating Deep Learning

11.3 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SUMMATIVE

EVALUATION

There are many serious problems with the evaluation system used in the
Instruction paradigm. One of the most severe problems is that evaluation
is disconnected from learning. In the last four decades, evaluation has
come to be associated with accountability rather than with learning. Ac-
crediting agencies and state—or provincial—governments across North
America launched an assessment movement in order to evaluate the qual-
ity of educational institutions in a context of shrinking budgets and scarce
public funds. This movement, which has had significant influences at the
classroom level, is not concerned with quality learning (House, 1980). It is
a system that ignores the multiple instances of evaluations that teachers do
in the classroom on an everyday basis. It aims at obtaining information for
the administration, government, and other stakeholders. This information
is irrelevant for, and divorced from, the learning process.
The evaluation system has created a culture of surface learning. With a
focus on summative evaluation and grades, it has given rise to a superficial
learning orientation in most students, where their main goal is to obtain good
grades at a minimum cost in terms of time and effort. Given the fact that exam-
inations and other summative evaluation tools embed social problems, many
students have had to resort to cheating and other nonacceptable practices in
order to cope with the summative evaluation demands. The evaluation sys-
tem has also created a culture of examinations, where teachers and students
see the evaluation requirements as the most important aspects of the course
(Sanjurjo and Vera, 1994). Many of these evaluation tools are arbitrary, and
success depends on random factors such as when the test is administered. For
example, Arthur Perlini and his colleagues (Perlini et al., 1998) found that test
performance varies according to when a test is given to students. They found
that students taking a class in the afternoon do better on a test when they take
it at the beginning or in the middle of a class, whereas students taking a course
in the evening do better on tests administered in the middle or at the end of the
class rather than at the beginning.
Another problem with the evaluation system is that many teachers and
students wrongfully believe that making evaluation tools more difficult
improves the quality of education. Many perceive that courses using non-
Evaluating to Learn 229

traditional evaluation tools, such as the ones aimed at fomenting a process

of discovery and construction of knowledge, and that lack final exams,
grades, and term papers, among other artifacts of the Instruction paradigm,
are not rigorous. Research studies show that summative evaluation does
not improve learning. It is a myth that exacerbates the problem, as in most
cases summative evaluation with a strong emphasis on grades and exami-
nation instruments tends to produce the opposite effect (Sanjurjo and Vera,
1994).
Another problem with the predominant approach to evaluation is the
fact that it does not take into account individual needs in the learning pro-
cess. In North America, it is customary for teachers to examine all students
at the end of the course. Although every student has different time frames
to learn, all students have to hand in a paper by the same deadline, have
to write the midterm the same day, and have to take the final exam all
together on the same day and in the same classroom. It is not possible,
for example, for students to take the examination or show their achieve-
ment of the learning goals several years after having finished the course—
a practice that is common in many South American universities. In these
universities, students take exams when they are ready instead of right after
the course and regardless of when other students in the same course take
the exam. For some students, being ready can mean they can take the exam
right at the end of the course. For other students who demonstrate the
achievement of learning goals throughout the course, it means not having
to take a final exam. But other students may need the whole summer to
prepare for the exam. Others may need a few years to feel that they have
achieved the goals and that they can demonstrate them in an exam. Long
time frames have been associated with deep learning. Short time frames
have little to do with the learning process. If rushed to demonstrate their
learning through examinations and other evaluation instruments, students
have no choice but to resort to surface approximations to learning. Short
time frames for evaluation have little to do with learning and have a lot
to do with the needs of the Instruction-paradigm institutions to move stu-
dents quickly through their studies.
Another problem derived from the evaluation system with long-lasting
adverse effects is the creation of reactance on the part of students. As dis-
cussed earlier, reactance is a phenomenon that occurs when students de-
230 Facilitating Deep Learning

velop a strong resistance to learning. Students are exposed to a system that

coerces them to study through grades and examinations. Once students
end their higher education studies and are no longer coerced by grades,
they will rarely try to learn academic, university-level materials for the
sake of learning (Pollio and Beck, 2000). Human beings generally devalue
those activities that they are obliged to do and overvalue those that are not
allowed to do. Pollio and Beck (2000) argue that “learning not to learn
may become the most lasting lesson of a college education.”

11.4 EVALUATING TO LEARN

From a learning perspective, evaluation plays a fundamental role in the

process of knowledge construction. The Instruction-paradigm university
has neglected this aspect of evaluation since accreditation and account-
ability took over the field of evaluation. In order to analyze the role of
evaluation in the construction of deep learning, once again we need to
recall the conception of deep learning given earlier.
Deep learning takes place when a student is faced with an exciting situ-
ation, problem, or question, that creates a cognitive conflict derived from
social interactions with peers, that the learner feels motivated to solve,
and the learner makes nonarbitrary and substantive connections between
the new knowledge (which must be within the learner’s “zone of proxi-
mal development”) arising from the situation, problem, or question and
his or her existing cognitive structure. The learner employs higher-order
cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, practices, and competences
while making these connections. If adequately and intrinsically motivated,
the learner will change his or her cognitive structures so as to resolve the
problem. In so doing, the learner will incorporate the new knowledge to
his or her cognitive structure, which will produce a conceptual change.
The learner will be able to use and apply the new knowledge to new and
unfamiliar situations and see the connections to a larger framework. At
the same time, at the social level, this process implies a change from one
community of knowledge to another one or a move toward the center of a
community of knowledge. For deep learning to occur, there must also be
an awareness of this restructuring and conceptual change.
Evaluating to Learn 231

Evaluation becomes a continuing cycle of reflection about the pro-

cesses carried out in the construction of deep learning (Sanjurjo and Vera,
1994). Deep learning requires the learner to reflect about his or her learn-
ing process and the resulting conceptual change. For this purpose, the
learner must have information, that is, feedback, about the main phases of
the learning process. The learner must also possess metacognitive skills
and knowledge of categories of analysis to be able to use that informa-
tion to reflect critically about the learning process. John Tagg (2003) uses
the road sign metaphor to refer to feedback. He argues that in order to be
effective, feedback needs to be like road signs that constantly provide use-
ful information about the journey. The information that is needed to help
advance the construction-of-knowledge process must be obtained before,
during, and after the conceptual change. The information obtained during
these phases of the learning process serves slightly different purposes and
has different pedagogical foundations. Learners and teachers play an ac-
tive role in each of these evaluation phases. In some cases, external, third-
party evaluators can also provide useful feedback to the learner.
Evaluation as an essential part of the deep learning process comprises
three phases: initial, simultaneous, and retrospective.

11.5 INITIAL EVALUATION

The learner’s existing cognitive structure plays a determinative role in

the construction of knowledge. Evaluation of the initial conceptions that
students have is a necessary condition to begin with the deep learning
process. We need to know our students’ cognitive structures in order to
plan the situations, problems, and activities that will help them construct
knowledge in a profound way. In Lovell (1980)’s words,
“in general, what the pupil knows today, what relevant anchorage he [sic] has,
is the best single predictor of what he [sic] will know tomorrow as a result of
your teaching… It is necessary for the teacher to try and establish the main
ideas held by pupils at the time they begin to experience new material. Pu-
pils hold many spontaneous strategies, misconceptions, and alternative frame-
works. Teaching must be adjusted to the anchorage the pupil already holds.”
232 Facilitating Deep Learning

Unless they come strongly motivated to learn our disciplines, students

will not spontaneously connect the new knowledge to their existing cogni-
tive structures. Students’ evocation of their conceptual understanding is
dependent on the students’ current teaching and learning context. So, the
challenge is to “bring to the foreground of students’ awareness of learning
the subject matter they are about to learn” (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).
Although many of us try to get to know our students as well as pos-
sible, very few design a careful methodology to identify students’existing
cognitive structure. The Instruction-paradigm institutions do not consider
this an important aspect of the evaluation process. They do not give vis-
ibility to the evaluation of students’existing knowledge structures. An ear-
lier study conducted on the analysis of course outlines used across the
United States and Canada revealed that a negligible percentage of courses
consider the analysis of student’s initial ideas as part of the evaluation
process (Hermida, 2011).
There are a number of ways to gather information to evaluate students’
cognitive structures at the beginning of the academic term. One of the
best methods is the clinical interview. This method consists of interviews
to students conducted by their teacher on an individual basis. In clinical
interviews, the teacher assigns some tasks to a student. Then he or she ini-
tiates an open dialog to find out about the student’s knowledge structure.
This interview is more effective if the teacher has a hypothesis about the
student’s relevant anchorage or a theory that the teacher wants to prove
(Carretero, 2009).
There are many other alternatives to carry out initial evaluation. These
include open-ended questions at the beginning of the class, votes, and
written feedback memos (Filene, 2005). Written questionnaires can also
help teachers find out about students’ cognitive structures. We may ask
questions about general principles of the discipline; we may describe
problems and ask our students to write their explanations; or, we may ask
students to draw or produce other visual representations of a problem.
When accompanied by a biography, we may get enough information to
contextualize the responses from the questionnaires in light of students’
personal experiences. Concept maps are also a useful way to organize all
of this information (Edwards and Fraser, 1983). As discussed earlier, con-
cept maps are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge.
Evaluating to Learn 233

They include “concepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type,

and relationships between concepts indicated by a connecting line linking
two concepts” (Novak, 1984).
Alverno College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin uses videotaped perfor-
mances of all students. A few weeks before the beginning of their first-
year classes, students are asked to perform some activities while being
videotaped. These videos are used by the teachers to gauge the initial cog-
nitive structures of their students and by students themselves. Because
students are videotaped again at different stages of their four-year studies,
these tapes also help students and their teachers examine their progress
(Loacker, 2000).
The learners themselves also need to recognize their initial conceptions
in order to be able to change them eventually. So, it is important to help
students identify and discuss these conceptions. Judith Stanley (2000),
also from Alverno College, encourages students to reflect on and discuss
some instances of their prior learning and asks them to deduce the stan-
dards by which they evaluate these instances of their previous learning.

11.6 SIMULTANEOUS EVALUATION

Students need to engage in an ongoing process of doing and thinking in

order to construct meaningful learning. Donald Schön (1983, 1987) intro-
duced the reflection-in-action concept in the context of professional edu-
cation to refer to the way practitioners think about their professional ac-
tivities while carrying them out. This process applies to other educational
settings, even to nonacademic activities. Schön (1983) argues that
“when we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the ac-
tions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special
way. Often we cannot say what it is that we know. When we try to describe
it we find ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously
inappropriate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of
action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right
to say that our knowing is in our action” (Schön, 1983).
The reflection-in-action process is an essential aspect of deep learning.
It helps students advance in the process of the construction of knowledge.
234 Facilitating Deep Learning

Learners also need to be aware of the properties of objects, that is,

empirical abstraction, and the actions and knowledge applied to the ob-
jects, that is, reflecting abstraction (Piaget, 1970). They also require in-
formation or feedback to guide their efforts. Effective feedback must be
consistent, continual, and interactive (Tagg, 2003). Consistent feedback
refers to common grounds for giving information to students about their
performances. Continual feedback is information that is given on an ongo-
ing basis and is connected with student performances. It is an inseparable
aspect of the activities that students carry out while dealing with new and
challenging situations. Feedback is interactive when it engages students
in a permanent dialog. Interactive feedback does not occur if the teacher
gives the information and students receive it passively.
Like in the initial phase of evaluation, teachers also need information
about students’ progress in order to provide them with adequate feedback to
facilitate their learning processes. We have a wide array of different possi-
bilities to obtain this information. Observation of student performance is the
most useful source. Widely used in the first years of elementary education,
teacher observation can provide substantial information about the student
learning process also at the college and university levels (Maxwell, 2001).
Observation permits teachers to carefully watch students while they engage
in the performances of understanding. While observing, we may ask ques-
tions to students to get clearer insight of their cognitive activities. It is also
important to document student progress. This may be done through observa-
tion notes, where we can write down examples of student performances and
describe their learning incidents. Observation notes should not include judg-
ments, but we may record questions and doubts so that we can come back
later to those notes and use them to give new feedback to students. Observa-
tion notes should be written in a way that would permit students and other
potentially interested parties to read them. Teacher observation can be inci-
dental or planned. The former takes place during the students’ performance
of learning activities. The latter are specific activities that the teacher plans
in order to observe some aspects of the students’ learning process. Although
planned observation may occasionally be useful to obtain some information,
teacher observation should be predominantly incidental and embedded in the
learning activities and the learning process. The most effective information
comes from students’ performance of the teaching and learning activities.
Evaluating to Learn 235

Evidence about learning might come from other sources, such as ex-
aminations, papers, projects, or even conversations between students and
teachers (Bain, 2004). The role of these sources is to obtain evidence about
student learning. And the role of teachers is to characterize and communi-
cate evidence about the learning process rather than a grade or a score. As
discussed in previous chapters, these activities should emulate real-world
performances as closely as possible.
We must carefully use the information that we collect to help students
advance in the construction-of-knowledge process. Errors are generally
a very rich source that informs about the way learners construct knowl-
edge. In many cases, they are the most revealing source of students’ cogni-
tive processes. So, instead of penalizing errors, for example, giving lower
grades, taking points off, crossing out words from essays, or providing cor-
rect answers, as is frequently done in the Instruction paradigm, we should
actively seek students’ errors so as to get valuable information about their
learning process.
Another important aspect of simultaneous evaluation is to provide stu-
dents with feedback in ways that they can understand and process. In this
respect, what we say does not count as much as how students perceive what
we say (Kohn, 2008). The message received—not the message sent—is
what will have the most significant effect on the students’ attitude toward
their learning processes. For example, a student once came to see me in
my capacity of chair of the department. She was very upset because she
told me that another professor had accused her of plagiarism. She showed
me an essay that she had written. My colleague wrote on the essay that the
student needed to paraphrase some paragraphs to conform to the writing
style discussed in class. I asked the student for clarification, as I did not
see any mention of plagiarism in my colleague’s comments. The student
insisted that those comments were meant as an accusation of plagiarism.
I called my colleague to see if this was the case or if he had mentioned
something about plagiarism to this student. My colleague was as surprised
as I was because he had never meant to imply that the student had plagia-
rized. Apparently, the term paraphrase had triggered a previous experience
with another professor where that professor had insisted that she needed to
paraphrase ideas taken from other sources, or she would face plagiarism
issues. We need to constantly check to ensure that what we want to com-
236 Facilitating Deep Learning

municate is what students actually understand. This is also especially im-

portant in the case of communication with international students. Students
from other countries are not necessarily familiar with the way teachers
give feedback in North America. A slightly negative constructive com-
ment may be understood as a very negative criticism by students from
certain cultures. Although this need for clarity may generally apply to any
aspect of the teaching and learning process, because of the psychological
implications that evaluation usually has, it is crucial in the communication
of feedback. Table 11.1 contains—generally accepted—guidelines on how
to give effective feedback that minimizes risks of erroneous perceptions.

TABLE 11.1 Characteristics of effective feedback.

Environment
Create a nice atmosphere to give feedback.
Don’t embarrass your student by letting others hear your feedback to that student.
Performance
Focus on your student’s performance and not on your student.
Refrain from giving advice. Give information about the performance.
Give feedback about your student’s performance, not the motivations or reasons behind that per-
formance.
Be specific when giving feedback and make specific references to your student’s performance.
Always give positive feedback about some aspects of your student’s performance.
Always give feedback to help your student improve some aspects of his or her performance.
Time
Give immediate feedback.
Give feedback embedded in the learning process.
Be brief when feedback is negative.
Don’t be brief when feedback is positive.
Feedback receiver
Give feedback only when solicited.
Give your student opportunities to act on your feedback.
Take into account your student’s needs.
Give feedback that your student can use.
Check to insure clear communication.
Be mindful of cultural differences in communication styles.
Evaluating to Learn 237

11.7 RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION

A retrospective phase is also essential for the construction of deep learn-

ing. Retrospective evaluation helps the learner reflect about the learning
process, that is, what he or she did and how, and about the end result of
that process: the conceptual change. We need to help the learner engage in
this reflective process. Retrospective evaluation means going back to the
learning process with the aim of understanding it. It implies a permanent
research attitude on the part of both students and teachers aimed at discov-
ering and valuing all the—visible and invisible—processes involved in
learning. This implies that when evaluating, we need to identify the most
salient aspects, obstacles, attempts, achievements, and errors in the causes
that played a factor in the learning process (Sanjurjo and Vera, 1994).
Learners and teachers also need to evaluate how the learner’s cogni-
tive structures changed. This is consistent with Piaget’s postulates. Piaget
(1954) argued that the learner must become aware of the restructuring of
the cognitive structure. He referred to the process of becoming conscious
about knowledge and about the ways in which learners know as “prise de
conscience.” The learner goes through a series of intermediate phases in
which he or she changes his or her ideas about the new phenomenon, but
these changes do not yet constitute the learner’s final conceptual change
(Carretero, 2009). The learner must be able to reflect about these interme-
diate changes as well as the final change in the cognitive structure.
Retrospective evaluation is also consistent with Donald Schön’s reflec-
tion-on-action theory, which consists of the reflection on the reflection-in-
action process. The reflection-on-action process takes place in words. It is
“an attempt to describe the knowledge that was generated and the condi-
tions under which it was generated and the on-the-spot experimentation
that was carried out” (Schön, 1995).
Furthermore, retrospective evaluation is also compatible with bio-
logical explanations of the functions of the brain. Cognitive neuroscience
suggests that evaluation of one’s own work, which engages the anterior
cingulate region of the limbic cortex, is an essential aspect of the learning
cycle (Zull, 2002).
238 Facilitating Deep Learning

There are many instruments that can help with retrospective evalu-
ation. Virtually any instrument that facilitates the reconstruction of the
steps taken toward the construction of knowledge can be used to evalu-
ate the learning process and the transformation of cognitive structures.
These include peer observation, teacher observation, group discussions,
guided written questionnaires, journals, blogs, learning portfolios, videos,
and collages, among many others. These instruments have in common that
they permit an open dialog between the teacher and learner and/or be-
tween the learner and his or her peers. It is this dialog that will permit a
critical reflection about the learning process and its result. This dialog also
facilitates the learner’s individual self-evaluation process.
Traditional exams, multiple-choice questions, papers, essays, and oral
presentations about a disciplinary topic are the preferred instruments used
in traditional formal summative evaluations in colleges and universities.
Although widely used, none of these instruments permits a reflection about
the learning process or conceptual changes. So, these instruments do not
offer any significant use for retrospective evaluation.

11.8 SUBJECTS INVOLVED IN EVALUATION TO LEARN

The learner himself or herself is the subject that plays the most impor-
tant role in evaluation. He or she needs to actively engage in the process
of getting information and reflecting about the learning process and the
resulting conceptual change. Self-evaluation is “the ability of a student
to observe, analyze, and judge her performance on the basis of criteria
and plan how she can improve it” (Alverno College Faculty, 2000). When
self-evaluation is understood not as the bureaucratic act of giving oneself
a grade but as the possibility of critically reviewing the processes carried
out in the construction of learning, self-evaluation acts as a powerful tool
to encourage deep learning (Sanjurjo and Vera, 1994). From a biological
perspective, self-evaluation engages the areas of the brain that are con-
nected to emotions. It has been suggested that when a learner evaluates his
or her performance, he or she ends up owning it and feels in control of the
learning process (Zull, 2002).
Evaluating to Learn 239

Teachers are also instrumental in the evaluating-to-learn process. We

need to know our students’ initial conceptions about our disciplines, the
hypotheses, obstacles, and progress that students undergo, and the result-
ing conceptual change. We also play a very important role in helping stu-
dents become proficient in the metacognitive process, which will be dis-
cussed later in this chapter.
Peers also play a fundamental role in evaluation, as they do in the
whole deep learning process. Interaction with peers produces cognitive
conflicts. Peers help negotiate meanings and contribute to the social aspect
of learning. So, peers can also provide valuable feedback and evaluate the
learning process. Peers are in a privileged position to learn about their fel-
low students’ initial conceptions, as they generally know their colleagues
and spend more time with them than their teachers. They also interact
with fellow students during the teaching and learning activities. So they
can give very useful information about the learning process, including the
resulting conceptual change. Peers can also help their fellow students with
metacognitive reflection.
External evaluators can also help learners—albeit to a lesser extent—
with the evaluation of their learning processes. External evaluators can
provide students with “real-life” evaluation. For example, my business
department colleagues organize an annual case competition, in which
students present their solutions to hypothetical cases to CEOs, directors,
top managers, and other business people, who evaluate their analysis of
the cases as they do when working for their corporations and other busi-
nesses. Working with external evaluators in authentic situations motivates
students and gives them the perspective of professionals and other com-
munity members who help them with their performances of understand-
ing. Because most of these professionals are not experts in university and
college evaluation, their feedback and evaluation may not always be pro-
ductive. In some cases, if they do not give feedback effectively, they can
harm the students’ learning process. For this reason, Alverno College has
implemented a program to work with community members as external
evaluators. Alverno trains interested community members in evaluation
and monitors the quality of feedback that they give to students. Ken Bain,
originally a history professor, also reports having used external evaluators
(Bain, 1997). Bain worked with a history professor from another university,
240 Facilitating Deep Learning

who read and graded the papers written by Bain’s students. Bain acted as
coach to the students. He reports that these students produced papers that
were among the best he has read in his teaching career. The value of these
experiences with external evaluators lies in the fact that the teacher can act
exclusively as a facilitator of the learning process.
Table 11.2 summarizes each phase of the evaluating to learn process.

TABLE 11.2 Evaluating to learn process.

Evaluation Phase Initial Simultaneous Retrospective

Goal. To obtain information To guide the To reflect about the steps taken
about the learner’s learner in his/her in the learning process and
initial cognitive learning process. about the conceptual change.
structure

Subjects. Learner. Learner. Learner.

Teacher. Teacher. Teacher.
Peers. Peers. Peers.
External evaluators.

Main instrument. Interview. Teacher observa- Conversation about the learn-

tion. ing process and conceptual
change.

Other instruments. Concept maps. Conversations Peer observation.

between teacher
Written question- Teacher observation.
and students.
naires. Group discussions.
Papers.
Videotaped perfor- Guided written questionnaires.
mances. Learning portfolio.
Journals.
Journal.
Blogs.
Blog.
Learning portfolio.
Videos.
Collages.

11.9 METACOGNITIVE REFLECTION AND SELF-EVALUATION

Metacognition consists of reflecting about one’s own learning process.

Metacognition also implies monitoring one’s learning process and being
able to make changes along the way. In Perkins’s words, metacognition
Evaluating to Learn 241

is learning the game of learning (Perkins, 2009). Metacognition ultimate-

ly leads to self-evaluation, which enables a process of lifelong learning.
Teacher feedback and information are essential for student learning. But
once students graduate, they do not have us to give them constant and on-
going feedback. Students need to learn how to reflect on their learning en-
deavors and to give themselves the information they need. Metacognition
is the internalization of that feedback and information process. It is like an
internalized geographic positioning system (GPS) that students create to
give themselves the information they need to engage in the construction
of deep learning. Students also need to recognize their knowledge limita-
tions and what they need to learn in order to progress in their disciplines
or professional fields. From a biological perspective, metacognition in-
volves spindle cells and the anterior cingulate, which link the emotional
and cognitive parts of the brain through the dorsal and ventral regions,
respectively, of the anterior cingulate (Zull, 2011).
There are four key components to metacognition: awareness, knowl-
edge, control, and emotion. Awareness refers to the process of learning
about one’s cognitive structure. It also entails learning how to set one’s
own learning goals. In college and university, teachers generally set those
goals. Teachers tell students what aspects of a discipline or disciplines
they need to learn. For example, if a student wants to become a histo-
rian, the university will have designed a curriculum that contains all of the
concepts, facts, theories, research methods, and principles that students
will need to master in order to graduate and become historians. But in
order to be prepared for life outside university, students themselves need
to learn how to set their own learning goals. Knowledge implies knowing
about the learning process and knowing about one’s own personal learning
styles. Students need to learn about the process of knowledge construction
and deep learning. They need to know the different cognitive development
stages and how gender, race, and ethnicity influence knowledge. Control
means monitoring one’s own learning progress. It helps students correct
themselves and make changes while they are engaged in performances of
understanding. Emotion also plays an essential role in the process of think-
ing about one’s own learning. James Zull (2011) argues that the spindle
cells, which, as discussed earlier, act as a bridge between the emotional
and the cognitive aspects of the brain, transform metacognition into an in-
242 Facilitating Deep Learning

tegrative process. “For metacognition we need to know what we think and

how we feel about it; [and] we must know what we feel and what we think
about that” (Zull, 2011). In practice, this means that as part of encouraging
our students to reflect about their learning process, we need to help them
recognize and focus on their emotions and feelings throughout that pro-
cess. Table 11.3 summarizes the key components of metacognition and the
strategies associated with each component of the metacognition process.

TABLE 11.3 Metacognition.

Components Strategies

Awareness Set goals about the learning process.

Existing cognitive structure. Identify what you know about the problem or
Initial conceptions of the problem or question. question.

Knowledge Read and discuss about deep learning and the

Learning process. process of construction of knowledge.

Individual and social construction of knowl- Be familiar with learning theories.

edge. Metacognitive questions.
Role of peers.
Learning styles.
Cognitive stages of development.
Gender, race, and ethnicity and their influence
on the learning process.

Control Metacognitive questions.

Monitor of one’s learning progress. Make corrections and changes while working on
a problem or question.

Emotion Recognize emotions and feelings throughout the

Role of emotions in the learning process. learning process.

Feelings and emotions experienced as a result Reflect about feelings and emotions.
of the conceptual change, the move to a new Discuss feelings and emotions with peers and
community of knowledge, or the new position teachers.
in a community of knowledge.

The metacognitive reflection about the learning process must satisfy

some conditions in order to be effective. First, learners have to recognize
their initial conceptions. Because most of these conceptions are implicit,
the learner has to reflect about them and get to explain them. Second, the
Evaluating to Learn 243

learner has to evaluate his or her conceptions and beliefs in light of the new
conceptions that are being learned. Third, the learner has to reflect about
whether or not he or she will restructure his or her initial conceptions (Car-
retero, 2009). Perkins (1992) puts forward the idea of the metacurriculum
as a supplement to the existing curriculum. One of the main goals of the
metacurriculum is to help students become effective learners. In this re-
spect, we need to help students engage in the process of metacognition
and help them reflect about metacognition itself. For this purpose, students
need to acquire and develop metacognition tools and need to learn how to
use them in their learning processes.
Metacognition tools are both general and discipline specific. General
metacognition categories deal with how learners construct knowledge. A
good way to help students reflect about their learning processes is through
questions that they can ask themselves throughout the process. These
questions can include the following with respect to any problem or ques-
tion students are grappling with:
1) What do I know about this problem or question? What is my first
reaction or gut feeling? How can I instinctively solve the problem
or answer the question now?
2) What new information or knowledge do I need in order to solve the
problem or answer the question effectively?
3) What conversations and discussions do I need to have with my
peers about the problem or question?
4) What analysis do I need to do with the new information or knowl-
edge?
5) How can I relate what I already know and the new information or
knowledge? What connections can I make?
6) How can I solve the problem or answer the question now?
7) How do my gender, race, ethnicity, and other social factors influ-
ence my solution to the problem or answer to the question?
8) How does my new solution or answer differ from my original, gut-
feeling, response?
9) What do I know now that I did not know before about the problem
or question? What can I do now that I could not do before?
10) What do I know now about the discipline that I did not know be-
fore? What connections can I now make to the general framework
244 Facilitating Deep Learning

of the discipline? What connections can I now make to other disci-

plines?
11) How can I use what I now know to answer other problems or ques-
tions in the discipline? How can I transfer what I now know outside
the discipline? How can what I now know help me solve everyday
problems and answer everyday questions?
12) Where does this new knowledge place me within the discipline?
What conversations can I now have with my peers and the disci-
pline?
13) How has knowing what I now know impacted me? How does my
solution or answer affect me and others? How have I felt through-
out this process? What emotions have I experienced? Does know-
ing what I know now change my attitude toward other people I
know outside the discipline or outside academia?
14) What new questions do I have now about the original problem or
question? What new questions do I have now about the discipline?
15) What new personal goals do I now have about the discipline?
Discipline-specific metacognitive categories have to do with the way
a discipline organizes and constructs knowledge, what questions the dis-
cipline asks, what method it uses to generate knowledge, what kind of
conversation its knowledgeable members engage in, and what limitations
the discipline has. It also deals with knowledge about the hidden structure
of the discipline, that is, what Perkins refers to as uncovering the hidden
game (Perkins, 2009). A good way to help students reflect about disci-
pline-specific metacognitive categories is through questions. Table 11.4
shows some examples of metacognitive questions to assist in the reflection
on university and college teaching. These are questions that we can all ask
ourselves while preparing new courses or some aspects of new courses,
particularly to reflect about whether or not we are creating a deep learning
environment. These questions also give a general idea of how to formulate
metacognitive questions in other disciplines.
Evaluating to Learn 245

TABLE 11.4 Metacognitive questions for teachers to develop a course.

The following metacognition questions aim at helping you reflect about your teaching practice,
particularly about whether or not you are creating an environment conducive to teaching and learn-
ing. Not all questions will be relevant for you or for all teaching situations. You should discard those
questions that are irrelevant. Ideally, you should gradually create new questions that will help you
think about your own teaching so that you can use the standards of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning discipline to recognize shortcomings and correct your reasoning as you go.
1. Do I know my students well enough? Do I know about their cognitive structures?
2. Have I created an exciting problem, question, or situation?
3. Does the problem, question or situation include new knowledge?
4. Has this new knowledge created a cognitive conflict?
5. Has this cognitive conflict arisen from social interaction with peers?
6. Is the problem, question, or situation motivating enough for students to try to solve the problem
or answer the question?
7. Is the new knowledge arising from the problem, question, or situation within the student’s zone
of proximal development?
8. Am I encouraging students to make nonarbitrary and substantive connections between new
knowledge arising from the problem or question and their existing cognitive structures?
9. Does the problem, question, or situation help students use higher-order cognitive and metacog-
nitive skills, processes, and competences while making these connections?
10. Am I intrinsically motivating students? Am I helping my students play the whole game of the
discipline?
11. Am I creating a safe and nonthreatening learning environment?
12. Have I helped my students produce a conceptual change? Have I helped them incorporate new
knowledge to their cognitive structures?
13. Have I helped students reacculturate from one community of knowledgeable peers to another?
14. Have I helped students move from the periphery of a community of knowledgeable peers to the
center?
15. Have I helped students use and apply new knowledge to new situations and contexts?
16. Have I helped students make connections to larger frameworks?
17. Is my course aligned? Are the learning goals consistent with the teaching and learning activities
and student evaluation? Am I making room for oblique and indirect learning?
18. Am I helping students reflect about every aspect of their learning process, including the con-
ceptual change?
19. Am I helping students deal with the feelings and emotions arising from their learning process?
20. Am I promoting metacognition?
21. Am I giving effective feedback?
22. Am I helping my students develop a wide array of skills and competencies? Am I helping my
students read and write deeply?
246 Facilitating Deep Learning

11.10 SUMMARY

Despite being a relatively recent phenomenon in higher education, sum-

mative evaluation and a pervasive grading system dominate evaluation
in today’s universities and colleges. This practice has become associated
with the assessment and accountability movement, which emerged in the
United States in the last few decades.
The prevailing evaluation system is plagued with problems. First,
evaluation is disconnected from learning. Second, there is a perception
that making evaluation tools more difficult improves the quality of student
learning, when this is clearly not so. Third, the system does not take into
account individual needs and differences among students. Additionally, it
may lead to student reactance.
Evaluating to learn is an approach that conceives of evaluation as an
integral part of the deep learning process. This process necessitates con-
stant information and reflection. The evaluating to learn approach consists
of an initial phase aimed at getting information about the learners’ cog-
nitive structure; a simultaneous phase, which promotes reflection during
the performance of learning activities; and a retrospective phase, which
deals with reflection about the learning process and the resulting concep-
tual change.
Learners, teachers, peers, and external evaluators play a valuable role
in evaluating to learn.
Another essential aspect of the evaluating to learn approach is meta-
cognition. Metacognition is the practice of reflecting about, and monitor-
ing, one’s own learning process. It is a very useful strategy that permits
the learner to make adjustments and implement changes to his or her own
performances.
The next chapter examines another aspect of evaluation: teaching ef-
fectiveness in the context of a deep learning environment.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Knowing your students’ initial cognitive structure is essential to

help them immerse themselves in a deep learning process. What
Evaluating to Learn 247

can you do to find out their initial conceptions about the main as-
pects of the discipline you teach?
2. Suppose you work in a university that has a rule that all courses
must include a written three-hour final examination within the
exam period. The rule states that final exams must be worth, at
least, 25 percent of the final grade. You do not believe in quantify-
ing knowledge. You do not believe in summative evaluations that
are unrelated to the learning process. But you have to comply with
this rule. What kind of evaluation task can you design that will help
students learn deeply without infringing this rule?
3. Suppose you teach a large class of over 100 first-year students that
meets three hours a week throughout a semester. You agree that
teacher observation of students is the best source of obtaining in-
formation about student learning. How can you adequately observe
your students’ learning processes? Can you plan and design a sys-
tem to implement teacher observation in this class?
4. Metacognition encompasses both general and discipline-specific
categories, tools, and methods for reflection about the learning
process. Students need to learn how to engage in metacognition.
How can you help your students become proficient in metacogni-
tion? How can you help them master the general metacognitive
categories? Can you think of metacognitive questions in your dis-
cipline or field to help students reflect on their learning processes
and evaluate themselves?
5. After a course has finished and you have submitted final grades, a
student sends you an email saying: “I am very upset with my final
grade. I think I deserve an A. Anyway, can I write a paper to boost
my mark up? I need to have, at least, an A–(80 percent) to have
chances to get into law school.” What do you do and why? What
could you have done to prevent this situation?
6. You evaluate students following the standards model of assess-
ment. Under this model, the teacher defines the standards that stu-
dents should achieve at the end of the course in light of the intend-
ed learning goals. This model requires teachers to judge how well
students’ activities match the learning goals holistically and syn-
optically. It also requires teachers to assess students’ performances
248 Facilitating Deep Learning

qualitatively and in their entirety—not by adding marks to their

various parts. Students, however, are used to marks and quantita-
tive assessment (measurement model of assessment). You asked
your students to keep reflective journals and to compile portfolios
with their best work. Most of the students who do not get an A
complain that your evaluation is not fair and is not objective. What
do you say? Some students appeal their grade. What are your argu-
ments to defend your grades?
7. Your intended learning goals are aligned with your teaching and
learning activities and with student evaluation. You ask your stu-
dents to write a midterm test. You tell them that you will use the
midterm to give them formative feedback so that they can improve
their performance on the final. The results of the final are not bet-
ter. What happened? What went wrong? Why?
8. You teach a course in which the intended learning goal is the mas-
tery of the main theories in your discipline. In every class, students
discuss a few articles on one theory in small groups. In the last 30
minutes, the whole class discusses the theory. For the final evalu-
ation, you ask your students to do a very creative project. Students
need to take pictures and create a photo album to illustrate one of
the theories discussed in class. To your surprise, many students—
even many of those who have actively participated in the discus-
sion of the theories in class—did not do well. What do you think
happened? Why? What can you do so that next time those students
who did not do well on the project but who have actively partici-
pated in class will do much better?
9. You recognize the importance of the role peers play in the learning
process, including their role in providing valuable feedback. But
in your experience, when students have to evaluate other students,
they have a tendency to be indulgent. Think about a course you
regularly teach. Can you design an instance of peer evaluation for
that course? How can you implement it effectively?
10. Brooke Shields (1985) writes about her experience taking exams
at college: “Sometimes no matter how hard you’ve reviewed and
studied, how well you’ve prepared, your professor might choose
to pull a fast one on you. […] You never know when a tricky pro-
Evaluating to Learn 249

fessor is going to throw a zinger at you.” Analyze the “tricky pro-

fessor’s” evaluation strategy in light of the evaluating-to-learn ap-
proach. Does this strategy help create an environment conducive
to deep learning? Can students learn deeply despite this type of
strategy? Can you think of concrete examples of tricky exams? If
students come to you for advice and ask you what they can do in a
course with a “tricky professor,” what can you tell these students?

KEYWORDS

• deep learning
• effective feedback
• evaluating to learn
• evaluation
• initial evaluation
• metacognition
• metacognitive questions
• peer evaluation
• retrospective evaluation
• self-evaluation
• simultaneous evaluation
• summative evaluation

REFERENCES

Alverno College Faculty. Self-Assessment at Alverno College; Alverno College: Milwaukee,

2000.

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Bourdieu, P.; Passeron, J. C. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, 2nded.;

Sage:London, 1990.

Carretero, M. Constructivismo y Educación; Paidós: Buenos Aires, 2009.

250 Facilitating Deep Learning

Edwards, J.; Fraser, K. Concept maps as reflectors of conceptual understanding. Research in

Science Education, 1983, 13.1, 19–26

Filene, P. The Joy of Teaching. A Practical Guide for New College Instructors; University of
North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 2005.
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed; The Continuum International Publishing Group: New
York, 1970.

Hermida, J. Student Assessment in Higher Education: An Evaluating to Learn Approach, Inter-

disciplinary Colloquium, Algoma University, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, 2011

House, E. R. Evaluating with Validity; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, 1980.

Kohn, A. It’s Not What We Teach; It’s What They Learn. Education Week, 2008.

Loacker, G. Self-Assessment at Alverno College; Alverno College: Milwaukee, 2000.

Lovell, R.B. Adult learning; Croom Helm: London, 1980.

Maxwell, G. Teacher Observation in Student Assessment, 2001. http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/

downloads/publications/research_qscc_assess_report_4.pdf. (accessed Aug. 12, 2013).

Morgan, T. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2001, 8, 1, 11–24.

Novak, J.; Gowin, B. Learning How to Learn; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA,
1984.

Perkins, D. Making Learning Whole. How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Educa-
tion; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2009.

Perlini, A.; Lind, D. L.; Zumbo, B. D. Context effects on examinations: The effects of time,
item order and item difficulty. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 1998, 39(4),
299–307.

Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child; Basic Books: New York, 1954.

Pollio, H. R.; Hall, P. B. When the Tail Wags the Dog: Perceptions of Learning and Grade
Orientation in, and, by Contemporary College Students and Faculty. The Journal of Higher
Education, 2000, 71 (2), 84–102.

Prosser, M.; Trigwell, K. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher edu-
cation; Open University Press: Buckingham, 1999.

Sanjurjo, L.; Vera, M. T. Aprendizaje significativo y enseñanza en los niveles medio y superior;
Homo Sapiens: Rosario, 1994.

Schön, D. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learn-
ing; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1987.
Evaluating to Learn 251

Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action; Temple Smith: Lon-
don, 1983.

Shields, B. On Your Own; Villard Books: New York, 1985.

Stanley, J. Helping First-Year Composition Students Develop Self-Assessment Ability. In Self-

Assessment at Alverno College; Loacker, G. Ed.; Alverno College: Milwaukee, 2000.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Zubizarreta, J. The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning;
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1990.

Zull, J.From Brain to Mind. Using Neuroscience to Guide Change in Education; Stylus: Ster-
ling, VA, 2011.

Zull, J. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the
Biology of Learning; Stylus: Sterling, VA, 2002.
CHAPTER 12

STUDENT EVALUATION OF
TEACHING: EVALUATING DEEP
LEARNING
The only man who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my
measurements anew every time he sees me, while all the rest go on
with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.
— GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

CONTENTS

12.2 The Instruction-Paradigm Student Evaluation of Teaching ......... 254

12.3 Reliability Problems of Current Student Evaluation of Teaching ..... 256
12.4 Teaching Evaluation and Deep Learning: A Scholarly Approach ..... 261
12.5 Summary ...................................................................................... 266
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 267
Keywords .............................................................................................. 271
References ............................................................................................. 271
254 Facilitating Deep Learning

12.1 INTRODUCTION
Universities and colleges have been relying on student evaluation of
teaching (SET) to assess the effectiveness of their faculty for decades.
Like the evaluation of students’ work, the evaluation of teaching has very
concrete effects on the lives of university and college teachers. SET results
are mainly used for appointment, reappointment, tenure, and promotion.
In most cases, they are the only data used for evaluation. Despite their
importance, current SET instruments present severe validity problems,
particularly because they have no correlation with student learning.
In this chapter, I will first examine the characteristics of the prevailing
approach to student evaluation of teaching effectiveness in the Instruc-
tion paradigm. I will then analyze the biases and problems of the current
approach. Finally, I will explore an alternative method for the evaluation
of teaching effectiveness focused on the creation of a deep learning en-
vironment and based on a scholarly approach to evaluation under clear
standards and multiple sources of data.

12.2 THE INSTRUCTION-PARADIGM STUDENT EVALUATION

OF TEACHING

In one of the first job-search committees I participated on, we had to de-

cide between two candidates (Alan and Chris) to bring in for a campus
interview. It was a nontenure track position, so it was clear that teaching
was the main factor for consideration. Alan was completing his Ph.D. at a
prestigious university in southern Ontario, Canada. He had received full
merit scholarships to fund his graduate studies. He was very active in his
discipline. He had a few publications and conference presentations. He
had also participated in several teaching and learning workshops during
his master’s and doctoral programs. He also presented a couple of papers
on teaching writing to first-year students and attended a few teaching and
learning conferences. During the summers, he taught as part-time faculty
in his department. He taught five courses in this capacity. To me, he looked
like a very good candidate on paper. Chris had finished his master’s degree
a few years before that search. He had not pursued doctoral studies. He had
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 255

never published in his discipline. Neither had he participated in any teach-

ing and learning workshop or conference. Like Alan, Chris had taught five
courses as a part-time faculty in a small university. In my mind, it was
clear that Alan deserved an invitation for a campus interview. If that did
not work out, I wasn’t sure Chris was worth interviewing. To my surprise,
my colleagues in the search committee, all of whom had worked for years,
even decades, at the university had a different take. They carefully com-
pared the student evaluations submitted by Alan and Chris. Alan’s were
not bad. In a scale from 1 to 7, his average was around 6.50 for each cat-
egory (clear course objectives, achievement of course objectives, accurate
tests, fair grading, timely return of assignments, organized classes, avail-
ability, communication, open-mindedness, knowledge of subject matter,
and instructor effectiveness). Chris’s scores were a bit better. His average
was around 6.65. In one particular category, knowledge of the subject mat-
ter of the course, Chris scored an average of 6.75 whereas Alan’s average
was around 6.30. My colleagues vividly argued that Chris was a far bet-
ter teacher and that he knew a lot more than Alan about the discipline.
At first, I honestly thought my colleagues were joking. When I sought
clarification, they told me that they firmly believed that Chris was a bet-
ter candidate than Alan because he outperformed Alan in every category.
They were genuinely concerned that Alan did not know the discipline well
enough. I urged my colleagues to consider Alan’s whole file. Alan was a
Ph.D. candidate, he had published in the discipline, and he had presented
at several conferences. And the workshops he had taken, together with
the publications in the field of the scholarship of teaching and learning,
showed, at the very least, a commitment to a professional and scholarly
approach to teaching, which was not evident in Chris’s application. After
heated discussions, except for me, all members of the search committee
voted in favor of inviting Chris to interview. Needless to say, Chris was
offered the position. He taught for our program for several years until the
university decided to hire a tenure-track candidate.
The predominant practice of evaluation of teaching effectiveness re-
flects traditional conceptions of teaching and evaluation. Many authors,
teachers, and administrators believe that it is possible and desirable to
evaluate teaching effectiveness by means of instruments administered to
students at the end of the course. These instruments, called student
256 Facilitating Deep Learning

evaluations of teaching or SETs, require students to rate the effective-

ness of the teacher in delivering the course. They generally include several
questions or statements about different elements believed to be associ-
ated with good teaching, which students have to rate. For example, Her-
bert Marsh and his colleagues (1997) produced an SET instrument called
SEEQ (Student Evaluation of Educational Quality). This widely used
instrument comprises items classified into nine dimensions of teaching:
learning, enthusiasm, organization, group interaction, individual rapport,
breadth, examinations, assignments, and overall. Students have to give
their opinion on each item or some selected items and rate them according
to the following categories: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree,
Strongly Agree. Marsh’s SEEQ instrument is used in institutions across
the Western world. Authors enrolled in the Instruction-paradigm approach
argue that “SETs are the single most valid source of data on teaching effec-
tiveness” (Marsh and Roche, 1997) and support SETs by acknowledging
that they can provide powerful and useful information, provided evalua-
tion is based on a systematic and careful approach involving all constituen-
cies and achieving consensus on major issues (Theall and Franklin, 2001).

12.3 RELIABILITY PROBLEMS OF CURRENT STUDENT

EVALUATION OF TEACHING

The predominant SET instruments have many reliability flaws. To say that
student ratings are valid is to say that they reflect teaching effectiveness.
However, SETs are plagued with reliability issues and are biased, or im-
pose serious risks of bias (Clayson and Sheffet, 2009). One of the most seri-
ous reliability problems is that “minority faculty obtain significantly lower
ratings than white professors” (Hamermesh and Parker, 2004). Similarly,
students evaluate faculty who speak with a foreign accent more negatively
than those who are native speakers of the official or predominant language
in the jurisdiction of the university or college (Eisenhower, 2002; Llurda,
2000). Certain languages are subject to more negative stereotyping than
others. This stereotype varies according to the general political climate in
the country. For example, after the September 11, 2001 incidents in the
United States, teachers speaking with an Arabic accent were less favorably
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 257

evaluated than speakers of other languages. When there is a media and po-
litical campaign against illegal immigration in the United States, teachers
whose first language is Spanish suffer more negative stereotyping, which
is reflected in the SETs regardless of their actual effectiveness as teachers.
There is a long line of research studies showing that student ratings of
educators depend largely on personality variables and not on pedagogical
issues. These studies began with Naftulin and his colleagues’(1973) fa-
mous Dr. Fox experiment. These authors hired a professional actor to give
a nonsensical lecture in the field of medicine to a highly educated audience,
which included other professors, professionals, and graduate students in
medicine and cognate disciplines. The actor, who looked intelligent, el-
egant, and distinguished, was introduced to the audience as Dr. Myron L.
Fox, an authority in the field of applied mathematics to human behavior.
Then the presenter shared Dr. Fox’s impressive fabricated CV with the
audience. The actor gave a very eloquent lecture, entitled “Mathematical
Game Theory Applied to Physician Education,” for one hour, followed
by a 30-minute discussion period. He was very expressive, smiled, made
frequent eye contact with the audience, and used face and hand gestures
to accompany his talk. The lecture and his answers to the questions from
the audience were completely senseless. They were full of contradictions,
irrelevant examples, and ambiguity. He digressed all the time, told jokes,
and used humor unrelated to the lecture. With his very dramatic style, Dr.
Fox seduced his audience. No one realized that he was an actor. After the
lecture and the discussion, the authors gave the audience an SET question-
naire with eight questions about Dr. Fox’s teaching effectiveness, which
also included room for open comments. The majority of the audience rated
Dr. Fox very positively on every single question. Some members even
commented that Dr. Fox analyzed the topic well. A minority even admitted
having read Dr. Fox’s inexistent publications. This clearly shows that non-
verbal behavior, such as gestures, facial expressions, tone, and pitch, dra-
matically affects evaluations, and that SETs “respond primarily to minor
aspects of a professor’s classroom style; many of those behaviors reflect
characteristics like race, gender, and class” (Merritt, 2008).
Another study is that conducted by Stephen J. Ceci, a professor of de-
velopmental psychology at Cornell University. After teaching for around
20 years, Ceci received a letter inviting him to participate in a teaching
258 Facilitating Deep Learning

skills workshop to improve his teaching practice. His SETs were aver-
age, so he did not feel that he needed to take this workshop. But because
he had no choice, he attended it. A professional media consultant with no
knowledge of academia or teaching led the workshop. The media consul-
tant helped the participants improve their presentation skills. Participants
were taught how to sound more enthusiastic by varying pitch and using
hand gestures when giving lectures. After finishing the workshop, Ceci
decided to implement these tips to see if they could improve his SETs
scores. He taught the same course he had taught many times before. And
he taught it in exactly the same way, that is, same content, goals, lectures,
book, and evaluation. He even taught the course on the same days and
times as he had always done. The only difference was that he lectured with
more gestures and more pitch variability, just as he had been advised in the
workshop. At the end of the course, the SET results showed substantial im-
provement with respect to his previous courses (Williams and Ceci, 1997).
Another interesting factor in student evaluation of teaching is the
“thin-slice” phenomenon (Ambady and Rosenthal, 1993). Students make
a judgment of their teachers in the very first minutes of the first class. This
judgment, which is based on the teacher’s personality, seldom changes
throughout the course. Another very interesting—and arbitrary—factor
that strongly influences student evaluation of teaching is teachers’ physical
appearance. Teachers perceived to be physically attractive receive higher
SET ratings than those who are perceived as unattractive. Those who are
ranked as “hot” on ratemyprofessors.com or similar websites have better
ratings than those who are not (Hamermesh and Parker, 2004; Riniolo,
2005). This phenomenon takes place with both deep and surface learners,
as the attractiveness bias plays an important role in both types of students
(Perlini and Hansen, 2001).
Another problem with the prevailing SET practice is that it focuses
almost exclusively on teaching as an activity that takes place only in the
classroom. Under this approach, teaching is usually associated only with
course delivery. This is a very narrow conception of teaching. In fact,
teaching is a process that goes beyond the classroom, which involves the
following stages: (i) vision, (ii) design, (iii) enactment, (iv) outcomes, and
(v) analysis (Shulman, 2004). Focusing on only one of these phases to de-
termine the effectiveness of the whole process leads to a flawed evaluation
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 259

process and to dubious results. It is the same as if we wanted to judge the

effectiveness of an airplane; and we evaluated solely the way the engines
work. The engines may work correctly, but if the fuselage is faulty, the air-
plane will fall down with catastrophic consequences. If we want to judge
the reliability of an airplane, we need to judge the whole airplane and the
whole process of construction of the airplane.
Another factor that influences SET ratings is the connection between
grades and SET results. Students usually consider the grades that they ex-
pect to receive when evaluating the effectiveness of a teacher. Students
form a mental comparison between how they expect to be graded with the
grade they get or believe they will get. This comparison leaves students
either satisfied or dissatisfied, thus influencing the ratings that they give to
their teachers (Chambers and Schmitt, 2002).
Another problem with the reliability of SET instruments is that SETs
are uni-dimensional. They do not evaluate those aspects of teaching that
are not easily observable. As briefly mentioned earlier, pedagogy has
four dimensions: (i) surface structure, (ii) deep structure, (iii) tacit struc-
ture, and (iv) shadow structure (Shulman, 2004). The surface structure of
pedagogy is the set of behaviors that can be observed. For example, the
surface structure of a traditional lecture reveals that the teacher explains
facts, students take notes and ask questions, and the teacher answers those
questions. The deep structure is the set of underlying intentions and goals
that the observable behavior models. For example, the deep structure of
the traditional lecture is that there is an expert, the teacher, who has the
knowledge and transmits it to nonexperts, the students. The tacit structure
refers to the values and dispositions that the behavior implicitly models.
For example, the traditional lecture promotes a foundational conception
of knowledge as a real entity that is not subject to collective negotiation.
The shadow structure is the repressed pedagogy. It is what the pedagogy
does not do. For example, the lecture does not promote student research
or student collaboration. Most SET instruments focus on the surface struc-
ture and do not contain questions or statements about the other aspects of
pedagogy, particularly the tacit and shadow structures.
Most SET instruments tend to reward Level 2 teaching rather than Lev-
el 3 (Biggs and Tang, 2007). Biggs classifies teaching into three different
categories. Level 1 teaching consists of sorting students into good and bad.
260 Facilitating Deep Learning

Level 2 teaching focuses on teacher’s performance. An effective Level 2

teacher is a teacher who masters the skills and the resources to perform
well. For example, a good Level 2 teacher is a teacher who speaks clearly,
projects his or her voice so that every student in the room can hear, and
uses interesting visual aids. One can be a very good Level 2 teacher, but
that does not mean that students will learn. Level 3 teaching focuses on
what the students do. An effective Level-3 teacher is one who encourages
students to actively engage in a process of discovery and construction of
knowledge. The predominant SET practice conceives of teaching as Level
2. It focuses on what the teacher does instead of what the students do.
The weakest aspect of SET practice is that SETs have no correlation
with student learning. In other words, high SET ratings do not necessarily
mean that students have learned (Clayson, 2009). High SET ratings simply
mean that the teacher’s pedagogy conforms to the traditional role that pre-
dominates among students and in society in general. They also probably
mean that the teacher is white, does not speak with an accent that suffers
from negative stereotyping, and that the teacher’s body language conveys
positive messages to students. A high SET rating also probably means that
the teacher is perceived as physically attractive. Conversely, low SET rat-
ings do not mean that students have not learned. A low SET rating may
simply mean that the teacher is not white, speaks with a foreign accent,
and has body language that is perceived as negative. Or it may also mean
that the teacher’s pedagogy is not conventional. A high or a low SET rating
may also mean that students had grade expectations that did not coincide
with the grades they obtained in the course or that they expected to obtain.
A low SET rating may also mean that the teacher promoted deep learning
in a class where most students were surface learners. This is so because
surface learners tend to judge teachers who promote deep learning quite
negatively. At the same time, deep learners tend to judge teachers who
promote surface learning negatively (Entwistle and Tait, 1990).
Another very serious problem with SETs has to do with the way tenure
and promotion committees work and interpret SETs (McKeachie, 1997).
Most committees lack sophistication and knowledge about the evaluation
process of teaching (Theall and Franklin, 2001). Generally, these com-
mittees lack clear standards; decisions are made arbitrarily according to
what their members think the standards of scholarly work should be at
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 261

their institution. Moreover, committees tend to confuse data with evalu-

ation. Many members usually think that SETs are evaluation of teaching.
Students do not evaluate. They provide data, which tenure and promotion
committees evaluate. So, in many cases, they automatically believe that
low SET scores mean teaching ineffectiveness. Committees also tend to
give negative information a disproportionate weight. So, for example, if
most of the comments about a teacher are positive, but there are two or
three that are negative, many committees have shown to focus on those
negative comments rather than on the positive ones. Furthermore, com-
mittees tend to judge teachers who do not conform to the stereotype of
good teaching as ineffective despite other evidence to the contrary (McK-
eachie, 1997). All of these problems are compounded because the work of
the tenure and promotion committees tends to be private, confidential, and
closed to the academic community. So, it is important to help tenure and
promotion committee members to undergo a process of acculturation of
evaluation of teaching from a learning perspective.

12.4 TEACHING EVALUATION AND DEEP LEARNING: A

SCHOLARLY APPROACH

An efficient student evaluation program of teaching effectiveness must

assess teaching effectiveness according to a learning perspective (Bain,
2004). So, the focus should not be on the methods that teachers use to
teach their classes. The focus of SETs should be on whether or not teachers
help students learn deeply. This does not mean measuring student learn-
ing to determine the effectiveness of teaching, as some students may learn
even when the teaching is not effective (Biggs and Tang, 2007). The re-
verse is also true. Some students may not learn—for many different rea-
sons—even when a teacher is effective. The key is whether the teacher
created a motivating environment that is conducive to deep learning. For
Bain, the fundamental question is: “Does the teaching help and encourage
students to learn in ways that make a sustained, substantial, and positive
difference in the way students think, act, or feel—without doing them any
harm?” Bain (2004) breaks this question into four sub-questions:
262 Facilitating Deep Learning

“(i) Is the material worth learning? (ii) Are students learning what the course is
supposedly teaching? (iii) Is the teacher helping and encouraging the students
to learn (or do they learn despite the teacher)? and (iv) Has the teacher harmed
the students (perhaps fostering short-term learning with intimidation tactics,
discouraging rather than stimulating additional interest in the field, fostering
strategic rather than deep learning, neglecting the needs of a diverse student
population, or failing to evaluate students’ learning accurately)?” (Bain, 2004).

These are all valid and relevant questions for an SET that focuses on
teaching as a way of encouraging learning. Bain’s set of sub-questions
could be supplemented with other questions aimed at evaluating whether
the elements of the deep learning process were present. These could in-
clude the following:
(i) Does the teacher expose students to appropriate social interac-
tion that creates a cognitive conflict that students are motivated to
solve?
(ii) Does the teacher encourage students to make connections between
new knowledge and their existing cognitive structures?
(iii) Does the teacher promote a collective negotiation of meanings?
(iv) Does the teacher help students use higher-order cognitive and
metacognitive processes and skills at both the individual and the
group levels?
(v) Does the teacher help students reacculturate from one community
of knowledgeable peers to another or move from the periphery of a
community of knowledgeable peers to the center?
(vi) Does the teacher help students reflect about their learning process-
es and the resulting conceptual and social changes?
In turn, these sub-questions could be complemented with the fol-
lowing dealing with fundamental academic skills:
(vii) Does the teacher promote individual and collective deep reading?
(viii) Does the teacher promote individual and collective writing pro-
cesses?
Although these questions may now seem too technical for students to
understand, if we help students develop metacognitive categories as part
of their learning and evaluation processes, students will be able to evaluate
teachers’ effectiveness and to answer these questions appropriately.
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 263

Like with any other research process, relying on only one type of data
is not enough to reach reliable conclusions. It is useful to triangulate data,
that is, to obtain data from multiple sources. For example, a fellow teacher
could organize student small-group discussions where they carefully ex-
amine every aspect of the teaching and learning process (Merritt, 2008).
The content of the discussions could then be communicated to the teacher
in charge of the course, who could incorporate that feedback into future
courses.
Data can also come from peer observation of teaching, provided that
the peer observer understands teaching as the creation of a motivating en-
vironment that is conducive to learning. Another very important source for
data is teacher self-evaluations. Teachers need to engage in the evaluation
of their teaching along the same process analyzed for the evaluation of stu-
dent learning. Like for students, the objective of teaching evaluation has to
lead ultimately to teachers’ self-evaluation of their own practice.
Additionally, because teaching exceeds the classroom enactment to in-
clude the course vision, and its design, outcomes, and analysis, a reliable
and comprehensive evaluation of teaching effectiveness must seek data
about all these other components of the teaching process. Students may
not be in a position to evaluate them unless they share the whole pro-
cess. So, these components may need to be evaluated with data from other
sources. These may include presentations of the analysis of a course in a
teaching and learning conference, the publication of an article about the
vision for a course, and a written account of the design of a course, among
others (Bolívar Botía and Caballero Rodríguez, 2008). Data can also come
from the teacher’s own reflections in his or her teaching portfolio or from
a course portfolio. The course portfolio is a scholarly investigation into
student learning at the course level—from its vision to the analysis of the
teaching and learning process (Hutchings, 1998).
Teaching that promotes deep learning, conceived of as a process of
working from a vision to the analysis involving inquiry into student learn-
ing, is often a scholarly activity. If it has the following three features,
teaching also qualifies as scholarship. These features are: (i) public rather
than private, (ii) susceptible to peer review and evaluation, and (iii) acces-
sible for exchange and use by other members of the scholarly community
(Shulman, 2004). So, if teaching qualifies as scholarship, then it must be
264 Facilitating Deep Learning

evaluated like other types of scholarship. The following steps make up

the essential aspects of the scholarly teaching process: (i) clear goals, (ii)
adequate preparation, (iii) appropriate methods, (iv) significant results, (v)
effective presentation, and (vi) reflective critique (Glassick, Huber, and
Maeroff, 1997). These stages are similar to the five elements of teaching
proposed by Shulman (2004). Clear teaching goals require a vision of the
problem; the design demands adequate preparation anchored in the teach-
ing and learning literature. The enactment of a course must be carried out
through appropriate pedagogical methods. The learning outcomes are the
results of the teaching enterprise, which must be analyzed—reflective cri-
tique in Glassick’s words—and effectively communicated to peers and the
academic community at large. Tenure and promotion committees should
bear in mind these aspects of the scholarly teaching process and should
evaluate its efficacy by discussing clarity, adequacy, appropriateness, and
significance.
Table 12.1 outlines Glassick’s and Shulman’s approach to assessing
scholarly teaching and includes examples of questions for evaluators to
ask about the teaching practice.

TABLE 12.1 Criteria to assess scholarly teaching.

Glassick Shulman Questions

Clear teaching goals Vision Does the teacher define clear teaching goals?
Are the goals adequately communicated to the
students?
Are the teaching goals appropriate for the students
and the teaching context?
Do the teaching goals reflect knowledge of students’
needs and cognitive structures?

Adequate preparation Design Does the course reflect adequate preparation?

Does the course reflect an adequate knowledge of the
relevant teaching and learning literature?
Does the course reflect adequate knowledge of the
discipline’s big questions and problems?
Does the teacher plan interesting and motivating
problems, situations, and questions for students to
grapple with?

Glassick Shulman Questions

Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 265

TABLE 12.1 (Continued)

Appropriate methods Enactment Are the teaching and learning activities for the course
appropriate to achieve the teaching goals?
Does the teacher implement them effectively?
Does the teacher create a safe and motivating envi-
ronment so that students can engage in the proposed
performances?

Significant results Outcomes Have the goals been met?

Has the teacher created an environment that encour-
aged students to learn deeply?
Have the students learned deeply?
If students have not learned deeply, is it because the
teacher has not created an environment conducive
to learning or because of circumstances beyond the
teacher’s control?

Reflective critique Analysis Has the teacher analyzed his or her course? Has the
teacher analyzed whether the teaching goals have
been achieved?
Has the teacher analyzed whether students have
learned deeply or not?
Has the teacher designed and implemented a class-
room action research project to improve the learning
outcomes in a future course?

Effective presentation Public Does the teacher share the results of his or her teach-
ing with peers?
Suscep-
tible to peer Does the teacher effectively communicate the results?
review and Does the teacher actively seek peer review opportuni-
evaluation ties for the evaluation of the teaching?
Accessible Is the teaching public? Are the teaching results
for use by public?
others.
Are the teaching results available for other teachers to
use, build upon, and improve?

Based on Glassick, C. E.; Huber, M. T.; and Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship

Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
1997; Shulman, L. Professing the liberal arts. In Education and democracy:
Re-imagining liberal learning in America; Orrill, R., Ed.; College Board
Publications: New York, 1997; and Shulman, L. Teaching as Community
Property. Essays on Higher Education; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2004.
266 Facilitating Deep Learning

12.5 SUMMARY

The predominant approach to student evaluation of teaching reflects a

nonconstructivist notion of learning and knowledge and a Level 2 concep-
tion of the teaching process. Furthermore, the predominant SET practice
is full of biases and potential biases against minority teachers and all those
whose teaching does not conform to the mainstream view of an effective
teacher. SETs tend to respond to nonverbal behavior, such as gestures,
body language, and facial expressions. Many of these behaviors are rooted
in physiology, culture, personality, and habit, which are difficult to change
and affect minority teachers more negatively than mainstream faculty. The
most serious problem with SETs is that they do not take into consideration
the learning aspect of the teaching and learning equation. By focusing ex-
clusively on the teaching side, they do not provide any information about
student learning.
An alternative approach to evaluating teaching effectiveness should fo-
cus on whether the teacher creates a deep learning environment. This does
not mean that teaching effectiveness should be measured by assessing
whether students actually learned or not, as there may be cases of students
learning with an ineffective teacher and students not learning despite hav-
ing an effective teacher. This means that the focus should be on whether
the teacher has created an environment that is conducive to deep learning.
For Bain (2004), the key question is: “Does the teaching help and encour-
age students to learn in ways that make a sustained, substantial, and posi-
tive difference in the way students think, act, or feel—without doing them
any harm?” This question can be broken down in several sub-questions to
reflect every aspect of the deep learning process.
Because teaching exceeds delivery in the classroom, evaluation of teach-
ing effectiveness should evaluate the whole teaching process: vision,
design, enactment, outcomes, and analysis.
Given the importance of SET for reappointment, tenure, and promo-
tion, higher education institutions should promote a scholarly approach to
the evaluation of teaching effectiveness with clear standards and multiple
sources of data.
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 267

The next chapter explores the connection between time and deep learn-
ing and focuses on intensive teaching formats.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. It is university policy to administer Student Evaluation of Teach-

ing surveys at the end of every course. SETs are mainly used for
tenure and promotion. One of your colleagues is in the third year
of her tenure-track appointment. She is generally regarded as an
excellent and conscientious teacher. She actively participates in
educational development programs and regularly reads the litera-
ture on teaching and learning. Right before the administration of
SETs, she asked her students to identify areas for improvement.
Her SET scores were good, but not excellent. She applied for reap-
pointment. Her tenure and promotion committee was concerned
about her SET scores. The committee asked you to become her
mentor and to discuss her SET scores. What can you do to help
your colleague? What advice can you give her? What actions can
you take?
2. The university’s SET questionnaire includes the following state-
ments for students to rate from 1 to 7: (i) the instructor was knowl-
edgeable about the subject matter; and (ii) the instructor was able
to communicate the subject matter effectively. What do you think
about these statements? Are they appropriate for evaluating teach-
ing effectiveness? Why or why not? Would you eliminate them
from the SET questionnaire? Would you reformulate them? If so,
how?
3. Your colleague decided to implement John Tagg’s suggestion
about comments on student papers. He decided not to assign any
grade to students’ papers throughout the term, because, like Tagg,
he believes that students only pay attention to the grade and do
not read comments and suggestions for improvement. So, he gave
them only feedback without any grade. He asked students to act
upon this feedback and resubmit their papers several times during
the term. Your colleague was very happy with the results of this
268 Facilitating Deep Learning

practice, as students produced high-quality papers. However, he

was shocked to receive very low SET scores. Students made the
following comments: “I like to know all my grades not just find
out my final mark.” “Grades are arbitrary. You don’t know your
grade until the term is over.” “The guy is nice but you have to work
hard on the papers. If you don’t you fail.” What happened? Why
do you think that students complained about this practice? What do
the SET comments reflect? Why? What changes, if any, would you
suggest to your colleague?
4. A recent hire in your department is a very hard working professor
and scholar. She recently finished her Ph.D. and has already pub-
lished two books and several articles in her base discipline. She
is very demanding of her students. She believes she is very effec-
tive. At meetings and in informal gatherings, she often complains
about her students’ lack of adequate preparation for postsecondary
studies. She received very low SET scores during her first year.
Some students made the following comments: “This was the most
miserable experience in all four years.” “She is unapproachable.
I am afraid to talk to her.” “She made me cry when I went to her
office to ask her about my grade.” “She hates students. She is an
awful prof.” “She is too tough. She treats us as if we were Ph.D.
students.” You are the chair of the department, and you are worried
about her SETs. You talked to her, but she dismissed your concerns
by saying that the only reason why she got low SET scores is that
she is very demanding and gives students low grades. She added
that when students get low grades they tend to give low SET scores.
You replied that everyone else had substantially higher SET scores
in the department and that she should improve hers. She replied
“Oh, that’s only because other professors give away grades, that’s
how they get high SET scores.” Why do you think your colleague
reacted in this way? Is she right? Why or why not? What can you
say to her? What advice can you give her? Students come to your
office to complain about her teaching practice and marking quite
frequently. What should you say to them?
5. John Biggs’s questionnaire to gather evidence from student per-
ception of teaching includes the following questions focused on
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 269

constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2007): Were the Intended

Learning Outcomes (ILOs) clear? Did the Teaching and Learning
Activities (TLAs) help students achieve the ILOs? Which did not?
Did the Assessment Tasks (ATs) address the ILOs? Were the grad-
ing rubrics understood? In your opinion, does Bigg’s questionnaire
help assess teaching effectiveness understood as the promotion of
a motivating deep learning environment? Without taking into ac-
count biases, could a traditional lecturer achieve a high SET score
under Bigg’s questionnaire? Without taking into account biases,
could a teacher who successfully facilitates the creation of a deep
learning environment obtain a low SET score under Bigg’s ques-
tionnaire?
6. A group of students started the course two weeks after the begin-
ning of the semester. One of the questions on the SET questionnaire
asks students if the teacher anticipated and explained the learning
outcomes during the first weeks of the course. The teacher did not
want these students to answer this SET question. So, she went to
her chair to discuss this situation. Her chair told her that the ques-
tions may not be changed and that these students had to answer
the SET questions as everyone else. What do you think about the
teacher’s position? What would you do in her place? What do you
think about the chair’s response? What would you do?
7. A part-time colleague at a two-year college is on contract. He has
very good SET scores and comments. However, a couple of stu-
dents wrote the following comments “Worst professor ever!!! Very
picky and unclear.” “Very unorganized and very picky about what
type of folder you use to turn in essays.” His chair refuses to renew
his appointment because of these comments. Do you agree with the
chair? Why or why not? What would you do if you were the chair?
Why? What would you do if you were the part-time teacher whose
contract is not renewed because of students’ comments? Why?
8. You have a policy of returning assignments, tests, and papers in
the class immediately following the day students hand in the as-
signments or take the tests. One of the statements in the SET reads:
“Required work was graded in time” You were sure that you would
receive the highest score from every single student in this item.
270 Facilitating Deep Learning

To your surprise, some students did not rate you highly. You com-
plained to your chair about this and offered evidence about your
return policy for assignments and tests. The chair dismissed your
comments and was upset with you because of your low SET score
for that statement. Why do you think your students did not give you
a high rating for that statement? What do you think of the chair’s
attitude? What, if anything, can you do now? What can you do to
prevent students from giving you a low score next time you teach
that course?
9. Remember or watch the school scenes from the film The Easter
Egg Adventure (2004) directed by John Michael Williams. Suppose
you are a student in Ms. Horrible Harriet Hare’s class. Take the
SET questionnaire used in your institution to evaluate Ms. Hare’s
teaching effectiveness. How would you rate her? An alternative to
the traditional SET questionnaires that focus on what the teacher
does in the course is to try to determine if the teacher has created
an environment that is conducive to deep learning. What specific
questions would you include to determine if a teacher has created
a deep learning environment? How would you evaluate Ms. Hare’s
teaching using that questionnaire?
10. A questionnaire for the evaluation of part-time faculty includes the
following:
EXPRESSION: Use of nonverbal behavior to solicit student attention and
interest.
• Speaks in a dramatic expressive way.
• Moves about while lecturing.
• Gestures with hands or arms.
• Makes eye contact with students.
• Gestures with head or body.
• Tells jokes or humorous anecdotes.
• Effectively uses prepared notes or text.
• Smiles or laughs while teaching.
• Avoids distracting mannerisms.
What do you think of these evaluation criteria? What are the
implications of using these criteria? How can you improve the
questionnaire?
Student Evaluation of Teaching: Evaluating Deep Learning 271

KEYWORDS

• deep learning
• evaluating deep learning
• scholarly approach to evaluation
• scholarly teaching
• SET reliability problems
• student evaluation of teaching (SET)

REFERENCES

Ambady, N.; Rosenthal, R. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of
nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1993,64(3), 431–441.

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Biggs, J.; Tang, C.Teaching for Quality Learning at University;Open University Press: Maid-
enhead, 2007.

Bolívar Botía, A.; Caballero Rodríguez, K. Cómo hacer visible la excelencia en la enseñanza
universitaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 2008, 46.8.

Clayson, D. E.; Sheffet, M. J.; Personality and the student evaluation of teaching. Journal of
Marketing Education, 2006, 28, 149–160.

Delaney, J.; Johnson, A., Johnson, T.; Treslan, D. Students’ Perceptions of Effective Teaching
in Higher Education; Distance Education and Learning Technologies: St. John’s, NL, 2010.

Eisenhower, K. American Attitudes toward Accented English. M.A. Thesis, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, 2002.

Entwistle, N.; Tait, H. Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for con-
trasting academic environments.Higher Education, 1990, 19, 169–194.

Glassick, C. E.; Huber, M. T.; and Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Profes-
soriate; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1997.

Hamermesh, D. S.; Parker, A. Beauty in the classroom: instructors’ pulchritude and putative
pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, 2005, 24, 4, 369–376.
272 Facilitating Deep Learning

Herteis, E. M. (n/d). A Fine and Private Place: Making Teaching Visible.

Hutchings, P.; The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice
and student learning. American Association for Higher Education: Washington, DC., 1998

Llurda, E. Effects of intelligibility and speaking rate on judgments of nonnative speakers’ per-
sonalities, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 2000, 38,
3–4, 289–300

Marsh, H.W.; Roche, L.A.; Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective.
American Psychologist 1997,52, 1187–1197.

McKeachie, W. J. Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 1997, 52(11),
1218–1225.

Merritt, D. Bias, the Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching. St. John’s Law Review, 2008,
82, 235–287.

Naftulin, D.; Ware, J.; Donnelly, F. The Dr. Fox Lecture: a Paradigm of Educational Seduction.
The Journal of Medical Education, 1973, 48, 630–5.

Perlini, A.; Hansen, S. Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition on Attractiveness Stereotyp-
ing. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 2001, 29, 4, 313–321.

Riniolo, T. C.; Johnson, K. C.; Sherman, T. R.; Misso, J. A. Hot or not: Do professors perceived
as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations? The Journal of General Psychol-
ogy, 2006, 133, 19–35.

Shulman, L. Professing the liberal arts. In Education and democracy: Re-imagining liberal
learning in America; Orrill, R., Ed.; College Board Publications: New York, 1997.

Shulman, L. Teaching as Community Property. Essays on Higher Education; Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, 2004.

Theall, M.; Franklin, J. Looking for Bias in all the Wrong Places – A Search for Truth or a Witch
Hunt in Student Ratings of Instruction? In The Student Ratings Debate: Are they Valid? How
Can We Best Use Them? Theall, P.; Abrami, L.; Mets, L. Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
2001.

Trigwell, K.; Michael Prosser, M. Improving the Quality of Student Learning: The Influence
of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning on Learning Outcomes. Higher
Education, 1991, 22, 3, 251–266.
Williams, W.M.; Ceci, S.J. How’m I Doing. Change, 1997, 13–23.
 PART V
DEEP LEARNING AND TIME
CHAPTER 13

INTENSIVE TEACHING
The years teach much the days never know.
— RALPH WALDO EMERSON

CONTENTS

13.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 276

13.2 Time and Deep Learning ............................................................ 276
13.3 Intensive Teaching and Deep Learning ...................................... 277
13.4 Intensive Teaching and Other Advantages ................................. 279
13.5 Student Demographics ............................................................... 280
13.6 Motivation and Engagement ...................................................... 280
13.7 Active and Student-Centered Pedagogy..................................... 281
13.8 Learning Communities............................................................... 282
13.9 Concerns .................................................................................... 283
13.10 Summary .................................................................................. 283
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 284
Keywords .............................................................................................. 286
References ............................................................................................. 287
276 Facilitating Deep Learning

13.1 INTRODUCTION

Deep learning does not occur magically in short or arbitrary periods of

time. It is a long process that requires multiple instances of grappling
with problems, making connections, interacting with peers, and reflecting
about new knowledge.
Some colleges and universities are experimenting with intensive teach-
ing formats instead of the traditional scheduling format. In some cases,
they use intensive teaching to structure and organize learning communi-
ties. In other cases, intensive teaching is used in conjunction with study
abroad programs. Many universities and colleges use intensive teaching by
scheduling courses during the summer, weekends, and evenings to allow
nontraditional students the possibility of taking programs and courses that
do not conflict with their work and family responsibilities (Danley-Scott,
2008). Intensive teaching models include a wide variety of scheduling for-
mats where students take a course for more hours than they normally do
in traditional courses.
Interestingly, traditional course schedule formats (60-minute-class
three times a week, 90-minute-class twice-a-week, or 180-minute once-a-
week sessions taught over a period of 13 to 15 weeks) are not based on any
empirical research on student learning. Universities and colleges adopted
the conventional schedules based first on intuition, then because it became
customary, and recently as a result of standard norms imposed by accredit-
ing agencies (Wlodkowski, 2003). But there is no pedagogical reason to
justify the conventional schedule formats. They are simply artifacts of the
Instruction-paradigm university, which teachers, students, administrators,
and accrediting agencies simply take for granted (Tagg, 2003).
In this chapter, I will examine the connection between intensive teach-
ing and deep learning. I will explore the benefits and advantages of in-
tensive teaching as well as some concerns expressed about nontraditional
scheduling formats.

13.2 TIME AND DEEP LEARNING

Deep learning is a long process that requires the learner to engage in a

myriad of individual and collective instances of negotiation of meanings
Intensive Teaching 277

and reflection. It is not a simple or immediate process. It is a long journey

of discovery and slow construction. Throughout this process, the learner
experiences a series of intermediate phases in which he or she tries new
ideas and explanations to respond to cognitive dissonances created by in-
teraction with new knowledge. Neuroscience also supports the idea that
changes in the brain, that is, the formation of neuronal networks of count-
less synapses, require multiple experiences along lengthy periods of time
(Zull, 2011).
Think about skills that you learned deeply in your life, such as walk-
ing, speaking, playing a sport, writing, or playing a musical instrument.
These learning processes took time; equally important, they extended over
uninterrupted blocks of time. Lionel Messi, the world’s greatest soccer
player, four-time FIFA Player of the Year and Olympic gold medalist, and
Manu Ginobili, a two-time NBA All-Star player and Olympic gold medal-
ist, did not learn to play soccer and basketball, respectively, by playing 90
minutes twice a week over a semester or two while juggling multiple other
learning activities. They learned by focusing on their sports most of the
time for as long as possible. Soccer for Messi and basketball for Ginobili
have always been their number-one priorities and main interests. I am not
suggesting that we focus exclusively on one single activity for life or even
at university. Apart from playing soccer, Messi went to school. And so did
Ginobili, who also studied English as a second language in a language
school as an extracurricular activity in Bahia Blanca, his hometown. But
when a learner is trying to learn something deeply—a sport, an academic
discipline, or any skill—he or she needs long and uninterrupted periods of
time to delve into the deep learning process. Sitting in a classroom at pre-
determined times for a few minutes twice a week, followed by more sitting
in another classroom to learn something different and disconnected to the
previous class, does not help learners learn anything deeply.

13.3 INTENSIVE TEACHING AND DEEP LEARNING

Some universities and colleges have been increasing the time periods for
courses. Students take courses that last the whole morning or even the
278 Facilitating Deep Learning

whole day for several weeks and even months. During these blocks of
time, students concentrate on taking only one course.
In terms of student deep learning, intensive teaching formats lead to
better results than traditional scheduling formats (Kasworm, 1991; van
Scyoc and Gleason, 1993; Wlodkowski, 1999). This is so because students
and teachers have ample time to actively experiment with the discipline.
They have time to explore topics, theories, and problems without being
limited by artificial time constraints. Students are immersed in the disci-
pline for a relatively long period of time. And during that time, this is all
that they do in their academic lives. Geltner and Logan (2000) studied
over 400,000 students who took conventional and intensive courses in a
period of four years. They found better success in intensive courses than in
traditional ones. Wlodkowski and his colleagues (1999, 2000) conducted
several research projects where they compared students’ learning achieve-
ments in courses taught in a traditional format with students’ achievement
in courses offered in an intensive format. The projects included courses
in accounting, law, and philosophy with university undergraduate stu-
dents who studied in English in the United States. After the end of the
courses, students’ performances were evaluated by experts in the field
who were unrelated to the university. These were accountants, lawyers,
business experts, and reputed philosophers who judged students’ work as
if they were produced by professionals or scholars. These independent
evaluators found that students in the intensive-schedule-format courses
achieved excellence in their respective fields and that these students at-
tained deeper learning than their counterparts who took traditional-format
courses. Wlodkowski and his colleagues wanted to see if this phenomenon
was exclusive to university students who take courses in English. So, they
replicated the same project with university students who study in Spanish
in Puerto Rico. Wlodkowski and his colleagues found that those students
who took courses in intensive scheduling modes also outperformed those
who took part in conventional courses.
Intensive teaching formats can also give rise to significant changes
in attitudes and behaviors—essential aspects of deep learning. Ray and
Kirkpatrick (1983) compared students’ knowledge, attitudes, and anxiety
concerning sexuality for two groups of students—those who had taken a
course on human sexuality taught intensively and those who had taken
Intensive Teaching 279

the same course taught traditionally. Whereas students in both courses un-
derstood the different types of sexuality and diverse gender conceptions
explored in the courses, most students who took intensive courses changed
their attitudes to embrace other forms of sexuality in their everyday lives.
They became less biased. They showed more tolerance for different sexual
groups. And they integrated students of different sexual orientations into
their social circles. In contrast, only a minority of students who took a
conventional scheduling course changed their attitudes.
A colleague taught Philosophy of Law in both intensive and conven-
tional scheduling formats. The content of the courses, the goals, the teach-
ing and learning activities, and the evaluation were identical. However,
there was more uninterrupted time for class discussions and other activi-
ties in the intensive course. In both courses, my colleague discussed vari-
ous notions of law with his students. He wanted his students to recognize
that law is more than just what is traditionally associated with a positivist
legal perspective (law as rules emanated from legislatures and courts). He
wanted students to appreciate that law also comes from nongovernmen-
tal agencies such as the church, school, and the family and that the rules
people adhere to when they play sports, wait for a bus, or talk to strangers
on the street are also considered law. Both groups of students understood
nonpositivist notions of law. But only some of the students in the intensive
course adopted these notions as something meaningful for them. They em-
braced these nonpositive perspectives of law for their analysis and carried
them in upper-year courses. Students in the regular course referred to situ-
ations of positivist law as “law” and to nonpositivist notions of law as “law
for anthropologists” or “law for nonlawyers.” One student even referred to
these nonpositivist approaches as “all that crap.” The longer uninterrupted
time to explore, discuss, and experiment with these nonpositivist perspec-
tives made the difference between both courses, as everything else was
practically the same.

13.4 INTENSIVE TEACHING AND OTHER ADVANTAGES

Intensive course formats offer many other advantages such as a tenden-

cy to favor nontraditional students and to foster student engagement and
280 Facilitating Deep Learning

teacher motivation. They also encourage the creation of learning commu-

nities and the adoption of active, student-centered pedagogies.

13.5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Although all or most students have evidenced important success in terms of

deep learning in intensive teaching formats, the students who tend to ben-
efit the most are students who are considered nontraditional and marginal
(Messina, 1996). Intensive modes promote deep learning in all age groups
(young and mature) and in all ethnic backgrounds: aboriginal, white, La-
tino, African American, and Asian, among many others. It also strongly
benefits students whose first language is not English or the language of in-
struction, as immersion in a language has proved to help students improve
their language and academic skills. Students who transferred from two-
year colleges, returning students, and immigrants also experienced more
successful and deeper learning experiences in intensive courses than in
traditional scheduling modes. Intensive teaching formats facilitate acces-
sibility and learning opportunities for—part-time and full-time—students
from nontraditional backgrounds and with lower incomes (Wlodkowski,
2003). Intensive teaching models have also proved to have more positive
effects on student retention than conventional scheduling modes.

13.6 MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Intensive teaching formats also increase student motivation and engage-

ment. Teachers are also more motivated when they teach intensive courses,
as this facilitates the elaboration of longer—than-usual projects and out-
of-class activities. Anyone who experienced having to stop a very interest-
ing class discussion because it was time to leave the classroom and make
room for a new class knows that sometimes it is important to let students
have ample time before they engage in a lively discussion. Once students
are engaged, the discussion should develop uninterruptedly without any
time constraints.
Intensive Teaching 281

Many universities and colleges use intensive teaching modes to take

their students abroad. They teach entire courses off-campus. Students learn
not only by taking courses in another country but also from the whole ex-
perience of living in a foreign culture. For example, a drama teacher from
a university in Los Angeles, organized an entire program around theater
companies formed by students from different countries. He complements
acting courses in Los Angeles with international experiences in Japan,
Europe and Latin America. As part of their program, every cohort of stu-
dents takes formal acting classes abroad. Students also audit workshops
and showcase a play abroad. And, most important, they see foreign plays
and interact with foreign drama students, professors, and professional ac-
tors. Additionally, the university invites some of these professors to Los
Angeles to continue with some of the projects initiated abroad. These ex-
periences are not limited in terms of traditional scheduling formats. It is
the learning experience that dictates the time students need to make the
most of these initiatives and projects. For example, when students go see
a play abroad, they stay until the play is over, regardless of how long it
takes. Furthermore, they usually meet the actors and directors after the
play; in many cases they all go have dinner together and linger on for
hours talking about the play and their acting experiences. These very rich
learning projects cannot be done when teachers and students have to abide
by rigid schedules and when students are taking other courses.

13.7 ACTIVE AND STUDENT-CENTERED PEDAGOGY

Intensive scheduling models discourage teaching through traditional lec-

tures. So, in order to keep students’ engagement, most teachers employ ac-
tive and deep learning teaching methods, such as group projects, creative
class activities, collaborative learning, experiential learning activities, and
problem solving (Sainsbury, 2008). Adoption of active pedagogies also in-
cludes assessment practices that are aligned to active and student-centered
teaching methods (Lee and Horsfall, 2010). When we adopt this student-
centered approach to teaching and assessing, students tend to have more
positive learning experiences in intensive courses than in conventional
scheduling formats. Some teachers see the intensive format as an opportu-
282 Facilitating Deep Learning

nity to experiment with creative and active pedagogies (Sainsbury, 2008).

For example, a colleague in a two-year college taught an intensive course
on the history of indigenous peoples. She asked students to research the
way different indigenous peoples eat. Students had to find out the main
foods, eating habits, and nutrition patterns of different peoples. For this
purpose, students lived for a few days in some selected reserves across
North America and learned about foods while having meals and by lis-
tening to stories told by elders. When they came back, they had to cook
authentic meals and explain the group’s eating habits.

13.8 LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Intensive teaching tends to construct similar social relations as those

formed in learning communities (Brown, 1992). As discussed earlier, a
learning community is a group of students and teachers who associate
themselves for a common purpose: learning. In learning communities, stu-
dents can negotiate their meanings interdependently by conversing with
other students and teachers. In attempting to understand others’ meanings,
students try to fit these understandings into their own knowledge struc-
tures (Cross, 1998). Learning communities also enhance the quality of
student learning (Shulman, 2004), as they foster collaborative thinking
(Bruffee, 1999) and break down traditional professor-student relationship
models (Richmond and McCroskey, 1992).
Students in intensive courses and programs have more possibilities to
interact with one another. They discuss readings, comment on class activi-
ties, and study together. They are also in a better position to provide more
meaningful feedback about their peers’ learning processes. Students tend
to regard intensive scheduling course formats, particularly when the whole
program is made up of intensive courses, as a supportive learning environ-
ment. In most cases, the success of intensive teaching also has to do with
the socialization activities that teachers encourage outside formal instruc-
tion, which may include an innumerable array of activities, such as dances,
picnics, meals, movies, sports games, travels, and shopping, among many
others (Buzash, 1994). This creates a cohesive and relaxed atmosphere,
which is indispensable for learning. A stronger bond is formed between
Intensive Teaching 283

teacher and students “when they meet every day rather than just two or
three times a week” (Austin and Gustafson, 2006).

13.9 CONCERNS

Some traditional Instruction-paradigm academics are concerned with the

quality of intensive-teaching programs. They argue that programs based
on intensive or accelerated formats are second-class programs. They usu-
ally hold that in accelerated programs there is insufficient time to cover
the most important aspects of the discipline and that they sacrifice depth
and breadth. Other critics stress that there is inadequate time for reflection
and analysis of the materials in accelerated courses (Traub, 1997). Most of
the criticisms of intensive teaching scheduling modes come from opinions
that lack empirical support. Moreover, these criticisms revolve exclusively
around accelerated courses, which is only one type of intensive teaching.
Although intensive teaching formats do not necessarily guarantee
quality, there is nothing in the format itself that disallows quality learn-
ing. On the contrary, it offers the possibility for engaging in creative, ac-
tive, and student-centered pedagogies without the limits of artificial time
schedules, particularly when intensive courses extend over long periods of
time (Tagg, 2003).

13.10 SUMMARY

The traditional semester-length course schedule formats are not based

on any empirical research on student learning; there are no pedagogical
reasons to justify these conventional scheduling formats. They are used
mainly as a matter of tradition in the Instruction paradigm.
Intensive teaching presents several pedagogical advantages over con-
ventional scheduling formats. First, with respect to student learning, inten-
sive teaching leads to the same or better results than traditional schedul-
ing modes. This has been clearly shown in empirical studies carried out
in virtually every single discipline at every educational level. Second,
although intensive teaching has proved to be beneficial for all types of
284 Facilitating Deep Learning

students—young and mature, mainstream and nontraditional—it tends to

benefit nontraditional and marginal students—mature, aboriginal, Latino,
African, Asian, international, immigrant, part-time, and at-risk—the most,
because they can benefit from intensive teacher-student contact and can
concentrate on one course at a time. Third, intensive teaching promotes
learning communities or, at least, similar social relations as in learning
communities. Fourth, intensive teaching also favors motivation, student
engagement, retention, and active, student-centered pedagogies.
The success of intensive teaching formats depends on the recognition
of the advantages and the possibilities that they offer. When intensive
teaching formats are not accompanied by active and student-centered ped-
agogies, such as when teachers resort mainly to lectures with little or no
student involvement and traditional assessment practices, intensive teach-
ing may not produce deep learning results. Thus, in order to ensure a suc-
cessful learning experience for all students, it is necessary to emphasize
teaching pedagogies that make the most of intensive course and program
formats.
The next chapter explores the main characteristics of the Learning
paradigm. It offers a brief overview of the goals, structure, and methods
needed to create higher education organizations focused on deep learning.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Think of a course you are currently teaching. How would you

adapt it to offer it in an intensive format? What changes would you
make? What aspects of the course would you keep intact? Why?
2. Some critics of intensive teaching argue that survey introductory
courses are not fit to be taught in intensive scheduling formats.
What do you think? How would you respond to these critics?
3. A colleague noticed that there is practically no research on whether
undergraduate thesis courses can be effectively taught in intensive
formats. She wants you to help her design a research project to
assess whether thesis courses can be taught in intensive and com-
pressed formats. What will be the most important aspects of the
Intensive Teaching 285

research design? How can you evaluate whether thesis courses can
be taught effectively in intensive formats?
4. One of your colleagues has to teach an intensive course for the
first time. She usually assigns ten books to her students per term.
She does not think that students can read ten books in a one-month
intensive course, even if this will be the only course students will
be taking. Your colleague is familiar with the literature on inten-
sive teaching and deep learning. She knows that students taking
intensive courses do as well or even better than students in tradi-
tional semester courses. But she is not convinced that this applies
to her discipline and courses. She comes to you for advice. What
can you say to her? What advice can you give her? Does she need
to make some changes to her course? If so, what changes? Would
she need to make changes to her course in order to achieve deep
learning even if she continued to teach a traditional-scheduling-
format course?
5. Your university is considering moving to a block plan, that is, a
scheduling system where all courses are taught intensively, and
students take only one course at a time. A group of colleagues ap-
proaches you for advice. Your colleagues are worried because they
do not know how to teach in the new system. What advice can you
give them? How can they adapt their courses to teach in the block
plan?
6. Another group of teachers vehemently opposes the block plan.
These colleagues approach you because they want your support in
opposing the block plan. They think that only traditional students
will do well in this format. They also argue that international stu-
dents who speak English as a second language will not be able to
take courses in the block plan. They fear these students will drop
out. What do you think of their arguments? What will you say to
them?
7. The editor of a teaching and learning journal has asked you to
contribute a one-paragraph analysis on the most salient literature
findings about the relation between intensive teaching and deep
learning. The editor would also like you to think of examples of
286 Facilitating Deep Learning

classroom activities that make the most of intensive formats. Write

this paragraph and the examples.
8. A colleague of yours teaches theater performance. He has been
asked to teach a course intensively (three hours a day for four eve-
nings a week over a month). He doubts that he can teach students
how to act in a compressed format. He comes to you for advice.
What would you say to your colleague?
9. In the book On Your Own, Brooke Shields (1985) writes about
how she had to juggle her studies and work commitments when
she studied at Princeton. “It’s not unusual for me to be studying
while [working]. There are so many demands to be met and time
is always limited.” Can higher education students who have some
work responsibilities benefit from intensive scheduling formats?
Are there any drawbacks? Are they better off in conventional se-
mester classes? What about students who work full time and can
only take one or two courses per semester?
10. Austin and Gustafson (2006) argue that “there is a better bond be-
tween teacher and student when they meet every day than just two
or three times a week.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Assuming
that this assertion is true, does it have any impact on the deep learn-
ing process? Why or why not?

KEYWORDS

• deep learning
• engagement
• intensive teaching
• learning communities
• non-traditional scheduling
• time
• traditional scheduling
Intensive Teaching 287

REFERENCES

Austin, A.; Gustafson, L. Impact of Course Length on Student Learning. Journal of Economics
and Finance Education 2006, 5.1. 26–37.

Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Brown, D. Teaching Literature in the Intensive Weekend Format. Annual Meeting of the College
English Association, 23rd, Pittsburgh, PA,1992.

Bruffee, K. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge, 2nd ed.; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1999.

Buzash, M. Success of two-week intensive program in French for superior high school students
on a university campus. Annual Meeting of the Central State Conference on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages, Kansas City, M.O, 1994.

Cross, K. Why Learning Communities? Why Now? About Campus, 1998, 3, 4.

Danley-Scott, J. Teaching the Extended Length Class. Western Political Science Association,
2008.

Kasworm, C. Rethinking the acts of learning in relation to the undergraduate classroom. Pro-
ceedings of the Project for the Study of the Adult Learner Symposium. Normal: Illinois State
University, College of Continuing Education and Public Service, 1991.

Lee, N.; Horsfall, B. Accelerated Learning: A Study of Faculty and Student Experiences Innova-
tive Higher Education, 2010, 35, 191–202.

Messina, R. Power package: An alternative to traditional course scheduling. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service, No. ED 396787, 1996.

Ray, R.; Kirkpatrick, D. Two time formats to teaching human sexuality. Teaching of Psychology,
1983, 10, 84–88.

Richmond, V, P.; McCroskey, J. C. Power in the Classroom: Communication, Control, and Con-
cern; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1992.

Sainsbury, M. Intensive Teaching of Graduate Law Subjects: McEducation or Good Preparation

for the Demands of Legal Practice? Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association,
2008, 1, 247.

Shields, B. On Your Own; Villard Books: New York, 1985.

Shulman, L. Teaching as Community Property. Essays on Higher Education; Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, 2004.
288 Facilitating Deep Learning

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Traub, J. Drive-thru U: Higher education for people who mean business. New Yorker, October,
114–123, 1997.

van Scyoc, L.; Gleason, J. Traditional or intensive course lengths? A comparison of outcomes in
economics learning. Journal of Economics Education, 1993, 24, 15–22.

Wlodkowski, R. J. Motivation and diversity: A framework for teaching. In Motivation from

within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel; Theall, M., Ed.; Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco, 1999.

Wlodkowski, R. J., and Westover, T. (1999). Accelerated courses as a learning format for
adults. The Canadian journal for the study of adult education. 13, 1–20.

Wlodkowski, R. J.; Kasworm, C. E. Accelerated Learning for Adults: The Promise and Practice
of Intensive Educational Formats; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2003.
 FINAL PART
A NEW PARADIGM
CHAPTER 14

THE LEARNING PARADIGM

The golden rule: Do what you want your students to do. Be what
you want your students to be.
— JOHN TAGG

CONTENTS

14.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 292

14.2 The Learning Paradigm ............................................................... 292
14.3 Summary ...................................................................................... 298
Practice Corner...................................................................................... 299
Keywords .............................................................................................. 302
References ............................................................................................. 302
292 Facilitating Deep Learning

14.1 INTRODUCTION

Discontent with the results of the Instruction paradigm and an understand-

ing of the deep learning process have created a unique opportunity to move
away from the Instruction-paradigm universities and colleges to a new
form of higher education organizations fully focused on student learning
(Buckley, 2002). The Learning paradigm is a model that describes these
ideal organizations (Tagg, 2003). In contrast to the Instruction paradigm,
the main purpose of the Learning paradigm is to produce learning at all
levels. In learning institutions, students, teachers, administrators, and other
relevant stakeholders work together to create deep learning environments.
In this chapter, I will analyze the main characteristics of the Learn-
ing paradigm, and I will contrast its elements with the characteristics of
the Instruction paradigm. The goal behind this exploration is to show that
developing learning institutions is a possible—albeit not easy—endeavor.
The best way to achieve this goal is through embracing every aspect of the
deep learning process in our own classrooms.

14.2 THE LEARNING PARADIGM

The Learning paradigm refers to a model of universities and colleges that

does not predominate in our society. It is a model that those of us who
want to help our students engage in deep learning can work toward in our
quest for transforming our teaching practices and our institutions. It is a
utopia of sorts, but a possible one.
In contrast with the Instruction paradigm, the sole purpose of the Learn-
ing paradigm is to produce learning, that is, “to produce environments that
encourage students to discover and construct knowledge for themselves,
to make students members of communities of learners that make discover-
ies and solve problems” (Barr and Tagg, 1995). In learning organizations,
everyone works toward the same objective. So, every member of the insti-
tution helps students learn deeply and meaningfully.
Additionally, everybody—and not just students—is engaged in learn-
ing. Teachers learn how to be better teachers. Administrators learn how to
better lead their institutions. Information Technology (IT) staff learn how
The Learning Paradigm 293

to improve technology in higher education. This is also in sharp contrast

to the Instruction paradigm. In the Instruction paradigm, teachers’ learning
is hidden from their students. For example, teachers tend to teach courses
within their areas of expertise. When they are assigned to teach a new
course outside their expertise, they do not always make explicit the fact
that they do not know all the aspects of the new course topic. They learn
in their offices or at home. They try to prepare ahead of classes. They do
not learn in front of their students, let alone with their students or from
students. Not knowing the discipline that one teaches is seen as a sign
of weakness and lack of professionalism, not as an opportunity to model
learning for our students. In the Learning paradigm, learning becomes vis-
ible. Teachers learn together with their students. Teachers provide mean-
ingful opportunities to negotiate and construct knowledge together. They
also provide role models for their students, as teachers are mature and
experienced learners. Even if teachers do not know a certain discipline,
theory, or topic, they have experience in learning academic issues. They
have a wide repertoire of metacognitive skills. They know the challenges
and difficulties in academic learning processes. So, when teachers learn
the same materials together with their students, they provide students with
a unique learning experience.
Another way for teachers to learn and to make their learning visible to
their colleagues and the whole academic community is through engaging
in scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning. This is
an approach where teachers immerse themselves in teaching in the same
way they approach research in their base disciplines (Glassick, 1997).
As discussed earlier, this entails selecting clear goals aimed at producing
learning. This approach requires us to be familiar with the theoretical per-
spectives in the teaching and learning field. It also calls for conducting re-
search to improve our teaching practice by following appropriate methods
for the collection of data, which leads to significant results. One method
to conduct research and to systematically examine our teaching practice is
classroom action research (Table 14.1 outlines the main aspects of class-
room action research, and Table 14.2 describes the steps to be followed
in order to conduct classroom action research). A scholarly approach to
teaching also entails communicating and sharing results with peers and
students. Scholarly teachers also engage in a reflective process and contin-
294 Facilitating Deep Learning

ually test and evaluate their projects. Scholarly teaching is “making trans-
parent the process of making learning possible” (Trigwell et al., 2000).
When we follow a scholarly approach and also make our teaching public,
subject to peer review, and available so that others can build on it, we en-
gage in the scholarship of teaching and learning, which gives maximum
visibility to the learning process (Shulman, 2004).

TABLE 14.1 Classroom action research.

Notion A method of gathering data about one’s teaching prac-

tice.

Goals To improve one’s teaching practice.

An opportunity to maximize student learning.

Use of research results To improve teaching practice by making changes to one’s

classes.

Validity Triangulation of data.

Focus Practical significance of research results.

Effects Ownership of one’s teaching practice.

Collaboration between students and teachers in the teaching
process.
Frequent improvement in the quality of student learning.

Dissemination of re- Research results may be communicated in teaching and

search results learning workshops, presented at teaching conferences, and
informally shared with colleagues.
Based on Mettetal, G. The What, Why and How of Classroom Action Research. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2001, 2, 1.

TABLE 14.2 Steps to conduct classroom action research.

Step Content

Observation of and reflection about one’s Knowledge of strengths and weaknesses

teaching practice. of one’s teaching practice.

Formulation of a research problem. Research problem must be an aspect of

one’s teaching practice that may be im-
proved.
The Learning Paradigm 295

TABLE 14.2 (Continued)

Step Content

Formulation of preliminary hypothesis. Tentative answers to the research prob-

lem.

Literature review. Knowledge of learning theories.

Knowledge of theories, strategies, and
best practices that deal with the selected
research problem.

Research design. The methodology and procedure to con-

duct the research.
Quantitative methods.
Qualitative methods.
Combination of qualitative and quantita-
tive methods.

Data collection. Multiple sources of data collection: stu-

dent performances, teaching and learn-
ing activities, surveys, observation,
student reflections, course portfolio, vid-
eotape of classroom teaching, journals,
and student interviews.

Data analysis. Analysis of collected data through var-

ied techniques and procedures.
Theories identified in the literature re-
view.

Implementation of results. Change to the teaching practice.

Evaluation of implemented results. New classroom action research to evalu-

ate whether the implemented changes
improved the teaching practice and the
quality of student learning.

Dissemination of results. Presentations to colleagues to help them

reflect about teaching and learning and
find potential solutions to similar prob-
lems.

Based on Mettetal, G. The What, Why and How of Classroom Action Research. Journal of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2001, 2, 1.
296 Facilitating Deep Learning

In the Learning paradigm, the institution itself also learns. All mem-
bers engage in research about the institution’s goals, the implementation
of these goals, and the learning experiences of students, teachers, and ad-
ministrators, among other equally significant institutional aspects. The
research process is open. All members are encouraged to participate in
various capacities. And the results of these research initiatives are widely
communicated. Most important, the results are implemented and periodi-
cally evaluated so as to improve the overall quality of education. Again,
this contrasts with the way in which the Instruction-paradigm universities
and colleges work. In the Instruction-paradigm institutions, faculty and
administrators engage in a series of actions for which they are clearly not
prepared. For example, during the first year of my tenure-track appoint-
ment in my current university, I had to be a member of a search committee.
I did not know how to short-list, interview, and select the best candidate.
I must admit that my senior colleagues did not know, either, even if they
had participated in dozens of searches. We all conducted these searches
as we have seen others do in the past, much like many teachers teach in
the Instruction-paradigm university. I later learned that there are theories,
strategies, and techniques to hire personnel. There are hundreds of books
and thousands of articles written about hiring. What’s more, you can do
research about different hiring alternatives. For example, you may im-
plement a certain selection alternative, then hire somebody, and evaluate
whether that choice was an effective one. If it was not, you can go back to
the drawing board for the next hiring opportunity, make changes to the hir-
ing method, and implement them. Then you can communicate the results
of the research process so that other search committees can review them
and build upon them. In the learning-paradigm university, the organization
makes better-informed decisions in fairer processes, as members engage
in a process of learning not only how to teach better but also how to do
other tasks more effectively.
The pedagogy in the Learning paradigm is open and diverse. Any meth-
od that helps students discover and construct knowledge is a valid one,
including but, not exclusively, teaching. Students learn by having freedom
and flexibility in setting their own goals and by negotiating meanings
The Learning Paradigm 297

with their peers. The role of the teacher is to encourage and facilitate stu-
dent learning by creating opportunities and environments that are condu-
cive to deep learning. In this respect, students can engage in a wide variety
of projects. If, for example, while embarked on a project, students find that
they need to learn certain disciplines or topics, such as statistics, a foreign
language, or business concepts, they may learn by reading books in the
library and discussing them with a teacher or other peers, they may take
a formal course taught by a teacher, or they may become immersed in a
culture where the foreign language is spoken.
The Learning paradigm has a flexible structure and organization. Any
structure that helps create a learning environment is welcome. The struc-
tures of the Instruction paradigm, for example, courses, semesters, tradi-
tional teachers, credits, and grades to name a few, may not be necessary in
the Learning paradigm. Teachers are conceived of as designers of learning
environments, whose main goal is to “study and apply best methods for
producing learning and student success” (Barr and Tagg, 1995). In the
Learning paradigm, universities and colleges are “boundary-free. They
[are] less a place and more a range of opportunities” (Zull, 2011). In Chap-
ter 1, I referred to the Instruction-paradigm university as a factory assem-
bly line conveyor belt that moves students along until they graduate. The
metaphor for the Learning-paradigm university is the sculptor’s studio,
where a sculptor patiently carves and models stones and other materials
to make unique sculptures. The student is the sculptor. The stones, the
other materials, the sculpting techniques, the models, the books the sculp-
tor reads for inspiration, and all other resources the sculptor employs in the
creation of the artwork represent the artifacts of the Learning paradigm.
In the Instruction paradigm, one of the benchmarks of success is student
graduation rates. In the Learning paradigm, the learning process itself, that
is, the process of discovery and construction of knowledge, is at the same
time its goal and the benchmark for success.
Table 14.3 summarizes the main differences between the Instruction
paradigm and the Learning paradigm.
298 Facilitating Deep Learning

TABLE 14.3 The instruction paradigm vs. the learning paradigm.

The Instruction Paradigm The Learning Paradigm
Focus on teaching. Focus on learning.
No visibility of teachers’ learning. Maximum visibility of teachers’ learning.
Scholarship of teaching and learning.
Surface learning. Deep learning.
Foundational notion of knowledge. Non-foundational notion of knowledge.
Transmission of knowledge. Individual and social construction of
knowledge.
Distributional curriculum made up of Learning environments.
courses.
Summative evaluation. Evaluating to learn.
Final (summative) evaluation. Initial, simultaneous, and retrospective
evaluation.
Grades. Metacognition.
Rigid structure and organization. Flexible structure and organization.
Uniform credit hour-courses. Intensive teaching and long time periods.
Teacher as expert. Teacher as designer of learning environ-
ments.
Coverage. Discovery.
Individual learning. Individual and collaborative learning.
Lecture (including, lecture conventions Any method that helps students learn.
and recitation conventions). Student performances.
Success equals graduation. Success equals learning.
Factory assembly line conveyor belt Sculptor’s studio metaphor.
metaphor.

Based on Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton,
MA, 2003.

14.3 SUMMARY

The Learning paradigm is a model that describes the ideal higher educa-
tion institution. The goal of the Learning paradigm is to produce learning.
The Learning Paradigm 299

Every member of the Learning-paradigm university or college works to

help students learn. At the same time, every member is engaged in learn-
ing. For example, teachers learn together with students. They act as ex-
perienced role models for students. Teachers also give visibility to their
teaching practice by following a scholarly approach to teaching and by
engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Unlike in the Instruction paradigm, there is no signature or predomi-
nant pedagogy. Any method that helps students learn is a valid one. This
may or may not include teaching courses. Similarly, the structure of the
Learning-paradigm institutions is very flexible. Learning organizations do
not need many of the artifacts of the Instruction paradigm, such as grades,
courses, traditional teaching, lectures, and standardized practices.

PRACTICE CORNER

1. Suppose you apply for the position of director of the Teaching and
Learning Centre at your institution. The search committee would
like you to answer the following questions: (i) As the new direc-
tor, what can you do to help promote a culture of deep learning?
(ii) How can you adopt some elements of the Learning paradigm
across campus? and (iii) What advice can you give to teachers who
would like to implement some or all of the aspects of the deep
learning process in the classroom in a university or college that is
hostile to teacher innovation?
2. John Tagg (2003) advanced the notion of orientation as a distinc-
tive from approach. An orientation to learning can also be deep or
surface. Tagg characterizes the notion of orientation as the gen-
eral tendency to take either a deep or a surface approach to study-
ing and learning. According to Tagg (2003), an orientation is “not
the product of a single course or teacher but of [students’] overall
experience over many years of schooling and of the expectations
founded on that experience.” Like with the surface approach, most
university and college students today have a surface orientation to
learning.
300 Facilitating Deep Learning

VP Academic has just read John Tagg’s analysis of the distinction

between orientation and approach. He is concerned with the fact
that Tagg has found that surface orientation “is the default setting
for academic learning regardless of the subject and content.” VP
Academic understands that only a change in the paradigm can
modify the orientation. But he wants you to help him think of spe-
cific measures to gradually shift the surface orientation of the uni-
versity toward a deep learning orientation. What can you do? What
strategies can you suggest in order to achieve this very ambitious
goal?
3. Analyze your institution’s mission and vision statements. Can you
identify any elements of the Learning paradigm? If so, what spe-
cific actions can you take in your department to implement these
elements?
4. Your new president wants you to implement a pilot two-year pro-
gram based on the Experimental College in your own institution.
How can you design this program in a way that will engage stu-
dents and be meaningful to them?
5. In higher education, governments and accrediting agencies some-
times hijack good ideas and initiatives. They appropriate those
ideas and denaturalize them, using them for their advantage and for
purposes that have little to do with the goals behind these ideas and
initiatives. This was the case with the notion of learning outcomes
and assessment, among many others. What can we as members of
the academic community of knowledgeable peers do to protect the
Learning paradigm ideas from possible appropriation?
6. Remember or watch the film Accepted (2006) directed by Steve
Pink about a high school graduate who cannot gain admission to
any school and ends up creating his own university. Can you iden-
tify any elements of the Learning paradigm? Do you think that
South Harmon Institute of Technology’s students take a deep ap-
proach to learning? Why or why not? If so, what do the students
learn deeply? What is their motivation? Can you identify elements
of the unschooling movement? What is the role of the teacher?
The Learning Paradigm 301

7. The editor of a teaching and learning journal has asked you to

contribute a one-paragraph analysis on the characteristics of the
Learning-paradigm university and the challenges of implementing
learning-centered changes in current higher education institutions.
What would your paragraph include?
8. Your institution wants to adopt a learning community program for
all incoming first-year students: national, domestic, full time, and
part time. You chair the committee charged with designing and
implementing the program. How would you design the program?
Would you implement only one very large learning community
or more than one? If the latter, how would you form the learning
communities? What are the advantages and disadvantages of ho-
mogeneous learning communities? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of heterogeneous learning communities?
9. Barr and Tagg (1995) argue that teachers’ role is to “study and
apply best methods for producing learning and student success.”
What does this mean in practice? Can you think of effective meth-
ods for producing student learning and success? Can some of these
methods be implemented in existing Instruction-paradigm institu-
tions? Or is a radical change in paradigm needed?
10. As part of the 2011 Princeton Commencement’s Class Day Ad-
dress, Brooke Shields (2011) said to graduating seniors: “This uni-
versity doesn’t just teach you about subjects, it teaches you how to
have independent thought, how to take direction and give it, how
to engage in heated debate. […] You are leaving here not so much
changed, but rather, revealed. The education you have received was
intended to develop your character and teach you the imperative of
integrity.” What elements of the Learning paradigm do you see in
this address? Are there any elements of the Instruction paradigm?
If so, can you identify them? If you had to give a commencement
address in a Learning-paradigm university, would your address be
similar to this one?
302 Facilitating Deep Learning

KEYWORDS

• action research
• deep learning
• Instruction paradigm
• learning organizations
• Learning paradigm
• surface learning

REFERENCES

Barr, R.; Tagg, J. From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.
Change 1995, 13.

Buckley, D. P. In Pursuit of the Learning Paradigm: Coupling Faculty Transformation and Insti-
tutional Change. Educause Review 2002, 28–38.

Mettetal, G. The What, Why and How of Classroom Action Research. Journal of the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning 2001, 2, 1.

Shields, B. Class Day Remarks. News at Princeton, May 30, 2011. http://www.princeton.edu/
main/news/archive/S30/67/81I02/ (accessed Aug 12, 2013).

Shulman, L. Teaching as Community Property. Essays on Higher Education; Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, 2004.

Tagg, J. The Learning Paradigm College; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2003.

Trigwell, K.; Prosser, M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning
context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education 1991,
22, 251.

Zull, J. From Brain to Mind. Using Neuroscience to Guide Change in Education; Stylus: Ster-
ling, VA, 2011.
FINAL SUMMARY

The instruction-paradigm universities and colleges are not achieving the

goals that they are supposed to attain. They have become fossilized bu-
reaucracies. They are focused on teaching, regardless of whether this leads
to meaningful learning or not. For this purpose, they have created a wide
array of artifacts such as classrooms, exams, grades, courses, lectures,
schedules, labs, syllabi, degrees, departments, disciplines, and even teach-
ers. This giant bureaucracy increasingly needs more students and more
artifacts to subsist.
The instruction paradigm’s fixation with teaching has given rise to the
preeminence of the lecture as the signatory pedagogy. The lecture revolves
around the teacher, who is at the center of the course. The teacher’s main
role is to transmit information to students, whose task is reduced to taking
down notes and reproducing this information later in exams, papers, and
other forms of evaluation.
In the last few years, growing numbers of voices expressed their pro-
found discontent with the Instruction paradigm’s disregard for student
learning. Studies show that most university and college students learn
superficially. They soon forget what they learn. They cannot apply it to
other situations or contexts, and they cannot make connections to larger
frameworks. Students’ lives are not transformed when they take a sur-
face approach to learning. Their brains do not experience any significant
change. In some cases, years of instruction in higher education even lead
to reactance to anything academic. University and college graduates re-
fuse to read academic texts and to follow university writing styles unless
forced to do so in their professional lives.
Deep learning is the answer to higher education’s performance prob-
lem. Deep learning is learning for life. It is a transformational process
of constructing knowledge, which can then be applied to new, unscripted
problems, even in completely different settings.
304 Facilitating Deep Learning

In order to learn deeply, students need to be faced with an exciting situ-

ation, problem, or question. While dealing with this situation, problem, or
question, together with their peers, students must experience a cognitive
conflict, that is, a discrepancy or dissonance between the new knowledge
arising from the situation, problem, or question and their own cognitive
structures. Students must recognize that they cannot explain this conflict
with their existing cognitive structures. So, in order to solve this conflict,
students must employ nonarbitrary and substantive connections between
the new knowledge (which must be within the learner’s zone of proximal
development) and their existing cognitive structures. These connections
require higher-order cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, and
competences at both the individual and collective planes. As a result of
these connections, students must change the way they see the situation,
problem, or question. This new way of seeing the situation or problem
becomes part of their cognitive structures. In other words, this produces a
conceptual change. This change has a correlation in the students’ brains.
The deep learning process rewires the brain by forming new connections
between neuronal networks. At the same time, at the social level, this pro-
cess leads one of the two following changes: a reacculturation from one
community of knowledgeable peers to another or a movement from the
periphery of a community of knowledgeable peers to the center. The deep
learning process also requires ongoing evaluation and self-evaluation and
awareness of both the social and the conceptual changes. Additionally, it
requires a motivating, stress-free, and exciting environment, where stu-
dents feel safe to interact with the new knowledge individually and with
their peers.
The deep learning process calls for freedom for students to develop
their own curriculum around their own interests and goals. The unschool-
ing movement provides a theoretical and practical framework to imple-
ment this freedom in a way that helps students develop intellectually. This
places teachers in a new role. It displaces them from the center of the
teaching system; it gives them the role of facilitators of the whole deep
learning process. Their role changes from transmitting information to cre-
ating environments that are conducive to deep learning. In this role, teach-
ers create situations, projects, and challenges so that students will engage
in a multitude of experiences. Many types of performances such as dia-
Final Summary 305

logs, questions, cases, student teaching, and out-of-class projects can help
create these problems and situations. These performances have in com-
mon that students are the center of all activities. Teachers act as coaches
who facilitate this process and teach with their mouths shut. Consequently,
there is no need for lectures and other traditional artifacts of the Instruction
paradigm.
When the object is to help students become part of a discipline, it is im-
portant to re-create the whole world of that discipline, where students can
try out all the activities that disciplinary experts usually engage in, includ-
ing those activities that are not traditionally considered strictly academic.
This offers students the whole picture of the discipline and not just an
artificially selected fraction. Playing the whole game of the discipline also
foments the social aspect of learning. Learning is both an individual and
a collective process. Students need to engage in collective negotiations
of meaning and come to appreciate the fact that they need to construct
knowledge individually and together with their peers and other members
of the discipline they are trying to join. This will help them cross over
communities of knowledgeable peers or make a move from the periphery
of a community of knowledge to its center.
All academic and professional disciplines share some features in the
way they communicate and interpret thought both orally and in writing. In
order to become full members of the communities of knowledgeable peers
of the disciplines they want to enter, students need to master the general
and specific categories of analysis, reading and writing styles, and strate-
gies to communicate thought in writing and to interpret academic texts.
The teaching of reading and writing should not be disconnected from the
general deep learning process. On the contrary, it should be an integral part
of the journey of construction of knowledge and deep learning.
There is a strong connection between diversity and deep learning. The
cognitive conflict—one of the essential aspects of the deep learning pro-
cess—is produced through social interaction with peers who are at dif-
ferent cognitive stages of development. The more diverse the learner’s
peers are, the richer and deeper the connections that may result in concep-
tual change can be. But diversity alone does not automatically give rise
to these rich connections and deeper conceptual change. This may only
be achieved through the creation of deep learning environments, where
306 Facilitating Deep Learning

we place diversity at the forefront of our teaching. Student diversity is the

first component of the inclusive deep learning environment. But it requires
other essential aspects. First, it calls for the explicit incorporation of di-
verse knowledge modes into the classroom experience, which implies rec-
ognizing, valuing, and including a wide array of worldview perspectives
in our classes as well as helping students adopt diverse expressive styles.
Second, it calls for internationalizing students’ education, which, in turn,
requires internationalizing the university and college curricula, designing
integrated study abroad programs, and preparing students culturally to
move from ethnocentric to ethnorelative stages. Third, it also entails pluri-
lingual education, that is, helping students learn the disciplines in different
languages. One of the most difficult challenges of the inclusive deep learn-
ing environment is teaching students who pursue higher education studies
in their second or a foreign language. These students need longer periods
of time to become academically proficient than native-language-speaking
students. They also need a series of strategies that respect the natural order
in the process of language acquisition and the rejection of common prac-
tices that hinder this process such as forcing students to produce output in
the target language and the overcorrection of errors.
The deep learning process also needs plenty of information. Students
need to receive and obtain information about every stage of the learning
process. In this respect, metacognition, that is, the practice of reflecting
on one’s own learning, provides students with the most effective tools to
monitor their own learning and to introduce changes throughout the whole
process. Metacognition helps students engage in a process of reflection
and self-evaluation for life. Student peers, disciplinary experts, and pro-
fessionals also play a role in furnishing information about the learning
process. Teachers are instrumental in accompanying students’ learning
process by actively observing and providing feedback all along. Teachers
also need to receive information from students and other sources about
their teaching efforts. All this requires a radical shift in the focus of evalu-
ation from summative to truly formative.
Finally, deep learning endeavors require long and intensive periods of
uninterrupted and dedicated time, where students and teachers embark to-
gether on the process of construction of knowledge without arbitrary and
artificial scheduling constraints.
Final Summary 307

When all these changes are implemented, they will help transform the
current universities and colleges from institutions obsessed with teaching
to organizations focused exclusively on deep learning.
EPILOGUE

A couple of years ago, practically ten years since I started to teach full
time, some students asked me if I could teach a course in space law in the
following semester. They wanted to learn about something that was in the
news at that time. The local newspaper had run some stories on the recent
collision of two satellites. The article talked about the possibility of a piece
of space junk falling in the city and the likelihood of destroying property
and even killing people. The stories also discussed the legal implications
of damages caused by space objects. The newspaper had interviewed me
and quoted me in one of the stories. Students told me that they wanted to
learn more about space law.
Despite the fact that I wrote my doctoral dissertation on space law, I
had not been able to teach a full course in space law in any of the univer-
sities I have worked for, because it is perceived as a highly specialized
area of the law. However, I managed to sneak in a couple of texts and
some topics related to outer space in some of my courses. My current and
previous full-time positions have led me to specialize in other legal areas,
particularly criminal law, which is what I have been mainly teaching all
these years.
When these students asked me if I could teach a course on space law,
my initial, almost instinctive, reaction was to tell them that I could do so
only after my sabbatical leave, as I needed time to review the content that
I had forgotten and to catch up with new developments in the discipline.
Students were visibly disappointed. For several days, I also felt disillu-
sioned with myself. But at that time, I believed that it would be irrespon-
sible to teach a course without adequate content preparation.
A few days later, students came to me again and insisted that they
wanted me to teach that course. I remembered the panic I had experienced
when I had to cover my supervisor. After more careful reflection, I also re-
membered my quest for deep learning. So, I made a deal with my students.
We would learn together. They would even teach me. I would facilitate
310 Facilitating Deep Learning

their learning by creating situations, problems, and questions that would

challenge their preconceived ideas. We would create a safe and motivating
environment to play the whole game of space lawyers. Basically, I prom-
ised them, and especially myself, that I would keep my mouth shut during
the whole course.
This book, which you have just read or which you are about to read (if
you are like me and like to start reading the end of a book first), tells the
story of this course and other similar endeavors.
APPENDIX

APPENDIX I: A PROMISING SYLLABUS

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL STUDIES

Prof.: Dr. Julian Hermida

Course number: JURI 1105 A E
Teaching hours: Tuesdays and Thursdays 1 pm
Term: Fall and winter

JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY

This is an exploratory journey of discovery into the fascinating world of

law. In this journey, we will walk around the different meanings of law,
its functions, roles, and elements. We will immerse in the exploration of
law across different legal traditions and cultures. We will venture into the
fertile contributions of social sciences to the legal studies discipline and
into the rich theoretical jurisprudential debates. As if this weren’t excit-
ing enough, this voyage will also take you to walk through the main legal
traditions present in Canada—common law, civil law, and aboriginal law.
We will examine the tensions among these traditions as well as the efforts
for coexistence.
For most of you, this is the very beginning of a long journey into the
study of law, which—in many cases—will last a lifetime. For others, this
will be the entire journey, but I am sure you will encounter numerous situ-
ations and issues with enormous legal implications no matter what you do
in life.
For all of you, this journey will give you the theoretical lens to analyze
virtually any legal issue from a unique and comprehensive perspective.
You will be able to see the big picture in any legal situation. You will learn
to generate your own solutions to legal problems, to identify and evaluate
312 Facilitating Deep Learning

the political and social implications of your proposed solutions, and to

compare these solutions to those offered in other legal traditions and cul-
tures. These will be the journey outcomes—what you will take out of this
voyage of high adventure, if you actively engage in it.

WHAT WE WILL DO IN OUR JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY

We will do a myriad of exciting activities, that will include group discus-

sions, Socratic dialogs, cooperative group problem solving, games, analy-
sis of video segments depicting scenes relevant to legal and justice issues,
debates, construction of web sites, interpretation and production of audio-
visual materials, group presentations, and analysis of legal and sociolegal
texts from all over the world. I have also prepared reading guides to help
you navigate through the texts and to help you focus on the fundamental
issues of each text.

A CONVERSATION ABOUT YOUR LEARNING AND

DISCOVERIES
Throughout our journey of discovery, we will stop several times so that
we can talk about your learning. I will be providing you with formative
feedback along the way. There will be plenty of opportunities to experi-
ment, try, fail, and receive formative feedback in advance of and separate
from summative evaluation. I will also help you develop the metacogni-
tive tools and strategies so that you can assess your own learning progress.
By the end of this journey, you will show me what you have taken out
of it, what you have learned, and how your thinking has changed. I will be
particularly interested in seeing how well you have achieved the journey
outcomes. I will want to see how well you can analyze legal issues from
a comprehensive—historical, spatial, and theoretical—perspective, how
well you can generate solutions to legal problems, how well you can iden-
tify and evaluate the political and social implications of those solutions,
and whether you can compare these solutions to those offered in other
legal traditions and cultures. I will want to see if you can do all this in a
way that shows creativity, originality, and critical thinking skills, ideally
beyond information given in the course.
Appendix 313

Because you have different learning styles, are in different positions

of knowledge development, and perform optimally with different formats
of assessment, you are free to choose the type and format of evidence
you want in order to prove your learning and its quality. For example,
you are free to prepare a portfolio where you will include evidence of
your best work, write a research paper, make oral presentations, produce
audiovisual materials, write a reflective journal, write a case and offer a
solution, or show me the achievement of the journey outcomes and their
quality by your active participation in class, or by talking to me in my
office. You may, of course, use any combination of these possibilities, or
even something else. But remember, I will not be assessing your portfolio
itself, or paper, or journal, or whatever else you may want to supply. What
I will be looking at is whether and how well you have achieved—and can
perform with respect to—the intended learning outcomes of this journey
of discovery.
I will assess the evidence you will show me holistically and synoptical-
ly. I will make a judgment about whether you have attained the intended
journey outcomes, and if so—to what level. I will assess your evidence
qualitatively and in its entirety—not by adding marks to its various parts.
I will be interested in knowing how well you have learned and not how
much. My judgment—like any judgment or assessment—will be subjec-
tive, but let me assure you that it will not be arbitrary. It will be based on
my expertise as both a legal scholar and a teacher, not unlike a juror at a
film festival judges films, or a curator judges pictures for a museum exhi-
bition.

ITINERARY

Fall
Class Topic Readings

Class 1 Introduction and orientation

Class 2 Concepts of law The syllabus and the

Nature and function of law course website.
Types and functions of law Positivism (pages 5
Social control to 10 from Canadian
Dispute resolution Law book).
Social change
314 Facilitating Deep Learning

Classes 3, 4 and 5 Concepts of law An analytical map of

Sociological and anthropological the social scientific
concepts of law. approaches to the con-
Elhrich, Malinowski, and Weber. cept of law by Tama-
naha

Classes 6, 7, 8 and 9 Legal traditions Mixed Jurisdictions by

The three main legal traditions in Tetley
Canada
Common law
Civil Law
Aboriginal Law

Class 10 and 11 Conceptual divisions of law The Conceptual Divi-

sions of Law (pages
38 to 40 from Cana-
dian Law book)

Class 12 and 13 Sources The Sources of Cana-

Conflict of sources dian Law (pages 40
to 46 from Canadian
Law book)

Classes 14 and 15 Criminal Law across legal traditions Criminal Law (pages
and cultures. 333 to 344 from Cana-
dian Law book)

Class 16 and 17 Constitutional Law Constitutional Law

Constitutionalism (Chapter 4 from Cana-
Constitutional movements dian Law book)

Classes 18, 19 and 20 Contracts Convergence of com-

Formation mon law and civil law
Interpretation rules contracts by Julian
Breaches Hermida

Class 21, 22, 23 and 24 Prostitution Prostitution and Male

Legal responses Supremacy by Andrea
Dworkin

Winter
Class Topic Readings
Classes 1, 2 and 3 Torts and extracontractual responsi- Torts (Chapter 7
bility from Canadian Law
book)
Appendix 315

Classes 4 and 5 Legal reasoning and legal methods Precedent in Past and
The doctrine of stare decisis. Present Legal sys-
tems by Lobingier
Law & Geometry by
Hoeflich
Logic for Law stu-
dents: Thinking like
a lawyer by Ruggero
J. Aldisert et al.
Class 6, 7 and 8 Family Law Family Law (Chapter
Same sex marriage 8 from Canadian
Law book)
The Halpern Trans-
formation: Same-Sex
Marriage, Civil Soci-
ety, and the Limits of
Liberal Law by F.C.
DeCoste
Classes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Immigration Evaluating Canada’s
and 14 Legal responses New Immigra-
tion and Refugee
Protection Act in its
Global Context by
Dauvergne
Class 14, 15 and 16 Corporations New Principles for
Corporate Law by
Greenfield
Class 17, 18, 19, 20 and Interpretation rules Statutory Interpreta-
21 tion in the Court-
room, the Classroom,
and Canadian Legal
Literature by Stephen
F. Ross
Chapter 3 from Ca-
nadian Law book.
Classes 22, 23 and 24 Sexual harassment What is Sexual
Legal responses across legal tradi- Harassment? From
tions and legal cultures. Capitol Hill to
Sorbonne by Abigail
Saguy
Class 25 Feedback
316 Facilitating Deep Learning

RESOURCES
I have selected the following textbook to help you navigate through this
journey of discovery: Canadian Law: An Introduction by Neil Boyd, 4th
edition, Thomson Nelson, 2006, ISBN 0-7747-3574-0. But, please note
that you can read from any other introduction to law or legal studies book.
You will also need to read all the articles listed above deeply. You are
responsible to get them from the Library databases. You must read these
texts and any other text that you may find necessary to prepare to partici-
pate in class.
A web site is available at http://www.julianhermida.com. You will be
able to explore and consult the reading guides, class activities, journal
articles, and other useful information.
I am here to guide you all throughout this journey of discovery. Think
of me as your expedition experienced companion, that is, someone who
has traveled this route several times before, but is still amazed at the won-
ders discovered along the route.

RULES AND POLICIES

This exploration may only be successful if you engage in it; and if you
work honestly and enthusiastically. Since this is a collective exploration,
you also need to follow certain rules and policies so that the learning pro-
cess will be fair to all. Here are the rules and policies. They may sound
strict. They are. But, trust me, they have been conceived so that this explo-
ration is as smooth and productive as possible.

ATTENDANCE POLICY

Your presence and participation in every class are an essential part of the
learning process for you and your classmates. I firmly believe that the
class constitutes a unique learning environment; and most of what you will
learn takes place in class, not in solitude. You will learn collaboratively
with your colleagues and with my guidance.
Appendix 317

FILM COPYRIGHT

If you decide to show a video in class for a class activity, you must make
sure that the university has the copyright to show that video in class, even
if it is only an excerpt. This includes videos that you may find online and
DVDs that you rent or own. Currently, the university is subscribed to Au-
dio Cine Films and Criterion Pictures, two licensing organizations. The
university has also acquired rights to show some films from the National
Film Board. BEFORE showing a film in class, please make sure that you
will be able to show it without infringing copyright law. If in doubt, please
ask me. You can also check with the library.

ACTION RESEARCH

In order to improve my teaching practice and to enhance student learn-

ing, I always conduct classroom action research. For this purpose, I will
collect some information about the course and your learning. Sometimes,
I will ask you to complete surveys, questionnaires, or other instruments.
These are anonymous and voluntary. Your responses will be kept strictly
confidential. Other times, I will use your class work as evidence. In all
cases, the information will be reported in general terms without specific
reference to individual responses or actual names. If you do not wish to
participate in the research projects or you do not want to complete surveys,
questionnaires, or other instruments, simply let me know as soon as pos-
sible. You will not be penalized for this at all. If you have any questions or
concerns about my action research projects, please contact me. Please note
that surveys, questionnaires, and other instruments that I will specifically
use for action research projects will be anonymous; and they will not be
considered for any grade in the course. For further clarification, whether
you decide to complete these instruments or not, and your responses to
these instruments in the event that you do decide to participate, will never
be taken into account for grading purposes.
318 Facilitating Deep Learning

APPENDIX II: SOLO TAXONOMY

Implementation of the SOLO taxonomy to assess the learning goals of a

course:
Evaluation Criteria for Class Participation

Pre-structural
The student does not participate actively in most classes. The student does not
show that he/she has read the assigned texts. The student does not participate in
an appropriate manner that contributes to class discussions and does not show
a positive attitude toward his or her classmates, the teacher, and the activities.
The student does not work in small groups and does not volunteer to lead ac-
tivities, debates, and debriefs. The student seldom asks questions in class.
The student’s responses to the class activities contain irrelevant information;
and they miss the point. The responses have no logical relationship to the ques-
tion. The student gives bits of unconnected information. The responses have
no organization, and make no sense. The student does not make connections
to the theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities done
throughout the course. The response to the class activities does not show an
understanding of the issues dealt with.
Unistructural
The students participates actively in some classes. In some classes, the student
shows that he/she has read the assigned texts. The student sometimes partici-
pates in an appropriate manner that contributes to class discussions and shows
a positive attitude toward his or her classmates, the teacher, and the activities.
The student works in small groups, but does not always volunteer to lead activi-
ties, debates, and debriefs. The student sometimes asks useful questions that
contribute to the development of the class and fosters collective understanding
or usually asks simple questions that do not contribute to the development of
the class.
The student’s responses to the class activities contain one relevant item, but
they miss others that might modify or contradict the response. There is a rapid
closure that oversimplifies the issue or problem. The student makes simple and
obvious connections to some of the theoretical issues, readings, class discus-
sions, and class activities done throughout the course, but the significance of
the connections is not demonstrated. In most class activities, the student can
identify and list the issues or questions presented in class. The response to the
class activities does not show an understanding of the issues dealt with, or it
demonstrates only a very superficial understanding.
Appendix 319

Multi-structural
The student participates actively and meaningfully in most classes. In most
classes, the student shows that he/she has read the assigned texts and that he/
she has reflected about the required readings. The student participates in an
appropriate manner that contributes to class discussions and shows a positive
attitude toward his or her classmates, the teacher, and the activities. The student
works productively in small groups and volunteers to lead activities, debates,
and debriefs on most classes. The student generally asks useful questions that
contribute to the development of the class and fosters collective understanding.
The student’s responses to the class activities contain several relevant items,
but only those that are consistent with the chosen conclusion are stated, and
the significance of the relationship between connections is not always dem-
onstrated. Closure in the class activities is generally selective and premature.
The student makes a number of connections to theoretical issues, readings,
class discussions, and class activities done throughout the course, but the meta-
connections between them are missed, as is their significance for the whole. In
most class activities, the student can enumerate, describe, combine, and list the
issues or questions presented in class. The student uses some of the relevant
data.
Relational
The student participates actively and meaningfully in every class. The student
shows every class that he/she has read the assigned texts quite deeply and that
he/she has critically reflected about the required readings. The student partici-
pates in an appropriate manner that contributes to class discussions and shows
a positive attitude toward his or her classmates, the teacher, and the activities.
The student works productively in small groups and volunteers to lead activi-
ties, debates, and debriefs in every class or in most classes. The student asks
useful questions that contribute to the development of the class and fosters
collective understanding.
The student makes connections to theoretical issues, readings, class discus-
sions, and class activities done throughout the course. In general, the student
demonstrates the relationship between connections and the whole. In every
class activity, the student can focus on several relevant aspects, but these as-
pects are generally considered independently. Response to the class activities is
a collection of multiple items that are not always related within the context of
the activity. In all class activities, the student is able to classify, compare, con-
trast, combine, enumerate, explain causes, and analyze the issues or questions
presented in class. The student uses most or all of the relevant data, and he/
she resolves conflicts by the use of a relating concept that applies to the given
context of the question or problem.
320 Facilitating Deep Learning

Extended abstract
The student participates actively and meaningfully in every class. The student
shows every class that he/she has read the assigned texts deeply and that he/she
has critically reflected about the required readings. The student participates in
an appropriate manner that contributes to class discussions and shows a posi-
tive attitude toward his or her classmates, the teacher, and the activities. The
student works productively in small groups and volunteers to lead activities,
debates, and debriefs every class. The student asks useful questions that con-
tribute to the development of the class and fosters collective understanding.
The student makes connections not only to theoretical issues, readings, class
discussions, and class activities done throughout the course but also to issues,
theories, and problems beyond information arising from class. In every class
activity, the student shows the capacity to theorize, generalize, hypothesize,
and reflect beyond the information given. The student even produces new rel-
evant hypotheses or theories. In every class, the student can link and integrate
several parts, such as class activities, readings, class discussions, and theories,
into a coherent whole. The student links details to conclusions and shows that
he/she understands deeply the meaning of issues and problems under analysis.
The student questions basic assumptions and gives counter examples and new
data that did not form part of the original question or problem.

Evaluation Criteria for the Paper

Pre-structural
The paper contains irrelevant information. It misses the point. The paper has no
logical relationship to the selected topic. It deals with bits of unconnected in-
formation. It has no organization. It makes no sense. The student does not make
connections to the theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class ac-
tivities done throughout the course. The paper does not show an understanding
of the issues dealt with in class. The paper does not follow the required writing
style.
Unistructural
The paper contains one relevant item, but it misses others that might modify
or contradict the position taken. There is a rapid closure that oversimplifies the
issue or problem. The student makes simple and obvious connections to some
of the theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities done
throughout the course, but the significance of the connections is not demon-
strated. The student can identify and list the issues or questions discussed in
class. The paper does not show an understanding of the issues dealt with, or it
demonstrates only a very superficial understanding. The paper minimally fol-
lows the required writing style.
Appendix 321

Multi-structural
The paper contains several relevant items, but only those that are consistent
with the chosen position are stated, and the significance of the relationship
between connections is not always demonstrated. Closure is generally selec-
tive and premature. The student makes a number of connections to theoreti-
cal issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities done throughout the
course, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their signifi-
cance for the whole. The student enumerates, describes, combines, and lists the
issues or questions presented in class. The student uses only some of the rel-
evant data. The paper follows only some aspects of the required writing style.
Relational
The paper is a collection of multiple items that are not always related within
the context of the selected topic. The student classifies, compares, contrasts,
combines, enumerates, explains causes, and analyzes the issues or questions
presented. The student uses most or all of the relevant data, and he/she resolves
conflicts by the use of a relating concept that applies to the given context of the
selected issue. The student makes connections to theoretical issues, readings,
class discussions, and class activities done throughout the course. In general,
the paper demonstrates the relationship between connections and the whole.
The student focuses on several relevant aspects, but these aspects are gener-
ally considered independently. The paper follows most aspects of the required
writing style.
Extended abstract
The paper makes connections not only to theoretical issues, readings, class
discussions, and class activities done throughout the course but also to issues,
theories, and problems beyond information arising from class. The student
shows the capacity to theorize, generalize, hypothesize, and reflect beyond the
information given. The student even produces new relevant hypotheses or theo-
ries. The student can link and integrate several parts, such as class activities,
readings, and theories, into a coherent whole. The student links details to con-
clusions and shows that he/she understands deeply the meaning of issues and
problems under analysis. The student questions basic assumptions and gives
counter examples and new data that did not form part of the original question
or problem. The paper follows the required writing style.
322 Facilitating Deep Learning

Evaluation Criteria for the Presentation

Pre-structural
The presentation contains irrelevant information. It misses the point. The pre-
sentation has no logical relationship to the selected topic. The presentation deals
bits of unconnected information. It has no organization, and it makes no sense.
The student does not make connections to the theoretical issues, readings, class
discussions, and class activities done throughout the course. The presentation
does not show an understanding of the issues dealt with in class.
Unistructural
The presentation contains one relevant item, but it misses others that might
modify or contradict the position taken. There is a rapid closure that oversimpli-
fies the issue or problem. The student makes simple and obvious connections to
some of the theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities
done throughout the course, but the significance of the connections is not dem-
onstrated. The student can identify and list the issues or questions discussed in
class. The presentation does not show an understanding of the issues dealt with,
or it demonstrates only a very superficial understanding.
Multi-structural
The presentation contains several relevant items, but only those that are consis-
tent with the chosen position are stated, and the significance of the relationship
between connections is not always demonstrated. Closure is generally selec-
tive and premature. The student makes a number of connections to theoreti-
cal issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities done throughout the
course, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their signifi-
cance for the whole. The student enumerates, describes, combines, and lists
the issues or questions presented in class. The student uses only some of the
relevant data in the presentation.
Relational
The presentation is a collection of multiple items that are not always related
within the context of the selected topic. The student classifies, compares, con-
trasts, combines, enumerates, explains causes, and analyzes the issues or ques-
tions presented. The student uses most or all of the relevant data, and he/she
resolves conflicts by the use of a relating concept that applies to the given con-
text of the selected issue. The student makes connections to theoretical issues,
readings, class discussions, and class activities done throughout the course. In
general, the presentation demonstrates the relationship between connections
and the whole. The student focuses on several relevant aspects, but these as-
pects are generally considered independently.
Appendix 323

Extended abstract
The presentation makes connections not only to theoretical issues, readings,
class discussions, and class activities done throughout the course but also to
issues, theories, and problems beyond information arising from class. The stu-
dent shows the capacity to theorize, generalize, hypothesize, and reflect beyond
the information given. The student even produces new relevant hypotheses or
theories. The student can link and integrate several parts, such as class activities,
readings, and theories, into a coherent whole. The student links details to conclu-
sions and shows that he/she understands deeply the meaning of issues and prob-
lems under analysis. The student questions basic assumptions, and gives counter
examples and new data that did not form part of the original question or problem.

Evaluation criteria for the take-home evaluation and for the test
Pre-structural
The student’s responses to questions and problems contain irrelevant informa-
tion. The responses miss the point. They have no logical relationship to the
question. The student gives bits of unconnected information. The responses
have no organization, and make no sense. The student does not make connec-
tions to the theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities
done throughout the course. The response to the questions and problems does
not show an understanding of the issues dealt with.
Unistructural
The student’s responses to the questions and problems contain one relevant item,
but they miss others that might modify or contradict the response. There is a
rapid closure that oversimplifies the issue or problem. The student makes simple
and obvious connections to some of the theoretical issues, readings, class discus-
sions, and class activities done throughout the course, but the significance of the
connections is not demonstrated. The student can identify and list the issues or
questions discussed in class. The response does not show an understanding of the
issues dealt with, or it demonstrates only a very superficial understanding.
Multi-structural
The student’s responses to questions and problems contain several relevant
items, but only those that are consistent with the chosen conclusion are stated,
and the significance of the relationship between connections is not always dem-
onstrated. Closure is generally selective and premature. The student makes a
number of connections to theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and
class activities done throughout the course, but the meta-connections between
them are missed, as is their significance for the whole. The student can enumer-
ate, describe, combine, and list the issues or questions presented in class. The
student uses some of the relevant data.
324 Facilitating Deep Learning

Relational
Response to the questions or problems is a collection of multiple items that are
not always related within the context of the exercise. The student is able to clas-
sify, compare, contrast, combine, enumerate, explain causes, and analyze the
issues or questions presented. The student uses most or all of the relevant data,
and he/she resolves conflicts by the use of a relating concept that applies to the
given context of the question or problem. The student makes connections to
theoretical issues, readings, class discussions, and class activities done through-
out the course. In general, students demonstrate the relationship between con-
nections and the whole. The student can focus on several relevant aspects, but
these aspects are generally considered independently.
Extended abstract
The student makes connections not only to theoretical issues, readings, class
discussions, and class activities done throughout the course but also to issues,
theories, and problems beyond information arising from class. The student
shows the capacity to theorize, generalize, hypothesize, and reflect beyond the
information given. The student even produces new relevant hypotheses or theo-
ries. The student can link and integrate several parts, such as class activities,
readings, and theories, into a coherent whole. The student links details to con-
clusions and shows that he/she understands deeply the meaning of issues and
problems under analysis. The student questions basic assumptions and gives
counter examples and new data that did not form part of the original question
or problem.

Based on Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University; Open
University Press: Maidenhead, 2007.

APPENDIX III: FIRST DRAFT OF CHAPTER 7

The purpose of including this appendix with the very first draft of a chap-
ter is to show that all first drafts look messy and confusing. This draft is
full of spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes. Some sentences are
incomplete. Many bibliographical references are missing. Some ideas are
taken verbatim from books and articles. Most students’ papers look like
this draft.
Appendix 325

6. DEEP WRITING

a. Writing to learn and learning to write

b. Media literacy

INTRODUCTION

Writing has been traditionally relegated to the margins of university and

college instruction until the 1970’s. Academic writing was a pervasive ac-
tivity, but teachers did not pay any attention to the writing process in their
classes. They simply requested students to write exams and occasional
projects without actually teaching students how to write. Teaching writ-
ing was the responsibility of college composition and English classes for
first-year students.
With the Writing Across the Curriculum movement in the 1970’s and
1980’s in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, writ-
ing became the focus of much attention in higher education. Today, many
teachers usually refer to writing as an essential skill that students need to
master. Few, however, actually teach writing in a way that helps students
learn how to write in a deep way. Still fewer teachers help students write
to learn deeply.
In this chapter, we will examine the importance of producing written
work as an essential aspect of the discovery and construction of knowl-
edge. We will also discuss what teachers can do to help students learn how
to write in their disciplines in a profound way.

WRITING TO LEARN DEEPLY

Janet Emig has argued that writing constitutes a unique mode of learning.
She claims that “writing serves learning uniquely because writing as a pro-
cess-and product possesses a cluster of attributes that correspond uniquely
to certain powerful learning strategies. Higher cognitive functions, such
as analysis and synthesis, seem to develop most fully only with the sup-
port system of verbal language—particularly, it seems, written language.”
326 Facilitating Deep Learning

Emig’s claims gave rise to a movement known as Writing to Learn. Its

main tenet is that writing enhances learning (Durst and Newell). While
this proposition is quite attractive, empirical research has not demonstrat-
ed the validity of this claim (Ackerman, 1993; Newell, 1998). While there
are some studies that show that in certain specific circumstances writing
can help improve the learning process, there are other studies, sometimes
even conducted by the same researchers that show contradictory results
(Klein, 1999).
Klein (1999) identified four models on the connection between writing
and learning:
• Point of utterance model: writers spontaneously generate knowledge
without planning and revision.
• Forward search model: writers externalize ideas in text, then reread
the text, and make new inferences based on the text.
• Genre model: writers use genre structures to organize relation-
ships among discursive elements of the text, and connect elements
of knowledge. “A genre is distinguished by a rhetorical intention,
expressed through discourse elements that form particular relation-
ships with one another.” Each discipline implements genre in its own
distinctive way, with different norms about discursive elements.
• Backwards search model: writers set rhetorical goals. They derive
content subgoals from rhetorical goals, and problem-solving goals
from content goals.
Klein (1999) argues that “point of utterance allows writers to generalize
their existing concepts to new instances, but not to change these concepts.
Forward search increases the coherence of lengthy and complex texts, and
may help writers to construct relationships among ideas.” The backward
search model explains the creation rhetorically good writing. Students
must negotiate three conditions for genre to lead to learning. First, the
student may or may not adopt the goal of composing a text in a given
genre. Second, the student may or may not implement a strategy involving
higher-order cognitive skills, to realize this goal. This strategy may or may
not generate new knowledge. Similarly, Gonyea and Anderson (2009) find
that “the genre-based theory and the problem-solving theory both iden-
tify the reorganization of existing knowledge as one mechanism by which
writers create knowledge. The forward search model also suggests that
examining relationships already expressed in text provides the impetus for
Appendix 327

developing the new relationships that the writer will next record.” Gonyea
and Anderson (2009) do not find any evidence that the point of utterance
model promotes learning. Bereiter and Scardamalia identified two models
of the writing process: knowledge telling and knowledge transformation:
• Knowledge telling: The basic steps include the mental representa-
tion of the writing task, the generation of topic identifiers, and the
use of these topic identifiers as cues to retrieve information through
a process of “spreading activation.” The writer tends to retrieve and
write down all the ideas she has, until the use of the cues is ex-
hausted. At the same time, the writer draws on appropriate identi-
fiers of discourse knowledge to match the task (e.g., opinion essay).
The knowledge-telling model, while appropriate for routine writing
tasks, does not foster the generation of new knowledge, because it
relies on already established connections between content elements
and readily available discourse knowledge.
• Knowledge transformation: When writers engage in the knowledge
transforming model of writing, they increase their knowledge acqui-
sition through content processing and discourse processing interac-
tion. In the content space, the problems of knowledge and beliefs
are considered, while in the discourse space, the problems of how
to express the content are considered. The output from each space
serves as input for the other, so that questions concerning language
and syntax choice reshape the meaning of the content, while efforts
to the express the content direct the ongoing composition. It is this
interaction between the problem spaces that provides the stimulus
for reflection in writing. The dynamic relationship between the con-
tent space and the rhetorical space in the knowledge-transforming
model illuminates why writing is such a critical part of learning.
The inconclusiveness of research on the relation between writing and
learning demonstrates that writing in itself is not an essential aspect of the
discovery and construction of knowledge. This conclusion is supported
by those studies that found deep learning where there is not an instance of
production of knowledge in writing (Marton & Saljo, 1976).
The existence of some studies that do show that under certain circum-
stance writing positively influences learning merits analysis. Klein (1999)
argues that when writing, particularly genre writing, is articulated as a
cognitive strategy, such as in the genre model and in some types of the
328 Facilitating Deep Learning

backward search model, students may profit from writing to learn deeply.
Similarly, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)’s knowledge-transformation
model may contribute to learning. Bazerman (2009) also argues that “it
is not simply the act of writing that leads to learning. […] Learning takes
place because of the practices that are engaged as one produces the text.
The produced text itself is not that relevant.” So, while it may not be af-
firmed that all writing leads to learning or that there may be no deep learn-
ing without an instance of production in writing, these arguments show
that writing, when writing is embedded in a constructivist process, it may
enhance the learning quality.
So, what teachers can do in our classrooms to use writing to enhance
the learning process?
There are various writing formats and types of texts that have shown
to enhance learning. But learning can profit from writing if writing takes
places within the deep learning context and process we have discussed.
This implies that in order to be effective, a writing task must create a cog-
nitive conflict, i.e., new knowledge presents the learner with a conflict that
the learner is motivated to solve. To do so, the learner makes – nonarbi-
trary and substantive—connections between new knowledge, which must
be within the learner’s “zone of proximal development”, and the learner’s
prior cognitive structure. While doing so, the learner resorts to higher or-
der cognitive and metacognitive skills, processes, and competences. So,
for example, a few years ago, I was invited to lead an educational develop-
ment workshop in Buenos Aires, Argentina. I mentioned the importance of
including an instance of writing production in our classes. Flavia showed
me some research results reported in the literature indicating that writing
does not lead to learning (those which I cited earlier, but which at that time
I ignored). I mentioned to Flavia that there were other studies showing the
opposite results. I also promised her that I would look into the article she
told me about and that I would report the results of my research back to the
workshop participants. So, I had a problem that I was very motivated to
solve. I read the articles that Flavia gave me. While reading them, I made
notes. My notes were not verbatim. I wrote the gist of each articles, and
I made connections to the articles I had read and my own experience as a
teacher and educational developer. While making these connections, I crit-
ically evaluated the research findings, I challenged the authors’ claims, I
Appendix 329

compared the research findings, I formulated some hypotheses, and I came

up with some preliminary theories. I wanted to report back my analysis of
the research findings and my theories to the workshop participants. So, I
wrote workshop notes, following a style that I find interesting to commu-
nicate to teachers in educational development events. While writing my
analysis and conclusions, I went back to the articles. After I finished the
notes, I reread them. I noticed some inconsistencies. I called Flavia and
had a discussion. I also had conversations with other colleagues. Then,
I felt that I needed to read some research studies, which Flavia had not
given me. I revised the text again and incorporated the ideas I had while
discussing and reading the new material. I finally came up with my new
understanding of the problem, that is, writing does not always enhance
learning, but it may do so if writing is embedded in the construction of
deep learning process. This conclusion is consistent with Gonyea and An-
derson (2009), who argue that “writing that contributes most substantially
to learning is the writing that engages students in deep learning activities.”
Bazerman (2009) also suggests that short written assignments done twice
or three times a week are more effective to learning than the traditional
essay assignment, which is long and which students have to submit at the
end of the course.
In a study of the attitudes and activities of Harvard University students,
Richard Light postulates that students value good writing and suggestions
to improve it. Courses that emphasize writing.
In his book, Light recommends the following strategies for students to
improve their (Reread LIGHT)
Teachers respond to most writing as if they were a final draft, thus re-
inforcing an extremely constricted notion of composing. Their comments
often reflect the application of a single ideal standard rather than criteria
that take into account how composing constraints can affect writing per-
formance. Furthermore, teachers’ marks and comments usually take the
form of abstract and vague prescriptions and directives that students find
difficult to interpret. These comments rarely seem to expect students to
revise the text beyond the surface level. These responses to texts give stu-
dents a very limited and limiting notion of writing, for they fail to provide
students with the understanding that writing involves producing a text that
evolves over time. Teachers need to develop more appropriate responses
330 Facilitating Deep Learning

for commenting on student writing. They need to facilitate revision by re-

sponding to writing as work in progress rather than judging it as a finished
product.
It is not the amount of writing that matters when it comes to achieving
the higher-order learning outcomes. Instead, it is the amount of writing
that promotes deep learning.

TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO WRITE ACADEMIC TEXTS

In this section, we will discuss the process of how to help our students
learn to write in the disciplines we teach. Here, the writing is the specific
target as opposed the considerations made in the previous sections, where
the target was to learn the discipline, and writing was a means to enhance
the quality of the learning process.
In general, we want our students to learn to write effectively so that
they can become better communicators and so that they can become fa-
miliar with the discursive conventions of the discipline we teach (Klein,
1999).
Students learn how to write by using the same processes that students
resort to for learning other competences, skills, and processes. But, writ-
ing—like many other complex processes—presents also some specific is-
sues, which need to be taken into account. We will explore both general and
specific considerations. In order to deeply learn how to master disciplinary
writing, students need to be faced with a problem or situation, where their
current disciplinary literacy level is not sufficient to solve the problem or
to effectively deal with the situation they face. Additionally, students need
to be motivated to do something about this conflict. The challenge, that is,
learning to write at the new disciplinary level must be within the students’
zone of proximal development. While working to solve this conflict, stu-
dents need to make -nonarbitrary and substantive—connections between
the new writing genre and style and their current writing style. This pro-
cess must encourage students to use higher order cognitive and metacogni-
tive skills, processes, and competences. Students need to also to negotiate
meanings collectively with their peers. They also need to reflect about
the process of the construction of their new disciplinary literacy and the
Appendix 331

resulting conceptual changes. For example, a colleague of mine teaches

Space Law at the undergraduate level. His students were motivated to dis-
cuss the new legal regime for private space transportation, particularly for
space tourism purposes. The government announced a law reform process
and invited presentations to discuss a new legal framework for the regula-
tion of private space transportation. The students were eager to influence
the process. So, my colleague encouraged them to make a written presen-
tation. The students worked hard on the content and submitted their report
to the government. The space office contacted the students. Officials were
impressed with their work, but told them that their presentation was reject-
ed, because it did not comply with many—discursive—formalities. Their
teacher explained to the students that their writing style did not coincide
with the style usually used for law reform initiatives. So, students decided
to resubmit their presentation. They asked their teacher for presentations
to other law reform processes. Students deconstructed, analyzed, and dis-
cussed the language style of these presentations. Students compared them
with format and style of their original presentation. They made changes.
They read them several times. They made revisions and discussed their
changes. Then, they gave a new draft to their teacher. Students expressly
asked the teacher to comment on the language of the presentation. The
teacher gave them feedback, which students incorporated. Then, students
submitted the new version of their proposal, which was accepted. Finally,
the teacher helped students reflect about their learning process. Students
reconstructed every step they took until they submitted the new version
of the proposal. They even reflected about the conventions of law reform
presentations related to Space Law matters.
We will now break down the process of helping our students to write in
a number of steps and analyze each of these steps.

THE PROBLEM OR SITUATION

Expert academic writers generally engage in writing in order to find a

solution to a problem (Bean, 1996). Designing a problem for our students
to solve is one of the most important elements of teaching writing. The
332 Facilitating Deep Learning

problem has to attract students’ attention. Students need to care enough to

want to resolve the problem.
The problem has to lead students to recognize that their existing lit-
eracy skills and knowledge is not sufficient to solve the problem or face
the situation. Klein (1999) argued that students may or may not adopt the
goal of composing a text in a given genre. Students may not engage in the
process of learning to write for several reasons. First, the problem may not
deal with a situation where students realize that they need to change the
way the write. This happens when, for example, a teacher assigns students
a situation where they have to resolve a problem or express their opinions,
or even research a theory. These are all issues, which may lead to student
learning if appropriately embedded in the deep learning process, but stu-
dents will not necessarily change the way they write to solve a problem,
express their opinion, or research a theory if the task in question does not
help them see that they need to change the way they write. Students tend
to believe that they can already write clearly and effectively. After all,
they have been writing since they were in grade school. So, the problem
or situation must lead them to discover that the way they write is in fact
ineffective to accomplish the task in question.
Second, the problem may not be motivating enough for students to
want to engage in a process of changing their writing. Recall that Ken Bain
(2004) argues that students will embark in a deep learning process if they
face a problem, question, or situation that they find significant, intriguing
or beautiful. Students need to come to understand for themselves the im-
portance of changing their writing. For example, when I taught grade 10
English as a foreign language in South America in an all boys high school,
I designed an activity where students were matched with pen pals from
the US. Those boys that were matched with girls found that their writing
was not enough to impress girls. As several students told me later, in their
minds they all wanted to impress those girls. So, they worked hard at im-
proving the way they wrote in English.
Third, the new level of writing may be outside the students’ zone of
proximal development. In a first-year college course, students, who still
write as high school students, may not all of a sudden write like experi-
enced disciplinary experts. This literacy level is completely outside their
zone of proximal development. We as teachers need to carefully evaluate
Appendix 333

the writing level of our students and take them gradually to higher levels
within their zone of proximal development.
Fourth, the cognitive conflict does not arise from social interaction.
Students need to come to the realization that their writing capabilities are
not effective to deal with the situation or problem through interaction with
their peers. When the conflict is perceived as purely individual or exclu-
sively as something induced by the teacher, it will not produce the desired
effect of encouraging students to embark in a deep learning process to
change their approach to writing.
Fifth, the problem or situation is not clear for students or it gives too
many instructions that it restricts students’ freedom to engage in meaning-
ful writing. Katherine Gottschalk and Keith Hjortshoj (2003) argue that
we need to define boundaries clearly. “Good assignments clearly define
the boundaries within which students are free to write. Writers must have
some freedom to take positions, develop ideas, and choose language that
communicates what they have to say. Freedom becomes meaningful and
constructive only within boundaries, and unclear boundaries tend to re-
strict freedom by making every move seem potentially a wrong move.”
Gottschalk and Keith Hjortshoj (2003) caution us about the inclusion of
counterproductive clarifications in writing assignments. They argue that
“teachers often obscure the boundaries of an assignment by offering sug-
gestions, hints, examples, and clarifications that imply a hidden agenda
and thus qualify the freedom that they have previously defined. Students
should know where your role as the teacher ends and where their roles,
choices, and responsibilities as writers begin.”
Finally—and this applies to every single step of the teaching writing
process—the teacher did not create a theory-Y climate. An encouraging
and trusting environment is essential for any learning endeavor. If teachers
do not care about their students, if they do not trust that they can achieve
the fullest potential, and if they do not hold very high expectations of their
students, then students will probably not embark in the challenging deep
learning process.
• Collaborative learning
ο Collective negotiation of meaning
ο “Assignments should create real occasions for students to read and
respond to another’s work.”
334 Facilitating Deep Learning

ο A community of writers: Dialogue on paper.

ο Students will talk to each other not only in the classroom but
through the exchange of written texts.

HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE PROCESSES, SKILLS, AND

COMPETENCES: ENCOURAGING REVISION

Expert writers engage in several cognitive activities while writing. After

having identified a problem, expert writers obtain data from other sourc-
es, interview people, talk to colleagues, make notes, write several drafts,
reread their drafts, revise, and make new revisions (Bean, 1996). These
activities usually imply that writers resort to higher-order cognitive skills,
such as reading critically, analyzing, applying, evaluating, and theorizing.
Expert writers also edit their drafts, but they do so generally do so when
they consider that their drafts are ready to be published. Editing for spell-
ing, punctuation, grammar, and even sentence structure does not require
the use of higher-order cognitive skills and competences.
We need to encourage students to engage in the process of critically
analyzing the problem, finding a solution, writing, rereading, revising, and
reformulating their ideas in writing, because this is the process that expert
writers follow to write effectively. Students need to learn how to embrace
this process in order to be able to write effectively.
The problem with many students is that they tend not to engage in
this process. Students tend to consider that their first draft is the last one.
And this draft is ready to be handed in to the teacher, who after all will
know what it means. So, students’ first and only draft usually looks like the
first draft of expert writers, i.e., there is no clear solution to the problem,
thoughts are disconnected, the organization is poor, and there are many ed-
iting problems. The main difference is that the first draft of expert writers
is a draft that only the writer reads. And it is a draft that will undergo sev-
eral layers of revisions in ideas, focus, structure, organization, and even
spelling and grammar.
So, it is very important to help students to understand the importance of
rereading and making extensive revisions. How can we do this? First, we
need to bear in mind that there are two kinds of revisions: (i) personal revi-
Appendix 335

sions, where the expert writers revise their drafts before submitting the ar-
ticle to an editor for publication, and (ii) editor or reviewer mandated revi-
sions, where the expert writer has to incorporate the suggestions and make
the changes indicated by the editors and reviewers. According to Nancy
Sommers, “most experienced writers revise their work extensively as a
malleable substance before they submit a complete draft.” Once expert
writers feel that their work is ready for the readers to read, they submit it
for publication. In academia, most publications need to be peer reviewed.
And in commercial literature, most publications have to be approved by
several editors. Peer reviewers and editors usually offer many suggestions
for changes. After all, it is their job to do so. Many expert writers are re-
luctant to introduce these changes. Not because they are nonsensical—al-
though anyone who has submitted a manuscript to a journal or publisher
knows that in many cases they are—but because the expert writer feels that
he or she has decided that the text is done. He or she had finished the text
before, when he or she sent it for publication. Nancy Sommers refers to
this moment as the point in which the text solidifies. At this point, the text
is no longer malleable. It is solid. Except for a few typos here and there,
expert writers refuse to revise the text. Most still do, of course, as other-
wise their texts will not be published. But, they do so reluctantly without
much effort, and in many cases, without resorting to those higher-order
cognitive and metacognitive processes that they did resort to while revis-
ing their texts before the solidified. “Student writing, by contrast, solidifies
at the moment it hits the page. The student has never lingered in the first
stage of writing during which revision usually takes place for experienced
writers.” This problem is compounded by the type of suggestions we usu-
ally offer our students for revision. Nancy Sommers vividly exemplifies
this process: “when we simply give students the opportunity to revise their
papers without little guidance, they tend to make only cosmetic changes.
When we offer detailed suggestions, students confine their revisions to the
changes we recommend, leaving us in the awkward position of evaluat-
ing the fruits of our own labor. Peer reviews from other students often
yield superficial revisions.” So, Sommers proposes delaying that sense of
completion of the student submission. Again, how can we do this? How
can delay this feeling that the text is prematurely finished?
336 Facilitating Deep Learning

Fink (1999) suggests creating a dialog on paper between the student

and the teacher and among students themselves (Fink, 1999). John Tagg
(2003), who was an English teacher at Palomar Community College, sepa-
rates the grade from the comments on his students’ papers. He believes
that if he gives student a grade accompanied by comments on their stu-
dents’ paper, students look at the grades and not the comments; or they
read the comments superficially without acting upon them, particularly if
the grade corresponds to their expectations.
The key to this problem is in the kind of feedback we give our students.

TEACHER’S FEEDBACK

ο The proper place for grading is at the end of the process of reading
and responding to student papers, not at the beginning. This pro-
cess should begin with reading.
ο Teaching with your mouth shut.
ο Joseph Williams: Most teachers look for and find errors in student
writing. They are automatically on the lookout for sentence-level
errors.
ο Sometimes it is easier to notice and comment on sentence-level er-
rors than on the more substantive problems of a student’s essay.
ο Some of the “errors” that so greatly alarm us in student writing are
not absolute matters of right and wrong but are determined only by
taste and discipline—they are actually matters of style.
ο Studies show that students aren’t making more mistakes (Robert
Connors and Andrea Lunsford).
When responding to finished papers, let the writers know how well
their papers worked and offer suggestions that might be useful in future
projects.
When responding to drafts, open these versions of the papers to revi-
sion, with guidance for making improvements.
• Illuminate the apparent argument and structure of the draft.
• Offer comments about strengths and about further possibilities.
• Identify fundamental limitations and problems.
• Leave the task of solving those problems with the writer.
Appendix 337

METACOGNITION

• The recursive nature of learning to write

ο Learning to write is not a linear progression. When students start
to write in a new difficult subject, they may run into trouble with
sentence structure, with the use of vocabulary, even with control
over basic sentence correctness. Immediate and primary atten-
tion to errors or to stylistic choices may not solve the problem.
ο Writing effectively is simply a process students have to relearn,
even at the sentence level of grammar and style. They don’t
need to be immediately belabored about error: they need prac-
tice with their new subjects.
ο “Ask students to assess their own papers or to give you com-
ments on what they think about their papers.”

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

Meiers, M. (2007). Writing to learn. Research Digest, 2007 (1). Retrieved from http://www.vit.
vic.edu.au.

Bazerman, Charles. (2009). Genre and Cognitive Development: Beyond Writing to Learn. Pra-
tiques No. 143/144.

Gottschalk, Katherine and Hjortshoj, Keith. (2003). The Elements of Teaching Writing. Boston,
MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING
FACILITATING
FACILITATING
PathwaysFACILITATING
DEEP
DEEP LEARNING
LEARNING
to Success for University and College Teachers
DEEP LEARNING

Hermida
Pathways
Pathways to Success
to Success forfor University
University andand College
College Teachers
Teachers

Hermida
Hermida
FACILITATING
Learn howPathwaysto engageto Success
teach sofor University and College Teachers

FACILITATING
FACILITATING

Hermida
and that your students will learn deeply—and for a

FACILITATING
Learn
Learn
lifetime. how howto to
engageengage and and
teach teach so so
that that
your your students
students will will
learn learn deeply—and
deeply—and for for
a a
Learn how to engage and teach so that your students will learn deeply—and for a
lifetime.
lifetime.
Deep learning lifetime.
is a committed approach to learning. It is a process of constructing and
DeepDeep learning
learning
new is aiscommitted
a committed approach
approach to learning.
tomeanings
learning. It isItapeers
isprocess
a process
and of of constructing
byconstructing andand

DEEP LEARNING
interpreting knowledge by negotiating with making

DEEP
DEEP LEARNING
DEEPLEARNING
interpretingDeep
interpreting newlearning
newknowledge is
knowledge a committed
by by approach
negotiating
negotiating
connections between existing and new knowledge, which can be applied in new, to
meanings
meanings learning.
with with It
peers is
peersa process
and and
by by of constructing
making
making and

LEARNING
connections interpreting
connections between
between new knowledge
existing
existing and and
new by
newnegotiating
knowledge,
knowledge, meanings
which which can canwith
be be peers
applied
applied and
in inby
new, making
new,

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

unfamiliar contexts. Deep learning produces learning that lasts a lifetime, and it results in

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers
unfamiliar connections
unfamiliar contexts.
contexts. between
Deep Deep existing
learning
learning and
produces
produces new knowledge,
learning
learning thatthat which
lasts lasts can be applied
a lifetime,
a lifetime, andand in new,in in
it results
it results

FACILITATING
better quality learning and more profound understanding.

Pathways to Success for University and College Teachers

FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING
FACILITATING
better
better unfamiliar
quality
quality learning contexts.
learning andand moreDeep
more learning
profound
profound produces
understanding.
understanding. learning that lasts a lifetime, and it results in
The purpose of this booklearning
is to show and readers how to create a learning environment that

FACILITATING DEEP LEARNING

better quality more profound understanding.
TheThe
promotes purpose
purpose
promotes
promotesand
theoretical
deep of
The deep
of this
this
learning
purpose
deep
book
of
inbook
learning
learning intools
pedagogical
is toisclasses.
their
this book
in
to show
show
their is to
readers
readers
The
show
howhow
book
readers
to create
to create
will do
how
so by
to
a learning
a learning
providing
create a
classes.to:The book will do so by providing readers with thethe
theirneeded classes. The book will do so by
environment
environment
readers
learning
providing
with that
environment
readers
that
the
with that Pathways
Pathways
Pathways tototo
Success
Success for
Success for
for
promotes
theoretical
theoretical andand deep learning
pedagogical
pedagogical tools in
tools their
needed
needed classes.
to: to: The book will do so by providing readers with the
Pathways
University and to
College Success for
Teachers
Universityand
andCollege
CollegeTeachers
Teachers
• understand the theory of deep learning
• • design
theoretical and pedagogical tools needed to:
•understand
understand thethe theory
theory of deep
of deep learning students to take a deep approach
learning University
University and College Teachers
and implement courses that encourage
• to•design •
design
learning understand
and and implement
implement the theory
courses
courses of
thatdeep
that learningstudents
encourage
encourage students to taketo take a deep
a deep approach
approach
• design engaging and innovative teaching and learning activities that encourage approach
to to• design
learning
learning and implement courses that encourage students to take a deep
•design
• studentsdesign touselearning
engaging
engaging
to andand
higher-order innovative
innovativecognitive teaching
teachingskillsandto and learning
learning
construct activities
activities
knowledge thatthat encourage
encourage
•
students
students design
to
and negotiate meaning to
use engaging
use higher-order
higher-order and innovative
cognitive
cognitive teaching
skills
skills to to and learning
construct
construct activities
knowledge
knowledge that encourage
and and students
negotiate
negotiate to use
meaning
meaning higher-order cognitive
• implement assessment tools aimed at facilitating the deep learning process skills to construct knowledge
•implement
• • support andassessment
implement negotiate andmeaning
assessment toolstoolsaimedaimed at facilitating
at facilitating thethe deep deep learning
learning process
process

DEEP
international other nontraditional students to construct learning deeply.

DEEP
• •support •
support implement
international
international assessment
andand other othertools aimed
nontraditional
nontraditional at facilitating
students
students the deep
to construct
to construct learning process
learning
learning deeply.
deeply.
•
ABOUT THE AUTHOR support international and other nontraditional students to construct learning deeply.
ABOUT
ABOUT THE THE AUTHOR
AUTHOR
Julian Hermida, PhD, is Associate Professor at Algoma University's Department of Law
(Sault Julian
Julian ABOUT
Hermida,
Ste.Hermida,
Marie, THEPhD,
Ontario, AUTHOR
PhD, is Associate
isCanada).
Associate Professor
HeProfessor
has beenata Algomaat Algoma
long-standing University's
University'smember Department
Department
of Algoma's of Law
of Law
(Sault
(Sault Julian
Ste. Ste.
Marie, Hermida,
Marie, Ontario,
Ontario, PhD,
Teaching and Learning Committee, which he chaired for several years. Dr. Hermida has a of Law
Canada). is
Canada).Associate
He He
has hasProfessor
been beena a at Algoma
long-standing
long-standing University's
membermember of Department
of Algoma's
Algoma's

LEARNING
LEARNING
Teaching
Teaching
very (Sault
successfulandand Ste.
Learning
teaching Marie,
Learning Ontario,
Committee,
Committee,
practice Canada).
which
of more which
thanheHe 10has
he chaired
chaired
years been
foroffora long-standing
several
several
full-time years.
years.
teachingDr.member
Dr.
at Hermida
Hermida ofhas
all levels. Algoma's
has
a a
veryvery Teaching
successful
successful and
teaching Learning
teaching practice Committee,
practice of of
moremore which
than than
10 he
10
years chaired
yearsof of for several
full-time
full-time years.
teaching
teaching at Dr.
at
all Hermida
all levels.
levels. has a
Prior to joining Algoma, he taught at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, where he
Prior
Prior to very
to
joining successful
joining Algoma,
Algoma, teaching
he he
taught practice
taughtat at of more
Dalhousie
Dalhousie
was recognized with the 2004-2005 Award of Excellence for Teaching and Learning. than 10
University
University years
in in of full-time
Halifax,
Halifax, Canada,
Canada, teaching
wherewhere heat all
he levels. Julian
JulianHermida
Julian Hermida
Hermida
waswas
A seasoned
A
Prior
recognized
recognized
was
to with
educational
seasoned
joining
recognized
A seasoned educational
with
educational
the Algoma,
the
developer,
with the
he
2004-2005
2004-2005
developer,
developer,
Dr.taught
AwardAward
Hermida
2004-2005
Dr.
Dr. Hermida
atofDalhousie
has
Award
Hermida
ampleUniversity
of Excellence
Excellence
of
has
hasdevelopment
for for
experience
Excellence
ample
ample experience
indesigning,
Teaching
Teaching
for
experience
Halifax,
andand
Teaching
Canada,
Learning.
Learning.
and
designing,
designing,
where he
Learning. Julian Hermida
implementing, and evaluating university-wide faculty programs and
A
implementing, seasoned
implementing, and and educational
evaluating
evaluating developer,
university-wide
university-wide Dr.
initiatives. He has conducted educational development workshops and led seminars Hermida
faculty
faculty has ample
development
development experience
programs
programs designing,
and andon
implementing,
initiatives. He has and
conducted evaluating university-wide
educational development
teaching and learning in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Latin America. He has on
initiatives. He has conducted educational development faculty
workshops development
workshops and and
led programs
led seminars
seminars andon
teaching
teaching initiatives.
and and
learning He
learning has
in inconducted
Canada,Canada, the educational
the United
United States,
won several internal and external grants to fund his Scholarship of Teaching and Learningdevelopment
States, Europe,
Europe, and workshops
and
Latin Latin and
America.
America. led
He seminars
He
has has on
won won teaching
several
several internal and
internal
research projects on deep learning. learning
and and
external in
externalCanada,grants
grants the
to to
fundUnited
fund
his States,
his Europe,
Scholarship
Scholarship of and
of Latin
Teaching
Teaching America.
and and He
Learning
Learning has
research
research won several
projects
projects on internal
on
deep deep and external grants to fund his Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
learning.
learning.
research projects on deep learning.
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
ISBN:
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
978-1-77188-005-3
90000
9 09000000 0
ISBN: 978-1-77188-005-3
90000

9 781771 880053
www.appleacademicpress.com 9 781771
9 781771 880053
880053
9 781771 880053